rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (06/13/84)
>> it would seem that although Jeff attributes homosexual feeling-->depression >> and dismay as cause-->effect, it was the baggage associated with his >> religious beliefs (that homosexuality is "sinful", an adjective which in >> and of itself carries a lot of baggage) led to the feelings of disgust, >> depression, etc. [ROSEN] > It is obvious that you just browsed this discussion, because you reversed the > order of what I said. I said that in times when I felt depressed (especially > when I was despairing about my ever being able to attract a female), THEN I > would have homosexual feelings. In other words, it's depression-->homosexual > feeling = cause-->effect, not the other way about. It could be argued that > the anti-religious paragraph which the above passage began ought not to have > been posted to anywhere but net.religion.... [SARGENT] Which is the chicken and which is the egg is kind of irrelevant here. It is *you* who makes the association between depression and homosexuality. The paragraph was not intended to be "anti-religious" at all (though you have tended to see anything that differs with your point of view as being attacking or anti-religious; all we are all trying to do is provide some personal insights; isn't that what you wanted when you originally submitted an article?) Admittedly, the word "baggage" could be misinterpreted, but it was meant to have a neutral connotation; i.e., believing that something is "sinful", a listed sin in the book of sins, means more to you than just "it is wrong to do"; it implies lowered self-worth for committing the act, potential divine punishment, etc.; it is these things that the word "sinful" CARRIES with it that I referred to as "baggage".) The point is: whether you get homosexual feelings and get depressed, or you get depressed and feel that homosexual feelings are somehow appropriate because of your imagined lower self-worth, due to presumptions about what homosexual feelings MUST mean, it is *you* who have made that association. >> Not that there would be anything wrong with being gay, just that that's a >> personal decision and one that should be made based on what's really going >> on inside of you. > Yes, it is a personal decision. Yes, if one has gay feelings, one should at > least admit them to oneself. But I have read one book by a non-religious > doctor wherein he discussed homosexuality as a psychosomatic disease ... If I show you a book that said that belief in a deity was an aberration and a psychosomatic disease, would you believe it? Would you care? I didn't think so. So why suddenly base your life on some other book? Don't read a book and believe in it to justify or legitimize your existence. (And I'm not talking about you-know-which-book, either!) The notion of different sexual lifestyles being "aberrations", "abnormal", or whatever has largely been disbanded. One might as well write a book labelling my tastes in music or food as psychological disorders. ("Mr. X is a chocophile, an cuisinial pervert who takes pleasure in the vile habit of ingesting substances derived from cacao beans. He also eats sushi, which everyone knows to be a filthy habit. Many people acquire these disgusting perversions through childhood exposure, but through modern conditioning and schooling, we can make them just like everybody else...") > I also suspect that if gays would gather their courage and examine their > childhood and youth, they might well find some major emotional trauma that > made them so afraid of MOTOS's that they turned to MOTSS's instead. In other > words, I still think there's something wrong with being gay, quite apart from > any religious pronouncements -- that it is a symptom of severe internal > damage; and that one ought to help gays find that damage and get it healed, > rather than ostracize them. Dick Dunn said in another article that I am a > (I love this phrase) "thoroughgoing heterosexual." My thesis is that everyone > is, at bottom, a thoroughgoing heterosexual, and that even well-established > homosexuals have somewhere in them a despairing desire for a MOTOS. Actually, the current consensus is that everyone has the *potential* for attraction to members of *either* sex, especially since we all have what are described as male and female components within us (except for those people who are "all man", of course :-). Whatever one's sexual "orientation", it is made out of choice. (Those who tell you otherwise are simply evading responsibility for making that choice.) Again, calling attraction to members of the same sex "severe internal damage" is just like saying that people who hold different religious beliefs from you have some sort of mental problem. The idea is not to "help" other people who are different from you to become more like you, but rather for YOU to get the healing that would enable you to accept differences in people as wonderful things instead of something to be eliminated. Assuming that anyone wants to be just like you (having a desire for a MOTOS, despairing or otherwise; believing any similar belief) is equally self-damaging. It would seem that some of your statements have evoked harsh response from some gay people on the net. I hope you understand that your referring to people as damaged or flawed psychologically is equivalent to someone saying that you should be committed for having religious beliefs, and I hope that that understanding helps you gain more insight into both the global and personal issues we've discussed. Some of the responses to you have been on the harsh side, but realize the harshness that your statements we're perceived to have. (See, gay people stereotype and generalize just like you do :-) One is reminded of Shylock's speech from "Merchant of Venice". -- "I take your opinions and multiply them by -1." Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr
guest@hplabs.UUCP (HP Labs Guest/guest) (06/14/84)
Hold on Rich, can't believe you said "Whatever one's sexual orientation,
its made out of choice".
I didn't choose to be a man, but as a man I can honestly say that I
have never had any sexual desires for another man. Ever since I can
possibly remember, the only sexual feelings I have ever had have been
towards women! I'm pretty sure it's instinctual! I have actually tried
to imagine a sexual experience with another man just to be open minded
about the whole thing- and YUK!! CACA!! Can't imagine doing that!!
I DID'T CHOOSE MY SEXUAL ORIENTATION, I WAS BORN INTO IT!!!
Also you stated "...accept the differences (of others preference) as
wonderfull things" Sorry! Brown showers? Murder? NOT TOO WONDERFULL!!
GEORGE LA BELLE