Kbzon59 Posted July 5, 2004 Share Posted July 5, 2004 1. The point I was trying to make' date=' which apparently still eludes you, is that the usefulness of a [b']person[/b] to society is not related to their gender preferences. Hence, since many of the evolutionary selection effects that currently apply to mankind rely on societal interaction, there is little or no difference whether they are driven by straight or gay individuals. 2. That's just complete rubbish. Sorry, but it is. People do not live in TV shows where the gays are stuck on super-entertaining queen mode and the straight guys have to be bar-flies so everyone will realise they are not rampant bisexuals who like shopping for shoes. 3. What I meant was that you are drawing sweeping conclusions about the inability of homosexual people to cope with, face or resolve certain common every-day situations, due to their sexuality. Unless you give some actual specifics with the data to back your claims, this is called "rampant discrimination". 4.I was using it to illustrate the logical fallacy of claiming that "homosexuals are not socially useful because heterosexuals are", which is essentially what you did earlier. 5. The funny thing is is that most people don't realise this applies to gay and straight men. Just as the closeted gay, at minimum, gives a cool or non-committal reaction when confronted with a question regarding a female's sex appeal, a straight guy at minimum feels pressured to make a big show of not having ever considered man-on-man action (even though we all know research shows that pretty much everyone visits that town eventually). 6.I find it interesting you are only discussing gay men. 1. I never said anything about usefulness and homosexuality. There is no relation in taht. I agree with yoyu that the usefulness of a person to society is not related to their gender" (you mean sexual, right?) preferences, and I dont know where did you extract that I did not (agree with you in taht). 2.- i am not talking about stereotypes, I am talkiing seriuos, just ask around. Don't dicard things just because they are not totally truth. That's what I added "in most cases" 3. I am not drawing conclusions, nor saying that homosexuals are socially inferior ,nor phisicallly inferior. When did I say it? 4. Heterosexuality, by itself, is not socially useful, nor is homosexuality. Actually sex, is only useful for its role in the perpetuaation of the species, and taht can be done independently of the sexual orientation. 5. So in the end, you agree taht gay people and straight men react different? Because taht was my point. 6. I am to lazy to write "gay people" or "gay men and women", so when i say gay men, you read "gay people" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted July 5, 2004 Share Posted July 5, 2004 1. I never said anything about usefulness and homosexuality. There is no relation in taht. I agree with yoyu that the usefulness of a person to society is not related to their gender" (you mean sexual, right?) preferences, and I dont know where did you extract that I did not (agree with you in taht). The fact that you did not explicitly mention a word does not mean that it was not your meaning. We were discussing the evolutionary effects of sexuality (Aardvark's "biological adaptation" comments), in the context of the possible function of sexuality. You are contending that his "hunting buddies" scenario no longer exists - that if that were once the function of homosexuality, it is no longer applicable. In other words it would be of no use, therefore: useless. There are a few things wrong with this. Most of the selective and behavourial drives behind human evolution have stayed the same, but the manner in which they occur has shifted. It would not be difficult to put together a study to show that there are various opportunities open to homosexual people that are simply closed doors to heterosexuals. 2.- i am not talking about stereotypes, I am talkiing seriuos, just ask around. Don't dicard things just because they are not totally truth. That's what I added "in most cases" My issue with that is that it sounded like it was based on a daytime situation comedy rather than being a realistic reflection of actual human communities. 3. I am not drawing conclusions, nor saying that homosexuals are socially inferior ,nor phisicallly inferior. When did I say it? I did not accuse you of saying anything about social or physical inferiority. What I said was "drawing sweeping conclusions about the inability of homosexual people to cope with, face or resolve certain common every-day situations". This was implied in the part where you said: most straight man have that pal, or a circle of "guys" (like, mom, I'm gonna play Nintendo with the guys" or "Hon, I'll be at the bar with the guys", and many gay men lack this "co-teching" of "straigtenness". That comment infers that the straight guys have moved on and the role of the homosexual is redundant, also that homosexuals are incapable of forming "normal" and/or cross-sexuality friendships. To be honest, reading back through the thread I don't think that was your intention at all 4. Heterosexuality, by itself, is not socially useful, nor is homosexuality. Actually sex, is only useful for its role in the perpetuaation of the species, and taht can be done independently of the sexual orientation. I agree with you on this, but I am not sure I see what it has to do with the XYZ scenario. 5. So in the end, you agree taht gay people and straight men react different? Because taht was my point. No. I was saying that although the words might be different the message is the same. 6. I am to lazy to write "gay people" or "gay men and women", so when i say gay men, you read "gay people" Fair enough. I noticed you did actually start a post off with "Gay men or women" earlier, but you only seem to be talking about guys. This seems to happen a lot in threads about homosexuality so I'm really overly-aware of it. I think it might happen because gay females are seen as more valid "gay candidates" for passing on genetic information, and the less gay-friendly elements who haunt this kind of thread would like to draw attention away from any functions that might allow homosexuality to be considered anywhere near 'biologically legitimate'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kbzon59 Posted July 5, 2004 Share Posted July 5, 2004 I am not saying that since the hunting buddies scenario is outdated, homosexuality is useless. I am saying that socially its was always useless, but that the point of it has evolved. Homosexuality is no longer the method for men (not women, since they, in the past, did not hunt) to come together and coordinate for hunting or for war. Currently, homosexuality fills a different role, a role that mainly had been left for the oppsite sex in every particular case. it is not that homosexuality is useless, it mainly is that it's current point and goal, compared to that of hunting closeness, is quite new. In other words, homosexuality involving love, is quite new to the world. On the friendship issue, I think we have a problem. I don't thionk you understood what I mean with buddies. I mean compadres, a man or woman (comadres) so close to your heartm taht he actually becomes yopur brother or sistyer. I am not saying taht homosexual man cant have man friend, but i am saying taht in many cases, such friendship never reached such levels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted July 5, 2004 Share Posted July 5, 2004 This entire "hunting buddies" thing is speculation though. It's not based on anything other than a suggestion made further up the thread, yet you are attempting to use it in an explanation of the evolutionary history of homosexuality. "In other words, homosexuality involving love, is quite new to the world. " What do you consider to be "new"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kbzon59 Posted July 6, 2004 Share Posted July 6, 2004 Love between homosexual individuals is quite new as an idea reckoned by society. If you think about the lack of the possibility of "gay love" has forged or helped forge many of the stereotypes for the representatives of the gay community. One of the most damaging stereotypes is that of the 'bed hopping gay', taht said that homosexual man and woman were only interested in getting laid by anyone or anything, without any caution. The 1980 AIDS outbreak in the gay community fueled, under some peoples view, this idea, since tehy blamed promisicuuity for such outbreak. So the idea of true love between two individuals of the same sex, at least socially, is quite new. the term "gay couple" is not more than 20 years old. before that gay people were seen as a huge community of one night standers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atinymonkey Posted July 6, 2004 Share Posted July 6, 2004 It's Alexander the Greats fault for teh image problem. A boy in every port that one, the big floosy. I was under the impression that the percentage of infected homosexuals was actually always lower than heterosexuals, and the connection with homosexual behavior was a latent homophobic reaction to a perceived threat to promiscuous behavior. The existance of love between two people is as old as time itself, independant of gender or preference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted July 6, 2004 Share Posted July 6, 2004 No, he's talking about spciety realising that homosexual love exists, not whether it exists per se. That does mean ignoring the classical civilisations, and shushing up the Victorians and preceding societies even more though... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
senexa Posted July 6, 2004 Share Posted July 6, 2004 Pardon me for intruding here, but what exactly is the purpose of this thread? ... or, for that matter, the many other threads on this subject? If it is, in fact, a serious inquiry into the biology of same-same sexuality, I would recommend this paper: http://jrscience.wcp.muohio.edu/Research/HNatureProposalsArticles/Final1.HOMOSEXUALTIY.biol.html with its bibliography as a starting point. If it is about coming to grips with personal views regarding homosexuality, then I would suggest taking this test: http://www.tolerance.org/hidden_bias/index.html Either way, homosexuality has been referenced from the earliest known histories. There are many cultures who view it as acceptable. So my strongest input here would be to say that you first need to remove the Anglo mindset and social parameters from any research project. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atinymonkey Posted July 6, 2004 Share Posted July 6, 2004 No, he's talking about spciety realising that homosexual love exists, not whether it exists per se[/i']. That does mean ignoring the classical civilisations, and shushing up the Victorians and preceding societies even more though... If he's talking about 'our' society, it's swings and roundabouts. I'm sure Wilde would have a thing or two to say about homosexual love only just being realised to exist, I'm fairly sure at least somebody read his books. 'In Memoriam' is Tennyson's eulogy to lost male love, and as Poet Laureate even Queen Victoria and Prince Albert were aware of the concept. I'm not sure there was a period where people didn't think gay love was possible, periods where it was unacceptable but not that it didn't occur. Side point - apparently, the concept of homosexuality was thought up by Samurai in feudal Japan where they felt the need to distinguish boy on boy from girl on boy. Previous to that, it was just sexuality without the prefix. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted July 6, 2004 Share Posted July 6, 2004 Pardon me for intruding here, but what exactly is the purpose of this thread? ... or, for that matter, the many other threads on this subject? Discussion. The same as any other thread. If it is, in fact, a serious inquiry into the biology of same-same sexuality, I would recommend this paper:http://jrscience.wcp.muohio.edu/Research/HNatureProposalsArticles/Final1.HOMOSEXUALTIY.biol.html with its bibliography as a starting point. That appears to be a proposal for a study. However, the bibliography does look like interesting reading. If it is about coming to grips with personal views regarding homosexuality, then I would suggest taking this test:http://www.tolerance.org/hidden_bias/index.html Direct link to the tests index: https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/demo/selectatest.html My test came up "inconclusive". I am going to do it again... Either way, homosexuality has been referenced from the earliest known histories. There are many cultures who view it as acceptable. So my strongest input here would be to say that you first need to remove the Anglo mindset and social parameters from any research project. Could you explain what you mean by the "Anglo mindset"? If he's talking about 'our' society, it's swings and roundabouts. I'm sure Wilde would have a thing or two to say about homosexual love only just being realised to exist, I'm fairly sure at least somebody[/i'] read his books. 'In Memoriam' is Tennyson's eulogy to lost male love, and as Poet Laureate even Queen Victoria and Prince Albert were aware of the concept. Oh I agree. I cba arguing the toss because I think he's convinced himself fairly well by now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted July 6, 2004 Share Posted July 6, 2004 If it is about coming to grips with personal views regarding homosexuality' date=' then I would suggest taking this test: http://www.tolerance.org/hidden_bias/index.html.[/quote'] If the test you intended to link to is the IAT, I think it should be known that this is NOT a test of "hidden bias", as suggested by the URL you posted, nor does it evaluate 'personal views'. In order to understand exactly what is being tested it is crucial that people taking the test read both FAQs when they get their results. For the record, I got it to work this time. Result: Your data suggest a slight automatic preference for STRAIGHT PEOPLE relative to GAY PEOPLE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kbzon59 Posted July 7, 2004 Share Posted July 7, 2004 the idea of homosexual life, with one couple, did not exist in ancient civiloization. Many african tribes used homosexual sex as a rite (young man with old men), but never as a legitimate way of life. If memory does not fail, only one ancient tribe in Africa or Ocenania had weddings between women, and that included the buying of the bride. of course that the idea of love between a homosexual twosome is old as tiem itself, but taht is not what I meant. I think that you are confusing teh time when society realized that homosexual relationships existed and the time when society realized that homosexual "married-like" couples existed. With "married like" I mean, living together, raising children, growing together, etc. Again ,homosexuality has been referred by many ancient cultures, but the above hasnt. By the way, If you have any question about what I have written ( I am not saying it is too deep or anything like taht orr that you cant understand it ) I would apreciate if you ask me, instead of asking around. I am afraid that some of you are thinking that I am homophobic, If you think so, then you atre wrong, and probably dont understand what I have been trying toi say. You don't seem to understand that Im taljking about society, not individuals like Wilde. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kbzon59 Posted July 7, 2004 Share Posted July 7, 2004 By treh way , I only check this site out about once a day, so It might take some tiome to answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atinymonkey Posted July 7, 2004 Share Posted July 7, 2004 the idea of homosexual life, with one couple, did not exist in ancient civiloization. Really? That's so sweet. Ah, in the olden days they all spoke American, King Arthur was ruler of all the lands and Jesus ran a detective agency with Hercules as his sidekick. Simpler times, which can be distilled into a few handy half hour episodes with plenty of swordfights and all the girls wearing armored bikinis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted July 7, 2004 Share Posted July 7, 2004 By the way' date=' If you have any question about what I have written ( I am not saying it is too deep or anything like taht orr that you cant understand it ) I would apreciate if you ask me, instead of asking around. I am afraid that some of you are thinking that I am homophobic, If you think so, then you atre wrong, and probably dont understand what I have been trying toi say.[/quote'] It seems to me that what you are trying to say is that if a society is not aware of a thing, or is aware but fails to record it, then that thing did not exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kbzon59 Posted July 7, 2004 Share Posted July 7, 2004 Again with taht? I have already explained it a lot of times. The society did not conceive back in time the idea of two men aging togethere. Tha did not mean it did not exist. Before, man taht lived together were seen as outcasts or such, or just plain singkle, but not as a gay couple. Has any of you read "The Count of Montecristo" by Dumas? Of course that the main cgharaacter or theme of teh book is not related to homosexuality, but there are a couple of frmale characters that are hinted as lesbians (Armilly and Ms. Danlars). One of the male characters hints other of this fact, but the other dont seem to see anything wrong in their relationship, supposing they are only firends. That is kinda of what I meant, gay couples have existed for a long time, but that thought was never really one of the first in the mind of the outside viewer. Just read carefully. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kbzon59 Posted July 7, 2004 Share Posted July 7, 2004 By tghe way, homosexual life is not the same as homosexual love or homosexual sex or homosexual couple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kbzon59 Posted July 7, 2004 Share Posted July 7, 2004 Took the test My data suggest slight automatic preference for STRAIGHT PEOPLE relative to GAY PEOPLE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted July 7, 2004 Share Posted July 7, 2004 Again with taht?I have already explained it a lot of times. You haven't explained anything' date=' you have simply [i']stated[/i] it as a fact. You have not give any evidence to support it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kbzon59 Posted July 8, 2004 Share Posted July 8, 2004 You say that like if anyone could thorow evidence or proofs in this debate. the truth is that we all are just giving opinions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kbzon59 Posted July 8, 2004 Share Posted July 8, 2004 By the way, I took the aformetioned test with the same result as Sayo3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted July 8, 2004 Share Posted July 8, 2004 You say that like if anyone could thorow evidence or proofs in this debate. the truth is that we all are just giving opinions If you are giving opinions, don't present them as if they are fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atinymonkey Posted July 8, 2004 Share Posted July 8, 2004 Again with taht?I have already explained it a lot of times. The society did not conceive back in time the idea of two men aging togethere. Tha did not mean it did not exist. Before' date=' man taht lived together were seen as outcasts or such, or just plain singkle, but not as a gay couple.[/quote'] That just is not true. Alexander the Great had a male lover that followed him throughout his campaigns, a number of Caesars had high profile male partners, even Socrates and most of the comparative Greeks had male lovers. Ignorance of history is no reason to inflict ignorance on others. Has any of you read "The Count of Montecristo" by Dumas? .....Just read carefully. I've read it. What's your point? One author hinted at homosexuality? That is hardly representative of the entire annuls of human history. Did you also notice that the author was never overt with his subtext? That's what has helped the book stay fresh, that it didn't have trite like 'urg, look at the lesbians'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted July 8, 2004 Share Posted July 8, 2004 That just is not true. Alexander the Great had a male lover that followed him throughout his campaigns, a number of Caesars had high profile male partners, even Socrates and most of the comparative Greeks had male lovers. And the reason the examples are such noted figures is because the classical civilisations didn't exactly record the living history of Geoff, the gay baker from the market opposite the big fountain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ben+Jen Posted July 9, 2004 Share Posted July 9, 2004 I believe that, gay people just wanted to experiment with their hormones and got a bit carried away! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now