Home, Archive, Stuff, Random thoughts, London, My Rigs, Pictures, Dreams, Links, About, Contact, Search
 

spikegifted - Random thoughts

 

New York's Gay School

September 9, 2003

I think we should organize some celebrations during the year to let the whole country/world know that apart from gay people, straight people have their special needs also.

First, we'd start with a march to Hyde Park! Then we partition the PM to create laws to safeguard the rights of straight people and then we need to get all the charities on board to increase 'straightness awareness' in the community, business, and politics.

---

September 11, 2003

What is 'the norm'?

Can you imagine watching a nature program on the BBC or Discovery and see the commentator commenting on two adult lions are walking around each other, checking each other out as part of their mating dance?

That is not the norm! If gays and lesbians can be considered the norm, then the human race is on a fast track to extinction!!

How can you have kids, who are highly impressionable to be in an environment where people are all either gay or lesbian? They'd think that, in deed, is the norm. Can you imagine the psychological influence on kids who are constantly bombarded with ideas that being gay and lesbian is part of 'the norm'?

The teachers' job is to educate children. He/She needs to identify what is 'the norm' to the kids but also point out that some men find that they're attracted to men and some women are attracted to women - but that is not 'the norm'. If the kids want to experiment with their sexuality, that's their business, but they have to have a reference point. If they're surrounded by gays and lesbian, then a man with a woman in a relationship is considered 'abnormal'!! What kind of a society would we have then??

---

September 23, 2003

I'll leave to racial stuff out of my reply since this is suppose to be talking about 'gay rights' or whatever...

Have I experienced discrimination because I'm straight? Yes... Back in my university days, one of my part time jobs was working in a high street retail high fashion menswear store. The section I worked in had 5 people, apart from me, the rest of the crew were gay. I had a great time working with them - they were professional salesmen and knew their stuff and they were generally good guys to work with. Some were genuinely very nice people. However, once outside the store, I'd trouble socializing with them.

For example, after a long and busy Saturday, the usual comradary thing to do was to go out for an after-work drink. When it came to choice of venue, it would always be one of the gay pubs or bars that were off the side of Oxford Street. Did I have a choice? No - the majority would decide. If I preferred not to hang out in a gay bar, I would miss the chance of socialized with them and being part of the 'team'.

So, I went with them to a gay pub/bar... That's effectively part of the 'scene'. For gay people I'm clearly not gay. I had been talked to by people in those establishments querying who was I with... If my answer was 'I'm waiting for friends', I would have been invited to wait outside until my friends arrive. Once the only Chinese person in there probably didn't help, as I stuck out like a soar thumb.

In effect, being a straight guy with a gay friend in a gay bar is ok... But a straight guy by himself in a gay bar is a big no-no! What is that?? If a gay person being asked to leave a normal pub/bar because he's gay and he's not with a straight person, it will be an outrage. But it is not so the other way round... What kind of a world is this?

---

September 23, 2003

Ok, I'll try not to stray too far from the topic...

IMHO, everybody has some kind of prejudice against one thing or another. This is only natural since we're brought up in certain culture and has taken in certain education. By its own meaning, prejudice is the result of pre-conditioning. Whether the prejudice will show externally or remain a hidden item is entirely up to the individual. I can say, very honest, I have certain prejudice but I try very hard not to discriminate - the 'person' is more important than the 'stereotype'...

With regards to gay people, as I've mentioned before, I don't really have a problem with them. Ok, I don't necessarily like all of them, but then again, it's like asking someone to like every person he meets - it's just not possible. However, I like to stress that I don't like gay people who bang on about 'gay rights' while they themselves are actively pre-judging other gays or straights simply because they don't share their views - that's what I call hiding 'behind an agenda'. These will never be happy because no matter what you're willing to give them (rights or otherwise), they'll never feel they're capable of being equal to the rest of the world - they just keep demanding more and more.

For me, I'm straight and have never had any homosexual incline or desires. That is not a crime. I don't think I'm homophobic, but certain gay practice make me feel uneasy. I so happen to be a minority in the country, but then again, I don't have an issue with it as long as others don't make it an issue. That is what I try to get across - usually being gay or being a minority is not an issue until someone make it one. For those gay folks in NY, why do they want to make a fuss when their children are not being discriminated against?

---

September 23, 2003

With regards to the usage of "really", for me, it is a figure of speech, in that I don't really distinguish the difference between "I don't mind..." and "I don't really mind..."

On the issue of "I assume you are talking about sexual practice?", I'm implying more than that. For example, some gay people feel that they've to exaggerate their 'feminine' behavior, mode of speech and gestures (to attract attention, I suppose), which for me is just awful. My opinion of this type of behavior is not just limited gay people - some 'tough guys' like to 'demonstrate' how tough they really are not by being rude or other peasant-like behavior. All these behavior upset me. It is, to some extent, single out gay people for this, but as this is a thread about 'gay rights', I'm simply highlighting my opinion.

With regards to the wider 'gay rights', I don't know what kind of rights they don't already have? Are you talking about their rights to adopt children? Call me old fashion, gay people have no rights to have children - adopted or otherwise - simply based on the arguments of the children's mental and social developments. Are you talking about 'gay marriages'? Again, call me old fashion, but marriage is between two people of opposite sexes. If they wanted equal treatment of a gay couple in legal terms as 'normal couples', that's fine in my books, but not marriage.

What I've consistently said is that being gay, or homosexual, is not natural state for human being. By being gay or homosexual, the individual automatically gives up some of his/her rights.

---

September 23, 2003

Since I'm not a psychologist nor am I a psychiatrist, so I don't know if gay people actually choose to be gay or not... With regards to marriages, you don't have to get married in a church, there're lots of people simply walk into a town hall with witnesses and get it over an done with (that's what the Ruler_of_spike and I are going to do somewhere along the line). A church service may be a contract in the eyes of the Christian god, but it's not a legal contract - that's why you still need to sign papers after the service.

Again, let me stress my rather old fashion view of marriage. The following is the definition according to the Concise Oxford Dictionary:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
marriage n. 1 the legal union of a man and a woman in order to live together and often to have children. 2 an act or ceremony establishing this union. 3 one particular union of this kind (by a previous marriage). etc...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

September 24, 2003

1) The way you put the question to me is making sure that I answer in such a way that will be in agreement with your theory... Anyway, the answer is that I am born male and am sexually attracted to female, so I'm classified 'straight'. In my previous post, I mentioned that I don't know whether they choose to be gay is a genuine statement as I really don't know. However, I'm sure that there is a psychological explanation into why people develop, as they do, to either remain straight or become gay...

2) I'm against gay clergy.

3) I've covered this point in this post.

---

September 25, 2003

I'm afraid I can't agree with the above assessment... While it is true that gay people are capable of being loving parents, I, personally, think it is incorrect to allow gay couples to adopt children.

I'll use the following example. While it is crude, I believe it is a good comparison. Imagine a child being brought up by racist parents. This child see the parents being abusive towards people of skin colors other than their own and this child believe this is an acceptable way of treating people. Simple. Schools may have a hand in educating the child in term of social attitude. However, the most of important and most lasting of impressions are those formed within the family. Parents are powerful influence for their children and this child will grow up thinking it is ok to be abusive to people of other races - because the parents think it is ok and hence the child will consider this as the norm. However, we all know that racist attitude is not correct.

This can apply to gender and sexual orientation also. So if a child see two men or two women forming a couple, this child will think same sex couple is the norm. However, just like in the racist parents' case, same sex couple is not the norm. But how is this child going to be educated the difference between what the same sex parents are doing and that of the rest of the human race? There is no reference point. This child will grow up thinking that it is perfectly normal to have marital/sexual relationships with people of the same sex.

---

September 25, 2003

If you want to use historical examples, you could have used the Romans and the Japanese also. However, you have to make the distinction between having a homosexual relationship to confirm a patronage (which is the case mostly for the Greeks, Romans and Japanese - these people have heterosexual relationships with their wives and lovers) and having a homosexual relationship purely as a form of 'love' and being the only form sexual relationship.

As to the point regarding whether we have a choice to be straight or gay... I know that I didn't make a choice to be straight, because for me I haven't deviated from my biological, genetic and psychological norm. I would assume that you haven't had to make such a decision either. However, who are we to say whether gay people have made a choice or not? For most gay people, there's a process of 'discovery' - meaning that many of them initially thought they were attracted to the opposite sex, but somewhere a long the line, they found that they're not and in fact sexually attracted to the same sex. I'm question what factors drive these people to be homosexual. It is an innocent question - just because you and I haven't been forced into such a position doesn't mean others have not such experience. I find that rather narrow-minded.

---

September 25, 2003

Ok, I'm assuming that you're right in this, but how about the sexual origination of their children? How about these kids' psychological states? Not every family is like that one Bird Cage.

Call me old fashion, but I don't think holding a view that human beings should be a heterosexual animal is bigoted. If you look at the rest of the animal kingdom, one which homo sapien belongs, there is a distinct lack of homosexual behavior. If homosexual practice is in fact the normal, we, the human race, would have survived as it does. And it precisely because homosexual don't get to have children that we, a race, survives.

---

September 25, 2003

What are you suggesting here?

My position on and opinion of people who're homosexual are the same as my general approach to people - I don't pass judgement on people until I know the people. While I don't agree with people who practice homosexual behavior, that doesn't mean I don't get on with them as people. I've a number of homosexual friends - they know my position regarding their sexuality, that hasn't stop them being friends with me either. As far as I'm concern, their sexuality has little to do with their personality.

Those homosexual who try to justify everything they do and everything that has happen to them based on the fact that they're gay do not get my sympathy nor attention.

---

September 25, 2003

I certainly think it is wrong. Since I'm not yet a father, I can only say this hypothetically... If my son tell me that he is a homosexual, I would not condone his decision/action/development. However, I would continue to provide all the support to him to make sure that I fulfil my duty as a parent - love, education, compassion, friendship, etc. Whether he can handle the fact that I don't approve of his behavior, that's entirely up to him. As a parent, you can't control everything. This is a free world and legally his hasn't done anything wrong.

---

September 25, 2003

Just because you don't agree with my opinion, you cannot accuse me of being a bigot. You're entitle to your opinion, but I've my own principles and opinion. I'd prefer if you don't put such a label on me. I don't believe my arguments here support your argument either.

---

September 25, 2003

That may be the case, but again, from a stand point of being a father, it would my duty to ensure that my children get the support they deserve. Having done nothing wrong legally, they will have all my support.

In term of conflicts on morality and principle - it is going to be difficult one - but that's something parents have to deal with. No-one says being a parent is going to be easy. I'm not the type that will openly embarrass my friends and loved ones (that will include my children in the future). If they do things that are against my principles and judgements, they will know about it - through private conversation.

---

September 25, 2003

I guess that's entirely dependent on your view of the child's potential psychological and social developments.

---

September 25, 2003

As I've stated, he will continue my support (that's mean all the trappings of other kids with their families), but I'll let him know in private that I don't agree with his developments.

---

September 25, 2003

I may be inflexible on this, but if I was willing to change my opinion, you can always turn around and accuse me of being someone who lack conviction in his believes.

---

September 25, 2003

You can pick and choose when you apply the 'bigot' or 'lack conviction' label when you like. I believes is based on my personal understanding of how nature works.

---

September 25, 2003

I don't like that. In everything I deal with I try to be as reasonable as possible. You're suggesting that I'm not sensitive to other people's needs and emotions. That is not true. What's more, you're suggesting that I'm incline to make fun or make an example of people who are different from myself or my social group. That's a blatant accusation and I cannot accept that at all. If you can find in any of my posts either in this thread or others that I suggest such behavior is acceptable, please let me know.

---

September 25, 2003

Take it whatever way you want to take it, but these are the actions that I think I'd do under the stated circumstances. That doesn't mean that I'd stop supporting him.

Don't your parents continue to provide you with support even though they've misgiving on your plans or actions? Is that not compassion, tolerance and understanding? I would not allow myself to be label nor accept being labelled as a hypocrite when in fact my stated action (hypothetical or otherwise) is consistent - If my son is gay, I don't agree with it; however, it is the duty as a parent to continue provide him with my full support, whatever the circumstances, as long as no laws are broken. It is my personal believe that when this situation arise, parental duty comes before personal opinion.

Likewise, if a friend of mine turn gay, he/she will continue to have my support - while I don't agree with his/her decision/action and they'll know about it. Whether they'd want to continue receiving my friendship, that's entirely up to him/her. May be they feel that I'm not in tune with their true feelings - so be it. He/she is my friend and will continue to be, unless they choose not to.

What I don't like is that Big RICHARD suggests that I'm some kind of bully and like to make fun of people. That, I feel, is an unacceptable accusation and I can't accept that.

---

September 25, 2003

Darn right, I'd be disappointed, but he'll continue to enjoy my support. It's no good to throw him out of the window/house/family. For me, I think it is more important to provide him the support that he needs - his world has just been turned upside down. (I hope he'd let me know early enough, so that I can help him.)

---

September 25, 2003

What the heck is going on here?! Ok, I'm against gay people adoption children and I'm against having a segregated education for gay children, but why am I being challenged on my morality?

---

September 25, 2003

My statement that: "I hope he'd let me know early enough, so that I can help him." should be taken as it stands in its literal meaning. Emotional support, have you heard of that? My support for my family and friends is paramount and likewise them to me. My personal opinion is however not clouded my emotional concerns. It is a my duty as parent or family member and friend to continue to provide love, friendship and support to those who need it - all they have to do is ask. I may not agree with their sexuality, but they're still my family and my friends - until they choose otherwise. Even so, family is still family. Don't underestimate my feelings for my family.

[EDIT] You don't know me and you don't know my history. I've supported friends and family in cases where I don't agree with their actions - I told them so. But when they come and ask for help on the matter, I've still provided my support - time, energy, money (when required and I could afford it). Don't underestimate my loyalty to my family and friends. [/EDIT]

---

September 25, 2003

You've gone over my statements over and over again to pick it at different angles. I'm not going to be drawn into this. I've stated my position on this and I believe it has been expressed in clear English. You may feel that my position is hypocritical, but I have my sense of family, friendship and duty; and I've my opinion on this subject.

I'm curious as to why you're so interested my reaction and position to this? Is it because you've no-one to talk to about this?

---

September 25, 2003

My believes and opinion is a product of my family, culture, education and social circle. As any other human being, I'm a complex mix of emotions and logic. I don't think I'm fitting into any of your stereotype or pigeon holes and I'm confusing you.

The fact that I'm against homosexuality, yet I have gay friends who I get on with on a social level and gay colleagues who I respect. The fact that I'm willing support people who are pursuing things that I don't believe in, yet I still provide the support I feel committed to. You've no right to question my motivation. I do things based on my sense of duty and justice - I'm willing ignore my personal believes and opinions to support those who need my support.

I'm against homosexuality and also against homosexuals gaining treatment that is different from heterosexuals. I am horrified by the social apparent acceptance of homosexuality. However, if my friends or family members are homosexual, they continue to have my support and friendship.

Take it whatever way you want.

---

September 26, 2003

There are two different levels to my feelings on this. First on a personal level, I don’t really care if someone is gay, as long as they don’t bang on and on about it. I get on with people most of the time, gay or otherwise. While I have my opinion on certain things, I accept that we live in a free and open society and hence people have a freedom of choice.

On the other hand, I don’t believe in the concept of gay rights. Gay people should not get special treatment, much like left handed people don’t have special treatment over right handed people. Moreover, I’m appalled by the apparent indifference towards homosexuality. It is not a question of ‘morality’ because gay people can have good morals and straight people can be bad also. As I have repeated said, I’m against gay couple adopting children. Until someone can inform me that homosexual couples would not have long term effects on the psychological and social developments of children, I don’t think we should consider such activities.

At the same time, at a biological level, homosexuality in mammals is an unnatural concept.

---

September 26, 2003

Please enlighten me what which type of mammals conduct homosexual activities. If you can provide me with concrete example(s) of such observation, back up by scientific evidence, I'm willing to reconsider my position.

---

September 28, 2003

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.dennis.floripa.com.br/homosexual.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Once again, thank you for the above link. It is a well researched piece of scientific writing and I believe the writer has done a good job.

While I feel it is a well-researched and a thoroughly analytical paper, there are some areas I would like to make my own observation:

- At a biological level, some humans, due to one reason or other during early stages of development, become ‘effeminated’. This is process appear to be scientifically sound and I fully accept that from this stage onwards, it is entirely possible that the ‘effeminated’ male can and will develop homosexual behavior. Such cases are part of the biological wheel of fortune and from a psychological and sociological points of view, these people are in effect ‘women trapped in men’s bodies’.

- The paper pointed out that homosexuality exists across a number of species of mammals including a large number of primate species. However, instead of arguing that homosexuality is evolutionally evitable in the human race, I would like to point out the following, which you’d no doubt agree:

* Homosexuality in mammals does not make those which part take this activity exclusively homosexual; rather, mammals practice homosexual relationship when they’re outside the mating seasons. During the mating seasons, mammals which practice homosexuality relationships will revert to heterosexual activities. This is distinct from one human form of homosexuality (see below) where the men/women will practice homosexuality exclusively. For those humans who don’t have mating partners, there’re other forms of relieve available.

* Of those mammals that practice homosexuality tend to enforce social order within the social group - domination, subversion, hierarchy, etc. Humans should have no such needs to impose social orders on each other.

* Some male animals use homosexuality as a tactic to gain access to females within a dominant male’s territory or even to destroy eggs fertilized by another male.

The biological evolution of human beings and social developments of human societies have advance to a stage where such behavior is not considered requirements.

- Of the four categories of homosexuality being generalized (‘gay-culture’, ‘effeminated’ men acting as female for heterosexual male, older men/younger men and premarital homosexual relationships), I find the first category repulsive, the second bearable and the last two understandable.

After reading the above mention paper, it has certainly opened my mind on the ‘evolutionary’ argument and the motivation towards homosexuality. However, I’m not prepared to accept that all forms of homosexuality are acceptable. I believe there are vital distinction between the different types of homosexuality and hence their level of acceptability in their given historical and cultural context. As you’d no doubt recognize, the one form that I find repulsive (‘gay-culture’) is predominantly Northern Europeans and their descendants and I believe is the one form that we’re discussing here in this thread. While homosexuality is observed in other mammals, I believe that the cultural and social developments in human beings have moved beyond these practices.

---

September 28, 2003

Are you and I reading the same paper?

You're suggesting to others to read a piece of research and take it at face value without applying analysis of its findings and conclusions. That is completely against the spirit of science - science is a process of hypothesis, linkage, analysis and critique. Accepting any piece of science with blind faith is foolish. I read the evidence and I'm not disputing it; however, I'm not in complete agreement with the analysis and I don't agree with the conclusion. I've a brain and I've a resource of knowledge (or know people who do) - and I use them. After reading the paper, I actually discuss it with a friend of mine who's a zoologist, who I think knows a thing or two in this area and has seen this paper in another form, before writing my considered reply.

There are certain areas of the paper I'm happy to accept as they're evidence. On the other hand, the analysis is subjective and implication 'liberal' in application. Hence I cannot accept all of its conclusions.

After reading the paper, my statement regarding homosexuals being allowed to adopt children and my opposition against it still stands. As the paper has not address or provided any evidence to support the "gay-culture" category of homosexuality in the animal world. All the other three categories of homosexuality have been found in animals but not that one. I'm perfectly happy to accept these and have indicated in a reply above.

I cannot accept conclusions in any scientific area without supporting evidence and analysis. If you are reading the same paper as I have it is painfully obvious.

---

September 28, 2003

Yes, I have read the paper and it provided evidence to support three categories of homosexuality in found in human. I accept those as they are and I don't have a problem with that. However, the 4th type is not identified ("gay culture" which is "predominantly Northern Europeans and their descendants" and I believe it is the subject of our discussion). I cannot accept science without supporting evidence.

---

September 28, 2003

As the evidence you've provided actually categorized the different types of motivation to homosexuality, I'm using the same language as the arguments put up by your evidence. I'm happy to accept the aforementioned categories as they're support by evidence found in nature. As the evidence is a scientific paper, I'm applying my scientific analysis to the evidence to critique the conclusion.

I'm suggesting that in providing the above paper, you were hoping that I'd swept away by the 'overwhelming' research. However, I'm not. Now that I've had a chance to read and digest the information and have had a chance to discuss it with someone who has knowledge and understanding of these things, the evidence is simply incomplete and does not support the one area that I do not agree with. However, if you're as open minded as I'm in dealing with these things, you'd also recognize the same fact and arrive at a similar conclusion. Instead, you've now reverted back to calling people who don't agree with you as 'bigot'. Who's the 'bigot' here?

---

September 28, 2003

Well, call it what you might, but when I asked of evidence, I was expecting conclusive findings that will convince me that my prior opinion was incorrect. However, what you managed to throw at me was a piece of scientific writing that, while well researched, offered inconclusive evidence and drew its conclusion based on that. Moreover, I'm not prepared to accept anybody's scientific writing with blind faith and to do otherwise is not only a demonstration of poor understanding how scientific process function but also demonstrate ignorance. While you've provided the evidence and I'm entirely entitle to subject my analysis to that evidence. If the arguments are so conclusive, it would have convinced me, scientifically (since it is a scientific paper).

Your attack of me, as a person, also demonstrated your ignorance and your own 'bigotted' position. All you have to do is read the paper you've pointed to with a clear, open and objective mind and you'd arrive at the conclusion similar that of mine. I guess when you went over your own evidence, you were blinded by your own subjectivity and fail to observe the obvious - not all forms of homosexuality are supported by evolutionary evidence and the one form not supported by any form evidence is the "gay-culture". If you can find on the paper any 'evidence' that supports "gay culture" in animals, please let me know.

I'm trying to conduct, with you, through this forum, an civilized and intellectually-given argument. I resent your name-calling tactics as a form of support for your side of the debate. It is both unacceptable and rude. Additionally, your tactics is simply a form of demeaning yourself and degrading this debate.

---

September 28, 2003

If you're not so blinded by your own anger, you'd notice that I've mentioned above that:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
After reading the above mention paper, it has certainly opened my mind on the ‘evolutionary’ argument and the motivation towards homosexuality. However, I’m not prepared to accept that all forms of homosexuality are acceptable. I believe there are vital distinction between the different types of homosexuality and hence their level of acceptability in their given historical and cultural context.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, I guess I'm so full of myself that I don't recognize I've been enlightened... or it is otherwise.

This is not a smoke screen. Have you read the paper in full and understood what it says? Let me guess, you know what you're talking about. In your lines of argument, you've demonstrated that you're about as unprepared to accept facts in the cold light of day as you've suggested I'm. My lines of reasoning is well documented above and if you've the time and energy, you're welcome to read it.

If you've forgotten already, I've either accepted or I'm prepare to accept the following:

- ‘effeminated’ men acting as female for heterosexual male (what can only be described as 'substitution');
- older men/younger men (as a form of dominant/subversive display or even a mentor/student relationship);
- and premarital homosexual relationships (as a form of 'training')

None of the participants of the above forms of homosexuality are exclusively homosexual and they're scientifically supported by either observations in mammals (and hence an evolutionary development) or by explanation in terms of biological developments in early life, by all the papers written referred in your evidence.

You've kindly used my own words: "hence people have a freedom of choice". I'm exercising my freedom of choice to not to accept "gay-culture" (the 4th kind of homosexuality observed in human beings). This form of homosexuality is not related to the above three and it is again, in the absence of any scientific evidence, a choice. People have their rights to choose what to do with their own lives, as long as it does not affect others, but it doesn't mean that everyone has to agree with their choice. (Just in case you've forgotten, this form of homosexuality is not observed in animals and hence it is not evolutionally evitable.) However, when it comes to a decision that will affect the lives of others, this choice will have its effect. In that case, I'm against allowing homosexual couples to adopt children (I've stated my reasoning in other posts).

---

September 28, 2003

Are you trying to suggest that I have a one-dimensional view of human nature and human relationships or are you trying to imply that you've such understanding?

No, I believe and practise equal treatment with heterosexuals and homosexuals. However, there're certain areas I cannot agree to: 'marriage', adoption of children and segregated institutions, etc. The first is because I don't believe 'marriage' is something that takes place between two individuals of the same sex. The second is that there's no proof homosexuals couple will not affect the psychological and social developments of their adopted children and the last is like having a segregated institutions for fat (or thin or left-handed or whatever you want to substitute) people.

If you want to see why I see one particular form of homosexuality as unnatural, and hence I'm against it, please refer my earlier post.

---

September 28, 2003

The subjects you're implying so broad that it is impossible to answer. Whatever I say, you'd pick something to try and contradict my answer and hence claim that I'm a hypocrite.

If what you're referring above is limited to human behavior, biological and social developments, then the answer, on the whole, is yes. My believes are obviously being tested from time to time and it is impossible to know everything (I'm the first person to admit that I don't know everything, far from it) - e.g. the above mentioned paper has pointed out certain types of homosexuality have been found being practise in other primates and mammals, and I'm prepare to accept that these forms of practise are in effect extension of the evolutionary path - establishing of social order/hierarchy and mentoring. Moreover, I'm prepare to accept that due to particularities in early human biological developments, some males babies may become 'effeminated' which results in the biological and psychological developments of the said persons which result in homosexual tendencies and resultant practice of homosexual behavior. Yes, I have previously held incorrect views of most types of homosexuality and I'm prepare to say, I was wrong.

By all accounts, I'm perfectly happy to accept that I get things wrong if you can provide me with the evidence to the contrary - show me that humble pie and I'll eat. As far as I'm concern, there's no shame in being shown wrong - I learn something in every experience. However, until the evidence is there and it can withstand the vigor of objective analysis, I hold my own opinions.

---

September 30, 2003

1) IVF...

(It's not directly related, but I'll entertain the question anyway.) I'm against IVF, artificial insemination; cloning and other methods of artificially create human life. (You're going hate the reasoning, but here we go...) Personally, I think it is unnatural. There are a multitude of reasons why some couple can't have children, but if I recall correctly they can be classified into the following categories: biological/genetical, health, environmental and life-style. For biological/genetical and health reasons, some people can't have children. This might sound cruel, but unfortunately has given you a bad hand. Either due to biological developments or poor health somewhere along the line, the people concern have lost the ability to have their own children. It is also nature's own way of improving humans as a race. Why temper with that? Life-style is the worst possible excuse to employ artificial methods to have children. If your life-style has made people incapable of having children and they're desperately looking for ways to have them, may be it is time to look at their own life-styles and change them. Guess what, when the babies, their life-styles have to change anyway. If anyone who wants to a parent and don't think they're going to change their life and life-style - may be they should think again. Environmental effects on humans can be seen all over the world and it is often the pollutants that are causing people unable to have children. This is nature's way tell us we've gone too far.

Aside from the biological/genetical and health category, the rest of them are products of the so-call 'progress' in our society. Allowing these people to have children using artificial methods is simply treating the symptoms but not the causes. Why spend all the money and energy into short-term fixes while the big picture is getting worse and worse.

2) I believe that there are a number of ways children adopted by homosexual couple can be affected. In general, children acquire a significant portion their social skills from their parents, and later in life may be have difficulties in dealing with people of the same sex or the opposite sex, in terms of friendship and relationships. (I don't know because I haven't found anything relevant on this subject.) This again refer back to what I'd considered as 'normal family' if such things exist. However, it is entirely possible that the children may grow up to be strongly anti-homosexual despite the fact that they grow up in a family with homosexual parents, because it is not possible to know how children will develop. Psychological studies of children grew up in single-parent family have indicated that they may have aggressive behavior, concentration problems and other psychological and sociological difficulties. On the other hand, I have read somewhere that girls in who grew up in homosexual, bisexual and transsexual family tend to have higher aspirations while boys tend to be less aggressive. There is simply not enough research done on this area of child psychology, or not that I’m aware of anyway, and anything I have read appears to have been colored by political agendas (for one reason or another).

---

September 30, 2003

The answer to your question is 'yes'. However, I'm aware that it is nearly impossible distinguish different forms of homosexuality, but their given cultural and social context. Of the three other categories of homosexuality mentioned in the above paper, they can be linked, either tentatively or concretely, to behavior in animals.

I'm curious as to your interpretation of what is 'normal' and what is not?

---

September 30, 2003

This is moving away of the topic of thread, but I guess I can entertain it.

Personally, I'm against abortion, unless it is the result of rape (with or without conviction) or in cases where genetic defects or bodily defects means that the child will not be allowed to have a meaningful quality of life (meaning a life of misery). There is a large array of methods to prevent pregnancy. The argument in the 'Pro-Choice' camp is invalid as far as I'm concern as they've already exercise choice in using or not using contraceptive methods. I agree that sometimes contraceptives malfunction and my feelings on this small area is a little more flexible.

---

September 30, 2003

[Note] This is going to go way off topic... [/Note]

I think I'm a pragmatic person so I accept many aspects of modern life-style and modern society as they stand. If I were an idealist, I would've retreated to the mountains and live like a caveman. However, there're certain things within modern society that I've strong views about and sometimes they're contradictory...

For example, I've expressed my view in abortion, however, at the same time, I believe euthanasia should be legalized. Why prolong the pain and suffering when there's absolutely no prospect of a meaningful quality of life and there's no cure of any sort in the foreseeable future? At the same time, we're terminating a life before it draws to its natural conclusion... Believe me when I tell you this: I've a lot of conflict in this subject and it will please me more than anyone else if I can find some kind of position which I'm happy with and at the same time not in conflict with either of these ideals. However, owing to my background (cultural, social, education, etc), materials I've come across and my own thought process, these views remain in conflict. I'm not going to tear myself apart for that - there's more to life than that... Nevertheless, it's there.

Do I think abortion is wrong simply because it's what I consider 'unnatural'? Not quite. Except for cases of rape or malfunctioning of the contraceptive, it's a way of escaping personal responsibility - not in the shape of parental responsibility but the responsibility of one's own action - using contraceptives.

Do I think euthanasia is right despite the fact that it is 'unnatural'... Well, again, there's two sides of the story. We live in a free world. If the person is rational and capable of making sound decisions, and if the person choose to terminate his/her live because of the advance stages of terminal illness, let it be.

Everything is a balance of other things, ideas, goals, priorities, etc. Somehow, I have these floating around in my head. Much like a fruit machine, through my background, education, etc, I've been wired a certain way and with all the parameters fed, I come up with a certain view of things. It may not be right, but all it require is influence from other areas, the balance will readdress itself and I'd come out with a different view...


Link to Hexus.net Forum