Originally Posted by John H.

I quote this from:

American Medical Association FAMILY MEDICAL GUIDE (4th edition) published in New York, by John Wiley & Sons, c2004, page 468:

BiSexuality and Homosexuality: "The factors that influence a person's sexual orientation are not completely understood, by they appear to encompass a complex combination of biological, psychological, and social influences. What is clear is that sexual orientation is not a lifestyle choice that can easily be changed. Most people discover at a very early age - in childhood or adolescence - before they have had any sexual experiences, that they are attracted to people of a certain gender.
To avoid the social stigma sometimes attached to being Homosexual, some gay people try hard to change their sexual orientation, usually without success. No scientific evidence shows that trying to alter one's sexual orientation is an appropriate goal of psychological or psychiatric treatment. Homosexuality and BiSexuality are not mental disorders or emotional problems. Doctors view Homosexuality and BiSexuality as normal variations of human sexual expression. Most emotional problems that occur in Homosexuals are caused by a sense of alienation from living in an unacceptable environment."

Originally Posted by OceanDude

Given that psychology is one of the least understood, least developed and least respected fields of study and one of the big names (Freud) in this field of study was known to falsify his research and lie I think that the conclusions drawn in the above statement are dubious at best. I certainly place little faith in the assumption of infallibility of this branch of the medical community given the great numbers of malpractice cases and non-objective political influence it suffers. Here we have a case where of a body of physiological study that was developed by known liars (trying to study and understand what makes them liars - sounds insane to me) being used to draw conclusions that these are not "mental disorders or emotional problems". Clearly this can only be an opinion and a judgment call since there is no real reliable standard for what constitutes "normal" mental health. The researchers here would have us believe that it is irrational to think that we do not need their opinions on this matter to draw our own conclusions based on our own observations of nature. Which is itself crazy and egocentric. I think that most common average people think that a man would certainly have to be crazy to try and pro-create and express love by shooting body fluids into the anus of another man and turn his back on a beautiful woman. I have my own opinions about why these behaviors exists but won't get into it here except to say I think deep down at the core it relates to selfishness, insecurity and lack of self worth. If it turns out that there is a "queer" gene then perhaps nature has a check and balance and uses "behavioral sterility" as a means to prevent the gene pool from propagating the error.

The above medical statement certainly does not change my opinion on the matter.

OD

Originally Posted by MTN WARRIOR

He's a gay.

Originally Posted by BoneCrusher

The person who wrote this most certainly spoke with a lisp and has weak wrists.

Originally Posted by BoneCrusher

The person who wrote this most certainly spoke with a lisp and has weak wrists.

Originally Posted by John H.

I quote this from:

Most emotional problems that occur in Homosexuals are caused by a sense of alienation from living in an unacceptable environment."

Originally Posted by Lurker

My God that could be written to mean anything:
Most emotional problems that occur in teenagers are......................
Most emotional problems that occur in women are........................
Most emotional problems that occur in men are ..........................
Most emotional problems that occur in hamsters are.......................

I always feel like an alien in an unacceptable enviroment

Originally Posted by OceanDude

Given that psychology is one of the least understood, least developed and least respected fields of study and one of the big names (Freud) in this field of study was known to falsify his research and lie I think that the conclusions drawn in the above statement are dubious at best. I certainly place little faith in the assumption of infallibility of this branch of the medical community given the great numbers of malpractice cases and non-objective political influence it suffers. Here we have a case where of a body of psychological study that was developed by known liars (trying to study and understand what makes them liars - sounds insane to me) being used to draw conclusions that these are not "mental disorders or emotional problems". Clearly this can only be an opinion and a judgment call since there is no real reliable standard for what constitutes "normal" mental health. The researchers here would have us believe that it is irrational to think that we do not need their opinions on this matter to draw our own conclusions based on our own observations of nature. Which is itself crazy and egocentric. I think that most common average people think that a man would certainly have to be crazy to try and pro-create and express love by shooting body fluids into the anus of another man and turn his back on a beautiful woman. I have my own opinions about why these behaviors exists but won't get into it here except to say I think deep down at the core it relates to selfishness, insecurity and lack of self worth. If it turns out that there is a "queer" gene then perhaps nature has a check and balance and uses "behavioral sterility" as a means to prevent the gene pool from propagating the error.

The above medical statement certainly does not change my opinion on the matter.

OD

Originally Posted by John H.

I quote this from:

American Medical Association FAMILY MEDICAL GUIDE (4th edition) published in New York, by John Wiley & Sons, c2004, page 468:

BiSexuality and Homosexuality: "The factors that influence a person's sexual orientation are not completely understood, by they appear to encompass a complex combination of biological, psychological, and social influences. What is clear is that sexual orientation is not a lifestyle choice that can easily be changed. Most people discover at a very early age - in childhood or adolescence - before they have had any sexual experiences, that they are attracted to people of a certain gender.
To avoid the social stigma sometimes attached to being Homosexual, some gay people try hard to change their sexual orientation, usually without success. No scientific evidence shows that trying to alter one's sexual orientation is an appropriate goal of psychological or psychiatric treatment. Homosexuality and BiSexuality are not mental disorders or emotional problems. Doctors view Homosexuality and BiSexuality as normal variations of human sexual expression. Most emotional problems that occur in Homosexuals are caused by a sense of alienation from living in an unacceptable environment."

Originally Posted by OceanDude

I agree but why stop there?
Most emotional problems of rapist, child molesters, murderers and suicide bombers are attributed to an unacceptable environment.

OD

Originally Posted by John H.

BiSexuality and Homosexuality: "The factors that influence a person's sexual orientation are not completely understood, by they appear to encompass a complex combination of biological, psychological, and social influences. "

Originally Posted by I Are Baboon

I think another factor is the use of pork rinds during foreplay. Why do gay guys like to shove pork rinds in each other's ears? I mean, of all the delicious salty snacks out there, why pork rinds?

Originally Posted by Minotaur

Are you drawing a comparison between homosexuals and rapists, child molesters, murderers and suicide bombers? If you are, it's offensive, because there is no comparison by even the wildest stretch of imagination. I could only chalk up belief in such a comparison to the most profound and abject ignorance.

The point of the statement "Most emotional problems that occur in Homosexuals are cause by a sense of alienatiion from living in an unaccepting environment" is that we homosexuals have had it beaten (sometimes literally) into our heads that there is something wrong with us, when there is not. So to avoid familial and societal rejection, many of us have lived closeted lives, and lived lies. Some of us have even married women and raised children, giving the illusion that we are straight. All to appease society and hide our true natures. How sad.

Originally Posted by OceanDude

So now I must ask by what standard or value system do you claim legitimacy at expressing outrage?

Originally Posted by OceanDude

It might be more noble to subordinate one’s own desires and hold in check the behavior that most of society finds objectionable. I think this would earn a lot more respect than trying to ram rod what many believe to be a lifestyle choice down the throats of those that find the behavior (not the person) abhorrent and unnatural. No matter what kind of political and social laws are passed we all have the fundamental constitutional right of free association. Government will never effectively legislate a law that succeeds in making anyone respect and accept behaviors that they find personally repugnant.


OD

Originally Posted by Rocky_Road

Does it really matter? I think to each their own. Life is too short to live it according to what other people think is acceptable or normal. If you are blessed enough to find someone that makes you happy then you should be with them. Man or woman.

Originally Posted by Rocky_Road

Does it really matter? I think to each their own. Life is too short to live it according to what other people think is acceptable or normal. If you are blessed enough to find someone that makes you happy then you should be with them. Man or woman.

Originally Posted by Minotaur

That's the point. What is it to anyone else who a person lives and sleeps with? Why are some people so bothered by it?

Originally Posted by Minotaur

That's bullcrap and ignorant psychobabble. So we should go back in the closet? There is no behavior that society should find objectionable, nor is any behavior being ramrodded down anyone's throats. That's homophobic propaganda. People need to mind their own business and not worry about what we do.

Originally Posted by Rocky_Road

Because some people are truly ignorant. Everyone is supposed to have a soul mate, right? Well, who says that your soul mate has to of the opposite sex? I don't believe that homosexuality is "caused" by anything or is "wrong". How can loving someone else ever be wrong??

Originally Posted by Minotaur

And the answer to that is that I am a normal, sane, law-abiding gay man who finds it offensive to be compared to rapists, child molesters, murderers and suicide bombers.

Originally Posted by OceanDude

Call it what you want but you are very wrong if I am understanding your statement as being applied to the general case of "behavior" and that "there is no behavior that society should find objectionable". What makes your standard more legitimate than anyone else's? To use your own standard for judgment and eloquent words "that's just bull crap and ignorant psychobabble" since it flies in the face of reality with a majority of society finding it proper and necessary to legislate hundreds of laws that effect "acceptable" daily behavior of all kinds. That's why we have jails and fines for things that society deems inappropriate. You are just trying to change the current societal rules about one particular behavior and that is from my perspective just another case of special interest lobbying and more hetero-phobia propaganda and from what you just uttered patently hypocritical. All I did was offer a way to get society to respect you. I did not expect a litany of personal attacks for offering the best solution I could come up with that might make society more respectful of your condition. Isn't hating the majority or heteros a hate crime too?

OD

Originally Posted by OceanDude

Seeking a soul mate? Love a puppy. Scratch it behind the ears and it will love you back for life!
OD

Originally Posted by OceanDude

I did not expect a litany of personal attacks for offering the best solution I could come up with that might make society more respectful of your condition. OD

Originally Posted by Rocky_Road

To some people, finding their soul mate is a once in a lifetime, life changing thing. Ask Adrien. For you to say something like 'love a puppy' shows that you have yet to find yours. I'm sad for you.

Originally Posted by Rocky_Road

I could be wrong, but maybe it's offensive to Minotaur that you refer to his sexuality as a "condition." It makes it sound like you're talking about a sickness or something. Maybe not. Just a guess.

Originally Posted by OceanDude

I see that you are incapable of lighthearted fun and as judgemental and as intolerant as anyone else. How sad for you.
OD

Originally Posted by OceanDude

"I could be wrong" but it might be offensive to others for you to presume that you are less "ignorant" than anyone else. Mental illness is a sickness. Why do you think the medical community made a comment? They certainly have no business commenting on morality or law. You have stated your opinion so I'd recommend letting others speak for themselves rather than trying to present yourself as a relational broker.

OD

Originally Posted by Rocky_Road

And you're not? I seem to remember you judging me about my website.

Also, I would like to rephrase what I sadi before. I'm not sad for you. I'm sad for your wife.

Originally Posted by OceanDude

I have been attempting to avoid you like the plague since I have suspected all along that you are predisposed toward "flakiness". Clearly I failed in this attempt.

Again, you project an irrational prejudice or an inability to differentiate fact from fantasy. When you whined crocodile tears in a manner fit a Victorian prude over some light hearted adult banter (in a thread you elected to enjoin) I brought to your attention and to the others the highly conflicting evidence that made your faux prudish reaction highly inconsistent with your own illicit behavior. That is, you posted illicit pictures of erect male sexual organs all over your personal web site (all tattooed like dragons or snakes) all while claiming to be offended by some light banter of much less severity. I asked for a clarification on the objection and did not make an initial judgment. This is a normal human thing - ask for explanations of why they offended someone in one case but took no offense when they themselves do something much more extreme (no one likes a hypocrite and no one wants to falsely accuse in that department). After we got beyond all your crocodile tears you as much admitted you were not some innocent Victorian valued prude as you projected yourself and seemed to be at complete loss for explanation for the objection. But now, given your current personal attacks I can now conclude that you are a very unhappy person and will now elevate you from a state of "suspected flake" and judge you to be "certified flaky". In my case I won't artificially be "sad" for you (as you are for me) because I now am fairly certain that you really bring this onto yourself for confused emotional reasons or are presenting a front for some other agenda. But since your behavior is indeed "odd" and inconsistent I am now curious about if you really are a woman. So stop being, as in your prior expression, "a dick".

By the way my wife just saw your web site and said to tell you that "you are sick" and to save the sympathies for yourself.

OD

Originally Posted by Rocky_Road

For someone who has been attempting to "avoid me like the plague", you sure like to respond to my posts and look at my website.

What irritates me about you is that you assume too much. I was joking when I said that what you wrote in the other thread made me fell "dirty." You "assumed" that I was serious and posted in your typical "holier-than-thou" manner. I never claimed to be "offended." I was not at a "complete loss for explanation for the objection." I assumed(yes, sometimes I do that,too.) that you understood that I was JOKING in my intial post. I apologize for this. I should have explained this to you at great lengths so that you would not consider me "flaky." Wow, crocodile tears? I didn't realize that my saying "ummm, for some reason, that made me feel dirty" as a joke no less, meant I was objecting, offended, trying to put on a front for a hidden agenda, etc. If I was truly offended, don't you think I would have said as much? You talk about "light banter", yet I've never seen you post anything "light." Pretty much just a bunch of . You need to lighten up.

You also assume that I am unhappy. Just the opposite as a matter of fact. I LOVE that I can invoke this type of reaction out of you. It"s great fun.

As far as whether or not I am a woman, why don't you ask Melissa? She's my best friend and has been for the last 12 years. She should be able to clear that up for you.

By the way, I couldn't care less what your wife thinks or says.

Originally Posted by OceanDude

Oh you didnt take any of this serious did you? My gosh it was all in jest and I never take anything you say seriously. Can we kiss and make up?

OD

Originally Posted by Rocky_Road

Wait, nope, kissing is definatly out. I don't want to be just another notch in your belt of married women.

Originally Posted by du510

Ouch, below the belt.

Originally Posted by Rocky_Road

Of course I don't take you seriously. Who would?

As far as kissing and making up, The making up is fine but the kissing? It depends on how old you are.

Wait, nope, kissing is definatly out. I don't want to be just another notch in your belt of married women.

Originally Posted by OceanDude

Actually that rumor about me is much exaggerated. Who told you such? The truth is I have never been intimate with anyone other than my wife in marriage. Hmm, how good looking are you? I am a pretty good kisser if you ask me. If you don't believe me ask my wife - no wait that wouldn't work out

How about you just fly down here and do my gym clothes laundry and I will give you a hug? (wife is on business trip next week)
OD

Originally Posted by Rocky_Road

My bad, I thought you said something about a married woman in a different thread. "I suddenly realized that I always must have had a deep chemistry for her that I was suppressing and just started kissing her and hugging her back. " Sorry if I'm wrong.

As far as how good looking I am... depends on what you like I guess.

The laundry? Well, I don't do ANY of the laundry in my house. FOr some reason my hubby likes to do that. ( hey . I'm not going to argue.)
Maybe I can send him down though......

Originally Posted by OceanDude

Nope - on that post you missed the qualifier - that was before I was married. Hey, you could pay me no greater compliment though reading all my boring threads so thoroughly (but pay attention to the subtle details they are super important). That incident was about a woman who was married who had a jerk for a husband who wanted to divorce her and was already having an open affair with a woman 15 years his junior and telling his wife openly he did not want to be married anymore. He was even bringing the women into their house for sex - bad bad scene. So there was no cheating going on for anyone since it was already a destroyed relationship that she had fought to keep alive for 1 year and finally tossed in the towel after not being able to take the mental anquish.

I am getting a mixed message on the rest here - does it depend on "what I like" about your looks as to if I get a hug from you or your husband does my laundry?

There might be room for full compromise here - he can do the laundry and you can do the kissing so send a photo and I'll let you know if I think that might work. Heck post his picture in this thread - one of the guys here might like to swap on that arrangement and get a kiss from him .

Sorry... that was just teasing on the latter point - that first compromise is still a possibility if you are willing (pending pics, as long as he don't bleach my black gym shorts).

OD

Originally Posted by Rocky_Road

Well, I knew that YOU weren't married but the woman was. That is why I said "I don't want to be just another notch in your belt of married women." I don't know why you think that implied that YOU were married at the time. Maybe I should have explained it more thoroughly for you. I never said anything about cheating either. I said "married", which she was.

After discussing this with my wonderful hubby, he decided that it probably wasn't a good idea for him to do your laundry. Sorry. He didn't seem to want to wash another guys gym shorts. Go figure.

The "kissing" is probably going to have to be out. I have the feeling you're quite a bit older than I am and it'd be like kissing my dad. Hugs are always possible, but as I already stated, the laundry is out. Maybe you could instead send your wife up here to do mine??? Let me know.

Originally Posted by OceanDude

Hey, never underestimate the power of a good hug I always say! I'll send ya an airplane ticket to collect on the hug and take my chances on the kissy-kissy thing. But that's not an essential protocol for a "makeup" session anyway unless you were to insist. Let's just forget the laundry thing then too since we men can usually go a week or two on the gym shorts before they are in critical need of washing. You would not want my wife to do your laundry she has a terrible way of losing the left socks and leaves me to folding and ironing. I think I need to renegotiate that arrangement.

OD

Originally Posted by Rocky_Road

Sounds good. Just send it to:

Certified Flake
423 Victorian Prude Dr.
Sickville, MI 49785

I'll be watching the mail.......

Originally Posted by cjrmack

Why don't you 2 just do it and get it over with?

Originally Posted by OceanDude

HAHA
I think I know exactly where that is. Right next door to the shirtless biker guy with the tattooe of a dragon climbing up his belly from underneath his Levis waistband who's selling pet gerbils from his Harley?

Oh, forgot to mention, in the spirit of forgiveness I met you halfway on the airline ticket so it's only booked one way. You will still need to book the return ticket yourself. If it proves too hard to get a good return seat back to Sickville you can always take your pick of one of the two spare rooms and stay till a flight opens up. But Since my wife will not be home to cook for at least a week, unless you like smoothies, you will have to do all the grocery shopping and cooking.

OD
p.s. I make an awesome smoothie.

Originally Posted by Rocky_Road

You've been to Sickville before?? Is my neighbors house where you get your gerbils?? Amazing!! What a small world.....

Of course I'll take care of my return flight. If I have to stay for a few days, I'll be just fine. About the smoothies. Not my fave, but, lucky for you I have taken numerous culinary arts courses and, not to toot my own horn or anything, I'm a darn good cook.

Originally Posted by John H.

Hi Ocean,

To UNDERSTAND anything you (meaning anyone here throughout this) must OEN MIND and BE OBJECIVE about all things. Without that you understand - and learn - nothing. Truthfully or accurately or completely.
I have no generic problems with this assertion but to point out that the scientific principal does not always guarantee a solution since observations are limited to ability to perceive and understand without influencing that which is observed. Also, not all those in society are scientists and some think we have been greatly misled in only seeking to study and understand those things that have a financial motive or political force behind them for some “special interest”. [OD]

You mention the "psychological" - if you will notice this book was authored by the MEDICAL community - the American Medical Association. There findings are based on their research - SO FAR. It is ongoing.
The psychological community I am certain has its own leading and specific specialized science journals but in a general sense the medical community at large is an umbrella for all branches. Clearly the report had a reference to psychological distress and did not feel the need to make a differentiation that it was published in the context of only medicine or medical science. I understand that research continues. [OD]

By YOUR rational, anything that "sounds insane to me" - "must be". THAT is NOT being accurate, complete, honest, objective, etc. YOU (meaning anyone likeminded) are just postulating what "you believe" to be "true" WITHOUT accurate FACTS.
That is precisely my point I wanted to make. These days, there are “facts” and then there are “opinions and conjectures” from all kinds of organizations, special interest groups and individuals expressed as probable facts. This latter kind of “fact” that come from special interest group sponsored studies are always dubious to me. We all have the fundamental right to decide for ourselves what we accept as “reasonable” and truthful and worthy of respect do we not? The way the process works for Facts in Science is they must be “sold” to the science community before they are accepted from a majority of its members. Even then there is almost always a consenting minority view that casts a shadow of a doubt on most anything (ironic that minority views have this kind of power isn’t it?). Similarly facts at large, no matter where they extend from, must be “sold” to the populace at large for them to be accepted as community truth otherwise they might as well have never been discovered as facts. The main point of argument here being that they must be credible and accepted by a large number of people.
No doubt some in society would likely feel more comfortable that some facts were best left unknown or unacknowledged too. And then we have the presumption of infallibility – even accepted facts can later be found to be dead wrong or inadequate approximations of nature or phenomenon etc. As you already indicated there is much ongoing research and theory and the implication is a lot of unknown answers. I was alluding to the “fact” that the research is based on fuzzy theories and that the branch of science (psychology) performing the research had a dubious legacy and track record. I essentially challenged the legitimacy of the standard since I have legitimate cause for concern (and some suspicions about agenda and balance). Clearly I am not currently “buying” the research from this body of study since I do not have faith in its ability nor the objectivity in its motives. From my personal perspective I don not believe that their pedigree and track record is a sufficient consideration to warrant trust of infallibility on a very important topic. This is a personal decision that is based on my own high standards for quality (I never buy “bargain” or “good” and seek out “premium”). But I think, that a majority of people also feel this way and in general I think people are growing increasingly uncomfortable with the popular practice of trusting special interest researchers to do all their own thinking and trust them to tell us what is "right or wrong" without thinking it through for ourselves. I think that most people prefer to run any info these days through the old “common sense” sieve before relying on anything. Of course our populace of rugged individualists will at times have those among us who are more predisposed to be blindly obedient and sheepish or submissive with respect to believing anything they are told to be the truth; the 3% “oddity” pattern seems to be statistically present in most every process in nature and human behavior. In this sense I (and I think a majority of people) are seeing that through the pretense (or inability) of science to present concrete answers we have assertions and conjectures and opinions being presented as “theoretical or probable fact”. This is not comforting nor credible nor acceptable to most individual sensibilities. This I think are observed by average people (including myself) to have elements of religion that require us to have faith to believe in the infallibility and sincerity and credibility of those high priests of science that come up with this stuff. It seems in fact that what use to be “objective” science has somehow managed to enlighten itself to seemingly heavenly standards and push out much of what use to rightfully be the delegated domain of religion and now come full circle to become a faith based science; but without the traditional religious figures and characters. Spooky stuff. Thus, from this current-event perspective, when it comes to a call of faith (e.g. when such have a conflict with what science is telling them and what their common sense is telling them) I think people tend to prefer to fall back to basics and trust the original experts in “faith” (e.g. the religions) over the other non-religious communities (e.g. medical, science, etc.). Homosexuals, like any arbitrary special interest group, just prefer to chose the competing standard that seems to works to their greatest benefit and which they can control or shape (through research grants and political lobbying). So Let’s be honest here as you say. I am not different than most others in this regard. [OD]

Additionally you mention "... no real reliable standard for what constitutes 'normal' mental health..." - anyone MUST REMEMBER that there is VARIETY - VARIATION in ALL THINGS in life and living INCLUDING Sexuality. What YOU (meaning anyone here) "consider" to be "normal" or not may not BE FACT. WHO would you "select" to BE the "judge" of what "is normal" or "not normal"?
Ideally I’d select God to be the judge of what he thought was normal. Since he is not on speaking terms with everyone these days, fortune for many, we do have quite a bit of literature that gives an opinion on his take of things (ref. the published works reviewed by a body of esteemed religious leaders describing Sodom & Gomorrah [the etymology for the English term “sodomy”; from the homosexual proclivities of the men of the city in Gen 19:1-11]). But I am certain that you want to discount that standard as not coming from an “environment that is acceptable to you.” I say fine then, let’s be even more fair about and toss it back and rhetorically ask ‘what standard would you chose’? I am certain you would not chose one that did not promote your own interests or pleasures. Ain’t variety grand? But why pick and chose at all? Everyone has an opinion and in a Democracy that is suppose to mean “majority prevails”. But that does not produce the desired outcome for the homosexual group since that is an environment and social system which it finds unacceptable. In the end, lacking any standard that works to your benefit, you would have us go to anarchy where the only rule would be “if it feels good do it”. The danger with that of course is some would take that as call to go bash homosexuals since some in society would no doubt derive great pleasure from that. I myself am not predisposed to this behavior but caution that is a possible outcome if the government is petitioned by homosexual special interest groups to legislate the “respect” of individuals that is divorced from their behavior (of any conceivable behavior no matter how individually repulsive) as a condition of staying within the law. That would in my opinion, at some point of exceeding the majority of personal indifference levels, spark a societal war (which we are currently in btw) that would move from the confines of free assembly to actual blood letting. [OD]

I Certainly we have been told - especially by the "religious community" that, for example BiSexuality and Homosexuality, are "not natural" - NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH - OR ACCURATE. To the contrary, BiSexuality and Homosexuality ARE natural most definitely. They are - just as is Heterosexuality - VARIATIONS of Sexuality.
Just as we all have differences in intelligence we all have our opinions of truth don’t we? No doubt you hold your self to be more enlightened in this regard than all the combined centuries of study contributed from the various morally based religions? Do we accept this assertion of yours as a matter of religious faith or humanistic faith? One way or the other it is faith. I am skeptical but will not turn my back on the possibility that they are natural – but only in the sense that “accidents” happen in nature. The worm, possessing both sexes can copulate with itself to reproduce. A heterosexual retard can reproduce with its opposite. An intelligent homosexual can not reproduce naturally it can only compel opposite others through payment or reciprocation of favor (or pressure) to do that for them. One would think it should be a regressive condition. So perhaps it is a learned or elected behavior after all?[OD]

Let's go to your statement of "normal mental health" - I COULD, as could anyone else, consider "normal mental health" to be the USING AND ABUSING of another for Sexual gratification which many certainly are guilty of with respect to the Heterosexual community - ALL the time (and NOT "knocking" anyone necessarily here) Heterosexual people brag and boast about their conquests - people they USE for their Sexual gratification. This could be considered "normal" since many here DO this - so then I have to ask you if you were setting the "standard" or "norm" would this USING and / or ABUSING of another be a proper standard for what is "normal"? And I am not forgetting that SOME BiSexual and Homosexual people are also guilty of this...
Simple direct question, simple direct answer – Deviant behavior is improper from a moralistic perspective. Absent a moral standard then anything goes and society goes out the window since the most overbearing would dominate and dictate their will on anyone. But I caution you that "bragging and boasting" are like facts of both kinds – some are absolute truth others are conjecture or fantasy. No matter how much wind is put behind them utterance of truth should in theory not be a cause for worry unless they have a criminal weight on an individual. Why would anyone care to associate with these kind of people anyway when we all have the right of association? [OD]

I can say that observing Nature can set the "standard" of what is natural. And that would include Human Beings since Human Beings ARE a part of the Natural World - whether you, I, or anyone else agree, disagree, accept, etc. - THAT IS A FACT.

The FACT that there IS VARIETY - VARIATION - IN ALL THINGS IS to deny life itself! And that variety IS IN ALL THINGS - INCLUDING SEXUALITY. So why would you or anyone else DENY the fact of Heterosexuality, BiSexuality and Homosexuality? Each has ANYWAYS EXISTED in ALL areas of the world - throughout history. Did YOU "choose" to BE Heterosexual? WHEN did you "MAKE that choice" - the SAME applies to everyone else. It IS AS BORN surely as the color of your skin. And not to get this subject confused - as some like to do - with murder, Sexuality and its variation has nothing to do with "murder". We are speaking of Sexuality, NOT murder.
Too many questions to tackle at one time – send research money. Of course the fallacy of relying on observation is that it is not infallible – observation can effect behavior. Ever notice how some species of monkeys masturbate when being looked at (maybe it depends on how cute you are)? How many do the same thing when they are not being looked at? Who knows? I agree that humans (in all their diverse forms) are a part of the environment and that is unfortunately what homosexuals often find to be objectionable to their environment - the majority class. Those diverse individuals, each with their own opinion, present a frustration to homosexuals when they find that the majority can not be persuaded to accept them or to make themselves available to facilitate and accommodate their personal desires. So we have partial agreement here – there is diversity of opinion we just need to get you to respect that the majority are entitled to theirs too. But I would caution against an argument that appeals to behaviors that have always existed in nature throughout history since history has shown that behaviors deemed inappropriate have resulted in persecution, death and even divine punishment. Pardon the association but as a point of argument recall that once you include humanity into the Nature mix then we see that Nature has always had its share of psychopaths, murderers, molesters, saints, visionaries and all manner of diverse behavior. Diversity is always not so grand and at times saintly. The religious have called one extreme set of these behaviors "good" and the other "evil". That is in fact what our law is based on – moral standards. Since some special interest groups have succeeded in partially marginalizing some of the religious influence in this country (ironically, pragmatically cloistered them into the closet where the homosexuals use to be) we now have a set of laws emerging that are more based on consent and less on morals. This creates a standard which is abhorrent to the moral sensibilities of the religious (majority?) since it now becomes OK in law to "abuse" or do anything short of murder if someone are of the age and consent and permit it (they had this option under the old law too since they could always elect to not report it [or wait until it was convenient to do so e.g. relational blackmail]). Not to get off topic but it’s also interesting to note in your hypothesis that ‘denying variation in all things is to ignore life’ is essentially why we have as a society that now routinely denies life to millions of unborn children whose only crime is that they are dependent on their mothers during gestation and are different with respect to age, size and ability to express a direct opinion on their desire to live. It would seem that society as a whole is insensitive to not just the homosexual agenda here. But I digress. The point being if humanity is part of Nature as you assert then absent a moral standard no one should expect consistent and uniform fairness or compassion principal since we clearly have such a wide variety of opinions on what constitutes “acceptable” behavior.[OD]

It has always been my belief that people MUST be of age and ability of consent and give that consent freely. Using and / or abusing someone - regardless of Sexuality - is I believe wrong. That you (meaning anyone here again) care about and respect those you are with is paramount REGARDLESS of the Gender of those involved. If a "standard" is to be applied to anything, this is the "standard" which I would apply to personal Sexual relationships with others - that they EACH CARE HONESTLY about each other.
It looks like you are trying to push a moral based standard on the rest of society. I don’t think you can appeal to this on one hand and on the other reject the conventional moral view without sounding inconsistent. The fundamental problem I have with your philosophy and ideas on this is that you pretty much want to cherry pick the standards based on what works best to maximize your personally comfort (e.g. a little of morality, a little of common sense, a little of “hey if it feels good”, a little of common law etc.).[OD]

Remember Sexuality IS a private matter between two people - who are of age and ability of consent and give that consent freely. In all honestly it is no one else's business unless those involved give their consent to "making it" someone else's business. Sexuality is I believe naturally a PRIVATE matter. Sexuality and Sex are not the "business of" the government or even religion. Period. And it has been made the "BUSINESS OF" government and religion because it has been realized by them to be "profitable" to get into that "business" by them. A profit motive is something I have not ever considered. But you are stating opinion here on it being a private matter between any arrangement of sexes and consenting adults without any supporting evidence, fact or proof. Not that I really disagree in the conventional sense though. You should be consistent with your earliest complaint about this matter. But here is where logic fails us because behind closed doors we all have a cloistered/closet environment. Outside beyond those doors we have a heterogeneous environment (contrasted with homogeneous environment) of varying western society full of competing and conflicting standards (e.g. morality based, legal based, humanity based, individual interpretation based and anarchy etc.). In this environment, where the majority or “common” standard prevails (and homosexuals have an unacceptable environment), if anyone (homosexual, heterosexual, pervert, child abuser, thief, etc.) tries to get outside the envelope on the acceptable standard we can have an explosive reaction; depending on what social system was attacked and what social class member or numbers were in the vicinity at the time of the infraction. Frankly, most heterosexuals probably could care less that homosexuals can somehow find a way to derive what they think are approximate expressions of love through what they consider weird sexual practices behind closed doors. But outside I still personally think homosexuals would be better off to try to blend in and wear social camouflage or be prepared for the inevitable social conflicts.[OD]
Take Care, John H.
OK you to OD [OD]

Originally Posted by Vieope

Originally Posted by Minotaur

Are you drawing a comparison between homosexuals and rapists, child molesters, murderers and suicide bombers? If you are, it's offensive, because there is no comparison by even the wildest stretch of imagination. I could only chalk up belief in such a comparison to the most profound and abject ignorance.

The point of the statement "Most emotional problems that occur in Homosexuals are cause by a sense of alienatiion from living in an unaccepting environment" is that we homosexuals have had it beaten (sometimes literally) into our heads that there is something wrong with us, when there is not. So to avoid familial and societal rejection, many of us have lived closeted lives, and lived lies. Some of us have even married women and raised children, giving the illusion that we are straight. All to appease society and hide our true natures. How sad.

Originally Posted by OceanDude

I knew someone would project this example in a way designed to invoke a value and outrage response (e.g. the operative term is “offensive”). So now I must ask by what standard or value system do you claim legitimacy at expressing outrage? Is it poor or conditional judgment at my intent or perhaps it extends from some belief that you have a unique and self evident right to tell anyone else what we should find sensible and acceptable to ourselves?

For the time being assume only the possibility that I was attempting to illustrate the illogic and prejudiced consideration in the medical community’s assumptive assertion (where there no dissenting views? Who is the pope of the medical community?). The premise that article had was based solely on the context of the homosexuals view of what was “unacceptable’ to him and that I find to be unholistic since if he is at all human how he feels is clearly a reflection on how society at large views what is acceptable to it as well. In the larger view of what is “acceptable”, fundamentally this is an issue of who the audience or group is. I find it unacceptable and “offensive” and hypocritical that a homosexual would object to the notion that only they are entitled to the implicit considerations of social accommodation.

That said, it is still the opinion of a great many of society that you are all not normal. Statistically speaking, anything outside of 2 sigmas of standard deviation (about 3%) is not normal. That is not to say that another non-normal human is anything less than human. I have seen handicapped people get by just well in life with the proper training and therapy. But then again I do not consider the 3% of geniuses or other people that often think they are more special than others to be normal either.

That all said, on a personal basis I am not without compassion for those that suffer alienation of any form. Given the vast vacuum of the universe life appears to be statistically rare in proportion to vastness and it would seem logical to assert that it is a thing to be valued in all its forms. But there are forms of life that are harmful to other forms of life (viruses and worms are quite content to breed with themselves in a dung pile as much as they are in a human host). Clearly there is a hierarchy to life and a preference for higher order in who or what decides which can live with which. Nature has consistently dictated this for millennium but Nature is rarely compassionate and that which is not in harmony with it usually perishes or is held in check. It may be that society might someday accept what you would have it call “normal” but ultimately it is Nature that will determine if Society is permitted to exist.

It might be more noble to subordinate one’s own desires and hold in check the behavior that most of society finds objectionable. I think this would earn a lot more respect than trying to ram rod what many believe to be a lifestyle choice down the throats of those that find the behavior (not the person) abhorrent and unnatural. No matter what kind of political and social laws are passed we all have the fundamental constitutional right of free association. Government will never effectively legislate a law that succeeds in making anyone respect and accept behaviors that they find personally repugnant.


OD

Originally Posted by OceanDude

Hi John,
Sorry I did not get back to you sooner. Your long comments took me some time to read through and I wanted to give them full thought. I appreciate that you seemed to take great effort to be objective and are clearly sensitive to generalizing counter points rather than attacking on a personal basis. That is a refreshing departure to the norm here at IM. Unfortunately I had to make my reply long to since there is a lot of material. I really would rather chill out on this topic but felt obliged to give you a reply.

Comments Embedded:

Originally Posted by John H.

While doing that did you remember that the Bible was written roughly 250 YEARS AFTER the death of Christ? Who accurately remembers anything even a day after something happening let alone 250 YEARS! The Bible was written by MEN not God, not Christ. They will do Their own They need no one else to do for Them! Certainly since God is said to have created Human Beings He is well aware of Human Beings' tendency to get things wrong!

Originally Posted by John H.

Hi Ocean,

After reading what you said - book length almost - I decided I have to go work out damn hard to be able to reply just to calm myself down!

I will say that you have brought up the Bible. While doing that did you remember that the Bible was written roughly 250 YEARS AFTER the death of Christ? Who accurately remembers anything even a day after something happening let alone 250 YEARS! The Bible was written by MEN not God, not Christ. They will do Their own They need no one else to do for Them! Certainly since God is said to have created Human Beings He is well aware of Human Beings' tendency to get things wrong!

Have you read this book: FORBIDDEN FRIENDSHIPS, by Michael Rocke (Oxford University Press)? It discusses Sexual relationships Men had in Florence Italy circa 1400-1500 A. D. - almost FIFTY PERCENT of the Men in that town THAT THEY KNOW OF (that "were caught"!) WERE Sexually involved with each other. We are talking about almost half of the Male population BEING Sexually involved with each other and I am sure Florence Italy is not the only place where that happened. Read the book and get back to me on your thoughts. It (the book) is based on evidence that still exists. See the bibliography at the end of the book.

Take Care, John H.

Originally Posted by Robert DiMaggio

I do not want to get involved in this thread, nor start a religeous debate, but I wanted to say AMEN to that part of your post!

Originally Posted by OceanDude

John,
Hi. Not withstanding your current discomfort I am pleased that I have caused you an occasion to increase the intensity of your workouts. Stress has consistently proved to be necessary growth factor. It will likely invoke a positive metabolic growth factor for you. I am also pleased that at least one of us has gotten something out of this interaction; sadly it had no such effervescence effect for me. While hitting those weights you may want to ponder the fact that society currently already permits all manner of bi-lateral relationships which fall short of intimacy for same sex social interaction. Then ponder why is it necessary for sexual intimacy to be a required expression of love when there are so many other societally acceptable ways? When you think about it I think you will see that in reality, these days, sex is oftentimes used as a mechanism for ego gratification, conquest, domination or a simple self pleasuring physical high (among both hetero and homo couples). Even in conventional hetero encounters I suspect that there are many couples who have never gotten past the focus on the physical response and touched and achieved the greater mutual pleasures and satisfaction available at the deeper emotional level. No one is perfect or consistent in this of course but absent the need or intention to procreate it really just resolves to be for the pleasure of one, or both. Absent sexual intimacy, I suspect no one in society would object to the notion of close friendships of any variety. Intimacy has many diverse forms and sexual intimacy is only one.

On the Forbidden Relationships invitation I am going to pass because although I may have a personal interest in increasing my knowledge and insight on a wide range of subjects I can not knowingly contribute monetary payment for a book that will likely extend financial benefit to organizations that have a contempt for much of what I believe in (religious principals and acceptable social behavior). The library is out too since I don't want my name associated with the material. So you have a catch-22 condition and the precise challenge that I previously mentioned about any special interest group that is faced with "selling" their agenda, 'facts' (of the second kind) and lifestyle choices to the populace at large. These kind of books are usually ineffectual though. Their marketing appeal is to specialized and too constrained (e.g. a probably by the same demographic of the advocating market group or in this case 3% of populace +/- 1%). So the market apeals usually degrades into a narrow interest market (e.g. cloistered) and become support materials to the constituency that are able and willing to pay to advocate a particular life style to make them feel euphoric (I avoided the "gay" word) about being participants in a particular social practice. No doubt there will be a few new interested buyers and new recruits. But I chose to not be one.

Take Care John.

Hugs for all,

OD

Originally Posted by OceanDude

John,
Hi. Not withstanding your current discomfort I am pleased that I have caused you an occasion to increase the intensity of your workouts. Stress has consistently proved to be necessary growth factor. It will likely invoke a positive metabolic growth factor for you. I am also pleased that at least one of us has gotten something out of this interaction; sadly it had no such effervescence effect for me. While hitting those weights you may want to ponder the fact that society currently already permits all manner of bi-lateral relationships which fall short of intimacy for same sex social interaction. Then ponder why is it necessary for sexual intimacy to be a required expression of love when there are so many other societally acceptable ways? When you think about it I think you will see that in reality, these days, sex is oftentimes used as a mechanism for ego gratification, conquest, domination or a simple self pleasuring physical high (among both hetero and homo couples). Even in conventional hetero encounters I suspect that there are many couples who have never gotten past the focus on the physical response and touched and achieved the greater mutual pleasures and satisfaction available at the deeper emotional level. No one is perfect or consistent in this of course but absent the need or intention to procreate it really just resolves to be for the pleasure of one, or both. Absent sexual intimacy, I suspect no one in society would object to the notion of close friendships of any variety. Intimacy has many diverse forms and sexual intimacy is only one.

On the Forbidden Relationships invitation I am going to pass because although I may have a personal interest in increasing my knowledge and insight on a wide range of subjects I can not knowingly contribute monetary payment for a book that will likely extend financial benefit to organizations that have a contempt for much of what I believe in (religious principals and acceptable social behavior). The library is out too since I don't want my name associated with the material. So you have a catch-22 condition and the precise challenge that I previously mentioned about any special interest group that is faced with "selling" their agenda, 'facts' (of the second kind) and lifestyle choices to the populace at large. These kind of books are usually ineffectual though. Their marketing appeal is to specialized and too constrained (e.g. a probably by the same demographic of the advocating market group or in this case 3% of populace +/- 1%). So the market apeals usually degrades into a narrow interest market (e.g. cloistered) and become support materials to the constituency that are able and willing to pay to advocate a particular life style to make them feel euphoric (I avoided the "gay" word) about being participants in a particular social practice. No doubt there will be a few new interested buyers and new recruits. But I chose to not be one.

Take Care John.

Hugs for all,

OD

Originally Posted by John H.

Hi Rob,
I understand. All I am interested in in ANY subject is getting to the "bottom of it" - the TRUTH ACCURATELY, COMPLETELY AND THOROUGHLY as is Humanly possible. And to HONEST UNDERSTANDING. Anything else in any subject helps no one. God would Himself want just that I feel.

Take Care, John H.

Originally Posted by OceanDude

John,
Getting "to the bottom of it" is what is precisely the problem for many people because that's a sensitive area for most people (pun intended) and why would they be inclined to look at unnatural things as natural if they are content with the conventional? You and your special lifestyle interest group have a huge marketing challenge ahead of you and most average people will not buy into it. All you can play on is apathy and indifference (which is currently a good play in this country) to get by up to the point it starts encroaching more and more into the mainstream and then it will just get into a class struggle situation and hostile political responses with more money working against you than for you. Your vision lacks the financial wherewithal to overcome the majority and the liberal justices are soon to be replaced. In the end you will discover that futility in trying to legislate respect. It will not happen and you will always fall short of being fully accepted. Just my humble opinion.

OD

Originally Posted by John H.

Hi Ocean,



I can't wait until you find something else to hate on. Do you feel a personal fulfillment when you do that?


John H.

Originally Posted by John H.

Hi Ocean,

"Hugs for all"?

I am not "picky" myself, but some here COULD "wonder about" that final statement (those that are truly "Heterosexual" I mean).... IF you get "my drift"?

But, again, TRUTHFULLY!,

Take Care, John H.

Originally Posted by John H.

Hi Ocean,

At least I flushed out YOUR hatred, bigotry, lack of any understanding and unwillingness to the same, etc. It could be considered that this is at least the one time you have been honest.

I can't wait until you find something else to hate on. Do you feel a personal fulfillment when you do that?

For someone that would like others to feel you are educated you certainly display your unwillingness and lack to BE truly so.

Take Care though, someday YOU may be a "target" for someone else's hatred and bigotry as you display. Let me know how you feel when that happens to you.

Also, I would not feel that you are at all "humble".

John H.

Originally Posted by du510

Or perhaps he is just sick of you posting your gay threads in here. It is not a problem that YOU are gay, thats not the issue. It is that you consistently post homosexual threads, day in and day out. To be honest, I havent seen you post much else. So, it could be said that you are only here at IM to post homosexual threads, which would indeed anger some of us.

Take care, Matt D.

Originally Posted by OceanDude

John,
I am glad you picked up on this. I was trying to show what might be an acceptable way of loving any fellow human irrespective of sex. If showing compassion to my fellow human beings is taken offensively I can live with that.

Hugs guy,
OD

Originally Posted by John H.

Hi OD,

I AM aware truly that there are many ways to express and/or show affection and care towards another Human Being. I have absolutely no problem with hugging someone I truly care about - Man or Woman. And I do - honestly so and they KNOW that. They take no offense because they KNOW there is no offense meant in any way. I do not "limit" myself to my expressions to those I truly care about just to "satisify someone or society"... Believe me, if I hug someone it is MEANT and is TRUTHFUL regardless of their Gender. I see Human Beings PERIOD!

Take Care, John H.

Originally Posted by OceanDude

John, I am sorry you feel this way; I truthfully am. Those comments may have been insensitive but given the frankness with which we have thus far enjoyed in this discourse I thought it humorous and within the bounds of relational familiarity. Bummer. Sorry that you think I am a bigot - but I am not anymore so that you. We both have our opinions and we should not resort to insensitive name calling. Hypocrisy is always lurking at the edge of one's inability to sell their ideas.

As for hatred. John, I am already a target for hatred. I am hated by insecure people that for some strange reason seem to think I believe myself to be more intelligent than others. I have never claimed this and even though I test out well into the high side of the IQ range there was a time when this was not so apparent; not that I believe in the silly IQ thing anyway and pride myself more on creative flexibility and insight. At one point in my life I could not even do elementary algebra without a tutor or even differentiate the letter "d" from the letter "b". At that earlier time I could not understand why my parents were upset with a "b" on a report card (that was really a "d"). I have personally come a long way since then through a lot of personal sacrifice, restraint, perseverance, effort and force of will. I have chosen to be different than I originally was. I have a long way to go still to get to where I want to be (like we all do - except for the underachievers). From my own personal experience I have come to believe that intelligence and creativity and behaviors are truly learned things and relate to how we model and organize our thoughts and how we structure our attitudes. I firmly believe with proper discipline and self awareness (and self respect) we can adapt our perspective at will if we subordinate our preconceptions, social conditioning and emotions. I fundamentally believe that we "chose to be who we resolve to be" - spiritually, emotionally, intimately, socially and intellectually. I also believe that we can reject those things and behaviors that are not desirable or are unnatural or cause us harm etc. Life offers a buffet of competing ideals, standards and relations. I would recommend reconsidering if you like what you have come to think is your only option.

I am sure that in your case you have had many experiences in life and cause for reflection and introspection. Suffering hate is an opportuinty to test one's resolve and will more so than it is a time of suffering. If you are at all believing of my perspective and experience maybe you might want to reconsider some of what I am saying and see if you really have the desire to consider some changes? I would personally hate to think that I did not have the personal ability and freedom to be what I chose to be in life rather than a powerless victim to some hormonal or emotional short circuits that were experienced at an early age and caused me to congeal and lock in my own opinion of "who" I was at the "Id" level. I would rather die than be a victim to my own bodily cravings where I could not control my behavior and do things beyond my conscious control. There are certainly temptations in life but it is through discipline and self respect that we put the temptations into context and move on to bigger things.

Take Care John - I hope you can get beyond this thinking because I am confident that you can be much more than you currently are some day (we all can) if you can get the unimportant things behind you. You, and everyone on the planet has the capacity to be something more special than you can imagine if we can all just get past the simple stuff like self pleasures, physical joy and selfishness. We all need to move to the next level in humanity's evolution. Nature and all of Creation is screaming for us to move forward and get into the real action and opportunity waiting for out there.

Bye John & Hugs,
OD