It's Official - Stand and Shout the Gays are Out (link)

[_Runtu]

Here's something factual in the sense that it is said to be true:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FZK3RPxhsQ

[_Droopy]

If you can show that it's a lie, please do. I tend to believe that suppression of sexuality often results in unhealthy sexual attitudes and behaviors, such as the promiscuity you describe.

I see you've swallowed the ideology of Kinsey/Hefter whole, without even chewing a bit to aid the digestion. A pity, John, given the ease with which these kinds of claims are argued against.

It's been shown, for example, that people who during childhood and adolescence associate severe guilt with sexuality are more likely to have sadomasochistic and other control-related issues with sexuality than those who grow up in a healthier environment.

I actually rather think sadomasochism has little to do with "severe guilt" for leaving the confines of the law of chastity and much more to do with other deep internal issues of power/control/dominance transferred or shifted to the sexual realm, a place of inherently powerful and cathartic emotional experience in which such issues can be played out within a sexual context.

[_Droopy]

Science seems to favor the immutable condition status for many.

either your claim here is a boldface lie, or you are one of the more misinformed people of the civilized world.
Science has overwhelmingly denied the immutable nature of LGBT. In fact, there is hardly enough "science" to even make the idea of LGBT being immutable a minority position.

This is correct. I have grown weary, over some six years now since this board's inception, of reminding people here that the "Gay gene" idea died a natural death back in the nineties when it was first promoted by the Hamer and LeVey studies. There is not a shred of evidence that any aspect of the Gay identity is biological, though I do think it true, and have never denied, that at least for some subset of the homosexual population, biological predispositions and biases do play a role in the ultimate development of SSA.

Care to list our the specific moral degenerations LGBT promotes?

All of the moral degenerations attendent to, allied with, and promoted by the heterosexual revolution of the 1960s, but "on steroids," so to speak.

the self as the center of the universe
this sums up most of the LGBT...

This actually sums up, quite well, the entire "postmodern condition" as a Zeitgeist under which the culture functions in much of its intellectual and social life.

[_Runtu]

This is correct. I have grown weary, over some six years now since this board's inception, of reminding people here that the "Gay gene" idea died a natural death back in the nineties when it was first promoted by the Hamer and LeVey studies. There is not a shred of evidence that any aspect of the Gay identity is biological, though I do think it true, and have never denied, that at least for some subset of the homosexual population, biological predispositions and biases do play a role in the ultimate development of SSA.

I don't think the origins of homosexuality are the issue. Sexuality is affected by a lot of factors, but so far, there isn't any solid evidence that one can change one's sexual orientation once it is established. The "reparative therapy" programs have a dismal failure rate, and even the "successes" are people who simply suppress their desires.

All of the moral degenerations attendent to, allied with, and promoted by the heterosexual revolution of the 1960s, but "on steroids," so to speak.

Presumably, you are talking about promiscuity and the attendant health and mental risks involved. What is the "moral degeneration" attendant in a stable, committed, monogamous same-sex marriage?

This actually sums up, quite well, the entire "postmodern condition" as a Zeitgeist under which the culture functions in much of its intellectual and social life.

I always thought postmodernism discounted the self rather than celebrating it. Hmm.

[_Droopy]

Droopy, how many gay people do you actually know?

This is irrelevant, as I know the relevant large scale studies of gay culture (the extensive Gay diary studies done in the sixties that are extremely hard to find, and of which I have only been able to garner excepts and analysis over the years from others, and the book The Gay Tapes, which I have mentioned here before many times, just for starters) that have been done, and what they tell us about the experiences, attitudes, and behavior of the typical homosexual male over time, and the culture that has been created to sustain and maintain that identity and lifestyle. But, for the record, I've known a few (including my ex-mother-in-law's son by her first marriage who lived in San Francisco) and I have had the opportunity to observe Gay culture, admittedly from the outside looking in, but with enough clarity to have come to some salient conclusions about it.

My personal experience, with actual people more closely resembles Runtu's. I have two very close friends in the gay community. One in NC, who is a voice student, and another friend who I have known since grammar school. Both men are currenty in long-term, committed relationships, and were very opposed to the bar scenes, etc.

Extremely, extremely rare.

When you can give me real life experience, rather than just extreme right wing rhetoric, maybe we can have an actual discussion.

Well, I can just shut down serious thinking on the matter in this same way, if I desire. I can throw a tiny body of anecdotal personal experience on the wall, see if some of it sticks, and then retreat to name calling.

Bad show.

[_Droopy]

So, there is no redeeming value to love and commitment between two people unless one them has a penis and the other a vagina? That speaks volumes about your strange sense of values and morality.

No, it speaks volumes about the inversion of moral consciousness and death of moral and spiritual sensitivity that tales place when one leaves the gospel and takes up residence in the Great and Spacious Building, having, once tasted of the fruit of the Tree of Life, seen the laughing, sniggering, and mocking from the cool, smart, enlightened people in the Building, and become ashamed that one had tasted the fruit.

[_Runtu]

I see you've swallowed the ideology of Kinsey/Hefter whole, without even chewing a bit to aid the digestion. A pity, John, given the ease with which these kinds of claims are argued against.

I showed some actual data to back up my opinion. I've never read Kinsey, by the way, and I don't know who Hefter is (googling the name brought up some disturbing stuff about "feeder" fetishes). But, please do make your easy arguments. If I'm wrong, I am happy to admit it.

I actually rather think sadomasochism has little to do with "severe guilt" for leaving the confines of the law of chastity and much more to do with other deep internal issues of power/control/dominance transferred or shifted to the sexual realm, a place of inherently powerful and cathartic emotional experience in which such issues can be played out within a sexual context.

I'm just saying that sadomasochism has been repeatedly shown to have a direct correlation with how sex was treated in the home during childhood. The internal issues you mention are often related to the use of extreme guilt and control in the home, particularly when dealing with sexuality. Is there causation? I don't know, but there is definitely correlation.

[_Runtu]

No, it speaks volumes about the inversion of moral consciousness and death of moral and spiritual sensitivity that tales place when one leaves the gospel and takes up residence in the Great and Spacious Building, having, once tasted of the fruit of the Tree of Life, seen the laughing, sniggering, and mocking from the cool, smart, enlightened people in the Building, and become ashamed that one had tasted the fruit.

You got all that from two sentences? Yikes.

[Guest]

I find it interesting that sex between two males or two females is considered detrimental to the survival of our species. Presumably the reasoning is that gay people can't reproduce and thus are lowering the number of possible heterosexual unions and conception of children.

Those of us who passed biology class in High School have little trouble with this claim.

But why would we assume that, as long as homosexual behavior is marginalized and condemned, gay people will seek out heterosexual partners? I'd say that is a faulty assumption. Marginalizing and condemning drives homosexual behavior underground or encourages celibacy among gays.

This is more undigested Gay lobby boilerplate. It is just as likely, if not far more so, that it is the practices, culture, and inherent nature of homosexuality are the primary factors driving its "underground" marginalization within the larger society. This has always been so.

In the first place, homosexuals (those who would identify exclusively and consistently as homosexual) comprise perhaps 3% of the population, so the practice itself is, indeed, marginal. Secondly, homosexual culture, and especially during the seventies when Gay culture became much more open for critical inspection, has long, and among many of its past (especially pre-AIDS) intellectuals, been promoted as a liberating escape from the bondage of heterosexual sexual patterns, including child rearing and the traditional nuclear family. It was never concerned with heterosexual acceptance and celebration of its practices and lifestyle, and had no interest in "marriage." The original "Gay liberation" movement was interested in tolerance and ending discrimination while being left alone to pursue its own practices and relationships in its parallel culture. It is only from the eighties onward that the cry for tolerance moves to the demand for acceptance, celebration, and politically correct repression of principled opposition to the lifestyle respecting homosexuality become important, and the movement toward homosexual marriage only dates from the nineties.

Some of you babes-in-the-woods here who were only born in the seventies should have been with me in San Francisco in the seventies to see Gay culture up close and in mass. Nobody was talking about genetics then, and even fewer homosexual intellectuals and activists were talking about getting married, and strapping Gay culture with the very shackles of middle class, Judeo-Christian sexual ethics to which the gay subculture proudly stood in stark contrast.

[_Buffalo]

If you can show that it's a lie, please do. I tend to believe that suppression of sexuality often results in unhealthy sexual attitudes and behaviors, such as the promiscuity you describe.

I see you've swallowed the ideology of Kinsey/Hefter whole, without even chewing a bit to aid the digestion. A pity, John, given the ease with which these kinds of claims are argued against.

It's been shown, for example, that people who during childhood and adolescence associate severe guilt with sexuality are more likely to have sadomasochistic and other control-related issues with sexuality than those who grow up in a healthier environment.

I actually rather think sadomasochism has little to do with "severe guilt" for leaving the confines of the law of chastity and much more to do with other deep internal issues of power/control/dominance transferred or shifted to the sexual realm, a place of inherently powerful and cathartic emotional experience in which such issues can be played out within a sexual context.

Droopy knows all about suppression.