GLR Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Read "Sixteen Propositions" by Michael Denneny in our online-Library!
 http://library.gayhomeland.org/0003/EN/index.htm

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5   Go Down

Author Topic: Denneny's First Proposition: the Definition of "Gay"  (Read 28275 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Mogul

  • Viktor Zimmermann
  • Administrator
  • Guru
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 691
Re: Denneny's First Proposition: the Definition of "Gay"
« Reply #30 on: Sat, Jan 21, 2006, 10:20 »

[..]So-called gay parents (whom I do not regard as gays) approve in a rather unconditional manner society as it exists.Not some utopia supposedly to arise in the future.A gay,historically responsible to future gay generations,would not burden the young gays of tomorrow with eventual heterosexual and homophobic playmates. [..]

Hell, K6 - you are frightening me by times! Your arbitrary re-definition of gayness may bring you prematurely into grave one day. The way a single gay manages his life is of no state interest - only group dynamics have impact of some relevance. Whether someone has children or not, doesn't qualify this person for the high treason - neither in a prevalently straight nor in a prevalently gay society. Teasing a gay parent as not being truly gay is not very nice!† 8((

[..] Genetics as a cause of gayness would besides rather explain why we shouldn`t be there.Or why we should eventually vanish or be wiped out.How a so-called gay gene could have been passed on from generation to generation by people who have no reproductive activity ? [..]

To understand the mechanism of transferring "gay gene" through generations, certain knowledges of biology and elemental genetics are of course helpful. But it is not that much complicated that one needs a university degree in biology - I don't have either.

1) Human genes are included partly in chromosomes (in the nucleus of the cell) and partly in small organelles called mitochondrion. More precisely, the genes in these chromosomes and in mitochondria are located on molecules called DNA.

2) Most genetic information about our physical appearance and body functions is located in chromosomal DNA, very few on mitochondrial DNA.

3) When an egg from a woman and a sperm from a man fuse into an embrional cell, they bring in each the 1/2 of the chromosomes from the parents. It is a merely accidental, which of our 46 chromosomes (we have 2 of 23 different types) come into the sperm or the egg. This accidental combination of chromosomes is mostly responsible for our hard ware.

4) The sperm includes almost no mitochondria, but the egg has many of them - therefore almost all genes in mitochondrias come from the mother. All these genes codified in the mitochondrial DNA will be transferred from mather to daughter and to the granddaughter and so on, being not "contaminated" by any foreign males who were used as partners.

5) Now, if the mitochondrial DNA is responsible for generation of let's say 30% gay male kids among the offspring of a certain female line, this would not at all prohibit this female line from reproduction. The female herself, as her daughters are, is fertile - only some of her boys are gay. They will most probably not build their own families and instead stay with the clan and help to rise their brothers/sisters and nephews and therefore provide an evolutionary advantage to the female family with the "gay gene".

The scenario depicted under point 5) is of course, solely a theory explaining the coincidence of gays having gay uncles from the mother's side, which is very often the case.

But even if some "gay genes" are located on the chromosomes, this not necessarily must cause homosexuality of their carrier - for example, if 2 gay genes were required for causing a mostly homosexual individual. Therefore all the carrier of only 1 gay gene would be heterosexuals and would transfer it to some of their offsprings - the gay gene surviving over generations and leading to no impact in overall reproduction statistics.

But again, these scientific stuff is not necessary for any justifications of homosexuality or the homosexual as a person. The previous generations of homosexuals were doing pretty fine without any knowledge about genetics, though they also were making certain speculations about the origins of human sexuality - the already quoted passage in Plato's "Symposium" is testifying this.†
:L
« Last Edit: Sat, Jan 21, 2006, 10:26 by Mogul »
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right!" Salvor Hardin

K6

  • Forum member
  • Hero member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 403
Re: Denneny's First Proposition: the Definition of "Gay"
« Reply #29 on: Sat, Jan 21, 2006, 09:21 »


I just don't view having and raising children as a political act.

It has to do with demographics,with the composition and make up of human societies,and therefore with politics in a quintessential manner.So-called gay parents (whom I do not regard as gays) approve in a rather unconditional manner society as it exists.Not some utopia supposedly to arise in the future.A gay,historically responsible to future gay generations,would not burden the young gays of tomorrow with
eventual heterosexual and homophobic playmates.He would rather live a whole life of honour and sacrifice for them,even if it means renouncing
parenthood.Even should it mean,in a gay independent State,entering some public service where he would be called upon to serve members of the younger age group and generation who aren`t his blood relatives.Perhaps,for example,as the political preceptor and adviser of some future leader of our people.

K6

Feral

  • Official Flying Monkey Smiter
  • Administrator
  • Hero member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 262
Re: Denneny's First Proposition: the Definition of "Gay"
« Reply #28 on: Sat, Jan 21, 2006, 09:11 »

Besides, does anyone still using the word "breeders" seriously? If so - I beg your pardon: I thought it is out of proper use since many years. =))

As a term of contempt the word can still be heard in heated conversations.
Stonewall was a riot.

K6

  • Forum member
  • Hero member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 403
Re: Denneny's First Proposition: the Definition of "Gay"
« Reply #27 on: Sat, Jan 21, 2006, 09:02 »

Beg your pardon, but I must contradict you. Its in the meanwhile not a question of philosophical beliefs or disbelief's - certain findings simply can't be denied. Whereas it is indeed politically of no interest for us what causes a human to become homo- , bi- or heterosexual, it is of certain interest for the science and is being investigated since several years. As a scientist, one is forced to acknowledge certain facts whether they do fit into one's world view or not.


I am not a scientist (I do not even have a university degree).Understanding a causal factor of sexual orientation based on genetics is beyond my
humble means.The same with sorting individuals on the basis of a genetic marker.I can only observe outward patterns of behavior,and from then on ascribe this or that individual as gay or as heterosexual.Which could potentially occur against his genetic make up,as described by a scientist.Cases will arise of individuals behaving entirely as Kinsey 6 gays,without the so-called gay gene.Or of individuals with the so-called gay gene,but without any of the outward behavior or sexual curricullum vitae of a gay.Genetics as a cause of gayness would besides rather explain why we shouldn`t be there.Or why we should eventually vanish or be wiped out.How a so-called gay gene could have been passed on from generation to generation by people who have no reproductive activity ? The human and the politician in me rejects any idea of possible extinction of the people I belong to,and rather seeks an explanation of the origins of gayness which at the same time smack the positive and the heroic.Like a human and gay will which shall be defeated by no adversary or defeatist suggestions or propaganda.The basic criteria to differenciate gays from heterosexuals is the outward behavior.All for the best if it confirms the sayings and explanations of science.Just too bad
if scientists describe me as heterosexual someone who behaves as a gay,or vice-versa.Humans are more social and cultural constructions than genetic ones in certain respects,including sexual orientation.A gay politician can find no use to gays who would prove merely theoretical.An
heterosexual gene would not save an individual who behaves as a gay in the eyes of homophobes.

K6

Mogul

  • Viktor Zimmermann
  • Administrator
  • Guru
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 691
Re: Denneny's First Proposition: the Definition of "Gay"
« Reply #26 on: Sat, Jan 21, 2006, 09:00 »

I just don't view having and raising children as a political act. You kind of took what I wrote and ran with it in a direction I certainly never meant to imply. I never said procreation was a natural duty or that those who don't have children are incomplete. Not sure where you got all that.

I was just trying to point out that despite some of the rhetoric in this forum, in the real world out there gay people are having children - and increasingly so. And no, the vast majority of them, are not doing it as a political act or to try and mimic or pass as heterosexuals. They are people who simply believe that the most important thing in life is love and family. And they desire both. [..] Where I think you are a bit out of touch is in thinking that wanting a family is somehow trying to be heterosexual. It's as if you're implying that homosexuals who want children are in some way unnatural or maladjusted. [..] I am sorry, Vicky, but I must respectfully reject this whole line of thought. Not to desire a family life is perfectly fine if that is what one chooses. But to settle down with someone and start a family, to instill in young minds ideals of mutual respect and integrity, to watch them grow year by year, to care for them and love them, is one of the noblest and important things an individual can do.

Jeff, of course gay people getting children are doing so not as a political demonstration, and yes, raising children is a wonderfull thing. Taking a carefull revue of my previous posts (especially in discussions with K6† >:)), you will see that I clearly advocate the procreative rights as basic human rights of any individual and not to be interferred by society. Any individual gay or lesbian with a child wish (and a possibility) should take advantage of an opportunity and give the planet a new citizen. The mentioned political implication of not-having children classifying an individual as inferior arises in that moment, when the enterprise of having children is being suggested to be important for us as a social group. As a social group, we are not the one known to be designed for procreation by natural means. Your argumentation in the post before clearly states that you regard the overcome infertility as a valid argumentation for being recognized equal with heterosexuals. The logical revert of this argument is that you admit that not-overcome infertility is a valid argument for us being recognized as not equal with heterosexuals. Additionally, gay men with a child wish are entirely at the grace of other people - be it lesbians with child wish or commercial breeders. This renders the supposed baby-boom in homosexual (male) relationships as not very likely prospective, whereas lesbians, of course, are more qualified for becoming parents on their own (and actually use this possibility).

Therefore I must refuse the thought that gays with a child wish are jealous of heterosexuals - if at all, they are rather jealous of lesbians.† >:)

Besides, does anyone still using the word "breeders" seriously? If so - I beg your pardon: I thought it is out of proper use since many years. =))
« Last Edit: Sat, Jan 21, 2006, 09:01 by Mogul »
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right!" Salvor Hardin

jemiko

  • External voice
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17
Re: Denneny's First Proposition: the Definition of "Gay"
« Reply #25 on: Sat, Jan 21, 2006, 06:18 »

However, I do not share the political implications of your beliefs: namely, that having children is a kind of natural duty and that renunciation of this venture leaves a person incomplete and being less successfull in life. In short, you are very close to state that sterility is in some way a mishap or a failure, and we therefore should try to prove the straight society that we are "not necessarily" steril. What is it, if not a well-meant, but still an obvious recommendation to "pass" as (better?) heterosexuals? No, my friend, you are cardinally mistaken in this point: a man can serve society in various ways: being a teacher, a scientist, a soldier or in some other way canallizing his energy into some other particular activity which is not solely selfish. I am far from adopting the ideas of Friedlšnder (who was an ugly antisemit), and his "Seven Propositions" (1908), but unquestioned adopting heterosexual values and their social patterns will not cause us having a new gay culture – it will merely make us a worthy part of heterosexual society.

Hi Vicky,

Good to correspond with you again.

Political implications. Good lord, the last thing I was trying to venture into was politics. LOL

I just don't view having and raising children as a political act. You kind of took what I wrote and ran with it in a direction I certainly never meant to imply. I never said procreation was a natural duty or that those who don't have children are incomplete. Not sure where you got all that.

I was just trying to point out that despite some of the rhetoric in this forum, in the real world out there gay people are having children - and increasingly so. And no, the vast majority of them, are not doing it as a political act or to try and mimic or pass as heterosexuals. They are people who simply believe that the most important thing in life is love and family. And they desire both. My position has always been that only people who want children should have them, and that gay people are in a unique position for they can more freely choose whether to have them or not. There is nothing virtuous in having children if one does not want them.

Where I think you are a bit out of touch is in thinking that wanting a family is somehow trying to be heterosexual. It's as if you're implying that homosexuals who want children are in some way unnatural or maladjusted. Remember, there is a lot of diversity out there. There is no such thing as one correct type of homosexual. I have often believed, and still do, that a certain portion of the gay animosity towards heterosexuals is based on envy. Envy that heterosexuals can more easily have a family life. Since it's not as easy for us to achieve it, many of us demean it. This is reflected in the term 'breeder' where we've taken something as miraculous as the procreative gift and tried to turn it into a pejorative. Or worse yet, come to some bizarre conclusion that alone amongst all living creatures on this earth, we homosexuals weren't meant to reproduce. In this, we go hand-in-hand with some of our worst critics.

I am sorry, Vicky, but I must respectfully reject this whole line of thought. Not to desire a family life is perfectly fine if that is what one chooses. But to settle down with someone and start a family, to instill in young minds ideals of mutual respect and integrity, to watch them grow year by year, to care for them and love them, is one of the noblest and important things an individual can do. And yes, despite whether you want to face it or not, producing and preparing the next generation is part of what helps define a people as a people. Not the sole criteria, by any means, but a significant part of it.

It doesn't mean every individual in that group needs to follow suit, nor does it mean that those who don't are inferior or incomplete. And certainly, being a teacher or scientist or those other areas you mentioned are worthy and fulfilling activities. But one is able to be a teacher AND a parent; a scientist AND a father. And so on - if one chooses to be both. This is not an either/or issue.

I guess the last thing I'd like to say is that no culture exists in a vacuum. There are countless points of connection and similarity between differing cultures. Those who attempt to define gay culture as the complete opposite of straight culture do us all a disservice. But in the end it's not important what I believe, or you, or anyone else in this forum. It's every gay person living and breathing on the face of this Earth who will determine the future. And whether they choose your ideal of childlessness, or my ideal of family life, time will tell.

Jeff

Mogul

  • Viktor Zimmermann
  • Administrator
  • Guru
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 691
Re: Denneny's First Proposition: the Definition of "Gay"
« Reply #24 on: Sat, Jan 21, 2006, 06:07 »

On that particular issue,I belong to a decidedly optimistic category.I do not believe in the genetic origin of homosexuality.I think that it is a learned pattern of behavior.Or more precisely a discovered one,since it is not taught by parents or by society.If such is the case,then we gays cannot be wiped out.Homophobes could easily overcome an obstacle like a gay gene.They will be no match against the human spirit of discovery and invention embodied either in our sexual orientation.The gay gene theory ressembles too much to an apology for being gay.It is peddled by people who do not want to recognize gayness for what it is: a political issue.

Beg your pardon, but I must contradict you. Its in the meanwhile not a question of philosophical beliefs or disbelief's - certain findings simply can't be denied. Whereas it is indeed politically of no interest for us what causes a human to become homo- , bi- or heterosexual, it is of certain interest for the science and is being investigated since several years. As a scientist, one is forced to acknowledge certain facts whether they do fit into one's world view or not.

All the "indices" I have mentioned in my previous post are not solely a product of philosophical discourse, they are based e.g. on morphological comparison of brains of homo- and heterosexual men, on physiological reactions while being exposed to male/female pheromones, measurements of hormones in pregnant women and correlation to sexuality of their off-spring. One can't change the morphology of one's brain by having homosexual sex or loving men, it is simply impossible - therefore in case of strong correlation of exclusive homosexuality and certain morphological differences one is forced to acknowledge that homosexuality has biological origin, whether it pleases oneself or not. The prerequisite of a correct statistical investigation is of course the exclusion of other possible causes for the observed morphological differences - such as previous illnesses, drug abuse or food preferences.

Significantly more gay males have a gay uncle from mother's side, even if they are early transferred to different family. The same is true for genetically identical twins, who mostly have equal sexuality independently from their familiar background. The genetic influence is therefore beyond any doubt - the only question is who's genes determine the sexuality of the male child - his own or those of the mother, or a certain combination of both factors (e.g. pregnant woman producing more testosterone and the embryo is being especially susceptible for this influence). The cases of identical twins usually can not be used to verify the "gay gene" in the child itself, as naturally these twins are developing in the same womb and of course equally react to any hormonal influence of the mother. From scientific point of view, it would be of certain interest to generate significant amount of identical embryos and implant them into different mothers - and then expose some of the expectant mothers to various agents. After birth, the kids would be equipped with under-skin radio markers and be raised in identical environment (ideally in one group in Kindergarten). Then after 15, 20 and 25 years the individuals would be compared. To make the results water-proof, the experiment should be performed with 10 - 20 sets of identical twins Š 100 clones.  :L Such an experiment sounds disgusting, but is the way the science guys usually test their ideas in animal experiments. No doubt, we will hear soon about such experiments from some or other country - people have invented nuclear weapons, why should they have any scruple to make research on something as fundamental as human procreation?

Whether these findings will be used in favor or against homosexuals, is not at all clear at the moment - e.g. they could be used for early weeding out gay individuals before they themeselves know they are gay. As for the optimistic gays from the US, I also have little doubts that though US-conservatives a lŠ Mr. Bush truly oppose the abortion and prenatal diagnostics, in case of homosexuals they will readily make an exception and supply the research with necessary financial fundings.
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right!" Salvor Hardin

K6

  • Forum member
  • Hero member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 403
Re: Denneny's First Proposition: the Definition of "Gay"
« Reply #23 on: Sat, Jan 21, 2006, 03:52 »

My fiews on monogamy and "open relationships":


In case the science shall actually make the doubtfull progress towards methodical selection or artificial generation of homo- or heterosexual embrios (and this is no doubt in the offing), we might face not only a cultural, but a physical genocide much earlier that we are expecting this. Experiences with Down-syndrom children in western world or with female embrios in China and India prove us, that whenever parents have the possibility to get rid of undesired off-spring, they have little scruppels to actually do this. I think there is no need to explain that kids with our sexual orientation do not belong into the wish list of straight parents, no matter how lovely parents they can be when we are grown up and they got used to us.



On that particular issue,I belong to a decidedly optimistic category.I do not believe in the genetic origin of homosexuality.I think that it is a learned pattern of behavior.Or more precisely a discovered one,since it is not taught by parents or by society.If such is the case,then we gays
cannot be wiped out.Homophobes could easily overcome an obstacle like a gay gene.They will be no match against the human spirit of discovery and invention embodied either in our sexual orientation.The gay gene theory ressembles too much to an apology for being gay.It is peddled by people who do not want to recognize gayness for what it is: a political issue.

K6

K6

  • Forum member
  • Hero member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 403
Re: Denneny's First Proposition: the Definition of "Gay"
« Reply #22 on: Sat, Jan 21, 2006, 03:36 »


For us as a particular culture, in 20 or 50 years it might become the only possibility to procreate us as a people by artificial means, ourselves using the above mentioned technologies in influencing the sexual orientation of the off-spring. A very theoretical and ethically questionable debate at the moment, but it might become pretty urging one sunny day.


So long as we do not know exactly what causes homosexuality,we gays should not renew our population otherwise than we do now: by simply
not sending back the hetro elevator.By being what we are never mind the designs or protests of our hetro breeders.In a gay independent State,our human ressources would come by way of immigration solely.If we have the means to determine a gay sexual orientation,then we may reproduce.A scenario where this would become feasible would be in a gay State based on and peopled by only one sex,and by cloning or by out-of-the-womb gestation.In a society composed of individuals of only one sex,no adhesion to heterosexuality would be possible,and the issue of hetro kids would thus not arise.

K6

Mogul

  • Viktor Zimmermann
  • Administrator
  • Guru
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 691
Re: Denneny's First Proposition: the Definition of "Gay"
« Reply #21 on: Sat, Jan 21, 2006, 02:12 »

Moving on to K6's view of gay monogamy: It is absolutely true that monogamy in most gay relationships is just about as 'ironclad' as it is in str8 relationships, which is to say not very ironclad at all. But to admit that is not to say that it isn't a worthy aspiration for those relationships wherein both parties seek it. That is, sure, people 'cheat,' but I think the dynamic surrounding 'cheating' is different in a gay relationship than it is in a str8. Or, at least, it ought to be. It is a wise gay couple that clearly apprehends what seems to be the nature of men, and therefore does not promise absolute and everlasting monogamy from first meeting to death. Yes, guys sometimes 'step out,' and as often as not, for str8 people, the action of so doing (and the lies that seem to invariably surround the act) bring about the end of the str8 relationship. I would submit, however, that a smart gay couple, while generally monogamous, has made allowance for the prospect that one or the other partner will 'stray' from time to time. Having made such allowances, there are no lies, and relationship soldiers on. There is no compulsion for gay people to mean the same thing by the word 'monogamy' that str8s do. It is imprecise, but what else can you call a relationship that lasts, say, 25 years, but one wherein each partner 'steps out' two or three times in that stretch of time?

My fiews on monogamy and "open relationships":

Personally, I believe in a monogamous love relationship of two men when they passionately love and respect eachother. This is not the only type of relationship I have enjoyed and might imagine to enjoy in future, but it is a very desireable one. Being posessively loved and love same way in turn is an intense experience. Many such relationships do not last forever – the feelings often tend to cool down or other people crossing the way appear more interesting and fascinating. I don't see any real sense in pretending that one still passionately loves eachother when in truth one merely has a friendly relationship accompanied by mutual sex once in a while, and maybe shares the same house. If love is over, one can amicably separate and begin a new passionate relationship with somebody else.

On a political level I must say that everybody is free to seek his luck in any kind of relationship which two or more men are willing and able to build up. Having a poligamous or monogamous relationship is subject to negotiations between involved individuals.

It is surelly true that from time to time men might happen to "step out" even in many tight and long-lasting relationships. It is also a fact, that the reactions to such a "step out" might be different:

  • an immediate break of the relationship,
  • a stalwart argument followed by promises not to "step out" again and finally a reconciliation,
  • a treaty between partners recognizing that sleeping with other people is from now on a natural right of a man and any discussions or reproaches connected to such a behaviour are unfair, backward and vicious.

Whereas an immediate break-up probably cannot be a wise action for a long-lasting and a serious relationship, I cann't say that every progressive gay must surrender to an "open relationship" against his true feelings. You argue, that one must not deny a man his alleged natural right to "step out"† – but have you considered that it is also a natural right of a man to be posessive on the object of his love? You can't deny that this is at least as often occuring a feeling as the promisque drive among men. Your pledge for the open relationship is therefore a bit one-sided. Whereas I admit that it might be a solution for a couple where both partners enjoy this way of dealing with eachother, but I see no reason why one partner shall be forced into accepting of poligamous attitudes of his husband, whereas he himself is being teared apart by jealosy and feeling humiliated and not desired anymore? You teach the jealous husband not to be jealous anymore, I teach the treacherous husband not to be treacherous anymore and instead learn to respect his partner's feelings.
:+

At this point, I am ready to let the str8 people worry about the str8 kids-- at the moment, we have our hands full trying to keep the gay kids from killing themselves (or being killed by str8 kids), before they get a chance to be gay adults. And that effort is a more legitimate one for us.

This is a point often being neglected in our everyday debates. We are fine about us being gay and we believe that the kids have it much better novadays than we were. This is not necessarily the case: indeed, the homophobia is very persistent in schools, especially in those having socially marginallized clientele.

Moreover, there is a severe breach among the gay generations: the youngsters are consumptiously engaged in getting a profession and finding a bed mate, the middle-aged are busy with earning and spending money, and the olders do not dare to go out and make some contact with new people. All together we are badly in need of sharing our intergenerational experiences and give eachother the necessary support.

While it is obviously true that children cannot be produced through gay sexual intercourse, this does not mean that gay people cannot produce biological children amongst themselves. Just 15 years ago or so gay marriage was largely deemed as a far-fetched and unrealistic notion. [..] Today it can be more clearly viewed as what it truly is: another stage in the social development of homosexuals as a people.

It will hardly be the final stage. In fact, the succeeding stage is already occurring - though in a still relatively minor way. This is gay procreation. [..] Every indication is this phenomenon will continue to grow, and that similar to gay marriage, support (and involvement) in gay procreation will continue to expand. This is for the simple reason that child-rearing is not a heterosexual impulse, but a human impulse. [..] an impulse [..] that is shared by most people - particularly as one approaches or reaches middle age and one's priorities in life begin to change.

This development will radically alter who we are as individuals, and therefore, who we are as a people. Old definitions (or limitations) of what homosexuality is or can be, will become obsolete. This will disarm many of our most vocal critics: after all, one can't long argue that homosexuality is a ‘sterile' lifestyle when significant amounts of homosexuals are having biological children together.

Jeff, I used to be very fond of the idea of producing children by myself, and, actually I haven't surrendered this motion untill this day completely. Being a natural scientist, I am simply somewhat reluctant of accepting the idea of my genes being taken out of the genetic pool of the mankind. Generally, raising kids is a fine thing and one should not underestimate the work and commitment which parents invest into this activity. I am most sure that raising children enriches the individual's personality and does the society in general a good service.

However, I do not share the political implications of your beliefs: namely, that having children is a kind of natural duty and that renunciation of this venture leaves a person incomplete and being less successfull in life. In short, you are very close to state that sterility is in some way a mishap or a failure, and we therefore should try to prove the straight society that we are "not necessarily" steril. What is it, if not a well-meant, but still an obvious recommendation to "pass" as (better?) heterosexuals? No, my friend, you are cardinally mistaken in this point: a man can serve society in various ways: being a teacher, a scientist, a soldier or in some other way canallizing his energy into some other particular activity which is not solely selfish. I am far from adopting the ideas of Friedlšnder (who was an ugly antisemit), and his "Seven Propositions" (1908), but unquestioned adopting heterosexual values and their social patterns will not cause us having a new gay culture – it will merely make us a worthy part of heterosexual society.

There already are some societies (e.g. Japan) existing, which do not sanction homosexual affairs, as long as the individual does not oppose being married and generating off-spring. These societies regard the lack of descendents as bad luck, whereas purposefully staying sterile is an affront against family, society and the state. Accepting such an "integration" would mean to be completely defeated on all fields of emancipation as a people.

Therefore, even if accepting the right of an individual (or a group of individuals) to have and rise children, we should not define these activities as essential for us as a people. Instead, we should publicly admit that "recruiting" is not at all objectional and that we would be lucky to see as many kids as possible to turn out to be happy homosexuals.† :=SU

[..] My parental philosophy in a nutshell is that you don't raise a child to be gay, bi, or straight; you raise them to be themselves. You let them know at appropriate times that there are 3 primary forms of love, and that all 3 are valid and will be accepted whichever one the child decides they are. [..]

I couldn't say this better! Children must grow up in an atmosphere of love and acceptance, no matter what their sexual orientation might turn up when they come into proper age. Alone, we can't agree into a policy which doesn't care whether parents do accept or dismiss this above guildlenes. It's not so much a matter of gay parents oppressing hetero offspring (never heard of this so far!) but rather a matter of straight parents emotionally abusing their queer kids (which is quite often). No society surrenders the field of raising and educating children entirely to the parents alone, we therefore rightfully should demand that heterosexual indoctrination of children must be limited, e.g. by proper treatment of homosexuality and gay history and culture in schools.

[..] Currently, no one knows for sure the reasons some children grow up to be gay. The leading theories are that it is either due to ‘nature' or ‘nurture', or some combination of these two. Regardless of which it is, gay procreation would likely see an increase in the percentage of non-heterosexual offspring.
What is largely unknown, is what percentage of offspring would be non-heterosexual if the two biological parents were both homosexual. In this case there most certainly would be reason to suspect a possible difference in the sexuality ratio. If there is a genetic link to sexuality (which many believe there is) such a link would reasonably be reflected in a larger number of non-straight offspring.

It seems that male and female homosexuality is not being caused by the same biological factors. It would be therefore not resonable to expect an increase of homosexual offspring if produced by two homosexual parents – most probably there woluld be the same 9:1 ratio even if the "gay genes" were located on chromosoms. Instead, the indices allow a funded conclusion, that a preferably homosexual orientation (of males) is being transmitted solely by the female line, causing essentially higher rates of male homosexuals in certain families. Male and female homosexuals with children themeself seem not to produce more homosexual offspring than the average of society. This can not be therefore explained sufficiently by the location of the "gay gene" on the X-chromosome. The most plausible explanation seems for me that the "gay gene" is located on the mitochondrial DNA, which is always being inherited from mother, and that this "gay gene" on the mitochondrial DNA somehow influences the production of testosteron in the female during the pregnancy (the concentration of testosteron in the blood of the mother at particular periods of the embrio's developement seems to influence sexual orientation of the child). An interesting phenomenon on it's own, and K6 will be probably pleased that it is possible to increase the feasibility of gay off-spring by an elaborated treatment of the breeding female with injections, or simply putting her into emotional stress. =)) Whatever the real cause of homosexuality is, it can't be that much disadvantageous to any given clan of monkeys - at this point the catholic charch is completely mistaken. Biologically, having childles brothers and sisters is very advantageous for a dominating female, because they stay somehow affiliated with her and help rise her offspring and protect it from concurrent clans. In the modern society (in terms of evolution), I must agree with the following argument of K6:

[..] The gay sexual orientation does have however and upon reflexion a purpose.Through it,gays renounce any private competence in matters having to do with human reproduction.

The best known example of this social purpose is probably the catholic church, which most likely was established by a bunch of homosexuals, no matter what ist current leadership wants make us to believe. The officers of this entity are not supposed to have their own children and instead must care for the rest of society at large (this was at least the original design, no doubt).

Besides, the catholic example teaches us as well, that any particular culture can be sustained through millenia, independently from current governmental form or changes in social structures of the society at large. This is not to say that such a culture will not alterate to a certain degree with centuries passing by, but the fundamental elements and the organization as community can be preserved for very long times.

In case the science shall actually make the doubtfull progress towards methodical selection or artificial generation of homo- or heterosexual embrios (and this is no doubt in the offing), we might face not only a cultural, but a physical genocide much earlier that we are expecting this. Experiences with Down-syndrom children in western world or with female embrios in China and India prove us, that whenever parents have the possibility to get rid of undesired off-spring, they have little scruppels to actually do this. I think there is no need to explain that kids with our sexual orientation do not belong into the wish list of straight parents, no matter how lovely parents they can be when we are grown up and they got used to us.

For us as a particular culture, in 20 or 50 years it might become the only possibility to procreate us as a people by artificial means, ourselves using the above mentioned technologies in influencing the sexual orientation of the off-spring. A very theoretical and ethically questionable debate at the moment, but it might become pretty urging one sunny day.
« Last Edit: Sat, Jan 21, 2006, 02:31 by Mogul »
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right!" Salvor Hardin

jemiko

  • External voice
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17
Re: Denneny's First Proposition: the Definition of "Gay"
« Reply #20 on: Fri, Jan 20, 2006, 20:38 »

What our enemies fear is more gay people, and while I understand that the above is explicitly not the old idea of 'gay recruiting,' it is the more-subtle millennial iteration of that old idea, and is used by the bad guys to argue against our being 'allowed' to raise children. Gay people come from str8 parents at a rate that is, as far as research can show, relatively constant across races, nationalities and cultures. There's no reason to think that gay parents would spawn more gay kids.
 

It's generally true that the rate of gay offspring from two straight biological parents appears to be relatively steady. Although cases involving gay twins and/or siblings suggests there's more to it than an even across-the-board dispersion. What is largely unknown, is what percentage of offspring would be non-heterosexual if the two biological parents were both homosexual. In this case there most certainly would be reason to suspect a possible difference in the sexuality ratio. If there is a genetic link to sexuality (which many believe there is) such a link would reasonably be reflected in a larger number of non-straight offspring. If there is a nurture, or upbringing link to sexuality, then being raised by gay parents who are in a healthy, open loving relationship would again, quite reasonably, lead to the offspring at least being more open to the possibility of their being bisexual or gay. In fact, one study I read about some years back did support this latter occurence. [Just a note: My parental philosophy in a nutshell is that you don't raise a child to be gay, bi, or straight; you raise them to be themselves. You let them know at appropriate times that there are 3 primary forms of love, and that all 3 are valid and will be accepted whichever one the child decides they are.]
 
I'm certainly no expert in genetics, but one can't simply dismiss the sexuality of the parents as irrelevant to the possible sexuality of their offspring. That seems illogical - and smacks more of political correctness than science. Sexuality is a characteristic. And while some characteristics remain dormant, others are passed on. Perhaps it'll prove to be no difference in percentage at all. Perhaps it'll be only a slight, infinitesimal increase. Or perhaps it will be a larger increase. No one can know at this time. What the average rate turns out to be will not be known until a decade or two down the road when more of these children come of age.

And to clarify myself, I'm referring here to biological children of two gay parents, not adopted children.

As far as others fearing the presence of more gay people (if that's what the result of gay procreation should bring) than what they're really afraid of, or offended by, is nature itself. Which is fundamentally silly, since nature, after all, is amoral. Whatever happens, people will adjust. And those who can't will eventually die off. That too is nature's way.

Once again, I'm not saying one sexuality is better than the other. Because I don't think any of them are. But if one truly holds to the creed (as I do) that a person's sexuality should make no difference, then having a 20% or 30% gay population should make no philosophical difference than having a 5% gay population.

Jeff

K6

  • Forum member
  • Hero member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 403
Re: Denneny's First Proposition: the Definition of "Gay"
« Reply #19 on: Fri, Jan 20, 2006, 18:42 »


This, I believe is the future. And to me, it's very bright. Integration will not reduce us to ‘losers' as K6 suggests, it will allow us to become fuller participants in life - and by participating biologically we help produce and shape the next generations. In this case, time is truly on our side.

Jeff


This is valid for only a handfull of countries,whose political regimes could besides change and whose previous gay-friendly policies be reversed.Gays having no State of ther own have also no instrument which could make of such a change a risky and dangerous adventure to hostile non-gays.These are merely formal rights with no basis or guarantee in power politics,legal briefs against potential loaded guns.

K6

K6

  • Forum member
  • Hero member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 403
Re: Denneny's First Proposition: the Definition of "Gay"
« Reply #18 on: Fri, Jan 20, 2006, 18:26 »

If anything, a Gay orientation is more political than a str8 one, if only due to its being in fundamental opposition to the majority. It is not a matter of recreation. Denneny points out later in his essay that, in general, the Nazis did not murder gay people just for being gay. They murdered those caught actually engaging in gay activity. That which gets you killed by monsters can hardly be callled recreation, can it? Was it Pasolini who declared that gay sex was in itself a revolutionary act?

At first glance,the gay sexual orientation isn`t political.For its has no demographic and therefore political consequences.A purpose could be sought in the adversity gays encounter and in their opposition to the heterosexual majority.But to me,this is metaphysics.There is no purpose in opposing for the mere pleasure of opposing.The gay sexual orientation does have however and upon reflexion a purpose.Through it,gays renounce any private competence in matters having to do with human reproduction.Incipient in their sexual orientation is the transfer to society and to the State of the competence over demographic activity.An incipient and besides viable gay State would get its human replacements by way of immigration,which is a government function.Such would be the purpose,human and at the same time gay,of a politically independent society of ours.Such would be our contribution to the evolution and progress of mankind,which would justify the reward of political independence in the form of a sovereign gay republic.

K6

Ninja_monkey

  • Forum member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 19
  • Adversus solem ne loquitor
Re: Denneny's First Proposition: the Definition of "Gay"
« Reply #17 on: Fri, Jan 20, 2006, 17:42 »

First a word on the discussion of Kinsey: It seems to me a moot point where one falls on the Kinsey scale. Denneny only says that 'Gay' is when you 'make an issue of' of your sexual orientation. He doesn't say how much of an issue, nor does he restrict the word 'gay' to describe those who are Kinsey Sixes. In his construation, you need not be an '‹ber-gay' to join the club, an nowhere would he have other gay people deciding if you were 'gay enough' to join the club. I agree with that sentiment. I mean to operate otherwise conjures up† shades of† the bad, old days when you had to suck off the doorman-- to prove that you weren't a cop-- in order to get into a gay bar.

Now then, on to assimilation vs. integration: To my mind, while the two tendencies do come from different directions-- as you so ably point out, Victor-- the destination is the same. And, alas, whether the obfuscation of gay culture comes as a result of one or the other hardly matters a generation on. Our culture would still be gone; I cannot accede to that.

Moving on to K6's view of gay monogamy: It is absolutely true that monogamy in most gay relationships is just about as 'ironclad' as it is in str8 relationships, which is to say not very ironclad at all. But to admit that is not to say that it isn't a worthy aspiration for those relationships wherein both parties seek it. That is, sure, people 'cheat,' but I think the dynamic surrounding 'cheating' is different in a gay relationship than it is in a str8. Or, at least, it ought to be. It is a wise gay couple that clearly apprehends what seems to be the nature of men, and therefore does not promise absolute and everlasting monogamy from first meeting to death. Yes, guys sometimes 'step out,' and as often as not, for str8 people, the action of so doing (and the lies that seem to invariably surround the act) bring about the end of the str8 relationship. I would submit, however, that a smart gay couple, while generally monogamous, has made allowance for the prospect that one or the other partner will 'stray' from time to time. Having made such allowances, there are no lies, and relationship soldiers on. There is no compulsion for gay people to mean the same thing by the word 'monogamy' that str8s do. It is imprecise, but what else can you call a relationship that lasts, say, 25 years, but one wherein each partner 'steps out' two or three times in that stretch of time?

Quote
"An objective analysis based on power politics would illustrate that we gays will end up as loosers in any policy of integration.Our sexual orientation is only recreational. Whereas the heterosexuals`s sexual orientation,though having all the outward appearances of recreation,also has to do with reproductive biology,with demographics,with shaping the future this entails,and ultimately with politics"

I must strenuously disagree with the above. If anything, a Gay orientation is more political than a str8 one, if only due to its being in fundamental opposition to the majority. It is not a matter of recreation. Denneny points out later in his essay that, in general, the Nazis did not murder gay people just for being gay. They murdered those caught actually engaging in gay activity. That which gets you killed by monsters can hardly be callled recreation, can it? Was it Pasolini who declared that gay sex was in itself a revolutionary act? If not, someone should have done.

Quote
"Regardless of which it is, gay procreation would likely see an increase in the percentage of non-heterosexual offspring. While this is by no means assured, it seems logical. After all, you'd have the combination of genes from 2 gay parents (the nature element) who'd be raising the children in a gay-parental atmosphere (the nurture element). As more gay people discover the joys of child-rearing, slowly, but surely, this will begin to raise the percentage of non-heterosexuals in the overall population."

Interestingly, your premise there is the same as that of our enemies. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure that's inadvertent, but the fact remains. What our enemies fear is more gay people, and while I understand that the above is explicitly not the old idea of 'gay recruiting,' it is the more-subtle millennial iteration of that old idea, and is used by the bad guys to argue against our being 'allowed' to raise children. Gay people come from str8 parents at a rate that is, as far as research can show, relatively constant across races, nationalities and cultures. There's no reason to think that gay parents would spawn more gay kids.

Quote
In the end, what is important is not the sexuality of the offspring, but that equal treatment and respect be granted to all people - regardless of their sexuality. A greater percentage of gay people would be nice, however, to help counter the overwhelming cultural dominance of heterosexuals.

That first sentence is a lovely sentiment, and one I used to share. The second sentence, however, contradicts the first. In my view, equal treatment and respect simply cannot come from immersion in a majoritarian culture. At this point, I am ready to let the str8 people worry about the str8 kids-- at the moment, we have our hands full trying to keep the gay kids from killing themselves (or being killed by str8 kids), before they get a chance to be gay adults. And that effort is a more legitimate one for us.

Quote
Procreation is Nature's way of keeping the sexualities integrated - despite the attempts by some to keep the sexualities estranged.

More on that later... I don't quite know where to begin on such a big topic.
It's all about the thumpa thumpa.

jemiko

  • External voice
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17
Re: Denneny's First Proposition: the Definition of "Gay"
« Reply #16 on: Fri, Jan 20, 2006, 15:39 »

An objective analysis based on power politics would illustrate that we gays will end up as loosers in any policy of integration.Our sexual orientation is only recreational.Whereas the heterosexuals`s sexual orientation,though having all the outward appearances of recreation,also has to do with reproductive biology,with demographics,with shaping the future this entails,and ultimately with politics.Our sexual orientation confers us no such power,whereas the sexual orientation of the heterosexuals confers them for all practical purpose all the power,never mind the formal legalistic details.With no control over demography,not even a normal moral and political authority over our gay youth,we cannot be the equals of the heterosexuals.

K6

Greetings to everyone:

I would just like to note, if I may, my disagreement with the above statement. While it is obviously true that children cannot be produced through gay sexual intercourse, this does not mean that gay people cannot produce biological children amongst themselves. Just 15 years ago or so gay marriage was largely deemed as a far-fetched and unrealistic notion. In some gay quarters, even undesirable. Today it can be more clearly viewed as what it truly is: another stage in the social development of homosexuals as a people.

It will hardly be the final stage. In fact, the succeeding stage is already occurring - though in a still relatively minor way. This is gay procreation. Whether it be through artificial insemination or natural insemination, whether it be a single parent, a gay couple, a pairing of gay couples (the ‘super-family') or some other family arrangement, it is happening. Every indication is this phenomenon will continue to grow, and that similar to gay marriage, support (and involvement) in gay procreation will continue to expand. This is for the simple reason that child-rearing is not a heterosexual impulse, but a human impulse. Certainly not an impulse that is shared by 100% of the population (not even 100% of the heterosexual population) but one that is shared by most people - particularly as one approaches or reaches middle age and one's priorities in life begin to change.

This development will radically alter who we are as individuals, and therefore, who we are as a people. Old definitions (or limitations) of what homosexuality is or can be, will become obsolete. This will disarm many of our most vocal critics: after all, one can't long argue that homosexuality is a ‘sterile' lifestyle when significant amounts of homosexuals are having biological children together.

But there is more to it than that. Currently, no one knows for sure the reasons some children grow up to be gay. The leading theories are that it is either due to ‘nature' or ‘nurture', or some combination of these two. Regardless of which it is, gay procreation would likely see an increase in the percentage of non-heterosexual offspring. While this is by no means assured, it seems logical. After all, you'd have the combination of genes from 2 gay parents (the nature element) who'd be raising the children in a gay-parental atmosphere (the nurture element). As more gay people discover the joys of child-rearing, slowly, but surely, this will begin to raise the percentage of non-heterosexuals in the overall population. If these past millennia had been spent in gay procreation rather than hiding away in the closet, our situation today might be vastly different. While we can do nothing to change the past, we can do plenty to change the present - and through it, the future.

But as I've written before, even if no increase in the percentage of gay offspring occurs, the children of gay parents would nearly all be more respectful and understanding of homosexuals and homosexual relationships. Many gay offspring in these families will be inspired to have biological children of their own; further increasing the pace of gay procreation - and acceptance.

In the end, what is important is not the sexuality of the offspring, but that equal treatment and respect be granted to all people - regardless of their sexuality. A greater percentage of gay people would be nice, however, to help counter the overwhelming cultural dominance of heterosexuals.

Procreation is Nature's way of keeping the sexualities integrated - despite the attempts by some to keep the sexualities estranged. Which all leads to the following conclusion: given that gay procreation is the next step in gay social development, and that children come in all sexualities, the very concept of a ‘gay' nation becomes as unattainable as that of a ‘straight' nation. It's not just that integration is the best option, it's the only option. At least in any large-scale, significant, productive form. Which doesn't mean we can't have gay-accented communities, neighborhoods, social and cultural venues, vacation sites, even towns to showcase and explore our identity - and govern, to a degree, our own lives. (One should never underestimate the effects a gay-friendly local government can have.)

This, I believe is the future. And to me, it's very bright. Integration will not reduce us to ‘losers' as K6 suggests, it will allow us to become fuller participants in life - and by participating biologically we help produce and shape the next generations. In this case, time is truly on our side.

Jeff
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5   Go Up