Homosexuality is an anomaly

[daniel]

... "Having sentience is an anomaly. What other animal on the planet does this? The human animal was meant to prance about stupidly, entirely oblivious to the fact of his existence."

All true. What other animal cuts his hair, cooks his food, wears clothing, etc. Man is an anomoly only here after (long after) the dinosaurs died out.

So in the big scheme of things, homosexuality amongst all the other anomolies is so trivial.

[Mad_Michael]

Yeah well the idea of homosexuality as a sexual orientation (and not an act) did not occur until far after these events, so they dont matter.

What events are you referring to?

The 'construction' of 'homosexuality' as an identity is contemporary to Victorian England - primarily as a reaction against legal persecution.

Surprisingly enough, although homosexuality has been illegal in many places throughout history, the laws were quite rarely enforced. Victorian England was one place it was definitely enforced (but only as a class issue). Indeed, many English homosexuals in the Victorian era took exile to France where they faced no prosecution at all (even though it was equally illegal in France at the time).

[Mad_Michael]

Ummm...I'm already making a list.

Don't forget to check it twice!

[ScottSA]

... "Having sentience is an anomaly. What other animal on the planet does this? The human animal was meant to prance about stupidly, entirely oblivious to the fact of his existence."

All true. What other animal cuts his hair, cooks his food, wears clothing, etc. Man is an anomoly only here after (long after) the dinosaurs died out.

So in the big scheme of things, homosexuality amongst all the other anomolies is so trivial.

Ah, but there's the rub. Humans are an anomaly in nature, but homosexuality is an anomaly in humanity.

[M.Dancer]

Yeah well the idea of homosexuality as a sexual orientation (and not an act) did not occur until far after these events, so they dont matter.

What events are you referring to?

The 'construction' of 'homosexuality' as an identity is contemporary to Victorian England - primarily as a reaction against legal persecution.

Surprisingly enough, although homosexuality has been illegal in many places throughout history, the laws were quite rarely enforced. Victorian England was one place it was definitely enforced (but only as a class issue). Indeed, many English homosexuals in the Victorian era took exile to France where they faced no prosecution at all (even though it was equally illegal in France at the time).

Richard the Lion Heart was a Homosexual. Churchill, in one of his English histories refered to it as one of richard's loves that was frowned upon by the pope.....

[gc1765]

Ah, but there's the rub. Humans are an anomaly in nature, but homosexuality is an anomaly in humanity.

So is posting messages on an internet board. So, what's your point?

[ScottSA]

Ah, but there's the rub. Humans are an anomaly in nature, but homosexuality is an anomaly in humanity.

So is posting messages on an internet board. So, what's your point?

I'm sorry you missed it.

[daniel]

... "Having sentience is an anomaly. What other animal on the planet does this? The human animal was meant to prance about stupidly, entirely oblivious to the fact of his existence."

All true. What other animal cuts his hair, cooks his food, wears clothing, etc. Man is an anomoly only here after (long after) the dinosaurs died out.

So in the big scheme of things, homosexuality amongst all the other anomolies is so trivial.

Ah, but there's the rub. Humans are an anomaly in nature, but homosexuality is an anomaly in humanity.

Ah but can't you see the parallel? If the irrational hatred against homosexuality is just, then all of humanity should subject itself to that same irrationality.

[FascistLibertarian]

QUOTE(Mad_Michael @ Jun 26 2007, 04:11 PM)

QUOTE(FascistLibertarian @ Jun 26 2007, 11:38 AM)

Yeah well the idea of homosexuality as a sexual orientation (and not an act) did not occur until far after these events, so they dont matter.

What events are you referring to?

The 'construction' of 'homosexuality' as an identity is contemporary to Victorian England - primarily as a reaction against legal persecution.

Surprisingly enough, although homosexuality has been illegal in many places throughout history, the laws were quite rarely enforced. Victorian England was one place it was definitely enforced (but only as a class issue). Indeed, many English homosexuals in the Victorian era took exile to France where they faced no prosecution at all (even though it was equally illegal in France at the time).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Richard the Lion Heart was a Homosexual. Churchill, in one of his English histories refered to it as one of richard's loves that was frowned upon by the pope.....

This is what I am trying to say.

Richard may have had homosexual acts, but the idea of a homosexual person did not exist until the 1800's. before then all you had was the act.

Its all tied to our rush to classify things into categories.

the kinsey scale shows the trouble with this.

[Mad_Michael]

This is what I am trying to say.

Richard may have had homosexual acts, but the idea of a homosexual person did not exist until the 1800's. before then all you had was the act.

Its all tied to our rush to classify things into categories.

the kinsey scale shows the trouble with this.

Yes, this is a seemingly valid point.

However, the fact that homosexuals were not identified as existing prior to the 19th century, does not mean they didn't exist prior to 19th century - identity or act. Indeed, Edward II supplies a 13th/early 14th century example of one who clearly was 'homosexual' as an identity, not just engaging in an 'act'.

And I agree, the application of the term to any period prior to the 19th century produces weird anomolies of us calling married people 'homosexuals' (such as Richard Lionheart or Alexander the Great).

And I disagree about what you say about the Kinsey scale. That scale is 'anti-categorical' and introduces nothing but 'grey-areas' into the categorical terms. According Kinsey's scale, the vast majority of homosexual 'acts' that occur are committed by non-homosexuals. Most people have trouble with this concept.

[Mad_Michael]

Ah but can't you see the parallel? If the irrational hatred against homosexuality is just, then all of humanity should subject itself to that same irrationality.

You are apparently attempting to apply a 'rational rule' to that which you have defined as irrational (and I agree that iit is).

That is invalid logic.

[Kapitän Rotbart]

@Rue:

@FascistLibertarian:

San Francisco is the world's current gay fag capital... but just some food for thought, God gave Adam and Eve everything they needed to be fruitful and multiply the way it was intended to be (God didn't create Adam and Steve).

No but God created people like you who use words like "fag" and think they are in the position to lecture people and speak on behalf of God because I mean we all know you are God's right hand. Using your reasoning by the way, God would have had to have created Adam and Steve as he created all humans the last time I read YOUR Bible. If you are goiung to lecture people on Christianity and twist it to try defend your ignorance and bigotry at least try make some sense when you spew off such simplistic and pointless comments. By the way, good Christian prophet and spokesperson for God, the word Fag is derogatory. Would you like it if I made disparaging comments about you? Yah I know you are a good Christian and you don't hate "fags". With good Christians like you preaching love and tolerance, none of us have to worry about humanity.

I do not represent any institution when I post on this forum. It is thanks to freedom of speach that I use words such as "fag". I may share my opinions, perception and I am free to agree or disagree with you (this is hopefully not a new concept to you).

In my mention of "God gave Adam and Eve everything they needed...", seems like you had to come up with the most distorted interpretation. You completely missed my point and make rediculous accusations, then empty threats. There is no room on this forum for "disparaging comments about you", that translates into personal attacks and you would be reported for such behavior.

My point was, humanity started with no sex shops, no contraceptives, etc. and going by the rule "less is more", these things do not "enhance" the world's sexual relations, but rather compromise them. Humanity essentially began with everything it needed for ideal sexual relations. The story of Adam and Eve illustrates God creating a man and a woman (because if the two first and only humans were of the same sex, humanity would not last beyond one generation). If God intented for homosexuality to be appropriate, the two first humans would then have had the capacity to reproduce within the same sex or some other really explicitly obvious sign would have flagged homosexuality as appropriate. I'm not representing any institution when I post on this forum, this is my interpretation, feel free to argue, but please bring forward good reasons for believing otherwise.

If we are to argue about Scripture's contents (since you brought it up), God created Adam and Eve from dust, and all others are their decendants (or later created from dust, but Adam and Eve were the first two).

@Mad_Michael:

According Kinsey's scale, the vast majority of homosexual 'acts' that occur are committed by non-homosexuals. Most people have trouble with this concept.

What concept? Back to the drawing board... it doesn't make sense to be so exclusive when defining sexual orientations... if someone has homosexual relations, they are gay until they make a firm decision to turn away from this behavior. Going by your exclusive definition of homosexuality, anyone who would have a mere heterosexual (or pedophilo) fantasy could not be GBLT and would automatically be part of the heterosexual majority... if you're going to be so exclusive, gee... I suppose gay people couldn't possibly exist at all!

[gc1765]

My point was, humanity started with no sex shops, no contraceptives, etc. and going by the rule "less is more", these things do not "enhance" the world's sexual relations, but rather compromise them. Humanity essentially began with everything it needed for ideal sexual relations. The story of Adam and Eve illustrates God creating a man and a woman (because if the two first and only humans were of the same sex, humanity would not last beyond one generation). If God intented for homosexuality to be appropriate, the two first humans would then have had the capacity to reproduce within the same sex or some other really explicitly obvious sign would have flagged homosexuality as appropriate.

Humanity started with no cars & no computers either. Does that mean it's not appropriate to drive a car or use a computer? I don't think I understand your argument here...

[FascistLibertarian]

My point was, humanity started with no sex shops, no contraceptives, etc. and going by the rule "less is more", these things do not "enhance" the world's sexual relations, but rather compromise them. Humanity essentially began with everything it needed for ideal sexual relations. The story of Adam and Eve illustrates God creating a man and a woman (because if the two first and only humans were of the same sex, humanity would not last beyond one generation). If God intented for homosexuality to be appropriate, the two first humans would then have had the capacity to reproduce within the same sex or some other really explicitly obvious sign would have flagged homosexuality as appropriate. I'm not representing any institution when I post on this forum, this is my interpretation, feel free to argue, but please bring forward good reasons for believing otherwise.

So your logic is what comes first is 'natural' and what is 'natural' is 'good'?

Well There are clear flaws with that reasoning, but if you take it to its logical conclusion it wrecks your arguement as monogamous hetrosexuality is not the earliest.

If this is how you feel I suggest you read some ethnographic studies of the sexuality of hunter gatherers.

And if god wanted people to be hetro, why would be make so many people non-hetro?

What concept? Back to the drawing board... it doesn't make sense to be so exclusive when defining sexual orientations... if someone has homosexual relations, they are gay until they make a firm decision to turn away from this behavior. Going by your exclusive definition of homosexuality, anyone who would have a mere heterosexual (or pedophilo) fantasy could not be GBLT and would automatically be part of the heterosexual majority... if you're going to be so exclusive, gee... I suppose gay people couldn't possibly exist at all!

Sexual orientation is not what you do. It is how you feel.

Let me restate this, if you have sex with men or women this does not at all matter for your sexual orientation.

If you LIKE men or women, then it matters.

And if you like both, your bi, regardless of what you do.

So you can tell people to repress it, but if you like the same sex as you, your a homosexual, and if you like both, your bi.

[Mad_Michael]

@Mad_Michael:

According Kinsey's scale, the vast majority of homosexual 'acts' that occur are committed by non-homosexuals. Most people have trouble with this concept.

What concept? Back to the drawing board... it doesn't make sense to be so exclusive when defining sexual orientations... if someone has homosexual relations, they are gay until they make a firm decision to turn away from this behavior.

That is YOUR definition. You are apparently entitled to adhere to your own reality.

Apparently this is The Kapitan Rule Number Two (Rule Number One is that no law ought to be valid unless The Kapitan approves of it).

Indeed, if we apply YOUR definition to the Kinsey Data set, the approximate number of 'gay' males is roughly about 25-35% amongst teenagers, and drops to about 15-20% for 20-45 year olds and really only gives a number under 5% if you survey over 45yr olds (based on your definition that a 'gay' person is one who has not yet abjured homosexual acts).

Going by your exclusive definition of homosexuality...

And which part of "...according to the Kinsey scale..." did you not understand?

[Mad_Michael]

And just for fun...

Quite wrong.

Besides, the "middle class" didn't exist prior to the 13th century. The embryonic merchant class was barely begun at that point, and didn't even register on the political spectrum outside of London proper.

I could give proper bibliographic citations in support of the existence of a middle class in England and Western Europe in the 13th century, but that's too much work for forum entertainments. I shall not bother to address more sophisticated evidence of the phenomena such as Edward I's 13th century ending of feudalism and the transmission of hereditary feudal obligations into monetary payments, or the 13th century Italian merchant banking and trading networks established across Europe.

Instead, I'll just cite some bland references to 13th century middle classes from the 1st page of a Google search of the term.

Apparently, by the early 14th century, the middle classes were so uppity with their style or manner of dress that the nobles passed laws to restrain clothing styles. Who knew?

In the second half of the 13th century the nature of the epic began to change as characters from the middle class and the peasantry were introduced. The peasantry, once an object of derision, became increasingly important in literature, figuring prominently in such works as Meier Helmbrecht, a 13th-century tale of peasant life.

source

1206 AD: Beginning of power of the Guilds (new middle class).

source

In the Middle Ages most people were illiterate but not all. Upper class children were educated when they were pages. Among the poor the better-educated priests might teach some children to read and write - a little. In many towns there were grammar schools where middle class boys were educated.

source

From the mid-14th century laws lay down which materials the different classes could wear, to stop the middle classes dressing 'above themselves'.

source

[ScottSA]

And just for fun...

Quite wrong.

Besides, the "middle class" didn't exist prior to the 13th century. The embryonic merchant class was barely begun at that point, and didn't even register on the political spectrum outside of London proper.

I could give proper bibliographic citations in support of the existence of a middle class in England and Western Europe in the 13th century, but that's too much work for forum entertainments. I shall not bother to address more sophisticated evidence of the phenomena such as Edward I's 13th century ending of feudalism and the transmission of hereditary feudal obligations into monetary payments, or the 13th century Italian merchant banking and trading networks established across Europe.

Instead, I'll just cite some bland references to 13th century middle classes from the 1st page of a Google search of the term.

Apparently, by the early 14th century, the middle classes were so uppity with their style or manner of dress that the nobles passed laws to restrain clothing styles. Who knew?

In the second half of the 13th century the nature of the epic began to change as characters from the middle class and the peasantry were introduced. The peasantry, once an object of derision, became increasingly important in literature, figuring prominently in such works as Meier Helmbrecht, a 13th-century tale of peasant life.

source

1206 AD: Beginning of power of the Guilds (new middle class).

source

In the Middle Ages most people were illiterate but not all. Upper class children were educated when they were pages. Among the poor the better-educated priests might teach some children to read and write - a little. In many towns there were grammar schools where middle class boys were educated.

source

From the mid-14th century laws lay down which materials the different classes could wear, to stop the middle classes dressing 'above themselves'.

source

My goodness, we've been busy at google U this afternoon, haven't we? Your own citations, if you actually knew enough to read them properly, belie your point. Reread the last citation, slowly, after taking a refresher course in early medieval history and you'll see what I mean. Maybe. Please, for your own good; don't get into arguments you don't understand. It's embarrassing.

[ScottSA]

Oh, and I assume you're talking about Edward I's Statute of Mortmain? I think you'd better read the text of it, or at least some semi-coherent secondary source before you trot it out as the death of feudalism and the rise of the middle class. Just so's you don't continually embarrass yourself with half-understood chatter, you know...

[M.Dancer]

This is what I am trying to say.

Richard may have had homosexual acts, but the idea of a homosexual person did not exist until the 1800's. before then all you had was the act.

Its all tied to our rush to classify things into categories.

the kinsey scale shows the trouble with this.

Yes, this is a seemingly valid point.

However, the fact that homosexuals were not identified as existing prior to the 19th century, does not mean they didn't exist prior to 19th century - identity or act.

I would say that Sappho was not only indentified but lauded....

...the only difference between then and now is that while homosexuals had romantic relationships it did not preclude their coventional relationships as husbands and wives. And like the 18th century adult have a mistress or lover, discetion was the norm.

[ScottSA]

This is what I am trying to say.

Richard may have had homosexual acts, but the idea of a homosexual person did not exist until the 1800's. before then all you had was the act.

Its all tied to our rush to classify things into categories.

the kinsey scale shows the trouble with this.

Yes, this is a seemingly valid point.

However, the fact that homosexuals were not identified as existing prior to the 19th century, does not mean they didn't exist prior to 19th century - identity or act.

I would say that Sappho was not only indentified but lauded....

...the only difference between then and now is that while homosexuals had romantic relationships it did not preclude their coventional relationships as husbands and wives. And like the 18th century adult have a mistress or lover, discetion was the norm.

I can't remember what they were called..."Polly houses" or some such...but homosexual whorehouses were quite common in Victorian England. I actually have no problem with that...hegemonic society treated it with scorn, and the government for the most part ignored it...as was the case in most societies throughout history. Occasionally this or that society has elevated faggotry to a neutral, but it's always shortlived in the scope of history. Anyone who thinks bumbuggery will be accepted henceforth and forever is deluding themselves mightily.

[FascistLibertarian]

I can't remember what they were called..."Polly houses" or some such...but homosexual whorehouses were quite common in Victorian England. I actually have no problem with that...hegemonic society treated it with scorn, and the government for the most part ignored it...as was the case in most societies throughout history. Occasionally this or that society has elevated faggotry to a neutral, but it's always shortlived in the scope of history. Anyone who thinks bumbuggery will be accepted henceforth and forever is deluding themselves mightily.

Of course they did, why would this be suprising, you think any society has been able to get rid of non-hetrosexual behaviour?

Acceptance might change. But no matter how much you may attempt to stop it or make people think it is bad, it has existed and will exist in every human society. No human society has ever had one 'type' of sexuality which 'works' for everyone. Sexuality is very diverse at all levels and in all types and forms of human society.

Really the question should not be how natural it is, but who is hurt by the action.

Consenting adults is, for me, the key. People and their sexuality are just wierd in general, regardless of sexual orientation.

[Rue]

@Rue:

@FascistLibertarian:

San Francisco is the world's current gay fag capital... but just some food for thought, God gave Adam and Eve everything they needed to be fruitful and multiply the way it was intended to be (God didn't create Adam and Steve).

No but God created people like you who use words like "fag" and think they are in the position to lecture people and speak on behalf of God because I mean we all know you are God's right hand. Using your reasoning by the way, God would have had to have created Adam and Steve as he created all humans the last time I read YOUR Bible. If you are goiung to lecture people on Christianity and twist it to try defend your ignorance and bigotry at least try make some sense when you spew off such simplistic and pointless comments. By the way, good Christian prophet and spokesperson for God, the word Fag is derogatory. Would you like it if I made disparaging comments about you? Yah I know you are a good Christian and you don't hate "fags". With good Christians like you preaching love and tolerance, none of us have to worry about humanity.

I do not represent any institution when I post on this forum. It is thanks to freedom of speach that I use words such as "fag". I may share my opinions, perception and I am free to agree or disagree with you (this is hopefully not a new concept to you).

In my mention of "God gave Adam and Eve everything they needed...", seems like you had to come up with the most distorted interpretation. You completely missed my point and make rediculous accusations, then empty threats. There is no room on this forum for "disparaging comments about you", that translates into personal attacks and you would be reported for such behavior.

My point was, humanity started with no sex shops, no contraceptives, etc. and going by the rule "less is more", these things do not "enhance" the world's sexual relations, but rather compromise them. Humanity essentially began with everything it needed for ideal sexual relations. The story of Adam and Eve illustrates God creating a man and a woman (because if the two first and only humans were of the same sex, humanity would not last beyond one generation). If God intented for homosexuality to be appropriate, the two first humans would then have had the capacity to reproduce within the same sex or some other really explicitly obvious sign would have flagged homosexuality as appropriate. I'm not representing any institution when I post on this forum, this is my interpretation, feel free to argue, but please bring forward good reasons for believing otherwise.

If we are to argue about Scripture's contents (since you brought it up), God created Adam and Eve from dust, and all others are their decendants (or later created from dust, but Adam and Eve were the first two).

@Mad_Michael:

According Kinsey's scale, the vast majority of homosexual 'acts' that occur are committed by non-homosexuals. Most people have trouble with this concept.

What concept? Back to the drawing board... it doesn't make sense to be so exclusive when defining sexual orientations... if someone has homosexual relations, they are gay until they make a firm decision to turn away from this behavior. Going by your exclusive definition of homosexuality, anyone who would have a mere heterosexual (or pedophilo) fantasy could not be GBLT and would automatically be part of the heterosexual majority... if you're going to be so exclusive, gee... I suppose gay people couldn't possibly exist at all!

Here is my point. You have now come out and shown by using the word "fag" which is a hateful word and a bigoted one, that you are in fact hateful and yes since you come on this forum and use Christiniatity to t ry justify your hatred I have the right to call you a hippocrate and ridicule your use of Christianity.

I have not criticized the Christian religion-I criticize your attempt to call youself a Christian and nown once again your attempt to hid behind it and say because I challenge you for claiming yourself to be a Christian while using hate words, I am attacking the Christian religion.

In fact I am saying you are making a mockery of your claims to being Christian and you are an ignorant bully for using the word fag and no I will not tolerate it .

Your defence for use of the word is absolutely ridiculous. Would you claim its freedom of expression to use the word n..gger or kike? Well?

Freedom of expression does not give you the right to engage in deliberately hateful words. It makes you a pathetic bully.

As for your other generalizations and stereotypes, why would anyone bother to respond to you now you have made it clear you think it appropriate to refer to gays as fags.

You are entitled to no further dialogue until you at least acknowledge the word "fag" is being used by you in a hateful manner. Or would you have us believe it is part of the Christian teachings given to you? Well?

You can't have it both ways. You can't come on these posts posing as a devout Christian and then hiding behind it to use words like fag.

[guyser]

He is not the only one Rue. Sad but true.

[Mad_Michael]

Oh, and I assume you're talking about Edward I's Statute of Mortmain?

Unequivically, no.

You should know what happens when you "assume".

The 'Statute of Mortmain' has nothing to do with the ending of the traditional practice of feudalism and the conversion of feudal dues into monetary payments that occured under Edward I.

[Mad_Michael]

He is not the only one Rue. Sad but true.

Yes. Apparently ScottSA shares The Kapitan's foul mouth. See post #895 for example of same.