US heartland cities debating gay rights measures

There are 62 comments on the The San Diego Union-Tribune story from Aug 26, 2012, titled US heartland cities debating gay rights measures. In it, The San Diego Union-Tribune reports that:

The small business owner also remembers when white supremacists bombed a gay church in Springfield, bomb-sniffing dogs and metal detectors were used at the local university for a play about a gay Jewish activist and the school's president refused to add sexual orientation to Southwest Missouri State University's nondiscrimination policy.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The San Diego Union-Tribune.

Hertz

Monett, MO

#54 Mar 24, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
You'll have to define "natural" in a manner acceptable to the life sciences.
Just giving you fair warning.
Another caveat you should consider is that what mattrers in classification is NOT your personal affinities or antipathies about what may be defining characteristics ... in this case, behaviors.
Psychology is the study of human behaviors.(Remember, neiral activity is behavior, too)
Psychology is a flawed practice that was created and developed by mentally unstable and downright sick people who did atrocious things. Thank you for your insight it has helped some. Please go on.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#55 Mar 24, 2013
Hertz wrote:
So, this is what you want to discuss? the words are what they are and people use them to speak to each other. I mean really? A more scientific terminology would be, same sex relationship of the male Homo sapien /same sex relationship of the female Homo sapien. Then you could elaborate further into what type of relationship that might be. My point was that we are on the verge of losing free speech because a commonly used term by doctors and scientists has now become offensive to some and you had to nit pick my post. You never provided the proper scientific term for the orientation so I'm drawing the conclusion none exists. There's not much science in it anyway.
That common usage has been part of the problem. It "stacks the deck" of inquiry so cold that it results in circular reasoning.

Professional in the social sciences bemoan the falsities inherent in the term, and have been working with the terms I listed above.

Science is, for example, the work of and that persuant to the work of Dr. Galvani.

Common usage is Mesmer's "animal magnetism".

Speculative and seminal science is Julian Jaynes' "The Origins of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind".

Common usage are all the "Right Brain/Left Brain" popular kark that flooded pop-pscych in the '80s.

A scientific classification system is NOT merely a mode of popular communication.

It has been said, "The history of science is the history of rulers and pliers."

Accurate means of measurement and description are essential. When MORE accurate tools become available, it is no longer useful to use flint knives and axeheads.
Hertz

Monett, MO

#56 Mar 24, 2013
Natural- physical matter either occurring by evolutionary process, or by a force beyond our control or manipulation, on earth in original form.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#57 Mar 24, 2013
Hertz wrote:
<quoted text>
Psychology is a flawed practice that was created and developed by mentally unstable and downright sick people who did atrocious things. Thank you for your insight it has helped some. Please go on.
You are actually referring to psychoanalysis and psychiatry.

Gay people are very familiar with these "disciplines".

http://thetruthpursuit.com/society/society-bl...

http://law.justia.com/codes/california/2009/w...

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Assem...

The negative results and other data garnered from the above-mentioned State-mandated researches are what were most instrumental in the APA's removal of gay orientation from the DSM.

The rejection of dogmatic freudianism was the begin of science in psychology, as radical a departure as that from alchemy to chemistry.
Hertz

Monett, MO

#58 Mar 24, 2013
You seem to be intelligent, you have a broad vocabulary and you're also very book smart it seems but do you ever wonder how everything in nature has a certain mathematical relationship that seems to be too complex to just be a random occurrence? What do you wish to accomplish with this knowledge of yours?
Hertz

Monett, MO

#59 Mar 24, 2013
I don't believe same sex orientation is a mental disorder but I do believe people are influenced in certain ways into becoming gay. When one claims one was born gay does that imply there's a mental disorder? Or is it just a natural random trait? I think people are influenced more than they realize. How does a "gay" brain respond to opposite sex pheromones in a scientific study?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#61 Mar 24, 2013
Hertz wrote:
I don't believe same sex orientation is a mental disorder but I do believe people are influenced in certain ways into becoming gay. When one claims one was born gay does that imply there's a mental disorder? Or is it just a natural random trait? I think people are influenced more than they realize. How does a "gay" brain respond to opposite sex pheromones in a scientific study?
You can "believe" anything that you wish, but that opinion is not born out by any peer-reviewed research.

Among non-human animal species that pairbond, samesex pairbonds are formed. These creatures lack our "higher" brain structures. This suggests that not only the sexual drive, but also pairbonding affinities arise in portions of the Central Nervous System that is NOT uniquely human.

Here we are, again, clarifying defining characteristics. lol

What is simply animal and what is uniquely human?

There is only a very small part of our CNS that is uniquely human: the prefrontal cortex. All other structures are found to varying degrees in other species. Even our vermiform appendix is not unique to ourselves, but shared by the Diprodontia and Monotremes.

Studies in endocrinology and it's relationship to gay orientation have been done. Specifically, a study of the effects of opposite sex pheromones upon gay people would be difficult outside of an FMRI. Anything less would have to be based upon self-reportage, and very hard to validate.

I can speak for myself only, and I am far from a common case. I am very abnormal. I was born conscious, have very clear and accurate memories prior to age 1, was speaking at 6 months and taught myself to read just after my 3rd birthday. I started puberty shortly after my 8th birthday. So, what do *I* mean when I say I was "born gay" ?

I usually explain it this way.

I have always been myself. As I grew up and sex became a part of my awareness, my affinity was to my own sex. Unconscious autonomic reflexes, dreams, etc. all bear this out. I have never felt toward any female what I've felt towards males. This sense of self, and self-awareness, is an unbroken chain of identity back to my earliest memories.

How do you know that you are hetero? How did you come to know this?

I suggest that these may be parallel to my own experiences.

Now it's YOUR turn to defend your identity to ME.
Hertz

Monett, MO

#62 Mar 25, 2013
You're intelligent but you put yourself on the same level as animals. When you start comparing yourself to animals that tells me you have lost the argument. Animals are not gay.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#63 Mar 26, 2013
Hertz wrote:
You're intelligent but you put yourself on the same level as animals. When you start comparing yourself to animals that tells me you have lost the argument. Animals are not gay.
Why do all male mammals (animals) have nipples?
Hertz

Monett, MO

#65 Mar 26, 2013
Well, I know that many indigenous peoples don't perceive them as having a sexual function, instead for nourishment and nurturing of a child. The reason males have nipples? I don't know but I'm sure you'll explain your reasoning. I would say the reason is because God created man first and created woman from man but I know that isn't scientific reasoning. There are many nerve endings in a nipple, so I would say they do serve a function in sexual arousal and displaying sexual arousal but that isn't exclusive to gay couples.
Hertz

Monett, MO

#66 Mar 26, 2013
Maybe because males and females have to share certain genetic traits in order to reproduce and pass on the traits to their offspring. It's the best and most logical reason I would think.
Hertz

Monett, MO

#67 Mar 26, 2013
In my minds eye, sex exists for the purpose of reproduction. The pleasure aspect of it is just a perk to ensure the process actually occurs every now and then. Therefore I believe gay relationships are unnatural because they are a disruption to the natural order of life. Some will say it serves the purpose of "bonding", but the statistics that show high levels of promiscuity tell me other wise and in most cases it serves the sole function of pleasure. For instance, if I want to bond with my male friends, sex is not what I'd choose, it would be, for instance, basketball or hunting.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#68 Mar 26, 2013
Hertz wrote:
In my minds eye, sex exists for the purpose of reproduction. The pleasure aspect of it is just a perk to ensure the process actually occurs every now and then. Therefore I believe gay relationships are unnatural because they are a disruption to the natural order of life. Some will say it serves the purpose of "bonding", but the statistics that show high levels of promiscuity tell me other wise and in most cases it serves the sole function of pleasure. For instance, if I want to bond with my male friends, sex is not what I'd choose, it would be, for instance, basketball or hunting.
I liked your genetic commonality argument. It's a good one.

It continues onward to include that the penis is a hypertrophed clitoris, and the testicles modified and externalized ovaries. Functionally, remove a male's testicles and almost all male secondary characteristics disappear. The same does not happen with females when Ovaries are removed. It follows that the female physiognomy is the more stable, hence the genetic basis of mammals. Interestingly, the male "Y" chromosome is actually a truncated "X".

The problem with your "natural" argument is that is houses an a priori assumption of a preferred order, rather than a more appropriately scientific empirical and phenomenological perspective; i.e. "what is observed" as opposed to "how I imagine things should fit into a desired order".
Hertz

Monett, MO

#69 Mar 26, 2013
As a strong believer in a free society, the concept that humans inherently have free will is something that sticks strong to my core. It's your choice to remain gay or to be gay and I don't have the capacity to hate anyone for that choice, but I do believe it is destructive to mankind so it doesn't resonate particularly well with me. We live in a world full of hate, and most hate is fueled by irrational fear. Any minority or exception to the projected societal norm is going to attract attention whether it be positive or negative and I think if people want to live in a truly free society with free speech they are going to have to come to terms with the fact they are an exception to the norm which in turn, draws attention. You cannot police someone's emotions and you cannot force someone into accepting something they do not want to accept. All you can do is try to change people's perception but the end to free speech wouldn't be good for anyone at all and that's all I see coming from this.
Hertz

Monett, MO

#70 Mar 26, 2013
Most scientists will agree that we can only perceive a small fraction of what actually exists maybe 10% or so of reality. So trying to explain everything with science doesn't make perfect sense to me, and like I said before, I don't believe we are truly on the cutting edge of anything.
Hertz

Monett, MO

#71 Mar 26, 2013
The Kinsey Syndrome -(Full length)

Beens

United States

#72 Mar 26, 2013
I am not as intelligent nor do I carry an exstensive vocab. But regardless of people's feelings a man humps a man from choice not necessity of nature

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#73 Mar 26, 2013
Hertz wrote:
Most scientists will agree that we can only perceive a small fraction of what actually exists maybe 10% or so of reality. So trying to explain everything with science doesn't make perfect sense to me, and like I said before, I don't believe we are truly on the cutting edge of anything.
It makes sense when there are a plurality of scientISTS.

It's at the core of the collegiality inherent in the discipline. The limitations of the individual are ameliorated by collective efforts and evaluation. It works far better than using ignorance as the premise for non-inquiry.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#74 Mar 26, 2013
Hertz wrote:
As a strong believer in a free society, the concept that humans inherently have free will is something that sticks strong to my core. It's your choice to remain gay or to be gay and I don't have the capacity to hate anyone for that choice, but I do believe it is destructive to mankind so it doesn't resonate particularly well with me. We live in a world full of hate, and most hate is fueled by irrational fear. Any minority or exception to the projected societal norm is going to attract attention whether it be positive or negative and I think if people want to live in a truly free society with free speech they are going to have to come to terms with the fact they are an exception to the norm which in turn, draws attention. You cannot police someone's emotions and you cannot force someone into accepting something they do not want to accept. All you can do is try to change people's perception but the end to free speech wouldn't be good for anyone at all and that's all I see coming from this.
The conclusion of (non-Kinsey *) science is that sexuality and sexual orientation exists and arises in biological structures which are "below" that level of mammalian structural and functional development that is exclusively and intrinsically human.

Humans possess, along with a few other species, the expression of sexual functions that is not tied involuntarily to the estrus cycle of the female of the species. While humans can select when to engage in *interpersonal* erotic behavior, nocturnal emissions and the autonomic behaviors of the sex organs of those who have experienced paralysis, indicate that these functions and behaviors are not "conscious".

"Gay" refers to orientation, not any expression of it. A gay person may elect to not express their orientation is certain ways, but they can no more NOT express that orientation than a hetero person can. It is intrinsic to identity. "Choosing" to not engage in certain erotic activities, activities that are practiced by heteros as well and so are not definingly gay, does not speak to the orientation.

If you think that orientation is not key to the issue, then I suggest that you experiment with expressions that are counter to YOUR orientation, then apply some honest insight into their manifestations in yourself. If you find that such activity is not intrinsically problematic for you, then you may need to adopt for yourself the term "bisexual". At that point, orientational bias is removed and the discussion truly DOES shift to one of choice of expression ... for YOU.

The "natural" argument still waits to be addressed. Consider the natural social order of Bonobos chimps wherein erotic activites are, to say the least, not gender specific.

You approach to the issue of expressing one's orientation, and integration of it into a totality with one's expression of personhood is not one of "what is", but of "whether" and "should".

Let's try to avoid the fallacy of false concreteness here. Ok?

* Kinsey was bad science, and I said, wrote and taught so when it was new. The ONLY good of the Kinsey surveys is (like Freud) that it was first, and led to better, far more sound work later.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#75 Mar 26, 2013
Beens wrote:
I am not as intelligent nor do I carry an exstensive vocab. But regardless of people's feelings a man humps a man from choice not necessity of nature
Vocabulary is not a "necessity of nature"?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Boy Scouts' leader speaks out on gay adults ban 10 min Wondering 9
News Mom: Outed pastor told gay son he's going to hell 30 min david traversa 1
News Judge: Gay couples across Alabama have right to... 35 min New Perspective 15
News Next move in gay ministers debate 37 min Yakitori 2
News SoCal Rep Wants to Outlaw Gay-to-Straight "Conv... 44 min Brian_G 79
News 60 Percent: Record Number Of Americans Support ... 45 min Brian_G 55
News Jeb Bush's New Stance on Gay Marriage: It Hurts... 1 hr Wondering 56
News Is Polygamy the Next Gay Marriage? (Sep '14) 2 hr Brian_G 5,521
News Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 5 hr Blackburn 32,977
Poll Which QUEER is the BIGGEST LYING SACK OF SHlT? 8 hr Sambo 3
More from around the web