View Single Post
  #1  
Old November 14th 04, 11:23 AM
Ted Mittelstaedt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"linda" > wrote in message
...
> Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> > On Sun, 14 Nov 2004, linda wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>It's no use, Linda; Matt places more trust in dogma than in science.

> >
> >
> >>i guess you are right.. it is a shame, too..

> >
> >
> > It is, really. Have you heard or read some of the horror stories of

severe
> > emotional scarring from those who've been suckered into the "ex-gay"
> > movement?
> >

> yes, i have... there is even a "homosexuals anonymous".. and they have a
> 14 step program, heck, alcoholics only get 12. doesn't sound quite
> right... does it?
> I am cutting and pasting most of the following: so don't think i am
> smart: (Ted, you are right, i am not intelligent enough to hold a
> conversation with a peanut, much less you..)
>


I never said you wern't intelligent enough to hold a conversation with
a peanut. If you recall I strongly emphasized that you needed to have
your internal philosophies worked out so that they were not inconsistent,
before you started posting on a topic. If you recall that was right
before you stopped e-mailing me privately.

In any case, if you hold with the idea of a biological basis for
homosexuality,
you are going to have to also hold to the idea of a biological basis for
both hetrosexuality, and for bisexuality, in order to be internally
consistent.

And if you are then consistent there is a perfectly reasonable explanation
for Matt's assertion that there are a lot of homosexuals that are now happy
hetrosexuals. And that is simply that these people are not, in fact,
hetrosexuals.
What they are, is they are bisexuals, who have decided to only be with
partners of the opposite sex, and don't realize that they are bisexuals, or
are ignoring that they are bisexuals, and are claiming to be hetrosexuals.

In any case, as you know this is one area that I tend to agree with Matt -
that
there is no physical/genetic reason to explain homosexuality. I see lots of
evidence that homosexuality AND hetrosexuality and bisexuality is a choice,
but little evidence that it is physical/genetic. However, just because I
think
the evidence points to it being a choice, doesen't mean I think that there
is
any evidence that this is a choice that occurs later in life or even as late
as
adolescence. Nor do I believe that there's credible evidence that this
choice
is one that the person has much control over.

I certainly remember myself as a very young pre-adolescent. The very first
time I ever saw a nudie picture of a naked woman, AKA pornography,
I got hard. And this was quite some time before I started growing hair
around my pubes, etc.

And as a parent I have watched both my children, both son and daughter,
under the age of 2, obviously getting a charge out of touching themselves.

So I pretty much think that the idea that children are asexual and have no
sexual feelings until adolescence to be a big bunch of dogcrap perpetuated
by really sexually screwed up adults.

We know that a great deal of things happen in the womb and in the first
6 months of life that are essentially programming. If you look at people
that have really deviant, to the point of sicko, sex patterns, such as
abusing
children, not being able to get hard unless they are whipping their partner
to
the point of drawing blood, etc. it seems that there's a coorelation between
these folks
and really screwed up home lives, and/or sex abuse when they are young.
Another way of saying this is that if you want to take a child and warp
them into a sexually sicko adult, you have a really good chance of doing so
if you get started abusing them really, really young.

What we can draw from this is that there is evidence that external
environmental
factors can program in certain kinds of sexual proclivities, if those
factors
are present during conception/incubation/early childhood development.

SO, it would not surprise me in the least if 50 years from now some
researcher
announces that if you want to increase your kids chances of being straight,
then have them listen to 4 hours of Mozart a day while they are a developing
fetus, and if you want to increase their chances of being gay, have them
listen to 4 hours of Richard Simmons workout tapes while they are a
developing fetus.

Now, where Matt and I differ, however, is that Matt apparently believes that
if someone is programmed to be gay, that they can later in life choose to
switch back, and that furthermore them switching back is somehow in the
interests of society. I don't believe that the first supposition has worked
when
dealing with cases of repeated child abusers, indicating that the
supposition
is totally bogus. And, I think the second supposition is a bunch of
bull****,
and is completely without merit.

Ted


Ads