Note from a feminist

[FEMINAZIHATEMARTYR]

"I'm talking about asking stuff like whether heterosexuality, men being masculine, and women being feminine is innate or learned."

Its Innate. Here's the proof;
"Your Personality and How to Live With It" Greg Young MD

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/stores/offering/list/-/0689109180/all/ref=dp_pb_a/002-2671952-4644008

I wish I could get feminists to read this discovery. Then they would see that their conflict is more a result of personality conflict than gender issues.

[D]

I'm talking about asking stuff like whether heterosexuality, men being masculine, and women being feminine is innate or learned.

Do you really believe they actually "ask this question without a predetermined answer in those humanity courses?

(No, I was not implying that anyone here has homoerotic urges.)  What I was saying was that if, hypothetically, you are right and (for example) men are naturally masculine and women feminine, then you have nothing to lose by questioning this because the answers will not contradict what you believe.

I agree, I have nothing to lose by questioning this, until someone starts creating legislation based on their 'junk science'.  Keeping in mind that none of their shit is based on real scientific research but rather misleading and morphed psychology crackpots.  Everyone's got an opinion I guess.  Problem is that people are fed this stuff not in a debatable fashion but in a oneway stream that doesn't allow for dissent or dissection of the material being fed to them.  This is a crime, it is dangerous and worst of all it is purposeful for alterier motives.  

I believe the predominant understanding of gender and sexuality here is the conventional one: that people are naturally masculine males and feminine females, and heterosexual; and any deviations from this are due to some fluke in the developmental process, such as early sexual abuse, leftist brainwashing, or poor parental role models.  Alternative modes of interpretation, such as queer theory, come into play when you have situations that contradict conventional understandings, such as a young man who has never been abused, never been exposed to liberal/leftist ideology, and grew up in an environment that would be considered wonderful by your or Amber's standards (a married couple consisting of a strong, masculine father and nurturing, feminine mother), identifying strongly with his father...yet he turns out to be gay in spite of all this.

Perhaps his shrink should go back further.

Conventional gender theory is at a loss to explain such phenomena; it is at a loss to explain why someone who has never experienced any of the mediating factors that supposedly cause homosexuality in a person who would otherwise have turned out straight becomes gay nonetheless.  Conventional wisdom is called into question, which is the point of queer theory.

Your own words convict you.  When you say "conventional" you rely on politics not abstetics.   Conventional wisdom will never be called into question unless you equate 2 plus 2 to equal 5.  There is no leap in logic, no underlying disstraction, no quagmire of confusion.  The guy is gay.  Was he born that way?  Well let's say he was.  Doesn't it seem illogical for the perpetuation of the species to make it even a "class" of people to be homosexual?  

What I find is that these people are faced with enormous odds.  They are such the minority they don't know how to express themselves.  My suggestion is for them to barricade it into a 'fetish' catagory.  It will legitamize their aims far faster then their hokus pokus reasons why.  

Some people like killing bugs, some like being peed on, others like being fucked in the ass.

With the amount of brainwashing that is occuring in our society in regards to homosexuality I dare say anyone is left unaffected.  

Do they have rights?  Maybe they do, but it seems like the way these groups go about getting their rights it ends up being more at the expence of the many for the lot of the few.  So it's time we questioned why that is the case.  

Can people be born gay?  Not like they can be born blonde, red, or brunette. If it was genetic it would have weeded itself out by now.

Oh, and for the record, I have no desire to keep people from having heterosexual lifestyles.  In fact, I have a friend who I always knew as being gay, who is now planning to marry a woman and be a father figure to her child.  Care to guess how I feel about that?  Totally against it?  On the contrary, I am all for it, and I think they make a wonderful couple.

With the Orwellian attack on people, I first thought it was about a homosexual agenda, now I realize that as soon as the laws are cemented they will go after homosexuals too.   Sex Crimes are this age's Thought Crimes.  It's just one way of controlling us.

[Amber]

When I read the book "Feminism and Sexuality," in order to write my masculinity piece, they specifically said Queer Theory is about toying with gender.  They described all sorts of fun things, from the female using a dildo on her boyfriend to men dressing in tutus and the like.

Queer Theory class treats everything as valid except a masculine male and feminine female couple.

[D]

Queer Theory class treats everything as valid except a masculine male and feminine female couple.

It's because they are commies.  Trying to equalize everything.  I studied this crap in mediation where they tried to 'power balance' everything.  What a bunch of bunk.

As a mediator how is it my decision who needs extra balancing?  It's kind of arbitrary and blatently biased.  As I found in the course, it was only the women who needed the extra balancing because of x,x and x.

It was funny because they were telling me that the child support system is based on the american system.  When they told me this my prof gave me a look as if expecting something.  I later found out that the american model is actually based on the soviet model.

[radicalangel]

Amber: "Queer Theory class treats everything as valid except a masculine male and feminine female couple."
Actually, serious Queer Theory takes them seriously too.  There is a difference between individuals who use it against heterosexuality and those for whom it is solely a tool of inquiry.

Dan: "Do you really believe they actually "ask this question without a predetermined answer in those humanity courses?"
Individuals may come in with beliefs that they take for granted, but the theory itself does not come with a predetermined answer.  I have, in the recent past, pondered the origin of sexual orientation and entertained "nurture" theories.  What contradicts such theories, in my mind, is the fact that gay people have emerged and continue to emerge from all environments and contexts.  I have no personal interest in pushing a "nature" explanation because A. "nature" explanations are also vulnerable to misuse and B. I don't need Mother Nature's permission or approval to love someone.

"Problem is that people are fed this stuff not in a debatable fashion but in a oneway stream that doesn't allow for dissent or dissection of the material being fed to them. This is a crime, it is dangerous and worst of all it is purposeful for alterier motives. "
You are not telling me anything I don't already know.  I disdain the restriction of debate as much as yourself.  I'm aggressive, but I have no desire to shut you or anyone else up.

"Perhaps his shrink should go back further."
This is just circular reasoning.  It's like saying, "Something must have happened because homosexuality is a result of something happening."  

"My suggestion is for them to barricade it into a 'fetish' catagory."
Since when is love a fetish?  Because despite what antigay people would have us believe, people do indeed fall in love and form relationships (commited, monogamous relationships, no less) with individuals of the same sex every day.  Webster defines fetish as "an object or bodily part whose real or fantasied presence is psychologically necessary for sexual gratification and that is an object of fixation to the extent that it may interfere with complete sexual expression."  For gay men or lesbians, it is not any particular part of the body to which they are attracted, but the whole person; just like you, I hope, are attracted to a woman in her entirety, not just breasts or vagina or whatever.  As to fixations, I can tell you that I'm in a relationship now, where sexual activity is far from central, and we have recently said "I love you" to one another.  A mere fetish, such as lingerie, would be for pure sexual gratification, but an activity, such as kissing, cuddling, intercourse, which is integrated with the emotional experience of love is entirely different.

"Can people be born gay? Not like they can be born blonde, red, or brunette. If it was genetic it would have weeded itself out by now."
Not necessarily.  Whether or not you think they should raise them, gay men and lesbians do indeed have sex with the opposite sex and produce children regularly.  Any genetic contribution would, thus, still be passed along.

[D]

Well if webster said it.

Webster also says that feminsim is about equality for women.   :lol:


I don't remember saying I was 'antigay'.   But I stand to the ground that we are not designed to be gay.  

Not only are we biologically wired for the opposite sex, our souls can only be shared with the opposite sex.  

I never said you couldn't love someone else.  

These things are fact.  A man and woman's soul is two halves of one pea finally joined together.

This is the supreme being.  It doesn't devalue your choice, but it's reality is is that homosexuality does not share in such a state.  It's like saying homosexuals can have children.  

Since science can not detect spirituality of the supreme being but only man can through his love for a woman no artificial tactics could possibly bring them closer to it.

The reason there is such a trial for it is because of the children.  It truely is 'Judgement Day'.  



Rad '

"Perhaps his shrink should go back further."
This is just circular reasoning. It's like saying, "Something must have happened because homosexuality is a result of something happening."

I was being sarcastic.  Not that I feel as though I have to short circuit your anecdotal evidence.  It has no basis in  your theory.  


"For god so loved the world that he gave his only begotton son".  

If you read this line as metaphore than you might see it as I do.  God is equal to a man.  The world is the description of the chosen woman of said man.  The son is metaphorical imagery of the potential birth between the two.  This is how you get the "virgin birth".  

When a man proposes to a woman the end result is normally pregnancy.  But inbetween that moment of proposal and matrimony and consumation is limbo. This is where the son meets the father and the father the son.  For he is in the father and the father is in him.  They are one.  A man will leave his parents to join to his wife and the two will no longer be seperate but will be one.

Remarkably in this day and age these words are trivial and nonscensical.  But it is the dividing factor none the less.  Most fairy-tales are based on this.  And they all lived happily ever after. The End.

[radicalangel]

Not only are we biologically wired for the opposite sex, our souls can only be shared with the opposite sex.  

I never said you couldn't love someone else.  

These things are fact.  A man and woman's soul is two halves of one pea finally joined together.

This is the supreme being.  It doesn't devalue your choice, but it's reality is is that homosexuality does not share in such a state.  It's like saying homosexuals can have children.  

Since science can not detect spirituality of the supreme being but only man can through his love for a woman no artificial tactics could possibly bring them closer to it.

Really?  What is your evidence that souls can only be shared with the opposite sex?  Is there some way to observe two souls in proximity and determine whether any sharing occurs?  Has someone invented a share-ometer yet?  If you cannot provide some evidence (which I strongly suspect, as you yourself said that "science cannot detect spirituality"), then you have no basis for such a claim.  It's not good to propose conclusions which you have no way of knowing, unless you're somehow able to be privy to others' spiritual experiences.