david@cvl.UUCP (David Harwood) (04/05/85)
I'm sorry but I catenated your two replies to my original reply, which you divided, without replying to the second half ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >From: brower@fortune.UUCP (Richard Brower) Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: reply to Richard Brower Message-ID: <5168@fortune.UUCP> In article <237@cvl.UUCP> david@cvl.UUCP (David Harwood) writes: > Do I have to prove this to you? Do you yourself want to live >as a large proportion of homosexuals do? > I am simply giving my opinion based on discussion with homosexual >individuals, 20 or so, over 20 years, also based on listening to televised >discussions by physicians who are said to be expert. My impression is >that the rates of suicide, drug abuse, promiscuity, transience, infection, >and death are considerably higher among this population than among non- >homosexual groups, especially married persons. Certainly, the health and >happiness of those with whom I talked was not good, even according to them. >The thing I always wondered was -- how can you live this way? And why? As I stated in my previous article, much of the unhappiness of gay people, evident in the above symptoms, is due to the oppression we suffer rather than being intimately connected to homosexuality. As for how I can live "this way", I cannot live any other way than gay. "Why?" you ask, so that the gay people who come after me don't have to suffer such shit. Finally, a sample size of "20 or so" is a very small sample to base such a judgement on out of the 30,000,000 or so homosexuals in the United States... obviously most of the homosexuals that you have met didn't trust you enough to mention it. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ It is very true that homosexuals are oppressed, but let's not exaggerate this. Most of those I have known were hardly 'oppressed' compared to many other groups in our society; they were often very successful nevertheless unhappy. You are blaming somewhat their personal dissatisfaction upon the larger society, which simply does disagree about the morality of this, even though it is fairly tolerant. I am saying you are not very objective. The fact is that a lot of their psychological problems are caused by the same unconscious motives which cause many of them to be promiscuous. Many are slaves to their own promiscuous sexuality, which cannot make them emotionally secure. Besides this, I have heard a number of experts in public health, concerned with the AIDS infection, observe that the physical health of homosexuals as a group is not very good because of their transient lifestyles, and very high rate of infection of all kinds of diseases, which is due to promiscuity. Contradict them, but I accept their opinion as specialists who objectively know as much as anyone. You are probably right that my experience is limited. However, I am interested in people, and they do talk to me in a way that they might not to others. I met very few of these at parties (You or Dave Trisell remarked on this.); I met them either when I worked as a laborer, or as a university student or researcher, or I met them at church, or at political events, or they were neighbors. They were pretty ordinary. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > You should understand that nearly everyone who is not homosexual, >not matter how liberal or religious, recommends against this life. Further- >more, as I have been informed by Indian and Chinese friends, who are from >ancient countries representing 1/3 of world population, homosexuality is >not accepted, and rare among these comparatively restrictive cultures. >Neither do Muslim nations, who represent another very large proportion, >accept this. All these tradtionally reject it. One has to go back to >pagan Greek and Roman days to find such widespread acceptance. You are >very mistaken. You forget that 15% of *all* men are gay or bisexual, actually I doubt you forget, but wish to conviently brush the facts aside. You are right about the fact that many non-gays recommend against a gay lifestyle, *mostly due to Christian spread intolerence* however. I don't even recommend it, if one can be straight, one may save ones life, job, home and health by not being gay and thereby incurring the wrath of bigots. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I did not mention your percentages, because my point was that homosexuality is not accepted among other very large non-Christian cultures, which are far more sexually repressive than this "Christian" culture. Listen, I am handicapped; I know what is prejudice, probably better than you, because my handicap is obvious. But I am careful not to label people who disagree with me, but would not harm me. I don't even dislike you a little bit. But I disagree. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > If you and your friends are not 'promiscuous', then are you really >representative of most homosexuals? Yes. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ If you have stayed with the same person for 5 years as you say, I doubt that you are representative, although you would seem to be satisfied. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > We all want to have secure relationships with others; the question >is -- what sort of relationship are we securing? Is it to be recommended >to young people? Whether or not it is 'voluntary', is it to be recommended? 15% of all male children will grow up to be gay/bisexual. Is it healthy to teach children that the life they will lead is somehow sick, evil, etc? No. Isn't this a method of making sure that they will have problems for the rest of their lives? Yes. Will it change their orientation to tell them such things? No. Will some of the larger percentage of children that aren't gay take these concepts about gays and use them to justify going out and "bashing queers" and otherwise denying gays human rights. Yes. Do you wish to continue the cycle? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ You have posed a dilemma which does not exist, as I see it. It is my opinion that the genetic basis for homosexuality must be very weak, since homosexuals will not reproduce relatively often (nothing like 15%). This suggests to me that the initial determination of homosexuality is very much socially 'circumstantial', but that it is quickly 'imprinted' by the very powerful sexual drive. (I notice you do not quote Masters and Johnson, who have no bias, but found that sexual response is conditioned, but sometimes reversible even among adults. This caused them a lot of very abusive political trouble.) I am not suggesting that homosexuality is determined by simple social 'circumstances', of family or otherwise. But you should appreciate how little we are really informed of the consequences of childhood relationships; for example, a very large percentage of rapists and postitutes have unsatis- factory childhood relationships. My point is that these circumstances are often very far from satisfying to those involved, and they have consequences. If people had more stable, loving families, in which the love of the parents for each other was manifest, I doubt that there would be even a small fraction of what you suggest. As I've repeatedly said, anyone who persecutes anyone is not a Christian, by the simple definition that Christ did not condemn anyone. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Being homosexual as you are, also does not make you very >'enlightened' I'm afraid. Besides this, it almost certainly does not >mean the same thing to you as it does to me. To begin with, it is >said that the life of Christ is the light of mankind. How many are >living as he did? Also, as you may not know, the Greek word for >'enlightenment' was, in very early Christian writings, used to >refer to baptism, in the sense of the experience at conversion, z>or initiation. (It was also similarly used by the pre-Christian >Essene Jews at Qumran.) What is your initiation? What has set you >on your way? But my point is that the expression 'enlightenment' >has a specific religious meaning, which you do not appreciate, and >is generally confused with a quality of opinion. enlighten: 1. to free from ignorence, prejedice, etc. 2. to inform, instruct. enlightenment n. _Webster's_NewWorld_Dictionary_ Perhaps the Christians who used it that way were enlightened. Some Christians today are enlightened, but certainly you are not one of those. Quit trying to use some obscure definition of the word enlighten as *the* definition. What enlightened me, by the way, was having to live with prejedice every day of my life. Since one of the major teachings of JC that I still believe and use in my own religious/moral code, is that you should love your neighbor as yourself. Since I do not like prejedice against myself, I assume that my neighbor doesn't either. Therefore, I try to enlighten others, like you, who are in need of enlightenment. -- Richard A. Brower Fortune Systems {ihnp4,ucbvax!amd,hpda,sri-unix,harpo}!fortune!brower ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Perhaps I should not have said anything about this, but it is you who was first talking about who is or is not 'enlightened' (even in the conclusion of the previous article to which this reply was made). I was pointing out that you may not be baptized in Christ, and that this is true 'enlightenment', no matter what you think. And as Jesus said, "Everyone who sins, is a slave to sin." But this should make us more merciful. If you love your neighbor as yourself, then you are not far from being a Christian. But I disagree about the matter at hand. But again I also agree that there are good Christians who do not believe that homosexuality is a sin. (but it is not this opinion which makes them good Christians; it is the fact of their helpfulness, and unwillingness to see anyone harmed.) I might add, though, that most of these privately would prefer that no one was homosexual. I agree that we all have a lot to learn. David Harwood