Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Is "gay Liberation" Cyclical?


  • Please log in to reply
16 replies to this topic

#1 charles brough

charles brough

    "overviewist"

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 531 posts

Posted 21 September 2011 - 11:29 AM

When one group becomes "more equal," does that mean other groups or classifications have to automatically, as in the nature of things, become at least relatively less so?

Gay liberation has become a hall-mark of the less conservative/religious movement in the US, but could there be some justified reason for their resistance to it, a reason they themselves are not fully aware of, making them unable to effectively articulate it?

These questions are pollitically incorrect and have not often even been asked. Some people are so adament they won't think about it and explore it. Even to ask such questions can seem to be "homophobic," a term designed to squelch discussion. On these questions, the militants are in control, and dissents are even afraid to even discuss such simple questions in an academic manner.

In answer to the questions, Is there anyone here unsatisfied with a simple, belligerent NO?



#2 CraigD

CraigD

    Creating

  • Administrators
  • 8034 posts

Posted 21 September 2011 - 10:44 PM

When one group becomes "more equal," does that mean other groups or classifications have to automatically, as in the nature of things, become at least relatively less so?

In general, no, not necessarily.

Specifically, with regards to the group identified as gays, no, as best I can reason.

The term “gay liberation” has not been widely used since the early 1970s, and is used academically to refer to gay rights movements circa 1970, so we’d best replace it with a term like “gay rights”, and agree that it refers to advocacy for people who have sex with people of the same gender in such ways as seeking to repeal laws against such behavior, prevent violence against such people, and eliminate various forms of discrimination against them, including the prohibition of state acknowledged marriage of people of the same gender.

Very few gay rights proponents propose legal sanctions, engaging in violence or discrimination against heterosexuals or asexuals, so don’t seek to make either of these groups be at a disadvantage relative to homosexuals. The main arguments that decriminalizing and destigmatizing homosexual behavior would disadvantage heterosexuals seem to me to fall into a few main categories:
  • That if homosexuals are not barred from having access to heterosexuals, especially children, homosexuals will seduce or rape heterosexuals
  • That destigmatizing homosexuality will cause increasing numbers of people, especially impressionable children, to be exclusively homosexual, causing humankind to become extinct
  • That distigmatizing homosexuality will cause people to reject other moral and legal prohibitions, such as murder.
  • That homosexuals spread diseases more, and are thus more dangerous to public health, than heterosexuals.
  • That the sight of homosexuals is offensive to heterosexuals
None of these arguments is, I think, scientifically, legally, or morally credible.

Gay liberation has become a hall-mark of the less conservative/religious movement in the US ...

I know of no supporting evidence for this claim. As some gay rights proponents are associated with mainstream US religious organizations, such as the United Church of Christ, I find some evidence contradicting it.

… but could there be some justified reason for their resistance to it, a reason they themselves are not fully aware of, making them unable to effectively articulate it?

As I stated above, I think not.

Even to ask such questions can seem to be "homophobic," a term designed to squelch discussion. On these questions, the militants are in control, and dissents are even afraid to even discuss such simple questions in an academic manner.

Some of the arguments I list above are clearly homophobic – that is, exhibit an irrational fear of homosexuals – so can accurately be so called.

I believe I am discussing the subject of support and opposition of gay right, doubt that I’ll be accused of homophobia, but am not afraid to discuss it even if I am.

In answer to the questions, Is there anyone here unsatisfied with a simple, belligerent NO?

To what questions does this answer refer?

In most contexts, I don’t find belligerence – acting in a hostile manner – satisfying.
  • Turtle likes this

#3 dduckwessel

dduckwessel

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 466 posts

Posted 22 September 2011 - 11:09 AM

These questions are pollitically incorrect and have not often even been asked. Some people are so adament they won't think about it and explore it. Even to ask such questions can seem to be "homophobic," a term designed to squelch discussion. On these questions, the militants are in control, and dissents are even afraid to even discuss such simple questions in an academic manner. In answer to the questions, Is there anyone here unsatisfied with a simple, belligerent NO?


It's most definitely a closed discussion among homosexual groups! The academics are interesting though:

http://www.psycholog...s/homosexuality
In evolutionary terms, homosexuality and lesbianism does not make sense.

exerpt from: http://allpsych.com/...osexuality.html, from which I quote the following:

D.F. Swaab conducted the next noteworthy experiment in 1990. This experiment became the first to document a physiological difference in the anatomical structure of a gay man's brain. Swaab found in his post-mortem examination of homosexual males' brains that a portion of the hypothalamus of the brain was structurally different than a heterosexual brain. The hypothalamus is the portion of the human brain directly related to sexual drive and function. In the homosexual brains examined, a small portion of the hypothalamus, termed the suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN), was found to be twice the size of its heterosexual counterpart [2].

At the same time, another scientist, Laura S. Allen made a similar discovery in the hypothalamus as well. She found that the anterior commissure (AC) of the hypothalamus was also significantly larger in the homosexual subjects than that of the heterosexuals [2]. Both Swaab's and Allen's results became a standing ground for the biological argument on homosexuality. The very fact that the AC and the SCN are not involved in the regulation of sexual behavior makes it highly unlikely that the size differences results from differences in sexual behavior. Rather the size differences came prenatally during sexual differentiation. The size and shape of the human brain is determined biologically and is impacted minutely, if at all by behavior of any kind.

To me this seems clearly related to another thread regarding the Autistic brain where the amygdala region of the brain (classified as the 'primitive' or 'emotional' brain) was far larger in the ASD child than in normal children. Most noteworthy to me was that the political brain (which I believe must encompass the relgious brain also), also showed an enlarged amygdala, associated with 'groups'.

Another thing I found interesting was this article (link I posted on another thread about Richard Dawkins and I hope the moderators will allow it) is that among the Atheists gathered, there were no homosexuals but among the church group, homosexuality seemed prevalent:

http://www.religiond..._humanist_bosom

I leave you to draw your own conclusions.

#4 charles brough

charles brough

    "overviewist"

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 531 posts

Posted 22 September 2011 - 04:47 PM

Very few gay rights proponents propose legal sanctions, engaging in violence or discrimination against heterosexuals or asexuals, so don’t seek to make either of these groups be at a disadvantage relative to homosexuals.

It seems to me that when the status of something is elevated by "becoming more equal," it is in the nature of things that its status has risen relative to and in proportion to the lowering of status of whatever it has become more equal to. More and more, gay culture will become apart of our society and the heterosexual world will be encouraged to feel that homosexuality is what is normal---not the heterosexual male-masculine female-feminine culture and society. In "The Last Civilizatiion," I trace the pattern of change in each of the mainstream civilizations. All of them have been based on the patriarchal mongamous system. They all slid eventually into decline as that system broke down.



#5 charles brough

charles brough

    "overviewist"

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 531 posts

Posted 22 September 2011 - 05:07 PM

In evolutionary terms, homosexuality and lesbianism does not make sense.


I see a reason for it. One of the problems in primate hunting/gathering size groups is that the fighting over the alpha role can be disruptive. If most males were always struggling for control of the group, the females would leave with their offspring for another group, one with more passive, more homosexual males and fewer alpha contenders. This seems to explain why homosexuality is not confined to just we humans.


To me this seems clearly related to another thread regarding the Autistic brain where the amygdala region of the brain (classified as the 'primitive' or 'emotional' brain) was far larger in the ASD child than in normal children. Most noteworthy to me was that the political brain (which I believe must encompass the relgious brain also), also showed an enlarged amygdala, associated with 'groups'.


I am unclear on what the underline part means. What groups?

Another thing I found interesting was this article (link I posted on another thread about Richard Dawkins and I hope the moderators will allow it) is that among the Atheists gathered, there were no homosexuals but among the church group, homosexuality seemed prevalent:
http://www.religiond..._humanist_bosom


Very interesting! I wonder if it is true and if it is, what type of churches. I will copy the address and take a look.

#6 Qfwfq

Qfwfq

    Exhausted Gondolier

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6241 posts

Posted 23 September 2011 - 08:35 AM

In evolutionary terms, homosexuality and lesbianism does not make sense.

I see a reason for it. One of the problems in primate hunting/gathering size groups is that the fighting over the alpha role can be disruptive. If most males were always struggling for control of the group, the females would leave with their offspring for another group, one with more passive, more homosexual males and fewer alpha contenders. This seems to explain why homosexuality is not confined to just we humans.

This demonstrates a total lack of how evolution works. It's tha alpha male's genes that get passed on, not the pansy's genes. Granting, of course, the hypothesis of homosexuality being essentially genetic, I don't know of this having been fully determined yet.

The alpha male is not such a salient feature of the human species anyway.

#7 modest

modest

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4959 posts

Posted 23 September 2011 - 08:40 AM

More and more, gay culture will become apart of our society and the heterosexual world will be encouraged to feel that homosexuality is what is normal---not the heterosexual male-masculine female-feminine culture and society. In "The Last Civilizatiion," I trace the pattern of change in each of the mainstream civilizations. All of them have been based on the patriarchal mongamous system. They all slid eventually into decline as that system broke down.


Since you favor "male-masculinity" I will forgo delicateness and say that I laughed out loud when I read this. Patriarchy requires that females be subordinate to males. Like Christopher Hitchens said "the best known cure for poverty that we've come up with is something called the empowerment of women". Do you honestly think that the "male-masculine female-feminine" patriarchal culture of Iran is so much better than western civilization? Do you think western civilization fell and Iran (where homosexuality doesn't exist — the Iranian President said so) has done so well because of that particular barbaric medieval tradition?

Honestly, what on earth are you talking about?

~modest

#8 dduckwessel

dduckwessel

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 466 posts

Posted 23 September 2011 - 12:46 PM

I am unclear on what the underline part means. What groups?


One link I provided revealed that socially friendly people have larger amygdala's and the other link said that very politically oriented people also do. Based on an earlier thread of mine: "born-again people are less intelligent" I guessed it will also hold true for religious groups, even though the evidence I showed for it was deemed weak at best.

What appears a common aspect amongst all of these groups, including homosexuals, is the link to the enlarged portion of the brain associated with primitive emotion.

Very interesting! I wonder if it is true and if it is, what type of churches. I will copy the address and take a look.


If you read the link (it's not long) it mentions the church group specifically, I just can't remember the particular church group named at this moment...


great thread by the way, Charles

#9 charles brough

charles brough

    "overviewist"

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 531 posts

Posted 24 September 2011 - 11:39 AM

This demonstrates a total lack of how evolution works. It's tha alpha male's genes that get passed on, not the pansy's genes. Granting, of course, the hypothesis of homosexuality being essentially genetic, I don't know of this having been fully determined yet.

The alpha male is not such a salient feature of the human species anyway.


The alpha role rises and falls with the change or social evolution of societies. We move from war lords to kings to dictators. We move from noble class authorities to business CEOs. And the more successful is the agressive Alpha type, the more he feels he deserves to have more than one woman.

And as for the first paragraph, you assume there is no evolutionary explanation because you have not figured out yet how it comes about. That would be a logical approach if it were not for the fact that gayness does exist and it is genetic. They have found that part of the brain is larger than in heterosexual people. Also, social groups exist throughout the animal kingdom but their development and operation is not yet explainable by studying their genetic structure. I am not a biologist or geneticist and don't pretend to master the subject, but don't you agree that if gayness and groups exist, they could only have gotten there genetically and evolutionary? I really don't think a "spiritual" explanation needs to be resorted to and I assume you don't either. . .

#10 charles brough

charles brough

    "overviewist"

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 531 posts

Posted 24 September 2011 - 12:08 PM

Since you favor "male-masculinity" I will forgo delicateness and say that I laughed out loud when I read this. Patriarchy requires that females be subordinate to males. Like Christopher Hitchens said "the best known cure for poverty that we've come up with is something called the empowerment of women". Do you honestly think that the "male-masculine female-feminine" patriarchal culture of Iran is so much better than western civilization? Do you think western civilization fell and Iran (where homosexuality doesn't exist — the Iranian President said so) has done so well because of that particular barbaric medieval tradition? Honestly, what on earth are you talking about? ~modest


Glad you had a good laugh and that it was outloud! :lol:

It is not a matter of what is "best." In science, if social science is a science, we deal with explaining what has and is happening. The attempts to see "purpose" and "what should happen" is what corrupts real science in social theory. There is no "best" system but a constant change as needed. You using Iran as an example shows "political correctness" rather than logic and real science. Women have more "rights" in Iran than in Saudi Arabia, but it is not "politically correct" in our society now to criticize Saudi Arabia. Since Iran is pro-atomic and judged as our 'enemy," we make much of what its president says but the power that be are masters at how best to translate what he says so it is consistent with our government's policies. . .

What I show in "the Last Civilization" is that all civilizations have been based on the patriarchal-mongamous system. Also, that it began to change in each civilization and women began to take on more of a role in society. In each case, this was at the end of its most prosperous age and was followed by ideoligcial ("religions") regression. The regression continued to the end of the civilization and was at the expense of science and went with the ending of technological growth.

#11 charles brough

charles brough

    "overviewist"

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 531 posts

Posted 24 September 2011 - 12:53 PM

One link I provided revealed that socially friendly people have larger amygdala's and the other link said that very politically oriented people also do. Based on an earlier thread of mine: "born-again people are less intelligent" I guessed it will also hold true for religious groups, even though the evidence I showed for it was deemed weak at best.

What appears a common aspect amongst all of these groups, including homosexuals, is the link to the enlarged portion of the brain associated with primitive emotion. If you read the link (it's not long) it mentions the church group specifically, I just can't remember the particular church group named at this moment... great thread by the way, Charles


OK. I found the quote: "I did not spot a single same-sex couple. I began to wonder how much fun these people, freed from religion’s rules, were having with their liberty. But there was quite a bit of rational discourse about politics, which I enjoyed, and not everyone was blaming our beleaguered president for the state of the economy. It is an older crowd—not so old as the Episcopalians, mind you, but hardly what I’ve seen at creationist meetings, which seem to include lots of homeschooling moms."

You know, it may be that gays tend not to be atheists and more are creationists, but we have no real research on this subject and, as you can guess, there isn't going to be any research on it! So, we will never know. My understanding and impression is that gays are what excell in the arts while the alpha heterosexuals concentrate on politics and power. Most people are in between. Even most heterosexual men find some trait or instance of a borderline sexual appeal of something in the opposite sex. An example might be that a man loves to watch Flamenco dancing and focusses most on the slim, male figure rather than the female dancer whose skirt rises as she whirls.

How it works in history is that a patriarchal system is the only kind that is able to ration women one to a man. Any other system is based on our naturally polygamous nature and ends up with a mass of men without women because the few have them all. This is what happens in failed states and fedual ones. When the marital system breaks down as it is now, the great mass of bisexuals turn away from the system and set up homosexual relationships. That accelerates the decline of the patriarchal system and the civilization as a whole

Its nice to communicate with you,

#12 modest

modest

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4959 posts

Posted 27 September 2011 - 11:01 AM

Glad you had a good laugh and that it was outloud! :lol:


You took my laughing at your idea very well. Are you invested in the idea enough to mind what other people think of it?

The attempts to see "purpose" and "what should happen" is what corrupts real science in social theory.


I don't know why you are talking about "what should happen" nor why you put quotes around that phrase. My post didn't talk about that... maybe you're confusing my post and someone else's and replying to the wrong one.

You using Iran as an example shows "political correctness" rather than logic and real science.


Real-world examples are a hallmark of science. You asked if there could be justified reason to oppose the liberation of homosexuals and also said that the breakdown of the patriarchal system is the breakdown of culture.

Of each, I compared the best real-world examples of which I could think with your prediction. This is exactly how science works... social or otherwise. Predictions and assumptions are compared with real-world examples.

Women have more "rights" in Iran than in Saudi Arabia, but it is not "politically correct" in our society now to criticize Saudi Arabia.


Saudi Arabia works fine as an example in my point too. I probably didn't use it because I could think of a direct quote from the Iranian president (in english) saying that homosexuality doesn't exist in Iran. But, I wonder, what is your point? Are you just pointing out that other countries than Iran are a counterexample to your assumptions?

Since Iran is pro-atomic and judged as our 'enemy," we make much of what its president says but the power that be are masters at how best to translate what he says so it is consistent with our government's policies. . .


You mean the "powers that be" in our country? If "yes" then it must be said – Iran is not even close to being compliant with our demand of political reform and NO US president or senior official would claim it is. We condemn them for human rights abuses, tyrannical corruption, and foreign policy (eg the support for Hamas Mujahidin).

In case you mean "powers that be" in Iran... Iran's situation and message is unacceptable by rational people regardless of the "translation" (which seems quite pointless to talk about)

So, again, I don't know what you're talking about, why you're saying it, or what it has to do with my post.

What I show in "the Last Civilization" is that all civilizations have been based on the patriarchal-mongamous system. Also, that it began to change in each civilization and women began to take on more of a role in society. In each case, this was at the end of its most prosperous age and was followed by ideoligcial ("religions") regression. The regression continued to the end of the civilization and was at the expense of science and went with the ending of technological growth.


Any counterexample of a culture where patriarchy was abolished and shortly thereafter exhibited prosperity (or even a culture which didn't end as a result of the abolition of patriarchy) disproves your assertion. And, again, if you want to allow some counterexamples to every rule then don't say things like:

all civilizations... each civilization... In each case


In any case, you are quite wrong. Many civilizations flourished after giving up male-dominated family. The West is a fine example.
  • CraigD and coldcreation like this

#13 Qfwfq

Qfwfq

    Exhausted Gondolier

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6241 posts

Posted 28 September 2011 - 09:39 AM

Charles, you are making little to no sense in your manner of reasoning. Try to remember the rule about unsupported claims. Needless to say, citing your own book is not the way about it, it would be more to the point if you were coherent and got your logic straight.

BTW, what I read is that a gland in the brain seems to be typically smaller in gays. Either way, I fail to see how it supports your claims. Also, I've been to the ballet at my local theatre the odd time. Sure, from that point of view ;) I much prefer the girls but, despite this, I've been able to see artistic value in the dancing of the guys too; what the heck has it got to do with sex appeal?

You know wht I think Charles? It seems to me you're talking nonsense and you do so in the attempt of promoting your own book. This is a bit on the spammish side.

#14 charles brough

charles brough

    "overviewist"

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 531 posts

Posted 29 September 2011 - 07:32 AM

You took my laughing at your idea very well. Are you invested in the idea enough to mind what other people think of it?

In any case, you are quite wrong. Many civilizations flourished after giving up male-dominated family. The West is a fine example.


Modest, tearing up my posts with little nit-picking comments and rank opinions is a waste of both your time and mine. Why do you do it?
I'm only going to bother with the first and the last.

In the first, of course I am invested in it. Some days I spend more than eight hours at it, which is considerable when my poor health is considered. But my personal consideration is unimportant in the forums and has no business being brought up in them. .

In case of the last, you blurt out that I am wrong without thinking it through. You are taking a negative position on everything deliberately and automatically. There is no question but what the patriarchal-monogamous nature of Western society (the society bonded by the Christian faith) has been eroding, but it is still a patriarchal-monogamous society. Men dominate in the institutions of power and marriage is still a dominant institution, one that even gays seek. More college students are women than men but the latter still take in more pay for the same jobs. It is not a matter of which system should dominate but which is dominating. This is not about a moral judgement but about what is happening and where we are going. All the older civilizations have experienced a phase similar to ours inwhich the monogamous/patriarchal system had eroded, but all of them (Egyptian, Babylonian, Greek-Roman, even Islam) experienced a regression back to the old religion and the decline in feminine power. Typically, we can tell from the often expressed complaints made by men and quoted in history that "the women's push for rights and power was the reason for all their social problems." It was, of course, a result rather than the cause.

One reason why there is so little awareness of what kind of a system we have is that people see nothing to compare our system with and as a result have no awareness of what a women-run society was and would be like. Social theorists maintain that there never was a woman-run society. That is true in the sense that in pre-history, no society was run at all because there was no such thing as government as we know it. It is generally recognized that it was all pre-capitalist commune living. However, during the period from the beginning of agriculture to the beginning of the patriarchal/mogamous civilizations, there is good reason to believe the public opinion of the women dominated the communes.

There is also an explainable reason why women have always reached a point when they agressively exerted more influence in the patriarchal-monogamous societies.

#15 charles brough

charles brough

    "overviewist"

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 531 posts

Posted 29 September 2011 - 08:04 AM

Charles, you are making little to no sense in your manner of reasoning. Try to remember the rule about unsupported claims. Needless to say, citing your own book is not the way about it, it would be more to the point if you were coherent and got your logic straight.

BTW, what I read is that a gland in the brain seems to be typically smaller in gays. Either way, I fail to see how it supports your claims. Also, I've been to the ballet at my local theatre the odd time. Sure, from that point of view ;) I much prefer the girls but, despite this, I've been able to see artistic value in the dancing of the guys too; what the heck has it got to do with sex appeal?

You know wht I think Charles? It seems to me you're talking nonsense and you do so in the attempt of promoting your own book. This is a bit on the spammish side.


First of all, wouldn't it be better manners to not call people by their first name if you don't yourself provide a handle that is pronounceable or even rememberable?

Everything I write is supported by social science data. It is not my obligation to quote a reference for every sentence, word or paragraph. I constantly keep up with social science research. All you folks have to do is find one statement of mine that is contradicted by any social science data. You never do because you cannot. You are only going by accepted academic misinterpretation of the data. I don't pretend to interpret the data the same way as that of the establishment. Their way favors the old religions at the cost of real science.

Regarding the male dancer reference. Research in psychology was done on this subject and it was discovered that there is a broad field in between the minority of strictly heterosexual Alpha male and the completely homosexual men. Those near the heterosexual end of the range are what I described above in my post. Those near the other end of the range are what is called "bisexual." There exists no absolute types but they blend through the spectrum that way.

#16 modest

modest

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4959 posts

Posted 29 September 2011 - 02:47 PM

You are taking a negative position on everything deliberately and automatically.

"deliberately and automatically"?

I can't imagine why I'm taking a negative position on everything you say when it is clearly so thoughtfully written ;)

First of all, wouldn't it be better manners to not call people by their first name if you don't yourself provide a handle that is pronounceable or even rememberable?


Palindromes are, in a sense, particularly memorable.

The name ‘Qfwfq’, which appears in every cosmicomical story except those in the last section of Time and the Hunter, is an extraordinary creation by any literary standard. I know of no equivalent to this extreme typographical formation (that is, insofar as a character name is concerned) in the whole of Western literature. Even the weird creature names that Lewis Carroll invents in ‘Jabberwocky’ cannot match it, for they at least resemble recognizable words. Qfwfq’s name looks like a misprint. It could be pronounced any number of ways, reflecting the multitude of physical forms occupied by Qfwfq…

The Naming of the Self


  • JMJones0424 likes this

#17 charles brough

charles brough

    "overviewist"

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 531 posts

Posted 30 September 2011 - 10:47 AM

"deliberately and automatically"?

I can't imagine why I'm taking a negative position on everything you say when it is clearly so thoughtfully written ;)

Palindromes are, in a sense, particularly memorab.



Are you or aren't you "modest?":)