The 10 m/s/s was just a briefly put together example, what I meant was more along the lines of you’ve got your headlines saying, “scientists have proven that meat is bad for you!” and then the people who read those say, “There, you see! It’s bad for you!” and coming to certain conclusions about what science has said about it. While they have no intention of actually verifying those findings.
And most of religious literature is meant to be allegorical BASED UPON observations of the real world. For instance, the whole being judged by St. Peter at the pearly gates, some guy wandered around and noticed that if you’re a nice person and you love your neighbors, you generally get your comeuppance - somebody compliments you, or whatever. If you go through life doing certain things (being nice to people, not being greedy, not coveting your neighbor’s ass, etc.), you will find your reward - even if it is only an internal, spiritual one. And that idea of intensely personal, spiritual judgment is what gives rise to the idea of a St. Peter at the pearly gates, judging whether you enter a land of eternal happiness, or a mess of hellish damnation for your soul - and the idea that it’s your doing that creates your destiny and your heaven or your hell, is what that allegory of post-mortem judgment is all about. That IS something that’s perceivable.
But people just see the allegory and are like, there Are white gates. There IS St. Peter. Without really taking the time to think, hold on. What does this actually mean? That’s just the same, in my mind, as when people read a headline in the paper that says, “science proves meat is bad for you!” and believes in that sentence standing alone will glean any sort of the important truths which come about only from careful study and a scientific mindset. Just like any sentence from the Bible standing alone won’t show any truth without the proper mindset.
EVERYTHING that makes a person is affected by the environment, just in varying degrees. So saying that homosexualism is influenced by environmental factors leads nowhere.
I could also say that the ability to follow no faith without a sense of emptiness is influenced by environmental factors… Would people wish to counter such factors just to get the world rid of atheism? The afinity some young adults have for the internet is caused by environmental factors. Nullify such factors so those people would get away from their machines and get a life outside their homes? So on for ideas related to polictics, fashion, philosophy…
As for roles of men and women, you are some decades late. Late like as you live in the 50’s or earlier. Nowadays men and women can do whatever they want, and only delayed people will think bad of it if they break primitive and outdated patterns.
BTW… “I think we need more research” is a subliminar way of saying “I am against it”.
Ren, I’m not against it. I just need to understand WHY. What causes homsexuality? Where does it come from? Heterosexuality exists because of the need to continue the species. What causes homosexuality? A friend of mine once said that homosexuality is a result of overpopulation, an attempt to get the human population back under control. An interesting theory.
Anyway, as for the roles of men and women, I’m afraid I’m not a decade late. Men and women think in drastically different ways. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool. So its completely natural that they would have different roles. But what are the roles of gay men? Or gay women? We understand so little.
Curtis:
You don’t need to understand why. What difference would it make? Whether it is a choice or a condition, there is no reason one’s position for or against homosexuality would change.
As for these “roles” that men and women are prepared in different ways for, what are they? There is enough of a difference within each group that the difference between them as a whole is insignificant. And how could being homosexual or heterosexual possibly affect these alleged “roles”?
So what about the cause? Whatever it is, it does not make them less human. They should have the right for marriage no matter what is behind their sexual tastes.
As for roles: I cook, I wash my own clothes, I take one hour to get dressed when I go to some social event, I don’t hold tears when they come, I have gay friends and I am quite good in childcaring. 50 years ago each of these characteristics alone would make people call me an effeminite, but nowadays they are just ok with it and I am no less of a men for having them all. Men are taking roles that were considered feminine on the past. It’s ok for them going into a beauty center and talking about hair and nail cuts and taking care of their children nowadays. The reverse is true: women are increasingly being more accepted into the army, they can practice martial arts in equality with men, they can have high degrees, PhD’s, almost all jobs that were 100% masculine a century ago, they can be the main financial force in their home, they can get into polictics, they can be phisically strong, they can be christain priests… Differences are being nullified little by little. We haven’t reached total equality yet, but it doesn’t another world of generations more.
guy: rararargh I’m right
otherguy: raraRAR- no I’M right
guy: I’M right
otherguy: Fuck off, I’m right
someotherguy: can’t we all get along
guy + otherguy: no
mod: locked
Curtis brings up a good point, which is that we’ve gotta be mindful of this sort of thing. If you believe that men and women think the same way, then either you’ve never been in a relationship with the opposite sex, or you’re just very unaware. That’s not to say that the way one thinks is “better” than the other, just that…well, women have wider hips and give birth and develop all their eggs by the time puberty is over and menstruate once a month and have to nurse a baby for the first year of its life, while men generally grow taller and grow hair on their faces and chests and are constantly producing sperm. These things are caused by chemical differences in men and women - different hormones, the regulation of which is taken care of by the hypothalamus which (guess what) is in the brain. Hormones don’t just affect our physical appearance - they affect the way our “higher thought processes” work, too. These higher thought processes are what societal “roles” are created by, so there certainly might be more “male” and more “female” roles. And it’s important to at least give that some thought and study, not before being open to homosexuality in society, but in addition to it. Because otherwise you might just run into a slew of problems and start blaming everybody in a rage and get nowhere (cause you didn’t do your homework).
Men and women are very different from each each other. They think differently. This is true.
Second thing:
Everything heterosexual men do, whatever dreams or goals they fulfill or struggle towards, its because they want a woman to love them, to truely love them. Its the truth. I just dont understand why gay men, or gay women, would struggle and fight and feel pain for a member of the same sex to love them.
And as for men and women fulfilling the same roles, you know that nots true. You really know it. NO MATTER WHAT, every time a man looks at a woman hes thinking about sex. Im sorry if that offends anyone, but its true.
Understanding why homosexuality exists is important I think. That thing about overpopulation is totally whack, because homosexuality dates back a long, long time, well before overpopulation existed. IT most certainly existed in greek and roman culture, and we can reasonably assume it existed before that as well. Lending credence to the biological theory, homosexuality has also been witnessed in a few other animal species. Whether it’s social or not is important, because it is important to understand why these people are the way they are. Personally, from everything I know of social factors, the idea that homosexuality is a purely social phenomenon just doesn’t seem to hold up. The fact that homosexuality is almost universally spread out throughout the world at a relatively similar ratio (estimated about 8% I believe) across most all cultures seems to me to lend support to a biological bases. Certainly social factors might increase or decrease the likelihood of a homosexual to recognize himself as one, and perhaps social forces could extend beyond this also, such as a culture that does not sanction experimentation might find more people ‘crossing the line’. But, if it is biological, than it’s important to know what genetic factors contribute - how do these factors change the person’s psyche to be this way, and what affect might it have in other areas of one’s life? Knowing these things could help psychologists more effectively treat homosexual patients, for example. Hell, a strong biological foundation could even make it inreasingly easy to get a marriage law passed, since it seems more unfair to deny a people “born that way” a right then to deny it to people who merely choose an alternative lifestyle. Obviously knowing how and why homosexuality exists isn’t just some useless, arbitrary fact.
As for Ren’s comment about “love” controlling our every thought and action…well, I thought that theory went out the window in the 30’s along with most of Freud’s theories. I wish you people would stop falling into the reductionist fallacy: simply put, you cannot boil down every human action to a single cause. That undermines the very complex of biological, sociological, psychological, and whatever other factors that contribute to our decision making processes. How do you explain businessmen who castrate themselves because they think it will help them to be more successful? Greed and the lust for power…some might argue that these are more powerful emotions than love. It’s time to open your eyes and stop looking for the single magical solution.
Originally posted by Curtis And as for men and women fulfilling the same roles, you know that nots true. You really know it. NO MATTER WHAT, every time a man looks at a woman hes thinking about sex. Im sorry if that offends anyone, but its true.
That is complete and utter bullshit and you know it. First of all, that would imply that all men are attracted to all women, which is most certainly not the case. Even if you are the biggest and most disgusting pervert on Earth, there will be a woman that does not appeal to you. Second of all, I for one, do not think about sex most of the time. I am more preoccupied with other things, even when I see a woman of the opposite gender I am attracted to. Oftentimes I might even gasp pass over them, because of moods or because I have better things to do than to stare at some human’s body.
While there are differences in the way men and women think as well as physical differences, sex alone should not be the basis for the role a person takes in society.
In your second thing there, you bring up love as being motivation for heterosexuals. Given the flexible nature of the definition of love (as seen in the thread about it recently on this forum), depending on what you choose it to be, that could be the motivation for homosexuals as well.
Furthmore, I fail to believe that love is the only driving force behind human beings (even when including lust). One alternative at least is desire for power or control.
Anyway, I believe that ultimately love is the utimate motivaton. Whether it be the love motivation to sleep with all attractive members of the oppositite sex that you encounter, or the ONE motivation to sleep with the one opposite member of the sex that you’re in love with. I think you people who disagree with me need more experience.
I’m sorry, I already refuted your absolute statement. I’m proof. I don’t think that way. Since I am male, and I don’t want to hump everything female, I have proven you wrong, since you said EVERY TIME a man looks at a woman he is thinking about sex.
