When did same-gender relations become "wrong"?

hardheadjarhead

Senior Master
Joined
Aug 25, 2003
Messages
2,602
Reaction score
71
Location
Bloomington, Indiana
I always find it interesting that when a man rapes a boy, homosexuality is to blame. When a man rapes a girl we never seem to blame heterosexuality.

Note the majority of victims of molestation are girls. The ratio of reported molestations of girls is greater than two to one.

http://www.rainn.org/statistics.html

On the same site you'll find reference to a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association that found that 98% of perpetrators of sexual assault on boys reported they were heterosexual.

Researchers Groth and Birnbaum report in another study "The belief that homosexuals are particularly attracted to children is completely unsupported by our data… In our twelve years of work with child molesters, we have found… the child offender who is also attracted to and engaged in an adult sexual relationship is heterosexual. The adult heterosexual male constitutes a greater risk to the underage child than does the homosexual male."

(A.N. Groth and H.J. Birnbaum, "Adult Sexual Orientation and Attraction to Underage Persons", Archives of Sexual Behavior, 1978, 7:175-181.)

Every one of the perpetrators in this study was either an exclusive heterosexual, a bisexual with a predominantly heterosexual orientation, or a fixated pedophile with no sexual interest in adults.

Our culture seems to want to homogenize sexuality as much as we can and to deny variance. It is difficult for some of us here to accept homsexuality versus heterosexuality--much less acknowledge varying degrees of bisexuality. Gays themselves often reject the latter notion, preferring also to think in black and white terms. We're drawn to simplification.

In our efforts to simplify our categories we lump pedophiles in with homosexuals. This double demonization unfairly stigmatizes homosexuals, and the tone has become shrill and paranoid.

The Family Research Council's website offers a 31 page report titled "Homosexual Activists Work to Normalize Sex With Boys." Focus on the Family alleges that a child molester is 17 times more likely to be gay than straight.

Much of the Right's statistics come from discredited psycholigist Paul Cameron. Cameron has perpetrated the notion that 44% of all serial killers are homosexual; and that 2/3rds of homosexual men ingest "biologically signifcant amounts" of feces. The American Psychological Association dropped Cameron in 1983 for ethics violations, and he's been censured by four other professional associations and a federal court.

This whole issue reminds many of the old act of "Blood Libel," where Jews in the twelfth century were accused of kidnapping Christian children so they could use their blood in ritualistic sacrifices by mixing it in with Passover bread. Jews by the hundreds were rounded up and slaughtered or burned alive.

The rumor has persisted ever since.


Regards,



Steve
 
P

PeachMonkey

Guest
Melissa426 said:
Speaking re my particular "sky-god", my church welcomes all people including gays and lesbians, but that doesn't mean we accept their lifestyle. Nor will we allow them to marry or be ordained ministers.
How sweet and accepting of you. This reminds me a bit of racist relatives of mine who always protest that "some of my best friends are*Edited to conform to MT Rules & Policies* "
 

loki09789

Senior Master
Joined
Jul 22, 2003
Messages
2,643
Reaction score
71
Location
Williamsville, NY
Bob Hubbard said:
So, if traditionally, mariage was used to cement alliances, forge partnerships and improve social standing....what does that say for the significance of a constitutional admendment to 'protect the sanctity of mariage'?
The idea of marriage sanctity in relation to American POV is still post "Love Marriage" views.

Legally, the 'sancitity of marriage' also protects the propery/inheritance and 'citizen making machine' of the man/woman union that is just not biologically possible in same sex 'marriage.'

The whole view of sexual 'variety' shall we say is/has not always been viewed the way it is now by Judeo/Christian followers. In the Old testament there is a reference to Lot (I believe) offering his daughters to the mob of Sodom (or was it Gamora?) to use for their various sexual pleasures instead of the agents of God/Angels that appeared to him for the purpose of warning him about the destruction of the city/God's wrath.

There are also accounts of incestual marriages in the OT. These were considered acceptable because it secured the tribal/family wealth from an outsider's chance of inheriting it and taking it way from the family.

Remember that before Industrialization, family/aristocracy/estates were the source of business/income/protection more than a national government or some big business with a health plan. As civilization evolved to a nations and gov's provided many of those services that families had to in the past, people were free to re-evaluate the why's and what for's of marriage, education,....

That is why I don't really take the divorce statistics so hard...people might not have divorced as much in the past (or didn't talk about it as much either), but genger/social/class/caste roles were more clearly defined and some folks had to endure abuse, infidellity, servitude....because they had no other options. Even as recently as 50 years ago, a 'long marriage' does not automatically mean a quality relationship. It just means that it was considered 'better' to stay together (even if she was a horrible drunk or he was a raging womanizer...) than to separate. Who would keep the house for the man? Who would provide the 'bacon' for the housewife?

Money, quality of life, educational/career opportunities... have helped redefine the gender roles and the social focus from 'society' to 'me/fulfillment'
 

loki09789

Senior Master
Joined
Jul 22, 2003
Messages
2,643
Reaction score
71
Location
Williamsville, NY
PeachMonkey said:
How sweet and accepting of you. This reminds me a bit of racist relatives of mine who always protest that "some of my best friends are <*edited to conform to MT Rules & Policies*"[/QUOTE">*edited to conform to MT Rules & Policies*"
Gee it sounded more like "love the sinner, hate the sin" to me....

It is at least a step in the right direction that people can separate the person from the behavior/lifestyle when considering these issues.

Just today I had a student use "******" as an insult during an outburst/argument with another student in class. Now, somewhere (family, media, society....) this student was allowed to make the associate that '******/gay' is equivalent of 'bad/wrong/insulting/degrading' and is an appropriate word to lash out with when you want to hurt someone...

I locked that behavior up quick as a heart attack.

Relative to that little 'lens on life', Melissa's comment is a breath of fresh air/step in a good direction.
 
R

raedyn

Guest
Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:
How many of you actually have spent any time with a gay man or woman? Gone partying at a gender-bender bar? (or were you too nervous you might be tempted to switch teams?) The best ribbings you will ever get are from those living outside the box. What gall to sanction behavior on the behalf of people whose lives are challenged daily because of behavioral sanctions.
You aren't alone, Dave. I am a straight person that has spent a significant amount of time with gay people. Challenging stereotypes and ignorant comments is something I also do every chance I get. I think sometimes it's easier for people to listen to someone that isn't in the group they so greatly disdain. But I also think it's important to try and set a positive, open, listening tone to the discussions because when you start making accusations and getting all huffy and self-righteous the people you're trying to get to listen just turn off.
 
R

raedyn

Guest
loki09789 said:
Just today I had a student use "******" as an insult during an outburst/argument with another student in class. Now, somewhere (family, media, society....) this student was allowed to make the associate that '******/gay' is equivalent of 'bad/wrong/insulting/degrading' and is an appropriate word to lash out with when you want to hurt someone...
This phenomenon (sp?) has bothered me for a long time. It's like ******/gay is the new 'retard'. Both of which are pretty repugnant to my ears.
 
R

raedyn

Guest
'kay, for those of you arriving a little later, PeachMonkey's edited out word was a racist slur, and Loki's was a slur against gay people. Both of these are forbidden according to the MT rules.

Y'all are smart enough to figure it out from there. *nods*
 

hardheadjarhead

Senior Master
Joined
Aug 25, 2003
Messages
2,602
Reaction score
71
Location
Bloomington, Indiana
loki09789 said:
Gee it sounded more like "love the sinner, hate the sin" to me....

It is at least a step in the right direction that people can separate the person from the behavior/lifestyle when considering these issues.


This assumes the behavior/lifestyle is "bad." It is hardly non-judgemental and doesn't account for the potential that homosexuality has a biological etiology.

I've always thought the "love the sinner, hate the sin" line was a cop out by many. Few conservative Christians I know spend any time with Gays and know very little about them...preferring to believe myths about them, such as those I provided above.





Regards,


Steve
 

loki09789

Senior Master
Joined
Jul 22, 2003
Messages
2,643
Reaction score
71
Location
Williamsville, NY
raedyn said:
This phenomenon (sp?) has bothered me for a long time. It's like ******/gay is the new 'retard'. Both of which are pretty repugnant to my ears.
In an attempt to tie this back to topic:

AMEN Raedyn! Agreed across the board on that comment.

I have already posted my speculation on the 'when' issue of same sex marriage but:

I agree with the Janulis comment that there are many things that have been blamed on 'gay' that really have no direct connection to it.

I think along with the 'when' the 'why' is a pretty big issue to discuss.

Why is/has 'gay' been such a target of hostility?
 

loki09789

Senior Master
Joined
Jul 22, 2003
Messages
2,643
Reaction score
71
Location
Williamsville, NY
hardheadjarhead said:
This assumes the behavior/lifestyle is "bad." It is hardly non-judgemental and doesn't account for the potential that homosexuality has a biological etiology.

I've always thought the "love the sinner, hate the sin" line was a cop out by many. Few conservative Christians I know spend any time with Gays and know very little about them...preferring to believe myths about them, such as those I provided above.

Regards,

Steve
Well, based on a certain set of personal values/personal lifestyle choices, it may be considered 'bad.' That simply means that you don't agree with 'it' and that you don't condone/participate in 'it.' It does not HAVE to be the cop out to lay judgement on the person that does live that lifestyle.

I spend little to no time with gays as well. The few that I have known were people, just as messed up and complex as the rest of us. Their sexual preference did not make them more or less noble or evil than anyone else.

The point is that, based on 'conservative Christian' practices (which can vary from denomination to denomination), it is not a person's place to 'judge/condemn' a fellow human being - that is power belonging to God. It is an individual's job to be the best person he/she can - to include treating all people, regardless of differences, with the recognition that we all have a divinity given to us by God. This is almost Karmic in rationale because your success/failure is percieved as a living testemony of how much YOU are truly an example of 'God's Teaching.' So, though you may hurt a fellow human (gay bashing or what ever) the real damage is what you do to your eternal soul.

Much like the Lucifer lesson, people 'vain' enough to think that they are good enough to lay judgement on others will find themselves edging closer to the "Hell" (distance or removal from God's grace) side of the reward scale than the "Heaven" (fully embraced in God's grace) based on their 'lifestyle.'

Just because a 'conservative Christian' or any person doesn't spend a lot of time around ANY different groups of people means that they will be bigotous or that they have no desire to treat that, or any, group as if they were just as 'divine' as they were.
 
R

raedyn

Guest
hardheadjarhead said:
This assumes the behavior/lifestyle is "bad." It is hardly non-judgemental
You're right. It is judgemental. While it may be 'a step in the right direction' as loki puts it, I don't find it to be a terribly enlightened view. There are different degrees of homophobia just like (as pointed out by PeachMonkey) there are different degrees of racist. It's kinda like saying 'blacks are fine as long as my daughter doesn't marry one'. Better than someone leading a lynching but...

and doesn't account for the potential that homosexuality has a biological etiology.
Research seems to indicate there may be some biological component to the causation a homosexuality. But personally I don't have a lot of interest in pursuing that. What's the purpose? Ostensibly, if we can prove there's a biological cause then "it's not their fault" and we should all accept them, right? Horse-hooey. Then there will be people calling it a genetic defect and trying to control for it, find tests for it in utero etc etc. Maybe those things wouldn't happen, but I'd be very surprised. I don't see what good for gay people can be accomplished by pursuing this avenue. And what if there turns out to be no biological reasons? Then it's okay to persecute this group? Hardly. But people would use it as justification.

It would be more productive for us to start learning to accept & embrace the diversity the exists among humans, providing a richer experience for us all.
 

Feisty Mouse

Senior Master
MTS Alumni
Joined
Jun 15, 2004
Messages
3,322
Reaction score
31
Location
Indiana
Shoot. My first reply got erased.

Anyways.

In the line of what raedyn was saying, I think homosexuality is the "new" slur. (Although it's not new.) Previously, racist slurs were used (and still are, in some areas). When I was in elementary school, I remember mentally-disabled slurs used a lot (which bothered me a great deal, even then). Now it seems acceptible in some areas to use "gay" as the OK thing to say to people. And, if called on it, the person who was yelling, "Queer!" at someone they were picking a fight with, could say, "Well, Uh, it's, it's in the Bible! The Bible says it's wrong! That person is a bad person! homosexuality is GAY! I mean, WRONG!"

I think the rise of the ultra-conservative "Religious right" in this country has only bolstered the feelings that these attitudes are OK, that it's OK to go after people like this, or use sexual orientation as a general slur for someone you're angry with. I think it ties into feelings of machismo too - a man may call another man "***" and thereby reduce the other person's feelings of masculinity - or know that he's starting a fight.

I'm very, very tired of it, myself. I think it makes the person saying it look absolutely ig'nant.

As to homosexuality being "wrong".... Well, it depends on your point of view as to how seriously I will believe that *you* think it is wrong. If you say that homosexuals are child molesters, I would basically laugh in your face. (And HHJH already posted some good information on that topic.) If you say that it is your religious belief, but you won't go after gays - then I can respect your views.

But the vehemence with which some people want to obliterate gay people from society truly frightens me. As if the only way society works is by being homogenous - which is a crock of bull.

As I said before, I think at least some of the feelings about homosexuality are tied into "being masculine" or "being feminine". People usually don't go after lesbians, but can get ragingly angry about gay men. Because they are somehow "more effeminate?" Maybe.
 
R

raedyn

Guest
loki09789 said:
Well, based on a certain set of personal values/personal lifestyle choices, it may be considered 'bad.' ... It does not HAVE to be the cop out to lay judgement on the person that does live that lifestyle.
Also correct. It doesn't HAVE to be used that way. It often is, but there are notable exceptions. There are people that feel evangalizing and judging is the right way. And there are people that hold themselves to the high standards of their faith and feel that others must make their own choices and that is between the individual and their god.

loki09789 said:
That simply means that you don't agree with 'it' and that you don't condone/participate in 'it.'
Yes. So if you don't want to be in a same sex marriage, don't marry someone of your gender. Stay out of my marriage, thankyouverymuch.
 

heretic888

Senior Master
Joined
Oct 25, 2002
Messages
2,723
Reaction score
60
7starmantis said:
Would you mind pointing me to that reference as well? Sorry, I hadn't heard that and I'd like to remember it.

7sm

Proverbs. As in, all of it. Wisdom, personified as a female deity, speaks frequently throughout the work.
 

loki09789

Senior Master
Joined
Jul 22, 2003
Messages
2,643
Reaction score
71
Location
Williamsville, NY
raedyn said:
Also correct. It doesn't HAVE to be used that way. It often is, but there are notable exceptions. There are people that feel evangalizing and judging is the right way. And there are people that hold themselves to the high standards of their faith and feel that others must make their own choices and that is between the individual and their god.

Yes. So if you don't want to be in a same sex marriage, don't marry someone of your gender. Stay out of my marriage, thankyouverymuch.

There you go. And that is exactly the duality that I deal with when it comes to the issue of legalizing same sex marriage.

On one hand, marriage - as defined by faith - is a sacred act that is a living testemony to God's presence in the world and is between a man and woman so that they can be 'fruitful.' Therefore, personally I don't agree with same sex 'marriage' as something that religion should have to accept.

On the other hand, marriage - as a legal contract recognized in court - should not be denied fully vested citizens of the US because they live a gay/lesbian sexual preference. I would vote for the legalization of same sex marriages because they are citizens with the right to equal benefits and dignified recognition in court/probate/society.

My personal values are my values as an individual - as theirs are.
I have NO right as a citizen to infringe on a fellow citizens civil rights simply because I don't agree with who they choose to take to bed. It does not pose a risk to my personal/family or communities safety or ability to live my chosen lifestyle.
 

heretic888

Senior Master
Joined
Oct 25, 2002
Messages
2,723
Reaction score
60
On one hand, marriage - as defined by faith - is a sacred act that is a living testemony to God's presence in the world and is between a man and woman so that they can be 'fruitful.' Therefore, personally I don't agree with same sex 'marriage' as something that religion should have to accept.

Anyone else ever notice that this kinda stuff always precludes a Christian ceremony??
 

shesulsa

Columbia Martial Arts Academy
MT Mentor
Lifetime Supporting Member
MTS Alumni
Joined
May 27, 2004
Messages
27,182
Reaction score
486
Location
Not BC, Not DC
*sigh* I held off for as long as I could on this one.

There has always been the desire for conformity - the perpetuated idea that conformity is normal. It is still the benchmark for most psychoses, neuroses, physical ailments, performance levels, status ... the list goes on and on. With conformity, people identify with one another and communities are formed. Challenges and judgementalism arrive on the shoulders of the non-conformist. People virtually always converge judgement on the new, the different, the not-understood. If it is outside of someone's frame of reference, that person must find a way to either justify it or condemn it. This is what is done with most behaviors outside of heterosexuality.

If it is proven that sexual preference is a biological issue, then I worry also about homosexuality being perceived as the next "retard" (excellent reference, Raedyn) because it is a physical anomoly and could someday be classified as a psychiatric illness again or a disability - SHEESH!!!

We are nearing a point, it seems, where big brother is in the bedroom. I would like to see the list of those who are so vehement about nonacceptance of homosexual "lifestyles" sign up to have webcams in their bedrooms hooked up to their priest's computer for twenty-four hour monitoring. Perhaps there will be videochip cameras implanted in everyone's mouths, fingers and nether regions. What are you hiding? you never know what might be considered to be a "lifestyle" these days - sex with vegetables (gives new meaning to the term "vegetarian") or bedposts or cell phones ... oh the list is endless.

For the record, my sister is gay, I have spent plenty of time with bisexual and homosexual people and lots of people I assumed were heterosexual but never really knew for sure.

I was once asked if I would want my son to be a homosexual. I replied that I really could care less how he gets off as an adult. If he is a responsible, caring, productive and happy citizen, I'd consider my job well done.

Peace.
 

loki09789

Senior Master
Joined
Jul 22, 2003
Messages
2,643
Reaction score
71
Location
Williamsville, NY
heretic888 said:
Anyone else ever notice that this kinda stuff always precludes a Christian ceremony??
Let me adjust:

Within MY personal faith.....

You do have to acknowledge that the 'popular' understanding/religious view on marriage in the US is going to be based on Judeo/Christian values.

And, actually, NT/Christian Ceremonial practices are not strictly "Christian." Some Christians (though not many) would argue that Jesus was a bit 'Hippy-ish' because the basic idea on marriage he presented was that there was 'marriage' when a man and a woman choose to be fully committed to each other - no ceremonial requirement mentioned.
 
Top