17th Angel
לבעוט את התחת ולקחת שמות
- Messages
- 9,437
- Reaction score
- 11
- Points
- 0
LOL!! If that worked, I'd be calling into work every day... "Yeah, still pretty bad... down with the queerness.. Maybe see you tomorrow *pathetic fake cough*"
Homosexuals
- Thread starter Postmaster
- Start date
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
Kindest Regards, Scarlet!
It correlates with something I said on another thread about the same time having to do with epigenetics and heritable tendencies, and how *even if* it could be shown that a "gay gene" existed (which is still unproven), it would not automatically mean a person would be gay or inclined to be gay. That is, I believe, in the end analysis considering all of the work in the field of genetics to this point, homosexuality is a choice. "Being born this way" more than likely was triggered by some set of environmental "nurture" influences, I would think. Of course, I am not standing in your shoes. Equally, I kinda doubt that a person with a vested interest in the situation is going to look at the subject without bias. Nothing personal Scarlet, you should know by now I love you as a person. Take a look at the "Dialougue with Juan" thread in the philosophy section started by Jaiket.
http://www.comparative-religion.com/forum/dialougue-with-juan-6400.html
It correlates with something I said on another thread about the same time having to do with epigenetics and heritable tendencies, and how *even if* it could be shown that a "gay gene" existed (which is still unproven), it would not automatically mean a person would be gay or inclined to be gay. That is, I believe, in the end analysis considering all of the work in the field of genetics to this point, homosexuality is a choice. "Being born this way" more than likely was triggered by some set of environmental "nurture" influences, I would think. Of course, I am not standing in your shoes. Equally, I kinda doubt that a person with a vested interest in the situation is going to look at the subject without bias. Nothing personal Scarlet, you should know by now I love you as a person. Take a look at the "Dialougue with Juan" thread in the philosophy section started by Jaiket.
http://www.comparative-religion.com/forum/dialougue-with-juan-6400.html
You are human to me. I have my own faults and frailties I must deal with...we all do. It hardly seems fair or loving to be casting stones of judgement when I am equally worthy of having them tossed at me. Having said this, I do have to make choices for myself to guide my life by. Your choices are not mine. Find your way to heaven, it is between you and G-d and no other, including me. And I'll do my darndest to meet you there, but that will be between me and G-d, and no other, not even you.
Scarlet Pimpernel
demned elusive
You are human to me. I have my own faults and frailties I must deal with...we all do. It hardly seems fair or loving to be casting stones of judgement when I am equally worthy of having them tossed at me. Having said this, I do have to make choices for myself to guide my life by. Your choices are not mine. Find your way to heaven, it is between you and G-d and no other, including me. And I'll do my darndest to meet you there, but that will be between me and G-d, and no other, not even you.
Amen to that!I hope I can be coherent here (pooey on insomnia). I found your comments about the "drunkenness gene" very interesting. I was reminded of the culture which path_of_one mentioned somewhere way back when, in which male homosexuality is the norm and heterosex is engaged in almost solely for purposes of reproduction. I think the answer really lies somewhere between "nature" and "nurture".
Yes, I'm one of those who thinks everyone is by nature bisexual, but to different degrees. Bisexuality is usually placed on a single line somewhere between heterosexuality and homosexuality, but I think we have two scales of sexual attraction - one for members of the opposite sex, and one for members of the same sex. I think your basic placement on each of the scales is genetic - you're born with it. If your placement on the attraction-to-same-sex scale is low enough, you will in all likelihood function as heterosexual, regardless of how high on the attraction-to-opposite-sex scale you are. But what "low enough" means differs from person to person, based on their culture, religious upbringing, life experiences, etc.
I know from bitter experience that in my case the limited rewards of being with a man are not worth the contortions and denial required of my psyche to get there. Another woman with similar feelings, who also had as an extra incentive a social circle or religious beliefs requiring heterosexuality, might keep gamely trying. And the world would see her as straight.
Meh. I think anything else I type will be too befogged to be a contribution. I had a lovely concluding point I wished to make, but it's gone...somewhere... I think I'll see if I can get to sleep now.
taijasi
Gnōthi seauton
I knew I should have posted this earlier. On the secularism sub-forums, it will mean little. But as much that is considered hocus-pocus makes its way into `scientific knowledge,' so too, will this realization:
Often, though certainly not always, I think what happens is much, much closer to what gay people call, "being born gay," than the argument - usually put forward by those who seek, at all costs, to find some kind of basis for discrimination against gays - that it is "simply a choice."
A person who, apparently for several lifetimes, has incarnated through personalities of predominantly a male gender, suddenly finds himself incarnate through a female-gendered personality. The Soul, though without gender on its own plane, has come to express itself through habit largely as a male, in this case, and thus - in almost all ways that matter, it is still a male personality, as far as the emotional and intellectual energies are concerned. The mental body, and the emotional body, have male tendencies, and these will also manifest through a positively-polarized physical body (or etheric aura), even as the equipment present is all "female."
It is not difficult to imagine the reverse, such that many an effeminate man, is really - for all intents and purposes, a "woman in a man's body," as the popular expression (common wisdom recognizing esoteric FACT) captures it.
This is just a general scenario. Other instances, not uncommon, involve the immediate reincarnation of a man into a woman's body, and vice versa, where otherwise the period between lives would be hundreds of years (hence, more chance for balance). This would, similarly, explain a great deal. It is not just a clear idea; it is quite capable of being verified, though the staunch materialist must willingly suspend his or her disbelief, just as the religious thinker unaccustomed to this approach must do likewise. And a-religious or agnostic person, will usually be able to accept this truth with much less difficulty.
Even IF this explains 50%, or 2/3rds of cases of homosexuality, it certainly does not mean than many a man, irrespective of factors above, does not simply decide that he is attracted to other men, women with regard to women, etc. But I think it would be a real step forward if we could see that, even if this is not about a `gay gene,' it is about learning to accept that some people are "just BORN this way," and for the judgmental fundamentalist Christians who can't figure out why `our God would do this,' maybe they have a little more Soul-searching to do.
[On a religious note, `Jehovah' is simply the attempt to render into a prounouncable word the UNpronouncable "name of God," or Tetragrammaton, `YHWH.' And YHWH, is a compound, from YaH + hoVaH, meaning MALE-FEMALE. Yet it is the Christian, with roots in Judaism, who cannot accept that Jehovah makes gays??? ]
Meanwhile, there is far, far worse karma (if one even wants to see it that way) than having masculine, assertive qualities, yet being a woman by gender, or being more passive-receptive-submissive, yet male in terms of sexual equipment. That's another story entirely, however. What's interesting, to me, is that plenty a man will tell his lover that, "he likes aggressive, or assertive women," while plenty women enjoy this "reversal" (as if submissiveness were somehow required of women, sexually or otherwise?), or "passive, submissiveness," and as long as that's as far as it goes, the poeple who freak out the most about homosexuality just don't seem to get the connection. As if this didn't validate EVERYthing I said above, and demonstrate that this was just a less extreme case!!!
I have always felt myself, as a man, to be far more passive than most men, even to the point of submissiveness, if need be. I'm straight as a board; just not narrow.
My last seven lives, present inclusive: male, male, very male, female, male, male, male ... any of this beginning to make sense?
My understanding does not come from my own history of incarnations, however. It originates elsewhere; the above may merely help to substantiate it.
~Zag
Often, though certainly not always, I think what happens is much, much closer to what gay people call, "being born gay," than the argument - usually put forward by those who seek, at all costs, to find some kind of basis for discrimination against gays - that it is "simply a choice."
A person who, apparently for several lifetimes, has incarnated through personalities of predominantly a male gender, suddenly finds himself incarnate through a female-gendered personality. The Soul, though without gender on its own plane, has come to express itself through habit largely as a male, in this case, and thus - in almost all ways that matter, it is still a male personality, as far as the emotional and intellectual energies are concerned. The mental body, and the emotional body, have male tendencies, and these will also manifest through a positively-polarized physical body (or etheric aura), even as the equipment present is all "female."
It is not difficult to imagine the reverse, such that many an effeminate man, is really - for all intents and purposes, a "woman in a man's body," as the popular expression (common wisdom recognizing esoteric FACT) captures it.
This is just a general scenario. Other instances, not uncommon, involve the immediate reincarnation of a man into a woman's body, and vice versa, where otherwise the period between lives would be hundreds of years (hence, more chance for balance). This would, similarly, explain a great deal. It is not just a clear idea; it is quite capable of being verified, though the staunch materialist must willingly suspend his or her disbelief, just as the religious thinker unaccustomed to this approach must do likewise. And a-religious or agnostic person, will usually be able to accept this truth with much less difficulty.
Even IF this explains 50%, or 2/3rds of cases of homosexuality, it certainly does not mean than many a man, irrespective of factors above, does not simply decide that he is attracted to other men, women with regard to women, etc. But I think it would be a real step forward if we could see that, even if this is not about a `gay gene,' it is about learning to accept that some people are "just BORN this way," and for the judgmental fundamentalist Christians who can't figure out why `our God would do this,' maybe they have a little more Soul-searching to do.
[On a religious note, `Jehovah' is simply the attempt to render into a prounouncable word the UNpronouncable "name of God," or Tetragrammaton, `YHWH.' And YHWH, is a compound, from YaH + hoVaH, meaning MALE-FEMALE. Yet it is the Christian, with roots in Judaism, who cannot accept that Jehovah makes gays???
]Meanwhile, there is far, far worse karma (if one even wants to see it that way) than having masculine, assertive qualities, yet being a woman by gender, or being more passive-receptive-submissive, yet male in terms of sexual equipment. That's another story entirely, however. What's interesting, to me, is that plenty a man will tell his lover that, "he likes aggressive, or assertive women," while plenty women enjoy this "reversal" (as if submissiveness were somehow required of women, sexually or otherwise?
), or "passive, submissiveness," and as long as that's as far as it goes, the poeple who freak out the most about homosexuality just don't seem to get the connection. As if this didn't validate EVERYthing I said above, and demonstrate that this was just a less extreme case!!!I have always felt myself, as a man, to be far more passive than most men, even to the point of submissiveness, if need be. I'm straight as a board; just not narrow.
My last seven lives, present inclusive: male, male, very male, female, male, male, male ... any of this beginning to make sense?
My understanding does not come from my own history of incarnations, however. It originates elsewhere; the above may merely help to substantiate it.
~Zag
17th Angel
לבעוט את התחת ולקחת שמות
- Messages
- 9,437
- Reaction score
- 11
- Points
- 0
Your last seven lives?.... Heh.
taijasi
Gnōthi seauton
Okay, okay, I would bet that this is 99.8% likely, and *totally* leave room for someone to correct me on that .2%. Good enough?
lolNo past-life regression here, man. But for da halibut, here ya go:
East Coast, USA
Ohio, then CA, USA ... 20th Century
Montbard, France, ~12th Century
Ancient Persia, ~1st Century
Palestine, ~1st Century BC/AD
Greece, ~6th Century BC
Egypt, ~14th Century BC
American Continent, ???
But that's eight, and I only said seven.
The Buddha could ascertain the entire sequence, for anyone he met. Eastern Masters can pretty well do the same, though it is not something they enjoy doing. I wonder why ...
~Zag
Scarlet Pimpernel
demned elusive
Zagreus, that's great that you are so open-minded about homosexuals. And while I find your theory interesting, and even tempting, I disagree with it - well, maybe not entirely, but largely. That's one of the biggest misconceptions about homosexuality, I think, that gay men are "effeminate" and lesbians are "masculine". Most people of any sexual orientation meeting me for the first time are surprised to learn that I am lesbian, because on the outside I look & act typically female. And I know several lesbians about whom one could say the same thing. Likewise, I know very many gay men who are stereotypical males - you'd never know it unless you saw them making out with their boyfriend in the gay bar Saturday night. And on the other hand, working as I do in the performing arts, I can think of quite a few flamboyant men of my acquaintance, very snappy dressers, whom you certainly would expect to lose any fistfight, yet they're all in straight relationships.
Snoopy
Unknown Member
- Messages
- 5,419
- Reaction score
- 185
- Points
- 63
Hi,
Like this?>>
From at least the late-19th century in Europe, there was speculation that the range of human sexual orientations looked more like a continuum than two or three discrete categories. 28-year-old Berlin sexologist Magnus Hirschfeld published a scheme in 1896 that measured the strength of an individual's sexual desire on two independent 10-point scales, A (homosexual) and B (heterosexual). A heterosexual individual may be A0, B5; a bisexual may be A3, B9; An asexual would be A0, B0; and someone with an intense attraction to both sexes (Pansexual) would be A9, B9.
httphttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_orientation://
s.
Scarlet Pimpernel
demned elusive
Well I'll be darned.
I've certainly heard of Hirschfeld and his "intermediate sex", but with all my reading on the subject I've never come across his dual scale. I've only ever seen the Kinsey and similar scales, which place orientation on a single continuum.
Thanks for the heads-up, Snoopy. I shall have to do some serious delving.
btw, I couldn't get your link to work. This is the one that worked for me. Sexual orientation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I've certainly heard of Hirschfeld and his "intermediate sex", but with all my reading on the subject I've never come across his dual scale. I've only ever seen the Kinsey and similar scales, which place orientation on a single continuum.
Thanks for the heads-up, Snoopy. I shall have to do some serious delving.
btw, I couldn't get your link to work. This is the one that worked for me. Sexual orientation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Snoopy
Unknown Member
- Messages
- 5,419
- Reaction score
- 185
- Points
- 63
bananabrain
awkward squadnik
erm, zagreus, just a word - i know it is my concern rather than yours, but it is problematic for me to see you apparently showing people how to pronounce the Tetragrammaton. as a matter of fact, both your translation and answer are incorrect. what you have done is replicated the classic, centuries-old "jehovah" mistake, where the four consonantal letters have been added to the letters for the euphemism "AaDoNaY" (the lowercase letters being the vowels in question) the precise pronunciation of this Divine Name is a closely guarded secret and one which few if any are privy to- in fact, according to some, it may even have been lost. to my certain knowledge, the art and science of pronouncing the Divine Names is something that should not be attempted by any but the most serious-minded, dedicated and knowledgeable. it is the spiritual equivalent of sticking your finger in not so much an electric socket as a nuclear reactor. you are not, perhaps, obliged to avoid "taking the Name in vain" but i for one would appreciate it if you didn't do it in front of me. similarly, the question of how this Divine Name is linked to concepts of gender and sexuality is an advanced mystical concept and can easily be misunderstood.
b'shalom
bananabrain
b'shalom
bananabrain
chakraman
God save us from religion
- Messages
- 282
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Paladin
Purchased Bewilderment
taijasi
Gnōthi seauton
bananabrain,
while I can respect your own opinons, I would like to point out, for the record, that I'm quite aware of the fact that the "secret name of G-d," at least in terms of Judaism, was never prounounced, except once a year - by those who supposedly knew it, and then, only in a hushed, whisper.
YHWH (or IHWH) is by no means meant to actually represent the true or secret name of God, although even this could be contrasted with the Kabbalistic AHIH, representing the Macroprosopus, while YHWH refers, correspondingly, to the MICROpropsopus.
So, your concern is noted, and if you ever see me say, "THIS is how to pronounce the Tetragrammaton," then aye, as chakraman suggests, rest assured I would not deny later that I was merely intoxicated.
This isn't the kind of thing that will be clarified, for anyone who isn't a scholar, with a few short - or even lengthy - forum posts. My effort was merely to demonstrate that the `Jehovah-God,' or `Yahweh,' of so much Judeo-Christian focus and interest, was in fact, the Divine Hermaphrodite - and in this, not the `Highest' or "Most High G-d" of either the Kabbalists, or the Christian Mystics.
Pax,
~Zag
while I can respect your own opinons, I would like to point out, for the record, that I'm quite aware of the fact that the "secret name of G-d," at least in terms of Judaism, was never prounounced, except once a year - by those who supposedly knew it, and then, only in a hushed, whisper.
YHWH (or IHWH) is by no means meant to actually represent the true or secret name of God, although even this could be contrasted with the Kabbalistic AHIH, representing the Macroprosopus, while YHWH refers, correspondingly, to the MICROpropsopus.
So, your concern is noted, and if you ever see me say, "THIS is how to pronounce the Tetragrammaton," then aye, as chakraman suggests, rest assured I would not deny later that I was merely intoxicated.
This isn't the kind of thing that will be clarified, for anyone who isn't a scholar, with a few short - or even lengthy - forum posts. My effort was merely to demonstrate that the `Jehovah-God,' or `Yahweh,' of so much Judeo-Christian focus and interest, was in fact, the Divine Hermaphrodite - and in this, not the `Highest' or "Most High G-d" of either the Kabbalists, or the Christian Mystics.
Agreed, I am merely giving the outline, here on this secular forum, on Science and the Universe, to show how - in relation to the issue or question of homosexuality, and given an esoteric approach to the subject - a great irony exists, as the fundamentalist Christian claims that "his God disapproves of this sort of thing." Please feel free to box my ears more directly, if I babble on about the Tetragrammaton on the Jewish forums, or even under Belief and Spirituality.bananabrain said:
Pax,
~Zag
China Cat Sunflower
Nimrod
- Messages
- 2,924
- Reaction score
- 14
- Points
- 0
I never thought of YHVH as being microprosopus. Hmmmm...Then again, I've never thought of it as being Primum Mobile either.
I really haven't seen an explanation of homosexuality that completely made sense to me. Then again, why the heck do platypusses lay eggs? I dunno.
Chris
I really haven't seen an explanation of homosexuality that completely made sense to me. Then again, why the heck do platypusses lay eggs? I dunno.
Chris
seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
Hmm, perhaps yes. Heterosexual men might gain some empathy for the women they might see only as sex objects if they themselves are approached as a sex object by a homosexual man. Similarly, heterosexual women might develop some empathy for men whom they might seduce, by being approached and seduced by a homosexual female.
Namaste BB,
This is the part that I serioiusly object to, it is has the same energy for me as 'do as I say, not as I do', or 'well you are just not ready'...
Poppycock. I'm ready to blow. As a child I loved sticking my finger and bobby pins and whatever else I could find in light sockets. The concept that the pronunciation of a word will put me into a mushroom cloud is wonderful...I'd love to see the other side of that.
I always so enjoy the 'you don't know what you are saying, you are wrong, and I am not enlightening you' aspect of life.
Scarlet Pimpernel
demned elusive
Yeah, but first you have to drink enough to fall asleep...wow, and I thought drinking too much beer just made you Lutheran!
17th Angel
לבעוט את התחת ולקחת שמות
- Messages
- 9,437
- Reaction score
- 11
- Points
- 0
Interesting, I don't buy it, but interesting... I would say most would miss the "connection".
Man to friend...
"you know Jim bob, this guy yesterday came on to me!! Haha, I sure do feel empathy for them women I have approached like that..."
OR
Man to friend
"You know Jim bob, this guy yesterday came on to me... So I kicked his teeth in."
Which seems most realistic?
seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
Hey, I admit the second instance would probably be much more common than the first. {Gee, what kind of complaint would this guy have if a woman he propositioned decided to kick his teeth in for it?
} I agree that many would miss the connection. {Lust can supplant reason if you let it.} This consciousness raising business isn't always easy.