Homosexuality and Social Policy

by Perry 42 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Frenchy

  Quote: “such factors play a predisposing, not a determinative role...I know of no one in the field who argues that homosexuality can be explained without reference to environmental factors."

  To the end of experts there is no end! Interesting observation but I always get a little skittish at absolutes. There are those who would not PRACTICE homosexuality for fear of how society would react but the urges and feelings would be there nonetheless, I believe, even without the environmental factors.

  Perry:
  I didn’t know it was a multiple choice. Not one of your statements in their totality represent my view on the matter. (a) Legally, gays should be given the same status as married couples IF…if the they follow the same rules about being legally married and legally divorced. Genetics should have nothing to do with their legal status anymore than if a person should choose to remain single (unmarried) so the last part of (a) is not applicable to what I believe. While we’re on the subject, if people (gays or heterosexuals) choose to live together and want the benefits (like being able to file for spousal support when the union breaks up) they should be legally married. This palimony crap is just that.

  (b) How do you assign or delgate or legislate social status? If a person chooses to buck the standards of the society where they live, they should not cry about the resistance they will meet. I grew up in an area where my cultural background put me in the minority. I did not scream for the society around me to change or run to the legislature and demand laws that would make me acceptable to them. I adapted, changed where I felt I should, and stood my ground where I felt I must. In the end I was accepted and I gained something in the process, strength of character and integrity.

  (c) Again, how would you be able to enforce upon society “the gay relationship as an equal societal ideal to that of married heterosexuals?”

  Abaddon:
  I appreciate your reply. You are a reasonable person I don’t take offense at your replies, on the contrary, I look forward to them. You said: “I'm not arguing that genetic traits or fetal development is the ONLY influence on a person's sexuality.” I understand that and I agree. If I understand you correctly you are saying that certain areas of the brain can make, let’s say a boy, act like a girl and yet have nothing to do with his sexual preference. Okay, I suppose that could be the case and then it would indeed explain the ‘tom boys’ and men who act effeminately and yet, sexually, are true to their physical gender. In that case there would be no conflict in their lives.
  At the very beginning of my post I stated: “I believe that homosexuality is, like most other things, not a simple matter. I think that it is, in most cases, partly genetic and partly environment, and partly personal preference.” What I have read since then only confirms this view. I also said (the statement with which you take exception): “I don’t believe that any intelligent person today would seriously argue that some males are born with very effeminate qualities and that some females are born with very masculine qualities, emotional, mental, and physical.” Even if we discount a portion of these (those whose other gender behavior is purely physical and not emotional or sexual) there are still those left with the other two, namely: emotional and mental. (And many of these do walk, talk, laugh, gesture, etc. different from their physical gender) There are persons born with the genitalia of one sex while they are emotionally and mentally of the other sex. Some persons born with a penis think and feel as a woman would. This is what I meant.

  In summary, people are not necessarily gay just because they WANT to be and they are not necessarily gay because they HAVE to be but I do not know where that line is and so I would never presume to say that any given individual has CHOSEN to be what he or she is. I hope I have been a little clearer on the matter.
• 

  Abaddon

  Back at home...

  Perry; "Thus creating any differentiation between heterosexual and homosexual relationships is a flagrant denial of equality.
  " = a)

  Frenchy... this also caught my eye in your post;

  I do not consider homosexuality normal behavior. I do not view it as a disease or necessarily a perversion (although it certainly can be, in my opinion) but rather an aberration. Some might take offense at that last word but please be assured that I do not use it in a demeaning manner. The primary function of sex is for reproduction. Homosexuality is a dead end there. For those who would argue that this type of behavior is normal I would submit to them that if all of society practiced it, humanity would end in one generation. It is NECESSARY for the survival of the species that heterosexual relationships exist. Homosexual relationships are NOT necessary for the survival of the species. They mimic what the bulk of mankind practice. Does that make homosexuals bad people? Certainly not.

  I think that essentially speaking the term 'normal' should not be used. It's too emotive and semantically slippary unless you spend some time working out what you mean by it, and then it smacks of subjectivity.

  I prefer 'natural'. Homosexuality is completely natural, and without being rude anyone contesting this had better do some research, as it's all over the place in nature, even down to lasting same-sex pair bonds that STILL raise offspring.

  This, and my comments earlier about sexual oriontation and desire to procreate being different things, kind of march hand in hand, as nature, as in terns, benobos and macaques, amongst others I think, proves my assertion, let alone any gay couples who want children.

  Having discarded 'normal' and selected 'natural', yes, one does have to admit that homosexuality seems pretty useless, and something that wouldn't survive if it is indeed largely genetic, from a evoultionary biological point of view I hasten to add.

  But ONLY if you just look at the first level of the onion. If you just think 'if everyone were gay we'd die out', you are missing the lesson nature had for us, that homosexuality and procreation are two different things.

  If you accept that, then the fact we have had, do have and will have homosexuals is completely understandable.

  You say that homosexuality can be a perversion... I'm not sure what you mean... if you mean any behaviour, be it heterosexual or homosexual can be a perversion, fine, but I'd disagree that homosexuality is intrinsically more likely to be 'perverted' than heterosexuality. I am really rather hetero, but a massive pervert, for example, but then, pervert is also an issue of semantics, isn't it?

  All the best
• 

  Perry

  Ok Folks,

  I see some are reluctant to be committed on a social policy regarding this issue, which is the real reason that I raised it.

  C'mon folks don't be shy. No matter what you say, someone will agree with you and some will disagree. No big deal, that'as the way it works in the real world. And if you don't take a stand, others will take one for you and you will live by their decions.

  As Jehovah's Witnessees our opinions were meaningless. In the real world they shape our societies. Don't just state facts, but form an opinion you think our society should live by. Let me expand on the ramifications of the issue.

  Option (A) Indicates that your policy, if implemented will at times trample on the will of the majority since most people are hetero and don't want their children socialized in any way into a homosexual lifestyle if they do not have a strong genetic link.

  Option (B) Indicates that your policy, if implemented will trample on the rights of the minority because they have less voting power.

  Option (C) Indicates an attempt to balance the two. Protect the individual rights of gays, but fall short of giving full societal support (marital status, gay family welfare, gays adopting children) for fear that it will send a socializing message to people that may encourage some to be gay that otherwise would not.

  So, c'mon people take a stand. How would you vote? Then, qualify your answer.

  UADNA-TX
  Unseen Apostate Directorate of North America
• 

  Perry

  Frenchy says:

  Perry:
  I didn’t know it was a multiple choice. Not one of your statements in their totality represent my view on the matter.

  That's why I asked viewers to choose one that "most accurately describes" their point of view and then qualify their answer. When we vote for our elected leaders, nearly all of the time they will not represent our views to the T. So, we choose one that is the closest to our values.

  You made some very good observations and stated a position. Thank You. I think a lot of newly ex-jws find this kind of critical thinking unfamiliar ground, thus the reason for this series of issues.

  UADNA-TX
  Unseen Apostate Directorate of North America
• 

  joelbear

  Homosexual relationships are not marriages. While they do share some commonalities, they share just as many differences.

  Male/Male household dynamics (as always I refrain from comments on Lesbian relationships since I am uninformed on the topic) are not the same as Female/Male household dynamics. There are far more open relationships among male/male situations, finances are not shared to the same extent as married couples, they rarely include children, etc.

  I think it is silly to try to equate homosexual relationships with heterosexual family units. They aren't the same.

  I do believe that homosexual relationships should be requested for what they are, valid but different. We need legislation to provide us with specific legal mechanisms that track with our relationship needs. We do not need to march around saying that we demand that our relationships be called a marriage.

  Joel
• 

  Perry

  Perry; "Thus creating any differentiation between heterosexual and homosexual relationships is a flagrant denial of equality.

  Abaddon,

  We make judgement calls all the time.....even the most liberal of us. For instance, pedophile organizations lobby congress all the time to lower the age of sexual consent so they can legally fulfill their sexual desires. They cite big studies that indicate that they cannot change their sexual orientation and so are intitled to individual rights under the constitution.

  The will of the majority has spoken on this issue and draws a line that says pedeophiles can come so far but no further.(age of consent)

  Equality is not absolute and is often used as a marketing word just like the word freedom that you and I discussed in a previous thread.

  UADNA-TX
  Unseen Apostate Directorate of North America
• 

  Perry

  So ThiChi,

  Your research leads you to support which social policy?

  UADNA-TX
  Unseen Apostate Directorate of North America
• 

  Frenchy

  I think that ‘normal’ is applicable here. Here is one dictionary’s definition: “Conforming with, adhering to, or constituting a norm, standard, pattern, level, or type; typical: normal room temperature; one's normal weight; normal diplomatic relations.” Homosexuality can hardly be described as typical or standard or the pattern of behavior for mankind (or animals) in general. There is no word to which no one will object. On the subject of subjectivity, I stated from the beginning that this is my opinion. I don’t think one can get more subjective than that.

  As for natural, that is, of course your prerogative as a substitute for the word I used. Please note, however, that the word ‘natural’ is not without its pitfalls as well. Note one of the definitions of the word: “Conforming to the usual or ordinary course of nature: a natural death” . I think it can be successfully argued that homosexuality is not the ordinary course of nature.

  There are a lot of things that occur in nature that would not be considered ‘natural’ behavior for humans. Incest is one of them. Killing for sport. Infanticide is another. Cannibalism, robbery, suicide, the list goes on. All these things and more occur in nature and yet are recognized as abnormal behavior for humans.

  But ONLY if you just look at the first level of the onion. If you just think 'if everyone were gay we'd die out', you are missing the lesson nature had for us, that homosexuality and procreation are two different things.
  If you accept that, then the fact we have had, do have and will have homosexuals is completely understandable.

  I AM trying to look at the whole onion. To say that homosexuality and procreation are two separate things is really stating the obvious. The fact that two homosexuals can raise a child together does not make the situation ‘normal’ or ‘natural’. Chickens will incubate duck eggs, dogs have been known to nurse kittens, and people have been raising other people’s children since there have been people. The ‘natural’ course is for parents to raise their offspring, in the human as well as the animal world.
• 

  JWinSF

  I remember the study. It was done, I believe, in the early to mid 90s. What wasn't clear to me was whether or not the study really delved into if the supposedly "straight" identical twin actually was attracted to the opposite sex [straight orientation] or if the identical twin merely had sex with a person of the opposite sex or abstained from sex with someone of the same sex [straight behavior].

  To equate sexual behavior with sexual orientation is not appropriate. There have been many gay men and women who have gone into straight relationships merely because of societal pressures. The end result usually has been an eventual divorce when the person can no longer keep up the charade. A person can force themselves into straight sexual behavior, but actually be gay in orientation.

  So, just because the stats showed about 1 in 2 identical twins being gay does not to me prove the point that their straight sibling was really straight. They may have been merely suppressing their sexual orientation due to societal pressure to "make them straight" or to "appear straight". If anything, I believe that there is strong reason to believe that the straight acting half of the identical twins in the study may actually have been suppressing their gay orientation due to societal pressures, rather than the gay half having been influenced to be gay due to societal pressures.

  As for me, I know that I was born gay. I never had any of the typical "cause and effect" touted by fundamentalists to make me gay. For example, I never had knowlingly associated with other known gays, never had any sexual experiences with gays, had a father present at home up to age 16 who took an active interest in me, I grew up pre-Stonewall where everything was anti-gay in attitude, etc. In short, I should have grown up straight. Yet, from the time that I was first sexually aware, I was drawn to men, not women. It took me until age 45 to finally "wake up" and recognize that I'd been born gay.
• 

  Frenchy

  John, you make some good points. Thank you for your input. Joel, I appreciated what you said as well. For those here who do not know me and have not already guessed, I am not gay and when I speak about homosexuality I understand that it is similar to a Catholic explaining to his Baptist neighbor what a Jehovah’s Witness is.

  Joel makes a good point in saying: “I do believe that homosexual relationships should be requested for what they are, valid but different. We need legislation to provide us with specific legal mechanisms that track with our relationship needs. We do not need to march around saying that we demand that our relationships be called a marriage. “ I think that this is one of the biggest problems straight people have with gay unions. Those of us in the mainstream don’t know exactly what that is. To begin with, most heterosexuals are somewhat hesitant to talk about it at all and the ones that I have spoken to about it tend to view it as a mimic of ‘normal’ family life. If it’s not that, then what is it and what protections are being asked for and what responsibilities do these unions feel toward society?