World Pride Rescheduled for August 2006, Call for Clergy to Co-sign
Despite the first ever UJA GBLT Mission that was originally scheduled to coincide with this August’s World Pride and other acts of unity around the event, WorldPride is now officially postponed to August 6-12, 2006.
Below are excerpts from last week’s email from WorldPride’s North American Chair, Rabbi Sharon Kleinbaum, of Congregation Beth Simchat Torah in New York.
Dear Colleague,
By now, you may have heard that a decision was made to reschedule Jerusalem WorldPride due to the fact that its events would have coincided with the dates of Israel’s disengagement from Gaza. This decision was made by the
Board of Jerusalem Open House , host of WorldPride…I fully support this decision.
As a steadfast supporter of WorldPride and a person of faith, I ask that you remain aware that the bigots and zealots who have opposed and continue to oppose this gathering through lies, innuendoes and smear tactics, might feel “energized” by its rescheduling.
Also, be aware, that, while the complex political and social issues raised by the Gaza pullout and the solidarity we feel with the people of Israel at this time of uncertainty were our only motivation for the date change, those facts might be misrepresented by those blinded by hatred and intolerance.
Your support, now more than ever, is crucial to WorldPride and to getting the message across, loud and clear, that WorldPride will happen and will be the most successful example of tolerance, love and interfaith solidarity in one of mankind’s holiest locations. I also ask you to invite as many of your colleagues as possible to sign the clergy letter of support that you signed. We now have over 1000 members of the clergy from around the world as co-signers. You can view this list on our website at www.cbst.org.
I urge Jewschool readers who support this event to encourage clergy to sign this letter.
http://www.boycottworldpride.o…
xisnotx,
Why does World Pride scare you so much?
it appears that ‘boycottworldpride’ is not anti-gay, it’s anti-Israel
If I am opposed to a celebration of homosexuality in my holiest city does that make me hateful and intolerant?
xisnotx I agree with you but he is right that the site you mentioned is anti-Israel.
This disgusting world pride parade is a desecration of G-d Holy name.
I pray that we don’t all suffer for things like this. I support anyone who does anything to put a stop to it.
The probelm of WorldPride is that they make their parades in Jerusalem, a city that hosts large communities of the three world religions. If they want to make a parade let them do one in Tel Aviv. After all, you don’t see Haredim or devout muslims staging religious parades in secular cities…
But Josh-Man isn’t that their whole point and the reason they are doing it?
They specifically want to do it there in order to publicize and spread thier abominations amongst the rest of the world.
http://www.ziontrain.blog-city…
http://www.ziontrain.blog-city…
It’s possible that the cancelling/postponement of the gay parade in Jerusalem is a sign that the mashiach is on the way very soon.
In Zaphaniah 3:11, the prophet consoles Jerusalem and says, “…for then I will take away out of the midst of thee thy proudly exulting ones…” In hebrew, ‘exult in your arrogance’ is ‘alizei gaavatech’ which are two terms the gay ‘community’ has adopted.
World Pride parade? OK. Gay rights? You betcha. I’m absolutely respectful of gay rights and people behaving as they please in the bedroom, etc. But I don’t get the gay community’s desire to change the position of the major world religions — the torah and the koran (I think) are pretty explicit in their takes on these things. The Reform Movement is openly accepting of gay clergy members, but the Reform Movement believes the Torah is merely “divinely inspired.” Gay rights activists who also want to be validated by the Orthodox community are asking for more than simply a bending of one law — they are asking for a rejection of the absolutism of the Torah.
We are blessed to live in these societies where people can live as they please (within broad limits), and it is wonderful that people are not persecuted (psychos and racists aside) for their religious beliefs, race, and sexual preference, but to ask world clergy to validate the homosexual relationship is too much.
Josh-man: “If they want to make a parade let them do one in Tel Aviv. After all, you don’t see Haredim or devout muslims staging religious parades in secular cities…”
Joe Schmo: “They specifically want to do it there in order to publicize and spread thier abominations amongst the rest of the world.”
They want to do it there because Jerusalem is the capital city of Israel. But if we have a problem with Jerusalem being the capital city of all Jews, whether queer, straight, frum or secular, then perhaps Jerusalem shouldn’t be the capital city of a Jewish state.
Zionista, the Jerusalem is the Jewish capital because it has a special place and meaning to Jews throughout history, tradition and lore that is in a very large sense based on the Torah. On a larger scale, to stage the parade in the capital is quite arrogant, since Jerusalem is know and accepted as a ‘holy place’, to Jew, Muslim or Christian. Neither one of these religions approve of any kind of gay movement (although some religious streams tolerate it, you will not find anyone advocating or encourage that people be gay). Jerusalem is the capital of all Jews, regardless of denomination, affiliation or sexual preference, as well as a capital of the world’s three main religions. Just like any sensible person will dress modestly when walking through Meah Shearim or some religious sites out of respect for the residents or worshippers, so too certain principles of modesty and common sense should be adhered to depending on where you are and what you are doing. Calling Jerusalem your capital is one thing, staging a gay-pride parade in the historic capital is quite a different story and is very disrespectful and inconsiderate as it does not promote the gay movement’s interest , but only creates more opponents.
josh-man,
this Friday, Chabad will be organizing lag baomer parades around the world open to all.
Josh-man: “On a larger scale, to stage the parade in the capital is quite arrogant, since Jerusalem is know and accepted as a ‘holy place’, to Jew, Muslim or Christian.”
You see an afront to tradition, but others see a vibrant modern state wrestling with real dilemas of rights in conflict that come with genuine civilizations. This is exactly what we’re supposed to be up against in terms of the otherwise retrograde despotic capitals elsewhere in the region.
Further, I fail to see what a socio-political demonstration in what is the political capital of the Jewish state prohibits the acceptance of religious tenets of any faith. Should we maintain that the spiritual significance of the city is so fragile that Jews should not practice politics in Jerusalem, in the streets that share addresses with the Knesset and its ministers?
Zionista wrote: “They want to do it there because Jerusalem is the capital city of Israel. ….but others see a vibrant modern state wrestling with real dilemas of rights in conflict that come with genuine civilizations.”
See Josh-man what I wrote is right on the dime:
“They specifically want to do it there in order to publicize and spread their abominations amongst the rest of the world.”
–We sometimes have to understand the root of the conflict. Zionista does not accept the covenant – she supports them.
They purposely want t to be public and in Jerusalem because they hate the fact that we are chosen and that we keep the Torah and they want to show that even in Jerusalem it is OK to do what they do.
They are similar to those who purposely want to open restaurants with pork in Jerusalem.
Like those who want to put churches and missionaries there.
Its a war that they are waging- understand that.
Joe Schmo: “Like those who want to put churches and missionaries there.”
The homosexual agenda of Christian missionaries… go figure!
Schmo’s fevered imangination would almost be funny, if it weren’t indicative of the desperate bigotry of those who are so threatened by modernity that they would trash constitutions and fly airplanes into skyscrapers to kill it.
Joe Schmo: “Zionista does not accept the covenant – she supports them.”
And how did I get to be a chick anyway (not that there’s anything wrong with that)? And are there any other goofball assumptions you’re so certain of, Joe?
I don’t get it – you write a whole missive about becoming shomer shabbat, but you urge everyone to follow sharon kleinbaum’s lead and trumpet gay pride from the streets of Jerusalem. And lest you follow with, “We all pick and choose!” – which is the same thing Sharon Kleinbaum has said herself on national television – we don’t. You’re wrong. We accept everything. And we live in a social and intellectual framework that manages to synthesize the ENTIRE torah with modern life. If you want to be a part of that, great. If you don’t, don’t pretend you can play both sides.
Zionista:
They want to do it there because Jerusalem is the capital city of Israel.
– – – – – – – – – –
And Lisbon is the capital of Portugal – but there haven’t been any World Prides there.
There WAS a major World Pride event in Rome – tell me, Ms. Z: do you REALLY think Rome was picked simply because it’s the capital of Italy? Maybe for the restaurants?
World Pride targeted Rome – and is targeting Jerusalem – specifically to attack the religious values of others. On those other value systems’ home turf. That is the symbolism behind these protests.
It is an affront to those other people – and totally inconsistent with the gay propanganda line of “live and let live”. They are NOT willing to extend the same respect to others that they demand for theselves, and are actively trying to marginalize and attack others with whom they disagree (and who happen to be the majority).
Zionista:
But if we have a problem with Jerusalem being the capital city of all Jews, whether queer, straight, frum or secular, then perhaps Jerusalem shouldn’t be the capital city of a Jewish state.
– – – – – – – – – – –
Nice! Backhandedly slipping in your radical opinion as if all Jewry agrees to it, wrapping the mantle of self-righteous judgementalism around yourself, and ending with a plaintive whimper of victimology politics.
You’ve hit all the main techniques of leftie-liberal propaganda – not to mention your opening post on this thread, the classic innuendo-laden “and WHY are YOU so threatened by gays, hmmm?”
Homosexuals are targeting and trampling all those who disagree with them – and claim they’re doing it in the name of “tolerance”. No doubt they’ll whine about being victims if the streets of Jerusalem are closed to them.
It would be pathetic if it weren’t so Orwellian.
Zionista,
“World Pride”?, the parade hardly represents the world gay community, and if they are trying to be so universal, why not stage parades in major “World” cities like NY, London, Paris etc…
Also, the “World” does not officially recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capitol, so a parade to gain world support in a capitol that, well isn’t considered a capitol is odd to say the least don’t you think?
Ben-David insists that the “homosexual agenda” will end Judaism, but I’m the one with the victimology politics. Now that’s comedy!
Z’nista: please indicate where I said this.
… and exactly what IS the “homosexual agenda”? And why does it involve davka imposing themselves on the streets of cities they neither visit regularly, or live in?
Muffti is trying to understand: why isn’t this really a debate about free speech rather than about the politics of homosexuality? Given that Israel is a modern state that enshrines the right to free speech and public peaceful demonstration, then the Orthodox of Jerusalem have no right to demand an end to the parade than the people of Skokie had the right to stop the neo-nazis from marching. If you don’t like the right to free speech and peaceful public demonstration, then why don’t you come forth and say it rather than whinging about some grand homosexual conspiracy and agenda? Homosexuals either have or don’t have the right to hold a parade, and if they do, they may do it where they like. So ben-david, when you say:
“World Pride targeted Rome – and is targeting Jerusalem – specifically to attack the religious values of others. On those other value systems’ home turf. That is the symbolism behind these protests.”
You are dead on. And it’s apparently their right to do so. And if you want to go to San Fransico and have an anti-gay rally, you will get Muffti’s derision for your intent but his support for excersizing your right.
followup: Muffti checked the Basic Law and couldn’t find anything that obviously enshrines the right to peaceful demonstration. Anyone know of the relevant law so we can place the conversation where it firmly belongs?
Mufti you are right about your criticism of those confused who straddle the fence.
Either be like me, honest, and call it what it is: an out and out war of values; to be honest and to recognize the conflict between western democracy and Judaism.
This conflict comes up when discussing the issue of Non-Jewish right to vote and turn Israel into a Non-Jewish, in this case Arab and/or muslim, country.
The conflict comes up when missionaries come to establish center and it comes up in a case like this march.
The problem here is that the defenders of Judaism or the right-wingers that we see are conflicted inside. On the one hand they understand that they are Jewish and they know about the covenant. On the other hand they were brought up in this society and are pulled in that direction. In addition they don’t want to sound ‘too radical (or reactonary).’ So they are trying to have them both live together which of course is impossible.
That is how feelings of self-guilt are born.
hehehe…the Muffti and JS agreeing. Amazing. Muffti is totally with you, except on the coin.
Ben-David: “World Pride targeted Rome – and is targeting Jerusalem – specifically to attack the religious values of others.”
Maybe you mean something else in your choice of the word “attack,” Ben-David, but I read it as denoting a severe act of unprovoked aggression. If you meant something else, please clue me in. But if you’re going to argue that point, at least stand by it.
From where I sit, it appears as if your simply knowing that pairs of men or pairs of women may conduct intimate relationships — anything from sexual relations to commiting their lives to each other with all the legal benefits and responsibilities that straight folks take for granted (and often hire expensive legal counsel to get out of) — creates such a problem for you that you must stake out an opinion about the whole process. As I understand it, this is exactly the status quo against which the folks at Open House Jerusalem seek to assert themselves by inviting WorldPride to their city. So, what I would like you to answer now is how exactly that assuming the same social respect and establishing the same political rights for gay couples that straight couples enjoy — such as equal rights under probate law, visitation rights in hospitals, and such — should be taken as an “attack” on the religious values of you or anybody else?
I ask this of you in all good faith and as the representative of “mainstream values” that you like to present yourself as. So, I would appreciate it if you would answer in kind.
One other minor thing… It’s weird that you referred to me as “Ms. Z” in this thread, and, coincidentally, Joe Schmo referred to me in another recently as “she.” This presumption of gender mystifies me, since I’ve never presented myself as a woman, nor do I recall either of you ever having asked. Like I say, its just a little weird. If you care to explain, cool. If not, that’s fine too. It probably won’t keep me up nights either way.
The suffix “ista” is feminine in some Romance languages.
My assumption – and probably that of others – is that Zionista is a construction based on words like “Sandinista” and “Rebelutionista” – the radical lingo of South America.
Or maybe it’s something as mundane as “fashionista”.
Still – sounds feminine to these Western-educated ears.
Regarding your other “deep questions” – more sophistry. And again you portray your (radical, non-mainstream) views as the norm, and try to maneuver me into “defending myself”.
In fact your views are a radical departure from the norms of behavior held throughout world history by every stable civilization. They have all denied the normalcy of homosexuality, treating it as at best an aberration, at worst a pathology – and it is often accompanied by other clearly pathological behaviors.
Western, Judeo-Christian society has, until very recently, correctly identified homosexuality as a pathological condition. Freud and all the other major thinkers of modern psychology agreed, describing quite clearly both the etiology of gay pathology and the detours of natural development that cause it.
One of the few positive results of the gay rights movement is that we now have large scale studies that – inadvertently! – confirm these theories. Data collected by gay-friendly organizations like the Gay Men’s Health Crisis confirm patterns of compulsive promiscuity, and data from Europe – including a recent report from the Dutch Ministry of Health – indicate that a generation of gays raised with full equality still suffer from substance abuse and depression at rates 4 to 5 times the rate in the general population. Numbers like these are commonly used to confirm pathology and/or mental distress.
The data also confirms the theories of homosexual identity formation: large-scale surveys of America’s gay community show that 60-80 percent of gay men suffered childhood sexual abuse, and 60 percent or more of them grew up in homes that match the dysfunctional patterns described by Freud and others.
The widely-trumpeted “evidence” for a genetic cause for homosexuality falls apart on examination. The most recent example is the Scandinavian study on the brain’s response to pheromones – sexual scent chemicals. The study found that gay men respond to male pheromones as women do – but even the gay-friendly New York Times was honest enough to explain that the result did not indicate causation – it’s just as likely that the brain response is a learned, conditioned behavior resulting from a lifetime sexual experiences with men. No proof here that gays are “born that way”. All the other “proofs” also turn out to be, uh, hand-waving.
It’s obvious that Judaism considers it more compassionate to treat people’s psychological problems than to abandon them to a life of loneliness and suffering.
Mufti has an interesting point about free speech – but here we have a situation in which a non-representative global organization is trying to impose itself on a native, sovereign population. This is not just Israeli gays marching in their own country – and the organizers of the protest don’t have anything like the consensus authority of, say, the World Bank or the WHO.
Mufti is invited to read up on the current debate in Europe over the EU constitution – which tries to undercut representative democracy in favor of a sort of unelected NGO governing body.
Problematic indeed.
Ben-David: “…that Zionista is a construction based on words like ‘Sandinista’… the radical lingo of South America” —
And dont’ forget, a great Clash album too! Also the snarkier lingo of the conservative punditry — like “Clintonista.” But, yes. Point taken. We can learn alot about people based on the stubborn certainty of their assumptions, as well as their hesitancy to ask questions first.
More, eventually…. Meanwhile, Gut Shabbes everybody.
One more thing….
Ben-David: “My assumption – and probably that of others – is that Zionista is a construction based on words like ‘Sandinista’ and ‘Rebelutionista’ – the radical lingo of South America…. Still – sounds feminine to these Western-educated ears.”
Funny. Most of us with any kind of ears consider South America part of the West.
Ben David, I have to respectfully disagree with your assertion of the analysis of homosexuality as a learned or developed condition. The biological arguements do not “fall apart” upon analysis, it is merely the case that proponents of the development hypothesis tend to ignore the studies that show significant results and focus more on weak and unclear studies, such as the pheromone one you mentioned.
Hard evidence includes, but is not limited to, studies demonstrating significant hypothalamic differences between gay and straight individuals derived from both regular and functional imaging studies (like PET and fMRI). These studies have been replicated numerous times by independent labs.
Further, several labs have demonstrated different neurotransmitter secretions such as fluoxetine (Kinnunen LH, 2004). These have also been replicated.
Further evidence exists with significant differences in androgen levels among gay and straight individuals. While it is unclear what these neuroendocrine differences mean in terms of behavior, the results seem to have been replicated.
One can also point to the clear existence of bisexuality and even homosexuality in the animal kingdom. A significant minority of penguins, bonobos (the majority of whom engage in bisexual behavior by the way), ostriches, flamingos, macaques, and even insects mate, build nests and even take in foster offspring with members of the same sex. While the adaptive or nonadaptive nature of this activity is in quesion, zoologists and biologists do not doubt the existence of gay animals. In fact, scientists have recently found that dolphin calfs naturally go through a phase of exclusive homosexuality during adolescence.
Now looking at the points you raised, which are largely steeped in the scientifically questionable field of psychoanalysis, one can also poke a variety of holes in the arguements. For instance, the idea of drug dependence and depression as confirming pathology or illness is quite absurd. It is merely correlational. One could easily point to numerous, far more plausible factors, such as the psychological trauma of “coming out” to ones family and friends, the potential rejection from ones loved ones and traditional community, as well as the necessity of suddenly plunging into a novel and unfamiliar subculture. Social psychologists would argue that any or all of these could lead to depression and drug addiction.
The assertion that high rates of childhood sexual abuse confirm pathological views of homosexuality (and let us not even concern ourselves with discredited Freudian psychology), is also absurd. Again, it is merely correlational and many modern studies have indicated numerous possibilities in explaining this, including how “some adult men may also seek contact with what they perceive as particularly vulnerable male youth, youth who lack secondary sexual characteristics, or youth who may exhibit stereotypical female characteristics.â€
As for the use of statistics, they are highly questionable. UCLA clinical studies found that 38% of abuse victims studied identified as strictly heterosexual, compared with 33% identifying as homosexual.
Finally, genetic evidence is not as flimsy as you seem to claim. The pheromone study, which was indeed questionably relevent to human beings, is not behavioral genetics at all. It is another branch of physiological psychology known as psychoneuroendocrinolog y. Even this branch of psychology has provided strong evidence for physiological neural differences resulting from natal testosterone levels, demonstrating some significant impact on gender identity and sexual orientation (Journal of Gynecological Endocrinology, 2004).
Evidence for genetic homosexuality include genetic knock in studies, whereby transplanting certain genes into lab animals such as fruit flies and mice caused them to turn away from females and become sexually attracted to male conspecifics (Science, 1995). Unlike the correlational data provided by those arguing against genetic bases, this is causal evidence and hence far stronger.
Sexual behavior has also been found to be, to some degree, heritable. Numerous, independent twin studies seem to confirm this. The most significant environmentally influenced variable seemed to be merely the age at onset of sexual behavior. For instance one can look at (Lyons et al, 2004 – from the Archives of Sexual Behavior), (Quinsey VL, 2003 -Annals of New York Academy of Science), and (Harrell, et al 1999, Archives of Genetic Psychiatry).
Axl, I think I’ve fallen in love with you.
axl this is absurd,
Just use simple logic. Something external to your body – such as seeing a guy that results in the arousal an internal desire can only be learnt. Logic dictates that.
How would somebody ‘know’ that this form seen by the eye would satisfy their urges.
They have to have learnt it either from others or from hanging out with other guys while thinking about their urges until they train their minds to associate the two.
JS man, no no. Its not absurd, it is in fact quite logical to believe that arousal behavior is biological. Keep in mind we’re not talking about complex behaviors that would require Bandurian modeling (if you’re into that) or adopting roles (if you’re into that too), here. We’re talking about sexual response to stimuli. Something so basic and fundamental to nature that it HAS to be hardwired. A gay man who sees an attractive fellow will follow the same sexual response as a straight man towards a woman. Its a matter of neuroscience to explain why its different.
I know where you are coming from, conditioning and socialization. However, consider this basic idea. If sexual attraction required learning and socialization, how is it that asocial animals, say those that mature into sexual development in the absence of proper models “know” to have sex or how to have sex? Take a lab rat. They are usually born to a mother who is kept a way from males (to protect the infant and her). At a young age they are removed and placed in their own cage, isolated as they are highly territorial. When you put the rat in a cage with a conspecific that arouses it they will immediately engage in lordosis, or mounting behavior.
If you were to believe that arousal must be learned, then you would expect the rat not to know what to do. Yet it knows what it wants and knows how to get it. Therefore, SOMETHING must be there in the brain prior to exposure that influences arousal. Gonadal steroids are the key. They basically tell the rat whom to mount at first. An interesting experiment is this: castrate a male rat at birth and even if you try and get it to model they will never perform proper sexual behaviors (think a lazy homer simpson). Castrate the rat after its “puberty” and it will still continue to mount no matter what (think stud).
Now, the neurobiology is not yet clear. That is to say that the exact pathway has not yet been mapped out. We DO know that the medial preoptic area (an area of the hypothalamus where testosterone binds) is involved in mediating sexual behavior, as if you lesion it sexual behavior will never develop. We know that the hypothalamic-pituitary- gonadal tract is involved, as sexual behavior involves levels of gonadal hormones.
Now, the current theory is called the critical period theory. It goes like this, the potential for sexual behavior would be organized in the womb by early exposure to certain hormones (say androgens for the moment). Evidence for this are in rats where if you inject androgen loads into devoloping female overectomized rats they will mount females, whereas if you overectomize and inject androgen loads into an adult female rat no such behavior occurs.
Accepting the basic premise that sexual behavior is innate and entails the activation of certain areas of the brain by hormones, we can do a quick sketch of what will happen when you see something you like. Say you see a pretty girl, the information travels to secondary and associational areas of the brain that tell you “thats a girl.” Your brain responds, it says do something, so it does what it does best. It releases hormones. The hypothalamus releases gonadotropin releasing factors, which binds to receptors at the pituitary releasing leutinizing and follical stimulating hormones, which bind to receptors at the gonadal level (haZayin, boychick) releasing T. Testosterone binds to medial preoptic areas and other assorted brain areas involved in sexual function and you have your sexual response sans learning.
Now of course, we accept that conditioning must take place, and indeed studies have shown that. Particularly with the medial preoptic area, where if you remove it after few sexual encounters have occurred it no longer matters. However, it is necessary for those first few sexual encounters which are biologically and not experientially driven.
Now back to homosexual men. If we were to accept that they were biologically determined to be attracted towards men, then we would expect some differences in neuroanatomy compared to heterosexual men. LeVay’s groundbreaking 1991 study (LeVay, 1991), found that heterosexual men had a third interstitial nucleus of the anterior hypothalamus (INAH3) that was twice as large as women AND homosexual men. Other studies have found large differences in the sexually dimorphic nuclius of the preoptic area (SDN-POA) (Byne & Styne, 1997).
So while the neurobiology of sexual attraction and orientation is a bit hazy, it seems to be shaping up to indicate that it is indeed innate.
Now the reason Rose if falling in love with me is simply because Im so loveable. THAT doesn’t need scientific explanation ;-).
It’s a complete turn on to see Joe Schmo getting confronted with real logic.
Rose:
It’s a complete turn on to see Joe Schmo getting confronted with real logic.
– – – – – – – – – – –
Not logic, but pseudo-science.
Axl, referring to your first, less speculative post:
Hard evidence includes, but is not limited to, studies demonstrating significant hypothalamic differences between gay and straight individuals derived from both regular and functional imaging studies (like PET and fMRI). These studies have been replicated numerous times by independent labs.
– – – – – – – – – – – –
… and all these studies share the same fault as the pheromone study: they are retrospective studies of adult brains. NONE of these studies are proof that homosexuals are “born that way” because they document gay brains AFTER a lifetime of conditioning.
We know that use changes brain structure and function. Studies of drug addicts and victims of sexual assault show that compulsive, addictive behavior and traumatic one-time experiences also change the brain – sometimes permanently. We also know that hormone levels are influence by social interaction, environmental stimulus, and behavior.
We cannot know from any of the studies you cite whether the difference is inborn or a result of environmental/behaviora l conditioning. The study by LeVay that you cite in the second post suffers the same shortcoming – and LeVay himself admitted that his study does not prove a genetic basis for homosexuality.
You go on to cite evidence of homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom. Sorry – the vast majority of heterosexual seals, ducks or whatever don’t mark their bonds with marriage ceremonies, and the sexual behavior of male goats, cats, dogs, and monkeys would be considered rape in human terms.
Animal sexual behavior has little bearing on discussions of human sexuality, which is an emotional, moral and social construct as much as a physical one.
Among chimps, females regularly trade sex for food and protection, infanticide is rampant, and human notions such as grandparents – to say nothing of engaged fatherhood – are virtually absent. Would we all be more fulfilled if we were “true to our genetic heritage” – or is it correct for human society to expect heterosexuals to control any “genetic” disposition to promiscuity that we may have inherited from our monkey forbears – for our own benefit and fulfillment? If so, then the same demand can – and should – be made of those with homosexual urges, which have resulted in exploitative, unstable relationships wherever they have been indulged.
Turning to your critique of psychology – be careful: gays have based their sacred victim status upon just this evidence of dysfunction. One can’t accept psychology as a valid sciene only when its findings bolster your opinion.
You write about “merely correlational” associations – but it is standard practice to look for correlations with depressive/self-descruc tive behavior as an indication of pathology. For example, this is the evidence that has led to the classification of bulimia and other eating disorders as pathological and warranting clinical treatment.
We are now 30 years after the gay rights movement began. Gays have had full legal equality and social approval in some European countries for over 20 years. As an Orthodox Jew with a kippah on my head, I will endure more ostractism and hostility on the streets of many major cities than a homosexual couple. Pre-homosexual youth in the US and Europe are showered with positive, supportive messages – messages so widespread, loud, and seductive that they intrude on the normal development of young heterosexual men who are simply going through a “puppy love” stage. The popular culture celebrates positive gay role models.
Yet the rates of self-destructive, compulsive, dysfunctional behavior persist. Specifically, gays have largely not traded their compulsive sexual promiscuity for stable relationships – even when their unions have been legalized.
It is no longer plausible to blame these behaviors on society’s hostility or marginalization of homosexuals. The persistece of such behavior is a “mere correlation” that indicates mental and emotional distress.
This DOES confirm the original theories of gay identity formation, which trace homosexuality back to childhood sexual trauma and/or problematic relationships in the family, particularly estrangement from the same-sex parent. Again, surveys of the gay community indicate that the vast majority of openly gay people do in fact share these early life histories.
In this connection, you write something astounding:
As for the use of statistics, they are highly questionable. UCLA clinical studies found that 38% of abuse victims studied identified as strictly heterosexual, compared with 33% identifying as homosexual.
– – – – – – – – – – – –
Axl – gays make up at most 3 percent of the population. Yet this study of yours says that TWO THIRDS of all people who were abused as children have had homosexual behaviors feature in their lives.
The NINETY SEVEN (97!) percent of the population that is heterosexual accounts for only ONE THIRD of the child abuse cases.
Are you sure you want to cite this study in support of gay normalcy? It indicates the exact opposite.
Your post loops back to the genetic claims, and further claims based on animal behavior. I’ve already discussed these above.
Then comes the famous “twin studies” which use (genetically) identical twins to determine the degree to which various behaviors and conditions are genetic or environmental.
For example, eye color (strictly genetic) matches in 99.9 percent of twin pairs (= if one twin has brown eyes, the other also does 99.9 percent of the time). This is the level of genetic determinism most gay propaganda claims is “proven” by twin studies.
But what is the rate of correspondence between twins for homosexuality?
Well, heart disease and other conditions are caused by a mix of genetic factors AND lifestyle choices, so the correspondence between the twins goes down – something like 70 percent for some of the conditions that were surveyed.
Divorce is a largely behavioral/environmenta l phenomenon – so the correlation dips to only 60 percent.
And homosexuality? When one twin is gay, the other is gay just 50 percent of the time. In other words, when the twin study data is actually looked at in content, not as part of a pro-gay smokescreen – they prove that homosexuality is largely a matter of environment/behavior.
When we consider the clear evidence that disturbances in the childhood home influence gay identity formation, we can explain a lot of that 50 percent of twin pairs that are both gay, without resorting to genetic theories.
Interestingly, the largest twin study – in Minnesota, I believe – also tracked a subset of ADOPTED brothers of the twins that were studied. Adopted sons in homes that produced a gay son turned out gay 13 percent of the time (versus 2-3 percent incidence of homosexuality in the general population). So these home *environments* tended to generate gay outcomes even among children totally unrelated genetically to the rest of the family. Again, an indication that gay identity springs from environmental and behavioral factors.
So:
No real scientifc proof that homosexuality is innate or genetic.
Much scientific proof that it results from a specific set of childhood deficits or sexual traumas.
Studies of the general population indicate that up to 1/3 of most young men will experience transient crushes on another man during adolescence early adulthood. It is important for men in their teens and early 20s to know that many of those gay-enabling counselors rushing in to “help” them uncover their “true” self are pushing a pack or lies.
“You go on to cite evidence of homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom. Sorry – the vast majority of heterosexual seals, ducks or whatever don’t mark their bonds with marriage ceremonies, and the sexual behavior of male goats, cats, dogs, and monkeys would be considered rape in human terms.”
Sorry – those that DO pair bond do demonstrate homosexual relationships that mimic a heterosexual relationship. Witness the homosexual flamingo who pair bonds, constructs a nest and fosters children. Or the homosexual dolphin who bond to a mate.
“Animal sexual behavior has little bearing on discussions of human sexuality, which is an emotional, moral and social construct as much as a physical one.”
– Animal sexual behavior has a great bearing since humans are animals and this demonstrates that homosexuality is not a phenomenon “created” by human socialization practices. Sexual constructs and morals are only created by human society through various cultural systems and are imposed on our nature, for right or wrong.
“Among chimps, females regularly trade sex for food and protection, infanticide is rampant, and human notions such as grandparents – to say nothing of engaged fatherhood – are virtually absent.”
– Dont forget paedophilia and pretty much any other kind of sexual nature that are in the books. What is your point? This evidence only demonstrates that so-called human notions of sexual being are merely natural and exist in the natural environment. The rest of your arguement is one of morality and philosophy. Not something I’m educated to any large degree in, I must say.
“gays have based their sacred victim status upon just this evidence of dysfunction.”
– I dont really care what gays base their status on. Im not gay and it is not my business.This is science, a quest for understanding.
– My problem with correlational data in this instance is that it just doesnt hold up to scrutiny. There are far too many third variables to say that instances of pathology confirm that homosexuality is dysfunctional. For instance, harsh treatement of gays by their parents or by those seeking to “cure” them may lead to instances of depression and drug abuse in the proportion that you claim. You cannot claim, or seek to claim, a causal relationship from correlational data. It is simply poor science.
The distress you claim could come from these sources or countless others and hence makes your correlational research useless in this instance.
“As for the use of statistics, they are highly questionable. UCLA clinical studies found that 38% of abuse victims studied identified as strictly heterosexual, compared with 33% identifying as homosexual”
– This study says nothing about what you implied from it. It is not a populational study, or a case study, but a lab study. They took a proportional sample of gays and straights and found that gays had a history of sexual abuse that is largely comparable to straights, if not smaller. Because its a sample, it is infered to be representative of the larger populations of both groups, hence making relative percentages of the population (3:97) irrelavent.
– This refutes your use of statistics that claimed that most gays
suffered childhood trauma, or that gays suffer childhood trauma in some proportion greater than straights. One must be careful with statistics, and read them carefully, as to not infer ones own beliefs onto them.
I agree, there is never a perfect one to one relationship in twin studies. It is foolish to say a given trait is totally environmental and totally genetic. If I gave this impression, I apologize. The going rate of heritability for homosexuality in twin studies is somewhere between 52-60%. In terms of heritability this is a strong indicator of a genetic component.
This is NOT to say that if one twin is gay, 52-60% of the time the other twin is gay. This is also NOT to say that 48-40% of the trait is environmental. The numbers themselves are largely meaningless without further genetic studies.
All they say is that a greater similarity exists and that it shows a genetic baisis. Typically, heritability studies precede linkage analysis, which is ongoing.
Now, a behavior is not caused by “genetics and lifestyle choice.” It is caused by genetics and environment. There is tremendous difference. Environment involves uterine development. Thus, androgens and other BIOLOGICAL factors are largely at play in structuring neural developement as evidenced previously.
– There is no clear evidence that disturbances in the childhood home influence homosexuality. That is the debate.
-The Minnesota twin study is notoriously flawed. However, if you want to bring it up…
“Monozygotic (MZ), same-sex dizygotic (DZ), and opposite-sex dizygotic (OS) twins from the Registry provided a means to assess the significance of genetic influence for sexual orientation, as well as to detect genetic effects differing for men and women. For none of the phenotypes examined was there evidence for genetic effects specific to one sex; in other words, the same set of genes was responsible for sexual orientation in the sexes.”
– and –
“The prevalence of homosexuality in the Minnesota Twin Registry was also estimated. For men, depending on the criterion used, the prevalence of homosexuality ranges from 1.06% to 3.24%, with an average of 2.49%; for women, the range is from .55% to 2.11%, with an average of 1.68%. If combined with bisexuality, the average rises to 4.57% for men and 3.26% for women. These rates of homosexuality are very similar to those found in studies using probability samples conducted in the United States and elsewhere. ”
– and –
“The results of this study are also in substantial agreement with other behavioral genetic investigations of sexual orientation: Phenotypes relevant to sexual orientation are significantly influenced by genetic effects.”
– and of course your clear environmental issues –
“The meaning of a significant special sibling environment for only opposite-sex female twins is even less clear…. Determining conclusively the source of these special environments must await additional studies focusing on those aspects of the environment that facilitate the development of sexual orientation.”
– your data for the last part comes from Kinsey’s study. This figure of 37% has later been paired down to (depending on the study) about 20-15%. And this includes masturbating to a homosexual fantasy at least once, and should not be taken as a serious attempt to derive homosexual statistics, as we know that sexual fantasy and active sexual orientation are largely seperable.
SO:
Mounting neurochemical, neurophysiological, genetic and environemental evidence that indicates that homosexuality is largely a function of nature and is not “taught to kids.”
These include:
– neuroanatomical differences in areas involved in sexual behavior from PET scans
– neurochemical differences from PET scans
– Ongoing finds of behavioral similarity in the animal kindgom indicating that homosexuality as a natural part of the ecosystem, INCLUDING evidence of nestbuilding and bonding among homosexual animals such as in flamingos, bonobos and dolphins.
– genetic knock in studies demonstrating cause and effect that have been replicated in numerous labs
– some twin studies evidencing a strong genetic component
– in uterine studies demonstrating the effect of androgen loads on sexual orientation during development
NO scientific proof that it arises from specific traumas. Only
weak and sometimes spurious correlational data and anecdotal evidence from councilors and “cured” homosexuals.
Axl,
I read through what you wrote. The only thing that to me would show something is the first thing you wrote about mice separated at birth from any other mouse and then when put into a cage with another mouse would be attracted to the other mouse of the opposite gender.
All the stuff after that is lots of theory and I don’t want to focus on that.
Now just work with me while I hash this out and think aloud about that first point.
To my way of thinking it doesn’t make sense for outside stimuli, that is simply seen, to cause an internal desire without it being learnt.
So I’m trying to think what would a male mouse do if all alone with another male for the first time?
So I can imagine that both have an urge but they don’t know what to do with it. they look at one another and see a mirror image of themselves; they both know where the urge emanates from. So they attempt to connect those two places. Alas they don’t fit. They would probably not even try the unnatural way because the second mouse of course has no urge in that spot.
So it wouldn’t work out.
On the other hand with a male and female when they see their reflections in the other mouse and get together – it works.
Thats how I would imagine it happens.
A proper study would therefore be to have two males together and also two females together and to see how they interact.
Just having a study with male/female together doesn’t help much because they will naturally explore and try to do something with their urges as in the study. I would imagine that they would also initially try even for male alone or female alone. In fact I would think that a solitary mouse would also try to do something with the urge even alone.
Axl,
You sounded very sincere in what you were saying. You didn’t so far respond – does my point make sense?
axl not much new here, so I’ll be brief:
Animal vs. human sexuality:
“Among chimps, females regularly trade sex for food and protection, infanticide is rampant, and human notions such as grandparents – to say nothing of engaged fatherhood – are virtually absent.”
– Dont forget paedophilia and pretty much any other kind of sexual nature that are in the books. What is your point? This evidence only demonstrates that so-called human notions of sexual being are merely natural and exist in the natural environment.
– – – – – – – – – – – – –
… how do paedophilia, infanticide, and other animal sexual behaviors translate into “human notions of sexual being”?
Do you REALLY think that biological capability alone is the criterion for healthy, normal, fulfilling human sexuality? Do you REALLY think their existence in the animal world “normalizes” them for humans?
You write:
The rest of your arguement is one of morality and philosophy. Not something I’m educated to any large degree in, I must say.
– – – – – – – – – – –
You left out the dimensions of emotion and psychology, as well.
Do you REALLY think these uniquely human dimensions of experience have no bearing on “human notions of sexual being”?!?!?
I thought we were debating exactly where to draw the line between healthy, normal human sexual choices and those that are pathological. Do you think that there ARE any sexual choices that are pathological or too debased for humans? Or does the valueless, amoral lowest common denominator of animal nature suffice for human sexuality as well?
Should (human) date-rapists and paedophiles then be prosecuted?
– My problem with correlational data in this instance is that it just doesnt hold up to scrutiny. There are far too many third variables to say that instances of pathology confirm that homosexuality is dysfunctional. For instance, harsh treatement of gays by their parents or by those seeking to “cure” them may lead to instances of depression and drug abuse in the proportion that you claim. You cannot claim, or seek to claim, a causal relationship from correlational data. It is simply poor science.
– – – – – – – – – –
… but it is standard practice in the social sciences, and often all we have to go on. As I wrote, similar correlations are used to classify bulimia and other behaviors as disorders.
Also: your suggested explanation is no more supported by fact than mine. And as I pointed out, it is becoming less and less plausible as the process of coming out has become far less stigmatizing.
Certainly adult gays living in major cities can go for years and suffer only garden-variety insult. Yet the data (you want to be scientific, no?) – the data clearly indicate that gays continue their compulsive and self-destructive behaviors throughout their (tragically short!) adult lives.
You are NOT sticking to the facts if you continue to offer up politically correct, victimology-based justifications long after decades of “progress” have nullified most of the stigma of being gay.
If one takes all the data:
– the drug and alchohol abuse at rates 4-5 times the rate in the general population,
– AND the communal norm of compulsive promiscuity (less than 10 percent of gay men maintain a committed relationship for more than 2 years at ANY time in their adult life)
– AND rates of depression and suicide 3-4 times that of the general population AMONG OUT-AND-PROUD ADULTS, years after the “trauma” of coming out.
– AND the fact that 60-80 percent of the people acting this way report childhood sexual abuse and/or family dysfunction.
… yes, axl, it is standard operating practice in the social sciences to CORRELATE between these various data points, and determine that homosexuality is a maladapted behavior, and homosexuals as a group show evidence of mental distress – even years after the initial trauma of coming out, even now when they live unmolested.
This is normal methodology in psychology and the other social sciences.
Regarding the UCLA study – you cited it first, and I still don’t know how it was conducted: What is a “proportional sample of gays and straights”?
I base my claim that 60-80 percent of homosexuals were abused as children on large-scale telephone and in-person surveys conducted by the Gay Men’s Health Crisis, and on other such studies by similarly gay-friendly organizations.
Regarding the twins studies – it’s hard to sort out your multiple errors, but…
The Minnesota study had the largest, most random sample – homosexuality was just one question asked of thousands of twin pairs, selected from the Minnesota birth registry. The only other study I know was much smaller in scale, and recruited twins through ads in gay magazines – not exactly unbiased. And they reached approximately the same result.
Your mention of hormonal factors is both inaccurate and out of place – it’s a study of identical twins, they obviously shared the same hormonal environment during their development. Yet a large difference persists in the outcomes.
You also misuse the term heritability – which has very specifid meaning in the world of genetics. This is misunderstood by most people to imply that a trait is ‘inherited’ like eye color – and that is exactly the claim that pro-gay propagandists make based on the twin studies.
In fact, the actual number indicates that homosexuality is a trait with a very large environmental/behaviora l component. It ranks below divorce – which clearly depends on the spouses and other volitional choices. So there is not much proof of genetic causality after we have factored in the developmental aspects of the childhood home. You write:
It is foolish to say a given trait is totally environmental and totally genetic. If I gave this impression, I apologize.
– – – – – – – –
… yet that is exactly the impression gay propaganda gives in citing these studies.
You repeatedly claim to be on the side of science – yet the pro-gay stance is bolstered by a smoke screen of pseudo science. And you conclude your post with a restatement of “proofs” from hormonal and brain studies that I already debunked earlier. Do you think repeated a false claim will make it true?
To sum up:
– NO solid evidence that homosexuality is unavoidably predetermined by genetic causes – which is the gay-rights claim.
– AMPLE evidence that pathologically self-destructive behavior persists a generation after gays have won unprecedented respect and social acceptance.
– REPEATED CORRELATION AND CORROBORATION between the evidence of gay pathology, gay people’s childhood histories, and the traditional theories of gay identity formation.
JS,
We could go on and on forever on this issue, with nobody being convinced of anything. I basically lost interest in arguing, that’s all.
But, you seem like a nice guy who’s genuinely interested and concerned about this debate and so, I feel have to be level with you.
I dont come here to discuss science, as it is a political site, but I felt that the arguements here were a little simplistic and one sided, so I thought I’d play devils advocate and provide a strongly opinioned arguement for the biological. Kind of to make people see the true complexity of the issue.
The truth is, neither side of the debate, i.e. the strictly biological or strictly social pathological aspect, are “true.” The reality of homosexuality, as with any aspect of the human personality, is quite a complex mixture of inherited potential and the environment.
Psychologists simply do not yet have the scientific, construct or methodological tools to tease apart the very complex nature of its confounds, no matter how many people claim they are right.
I dont usually go to Jewschool to engage in scientific debate. But I came across this article and decided to play devil’s advocate to demonstrate that the reality is not as simple as BD and others suggest. No offence BD.
Neuroscience, while now the leading and most exciting domain of psychology and biology, is still a young field at 25 years old. As such, many of its findings have significant problems in replication and analysis. That said, much of what I said has held true and the parts about neuroanatomy/neurochemi stry as well as basic endocrinology have held fast in the face of repeated experimentation and new developments in techniques. So there is truth there although it suffers from problems.
BD seems to me to be a believer in the psychopathological explanation of personality and abnormal behavior. That is to say, personality deviations from societal norms are seen as indications of a pathology that, with proper care, can be corrected. It has indeed had repeated correlation as he put it, and it is likely (though the statistics are in fact unclear) that gay people experience relatively more depression and/or substance abuse. So there is some truth there as well.
However, that said, interpretations of this rely mainly on interpretation of personal history, case studies and correlation techniques, all of which are particularly weak forms of data compared to lab and experimental data. Further, as BD said just above me, they rely on traditional theories of gay identity formation and hence are subject to the biases of that concept structure.
Let me give you a clear example. In the gay subculture, there is a problem with methamphetamines, or crystal meth. Many have died because of it. The reason for it is not related to any shame of having sex with men or women, although before investigation began people thought it might have been, in fact it is quite the opposite.
The reason is that crystal meth numbs the body, provides a significant energy boost for a long period and hence is used as a means of enhancing the sexual experience. Straights use it too, in fact it came from straight culture in rural areas. Riding on Ice is the one of the terms, I believe.
So it may not be a “pathology” at all, although the subculture itself may involve many completely seperate problematic issues, such as drug use and depression, that have their own intricacies.
Thus, many other explanations are possible, and any trust worthy psychologist or social scientist would be able to tell you that drug abuse and depression could be equally be the result of bigotry faced by gays.
So what’s the TRUTH in all this? The truth is that homosexuality is a moral issue. Other than simple scientific curiosity, there is no reason most scientists study this kind of thing.
But whether you see it as a sin and deviant behaviour (as many religious do) or a personal life choice (as many gay rights activists do) will colour your perception and you’ll fall into the the same repetitive arguement you’ve seen all along. So we all have to be careful when making statements like “this is how it is.”
Attempts to understand it scientifically OR clinically have met with mixed results. Attempts to “cure” homosexuality as a pathology are notorious for being akin to brainwashing and have failed in the long term.
My real opinion is this. Gay people are people, too. I may be straight, but I don’t judge people based on what they do in the bedroom, and I will not contribute to bigotry against them by judging them. There are a lot kinkier things in life than a man having sex with another man. If the good lord doesnt like them doing it, let him deal with it.
So basically this is where I get off this back and forth trolly ride and I suggest other people do as well. It will never go anywhere.
Oy! Who gives a fuck if sexuality (straight or gay) is biological, social, some combo? It doesn’t make a difference. Why does the cause of the behavior matter? Lots of things (most things) individuals do are social, but we don’t stop them from doing it. In order to impose on another’s liberty we need a compelling reason, such as preventing harm to another. Folks who engage in consensual sex – gay, straight or otherwise – are not harming anyone. People who form loving long-term relationships are likewise not harming anyone. If you don’t like certain practices, by all means, abstain from them. The WorldPride Parade (which was the original point of the post, if you remember) is a celebration of an often maligned lifestyle (as was made clear by some of the posts here). If you don’t want to march in the parade, don’t. If you don’t want your kids to go, tell them so. But to prohibit someone’s harmless expression because you have an extremely ridged notion of sexuality is just not fair.
Yusul:
‘because you have an extremely ridged notion of sexuality….’
– – – – – – – – – – – – –
Looks like someone is getting their “notions of sexuality” – or at least their spelling – from the drugstore’s condom display.
Yes, Yusul, I am often rigid when considering sexual matters…. and I wish the same for all the men reading this…
As for axl: anyone who is reading this far down the thread can easily see that he has fudged, hedged, and retreated from high-handed certainty to mealy-mouthed whining. All because someone with facts challenged what “everybody knows” about homosexuality…
Ben-David: “I am often rigid when considering sexual matters…. and I wish the same for all the men reading this…”
Very witty. I laughed until I stopped. But seriously, Ben David. Despite all the references to clinical literature (what does the conservative punditry call it again? “Psychobabble,” right?), you have yet to explain how legal equality for the committed relationships of same sex couples in any way prohibits your freedom of religious expression or your right to enter into the committed relationship of your choosing. So, really, why the geshrei?
Z: exactly *which* relationships are to be recognized?
Along, with all the “psychobabble” I have been citing come statistics on how out-n-proud gays really live.
Homosexuals make up only 2-3 percent of the population.
90-95 percent of the openly gay spend their adult lives in cycles of compulsive promiscuity, unable to maintain emotional ties – to say nothing of the sexual fidelity that is the bedrock of our culture’s definition of marriage.
That leaves 10 percent that manage to maintain stable relationships for more than 2-5 years.
But wait – the studies also show that in those “stable” gay couples, sexually open relationships are the rule – that is, they manage to stay together by accommodating the compulsive need for more sexual partners. In fact, the (gay) researchers who did this study wound up suggesting that notions of commitment (echoing axl’s locution of “notions of sexuality”) be revised – in other words, that gays not be held to the same definition of fidelity in their relationships.
So: the gays maintaining anything even resembling marriage make up less that 1/2 of a percent of the population – and when we look closely, we see that the terms of their relationships differ drastically from our society’s definition of marriage.
So what gives? Why are the rest of us being asked to radically alter the parameters of the bond of marriage to accommodate this vanishingly small minority – whose troubles with property rights and hospital visits are easily solved without restructuring marriage, using the considerable body of law already created for unmarried hetero couples?
The answer also lies in the surveys – and in the “psychobabble”.
The literature is replete with calls to re-examine “notions of sexuality” and “notions of committment”. There is a major push to change the way society thinks of sexuality and morality – anyone familiar with the psychological literature sees articles appearing that justify bestiality and sex with “consulting” minors as part of this “re-examination of notions of sexuality”.
This programmatic deconstruction of Judeo-Christian sexual morality is cloaked in the politics of victimology – we are presented with carefully groomed gay couples (usually lesbian) as part of a PR blitz that sidesteps the factual evidence of gay pathology. Unable to win on facts, the gay lobby is trying to win based on emotional appeals. Unfortunately for them most of the public isn’t buying it.
Your formulation of this culturkampf in terms of “equality” is naive at best. It is not necessary to radically gut society’s definition of marriage to let a handful of (largely theoretical!) gay couples share property and make health care choices for each other. This is a smokescreen hiding a much less innocent radical agenda.
I’ll try again, Ben-David. Why the panic? There are plenty of examples of divergence from biblical limitations within marriages in how we accept the institution, without having “to radically alter the parameters of the bond of marriage…,” and “to radically gut society’s definition of marriage…”? If intermarriage between a Jew and Gentile offends you, for example, should the state then step in to prohibit such commitments? If fellatio and cunnilingus aren’t your particular thing, should the state impose a ban on such practices and allow authorities to monitor and interdict them as well? Can we look forward to the arrest, indictment and conviction of individuals for infidelity? Have we passed legislation prohibiting divorce? Exactly who is the radical here? Who is being naive? And where does your ideal political imposition of “morality” in the private lives and decisions of all mortal humans end?
There is no panic – just reaction.
To state the obvious (which I often have to do with you!):
1) Nobody is arguing that the laws of the United States should have a 1-to-1 correspondence with Jewish or Christian doctrine.
But here’s a nice thought experiment (not afraid of thinking, are you? It’s like riding a bicycle – you may be a bit rusty, but you never forget how…):
The percentage of America that is Jewish is roughly 1 to 1.5 percent. The traditional Jews who will only wed with a ketuba and traditional Jewish service are about 1/3 to 1/2 of that – about 1/2 of 1 percent of the American population.
That’s slightly more people than the sliver of the gay world that is in “committed relationships.
So: should the Jews have a right to force the rest of America to marry with a ketuba? Or – as you say – to prohibit intermarriages?
There are EVEN FEWER gay couples than there are traditional Jews – and their “committed relationships” fall far of society’s definition of the marital bond. So where do they get off demanding that the general society change its definition of marriage?
2) In none of the other “divergences” you cite is anyone actively trying to change the law of the land. There are millions of hetero couples living out of wedlock – they have accepted that certain rights are not extended to them, and/or used other legal constructs to recreate what rights that they can.
3) Nobody gets arrested for infidelity – but it IS grounds for divorce. There is value in having a clear line. The fact that people cheat is no more “proof” that marriage should be redifined as is the evidence that chimps move from partner to partner. See above.
Here’s another though experiment: the experts urging us to redefine our “notions of sexuality” and our “notions of committment” are already using the same elastic locutions to justify pedophilia and beastiality.
Zionista – do you think pedophiles should be arrested?
This brings us to the main point – and your major error:
And where does your ideal political imposition of “morality” in the private lives and decisions of all mortal humans end?
– – – – – – – – – – – –
The law – even the secular law of the American Republic – is an instrument of communal morality. Our laws – against theft, in favor of affirmative action, against rape, and for free speech – all express moral opinions. Same with the legal definition of marriage.
In (American) secular democracy, the opinions expressed are those of the majority. It doesn’t really matter if those moral opinions derive from religious sources – as long as the government does not explicitly establish a state religion.
Rants like your sentence above are a triumph of tightly-wound victimology politics over the obvious truth. It goes without saying that you and your friends have no problems shoving YOUR moral judgements down the throats of the majority that disagrees with you… big freedom, fighters, eh?
Get a clue.
Ben David: “The law – even the secular law of the American Republic – is an instrument of communal morality. Our laws – against theft, in favor of affirmative action, against rape, and for free speech – all express moral opinions. Same with the legal definition of marriage.”
Except that gay marriage doesn’t hurt anybody the way theft, rape, job and education discrimination, and censorship do.
Ben David (cont’d): “Rants like your sentence above are a triumph of tightly-wound victimology politics over the obvious truth.” [& Previously: “This programmatic deconstruction of Judeo-Christian sexual morality is cloaked in the politics of victimology….”]
If I correctly understand your line of thought (such as it is), “Judeo-Christian” (whatever that is) sexual morality (who knew morality was so compartmental?) is vulnerable to destruction by proposed civil acceptance of gay relationships, but it is gay couples, who are indisputably denied those same rights that all straight couples take for granted, who are supposed to be exploiting some vague concept of “victimology.”
… this is the easy way to hit the bullseye: wherever your arrow lands, draw circles around it.
Zionista – your arguments start with foregone conclusions:
that gayness is normal
that stable gay couples exist in significant numbers
that they suffer prejudice that cannot be otherwise rectified
that this qualifies them as “victims” and somehow obligates the rest of us to change the law to accommodate them
– but we have just concluded a long thread that has shown that all of these assumptions are, at best, debatable – and at worst betray a deep misunderstanding of the connection between secular law and morality in Western democracy.
It’s called circular reasoning. Many lefties engage in it, and think they have had dialogue – when in fact all they have done is restate their own assumptions as things that “everybody knows”, while remaining in the bubble of their own opinions.
And so after hashing out the factual details in a long thread of postings, it’s as if nothing challenging your opinions has been said: the starting ideological assumptions are still put forth, as if they are fresh as daisies…
Meanwhile, in the real world – there is ample evidence that homosexuality is pathological, and that the committed gay couple is a mirage.
There is also clear understanding – here in the real world – that the law reflects the moral stance of the majority. As part of the democratic process, the majority is allowed to “impose its morality” on others in the community – whether it’s hetero couples missing benefits because they live out of wedlock, factory owners forced to pay miniumum wages, students shut out of colleges due to affirmative action, or welfare mothers who find policy changes have dried up their checks. In fact, such “imposition” is more legitimate that the typical leftie maneuver of getting their minority opinion imposed by judicial fiat.
And it is increasingly clear – here in the real world – that the majority do not agree with your starting axioms, or reach the same conclusions about gay marriage.
Have it your way, Ben-David. Axl’s half of your Memorial Day weekend give and take didn’t exist. Christians are victims because someone somewhere refuses to believe and witness accordingly. And you are the sole arbiter of normality. It’s your way or the highway, while the road goes on forever and the party never ends….
Try and have a gut Shabbes anyway.
Zionista:
Axl’s half of your give and take didn’t exist.
– – – – – – – – – –
…except that there WAS a point-by-point give and take. I DID address Axl – it is you who waltzed in and ignored all that came before.
More Z:
Christians are victims because….
– – – – – – –
… maybe NOBODY’s a victim, Zionista.
Maybe democracy isn’t a popularity contest or a Queen-for-a-Day self-pity contest. Maybe the law is not determined based on who is officially declared the chic, cool minority of the month.
The gay lobby is very well funded, and is pressing a political agenda. It is free to do so.
The majority of Americans are free to judge the gay propaganda by the evidence of their own eyes, and their common sense, and make up their own minds.
So, too, are Christians free to push their own agenda, and make their own arguments.
If you want to have a gut Shabbos, you may have to ignore the obvious fact that this is how democracy works – the majority cannot be shamed or coerced into doing your moral bidding.
You may also have to ignore the obvious fact that the vast majority of not-very-religious people do not agree with you on the basic points of gay normalcy and the “injustice” of not extending marriage rights to largely nonexistent gay couples.
But since I’m *such* a fundamentalist for stating the opinion held by a majority of Americans – and a majority of humans throughout history – well, darlin’, this Sabbath I’ll pray for y’all. Praise the Lord!
Ben-David: “So, too, are Christians free to push their own agenda, and make their own arguments.”
And churches advance legislation while they skate on paying taxes too. Such a deal.
Zionista – let’s go back to beating up on John Brown. Something we can agree on…
saying homosexuality doesn’t hurt anyone is like saying obesity doesn’t hurt anyone. fat guys and faeries are people too. when coming accross one, be kind, invite them over for shabbos, and let them see that there are happier things than self-gratification, and unparallelled sweetness to be found in a lifestyle dedicated to shalom bayit and kiddush Hashem. no, seriously. with genuine sweetness and integrity, even Mr Lardotub and old Butt-on-my-mind.com will eventually get the message.
dupcia striptiz pornos [] dupcia striptiz starsze [] dupcia striptiz zdjecia [] dupcia studentki akt [] dupcia studentki biust [] dupcia studentki cycuszki [] dupcia studentki edyta [] dupcia studentki gorace [] dupcia studentki jolanta [] dupcia studentki laska [] dupcia studentki marta [] dupcia studentki nagie [] dupcia studentki opowiadania [] dupcia studentki plaza [] dupcia studentki rude [] dupcia studentki toples [] dupcia super [] dupcia super aniela [] dupcia super cipsko [] dupcia super dupeczka [] dupcia super fotki [] dupcia super iwona [] dupcia super klaudia [] dupcia super lucja [] dupcia super modele [] dupcia super nimfomanki [] dupcia super paulina [] dupcia super pornus [] dupcia super striptiz [] dupcia super zdzislawa [] dupcia swinskie zdjecia [] dupcia sylwia cipki [] dupcia sylwia dupy [] dupcia sylwia gorace [] dupcia sylwia lolitki [] dupcia sylwia najtaniej [] dupcia sylwia orgietka [] dupcia sylwia porno [] dupcia sylwia striptiz [] dupcia szczuplutkie [] dupcia szczytowanie [] dupcia szczytujaca [] dupcia szerokie usta [] dupcia szkolne [] dupcia szmata [] dupcia szmata anita [] dupcia szmata cipy [] dupcia szmata dupodajki [] dupcia szmata foto [] dupcia szmata iza [] dupcia szmata kobiety [] dupcia szmata lucyna [] dupcia szmata modelki [] dupcia szmata obciaganie [] dupcia szmata piczka [] dupcia szmata prywatnie [] dupcia szmata studentki [] dupcia szmata zofia [] dupcia szmaty alicja [] dupcia szmaty bogna [] dupcia szmaty darmowa [] dupcia szmaty emilia [] dupcia szmaty gry [] dupcia szmaty kamery [] dupcia szmaty licealistki [] dupcia szmaty masturbacja [] dupcia szmaty najtaniej [] dupcia szmaty oralny [] dupcia szmaty polska [] dupcia szmaty seksualne [] dupcia szmaty urszula [] dupcia szpary [] dupcia sztuczna [] dupcia sztuczne [] dupcia tajki [] dupcia tapety [] dupcia tapety asia [] dupcia tapety cizie [] dupcia tapety dupy [] dupcia tapety francuski [] dupcia tapety jadwiga [] dupcia tapety krakow [] dupcia tapety male [] dupcia tapety mokre [] dupcia tapety
oferty [] dupcia tapety pierdolic [] dupcia tapety puszyste [] dupcia tapety sylwia [] dupcia tapety zywo [] dupcia teresa cizia [] dupcia teresa dziwki [] dupcia teresa jebanko [] dupcia teresa masturbacja [] dupcia teresa nastoletnie [] dupcia teresa panienki [] dupcia teresa pornus [] dupcia teresa szmata [] dupcia top [] dupcia top azjatki [] dupcia top cycata
If the gay community had any cojones they’d reschedule their pride march to take place in Saudi Arabia.