If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! _____________---_gadkypy | Michael Barnes | Driving | 4 | January 4th 05 06:47 PM |
Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! ___________ mixqec | [email protected] | Chrysler | 37 | November 18th 04 04:18 PM |
Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! _____________---_ gadkypy | Paul | Antique cars | 3 | November 9th 04 06:54 PM |
Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!!___________ mixqec | indago | Chrysler | 7 | November 8th 04 05:05 PM |