Jump to content
Phatmass
Josh

People Are Not Lesbian,Gay,Bisexual,Transgender Or Questioning...

Recommended Posts

Josh    971
Josh

FB_IMG_1483868703160.jpg

Agree or disagree? This was posted on the Facebook page Marriage Conservitism. It's a religious page.

Edited by Josh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BarbaraTherese    1,895
BarbaraTherese

People are just people in my book.  Goodness knows what label I would wear (and probably do where some are concerned) were my confusions, misunderstandings, inaccuracies etc converted into. a label used to 'wrap me up in a nice tidy, often dismissive, compartment'.

People have a first or Christian name to identify them and all I need to move forward into relationships and journey along with them if they are willing.

I notice that the sign above has full stops after each term or label..........and that is about it too.  Full stop, end of story - person is labelled and in a nice and tidy summarising and dismissive type of compartment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Josh    971
Josh

Also this post seems to imply people aren't born that way but actively choose it. That language is problematic right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ice_nine    2,262
Ice_nine
27 minutes ago, Josh said:

Also this post seems to imply people aren't born that way but actively choose it. That language is problematic right?

I think the nature vs nurture, or whether people are "born that way" is not so much a relevant question as it was say 10 years ago. In my intermittent research over the years, qwerty theorists have been essentially saying that the gay vs straight binary is not-reflective of reality, and that human sexuality and gender is much more fluid (see the Kinsey scale for example).

Of course qwerty theorists and advocates would conclude that this means everybody should be accepted as they are and should be affirmed in whatever sexual proclivities or identities they have. Of course Catholic morality and theology would agree that people are not "gay, straight, or bi" but humans with desires, both righteous and sinful, but obviously the conclusion is not therefore "accept everyone as they are," but to strive to be better, to strive for holiness, to deny oneself.

Of course, if Catholics find it helpful for them to identify as whatever, I try not to press the issue. I've struggled with gender and sexual identity. It's annoying for people to suggest or to outright insist on how you should label yourself. Labels are essentially for other people to categorize you, and they're fine in most cases. But in man's exploration of himself, and when we approach another human being in a more personal, intimate way, these labels are not often as useful as they are in a general sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nihil Obstat    9,204
Nihil Obstat
3 hours ago, Ice_nine said:

I think the nature vs nurture, or whether people are "born that way" is not so much a relevant question as it was say 10 years ago. In my intermittent research over the years, qwerty theorists have been essentially saying that the gay vs straight binary is not-reflective of reality, and that human sexuality and gender is much more fluid (see the Kinsey scale for example).

Of course qwerty theorists and advocates would conclude that this means everybody should be accepted as they are and should be affirmed in whatever sexual proclivities or identities they have. Of course Catholic morality and theology would agree that people are not "gay, straight, or bi" but humans with desires, both righteous and sinful, but obviously the conclusion is not therefore "accept everyone as they are," but to strive to be better, to strive for holiness, to deny oneself.

Of course, if Catholics find it helpful for them to identify as whatever, I try not to press the issue. I've struggled with gender and sexual identity. It's annoying for people to suggest or to outright insist on how you should label yourself. Labels are essentially for other people to categorize you, and they're fine in most cases. But in man's exploration of himself, and when we approach another human being in a more personal, intimate way, these labels are not often as useful as they are in a general sense.

Incidentally, I am at this exact moment doing some reading for my class which starts on Tuesday, which is dealing with how even the Kinsey scale is seen as kind of passé with the really hip theorists.

"

Much demographic research seeking to determine the relative frequency of homosexuality uses either a dichotomous standard or the Kinsey scale.31 Etiological research has tended to concentrate on the production of the extremes. But researchers in sexology, anthropology, and psychobiology have criticized reliance on the Kinsey scale for several reasons. Some researchers point out that the scale is used as though it differentiated stable and uniform human types. When the types in question are at the two extremes of the scale, bisexuality disappears from view. Furthermore, the presupposition of stable human types, they argue, fails to take into account the varying sexual economies of different societies, especially with regard to differences in the ways sexual development is culturally organized and the ways homosexuality and heterosexuality are folded into differentially organized developmental trajectories.32 Some societies, for example, include a period of obligatory homosexuality in maturation (for males). Others have institutionalized a “third” sex. A Kinsey score must be understood differently for members of those societies than it would be for members of a society that has no such obligatory period, has a different pattern of gender roles and identities, or is characterized by non-obligatory fluidity in sexual behavior and erotic orientation.33

Other researchers argue that the scale isolates sexual orientation from other phenomena to which it is related. John Money regrets the use of the term homosexual, as directed too much at acts as distinguished from affectional disposition. He proposes the term homophilia as a more accurate designation.34 He further proposes a general category of “gender transposition” with three grades: total (p.165) (to which he assigns transvestism), partial unlimited (to which he assigns what he calls andromimesis and gynemimesis), and partial limited (to which he assigns what he calls homophilia). Each of these has an episodic as well as continuous mode. While Money worries that critics might object that this posits homosexuality or homophilia as abnormal, it is as likely that critics would object to incorporating sexual or philio-erotic orientation into gender, as gender transposition. Whalen, Geary, and Johnson, by contrast, want to incorporate hetero- and homosexuality into a broader set of orthogonal dimensions of sexual variation, dimensions that would include degree of arousability, frequency of sexual interaction, and number of partners, as well as more finely grained aspects of partner and activity preference.35 Clearly a typology that captures all of these distinctions will pose a much greater challenge for research design than does the Kinsey scale.36

Helen E. Longino

Print publication date: 2013

Print ISBN-13: 9780226492872

Published to Chicago Scholarship Online: January 2014

DOI: 10.7208/chicago/9780226921822.001.0001

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Josh    971
Josh
Just now, BarbaraTherese said:

People are just people in my book.  Goodness knows what label I would wear (and probably do where some are concerned) were my confusions, misunderstandings, inaccuracies etc converted into. a label used to 'wrap me up in a nice tidy, often dismissive, compartment'.

People have a first or Christian name to identify them and all I need to move forward into relationships and journey along with them if they are willing.

I notice that the sign above has full stops after each term or label..........and that is about it too.  Full stop, end of story - person is labelled and in a nice and tidy summarising and dismissive type of compartment.

So you agree with the meme then? People aren't one way or the other? Or bi-sexual? If they have these feelings they are confused? When I was 7 in the first grade I had a crush on a girl and she said yes and became my "girlfriend" when I asked her. I've heard people who are gay say they had this same experience at a young age. They felt attraction and a crush on the same sex. And it stuck with them and never went away. This meme seems to imply those feelings aren't real and the person is just confused. I don't know if that makes sense from what actual "gay" people say. They seem to be saying they aren't sexually confused as the meme implies but are sure about their attraction to the same sex starting at a young age. Then I realise you have people who are bi-sexual or have those feelings. I had this discussion on Facebook tonight and a lady said that all people experience attraction to both male and female to some degree. She has attractions to both sexes and is a Christian. She has been married for 10 years or more I think and says she is faithful. I told her I've never been attracted to males. She then asked if I ever had been to prison? She asked if I ever heard of "gay while you stay" I said no I've never been to prison but even if I was I would never be attracted to males or perform sexual acts with them. She then said we should have a chat about the subject and that I've possibly lived a sheltered life. I think implying that I didn't really know what I was capable of.

Edited by Josh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BarbaraTherese    1,895
BarbaraTherese
4 hours ago, Josh said:

Also this post seems to imply people aren't born that way but actively choose it. That language is problematic right?

I don't think anything is actually proven as yet.  The nature nurture debate continues.  Until something is proven, it could be either and the why of it all remains a mystery and to me is beside the point to me.    There are the theories - and there is the reality of a person and the relationship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anomaly    2,456
Anomaly
12 hours ago, Josh said:

FB_IMG_1483868703160.jpg

Agree or disagree? This was posted on the Facebook page Marriage Conservitism. It's a religious page.

Disagree. 

I agree with Barb and with what Nihil posted. 

People are very complex and varied and change. Different circumstances, cultures, nature, social and moral understandings  affect people.  

Most People want to be loved and to live and have a relationship.  How one accomplishes that and how deeply you look into yourself and others is very much up to you.  The relationships I had as a teen, in my 20's and now 50's, are very different in many aspects.  

If you think that sexual compatibility is the primary factor in your long term relationship, then you're probably looking at a lonely shallow and sad life.   Sexuality is the icing on the cake in personal relationships with intimates.  

Other than that, it's just a hobby as far as your relationship with others.  I'm not about to tell someone they are or aren't anything.   I will judge you as a jerk, or someone I can tolerate or want to be around.  Keeping in mind, they're opinionating as well.  

Like Barb pointed out.  I don't agree with this need to pigeonhole and categorize people and hang a lot of stereotypes in to that. But this polarizing is what most (society, science, religion,  schools, politicians, etc) do constantly for whatever reasons. 

Josh. Why do you keep bringing up you personal experiences and choices and seemingly apply them to others?   Are you looking for validation of yourself, or validation of your opinion on others?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Josh    971
Josh
Just now, Anomaly said:

Disagree. 

Josh. Why do you keep bringing up you personal experiences and choices and seemingly apply them to others?   Are you looking for validation of yourself, or validation of your opinion on others?

Are we reading the same meme? It seems you agree with it don't you? The meme is stating people *aren't homosexual,bi-sexual ect ect...Isn't that what you're essentially saying? That people aren't these defined titles? As for your second question...When do I keep bringing up my own personal experiences and applying them to others? I stated I had an attraction to females at age 7 because it related to this topic. People who I've met that identified as gay said they experienced the same thing at a young age except it was for the same sex. Where are these instances where I *****KEEP***** bringing up my personal experiences and applying them to others? Looking for validation of myself? Not sure what you mean.

Edited by Josh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
truthfinder    1,324
truthfinder

I think we need to be really careful here of conflating persons with SSA and those who are 'gay-in-jail'. The latter is less about sexual attraction, although itself sexually immoral, and more about power, dominance and survival. And plenty of women are in same-sex relations in jails as well, but seems men tend to fear the former and fetishize the latter. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Josh    971
Josh

I would never hook up with a dude or have sexual fantasies about one. Out of jail or in jail. When the lady inferred the gay in jail statement I thought it was ludacris. Going to jail wouldn't cause me to start having those feelings or be open to "gay while you stay" I love women and always will.

Edited by Josh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
truthfinder    1,324
truthfinder
28 minutes ago, Josh said:

I would never hook up with a dude or have sexual fantasies about one. Out of jail or in jail. When the lady inferred the gay in jail statement I thought it was ludacris. Going to jail wouldn't cause me to start having those feelings or be open to "gay while you stay" I love women and always will.

It's not about those feelings - it's about making a sexual alliance so you don't get beaten up or killed (or better food). It's a transaction - just like prostitutes really - do you think they like their clients either?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Josh    971
Josh

O so you're talking about being in prison and being threatened to have sexual activity with males or be killed? I didn't realize that's what you were getting at. The lady I was discussing this with on Facebook wasn't implying that. She was implying sexual activity because there were no females around. Not impending violence if one didn't comply.

Edited by Josh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
truthfinder    1,324
truthfinder
5 minutes ago, Josh said:

O so you're talking about being in prison and being threatened to have sexual activity with males or be killed? I didn't realize that's what you were getting at. The lady I was discussing this with on Facebook wasn't implying that. She was implying sexual activity because there were no females around. Not impending violence if one didn't comply.

It's part of it. There's also 'gay in a foxhole'. Sometimes it involves violence - sometimes loneliness, but I still think it's a very different issue than SSA lived and felt in the 'real world'. That question speaks to identity and the construction and perception of self. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Josh    971
Josh

I just have never felt any attraction to a male. I don't think it's possible for me. I'm 99.9% sure of that. Actually 100% sure. No matter how lonely or any other factors. I believe people who have ssa when they say they always had it. I don't think they're lying. Are there cases where it developed in people because of loneliness or not being sure of their identity or not having a father figure? Yeah probably. But the gay people I've met say they are attracted to the same sex the way I'm attracted to women. They always have been. They aren't "confused" as the meme implies. God bless people with ssa. I actually found this meme to be an attack on them from a religious page on Facebook. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BarbaraTherese    1,895
BarbaraTherese

"He or she is bi-sexual", "He or she is stupid", "She is lesbian", "He is a nut case" etc. etc.

As Catholic Christians, he or she is a beloved child of God.  Full stop end of story and the whole and entire story.

We can use all the rationalisations and reasons etc. etc. in the book for using tags and labels, stereotyping; however, our call and vocation is to love our neighbour as a brother or sister and a beloved child of God.  It is not our call to of necessity integrate worldly and secular thinking into our spirituality.  And our spirituality is not something we take out now and then.  We cannot avoid the fact that our spirituality is with us always and everywhere at all times, woven through our entire person and personality, every thought, word or deed conscious or unconscious.  We are going to be confronted perhaps again and again with worldly and secular type of thinking and we are called to stand against it very often, not for it always of necessity.  It is what the "Vocation and MIssion of The Laity" is in part all about.

Where the meme in the opening post is concerned.  I do not agree with it in any way. Everyone is a person, not a tag or label.  Think about it, how on earth can a person be a homosexual, or sexually confused etc?    A person is a (highly complex) human being created and beloved by Almighty God and for whom Jesus lived and died terribly - absolutely no exceptions whatsoever.

I do hold that science in its various fields and other areas of expertise might need their labels and categories, even stereotypes (a type of 'shorthand specialist type language')- but cannot agree such should be carried over into ordinary daily life.  Science and theories are entirely valid and absolutely worthwhile and to be highly valued, and one subject while still only theories often.  Relationships in the day to day are another vitally important subject entirely. 

The meme was quite disturbing to me.

Edited by BarbaraTherese

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ice_nine    2,262
Ice_nine
On 1/9/2017 at 1:39 AM, Nihil Obstat said:

Incidentally, I am at this exact moment doing some reading for my class which starts on Tuesday, which is dealing with how even the Kinsey scale is seen as kind of passé with the really hip theorists.

 

lol it has been some years since I've really delved into the subject. what class is that reading for?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nihil Obstat    9,204
Nihil Obstat
24 minutes ago, Ice_nine said:

lol it has been some years since I've really delved into the subject. what class is that reading for?

Special topics in philosophy of science. I will know a bit more detail after class today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×