The Simtropolis Closet

[Duke87 1,070]

How does a closet have a curator? What's your job descriotion- regualar replacement of the mothbals in the coats?

Anyway, now for the real reason for this post:

I read somewhere that a recent study found that gay men's armpits smell different from straight men's armpits. The likely reason? Different pherimones in the sweat.

There are a couple of implications here:

-it would suggest that homosexuality is not just a choice, but that there is also something physically different with the body, taking credibility away from the attitute of "if you find that you're gay, you should make every effort to make yourself straight"

-It would also explain things like "gay-dar" and whatnot.

Fascinating, no?

[Boggy1 45]

Duke87: Yes, very. Its been said that the left and right hemospheres of our brain are wired up differently. This is why gay people tend to be more creative than straight people.

[TheCrybKeeper 300]

Now Boggy1, you really shouldn't say that.

Some might consider that, a stereotypical statement.

My belief is this:

a man who acts like a tough, macho, testosterone junky, is not what a real man was or is or ever will be.

A woman who acts like a bimbo and advertises her flamboyant behavior is not a real women.

A person who is gay, can be gay, that's all okay. But a person who over acts their gender and their sexual identity, is not a real person. they are hiding behind a fake identity. They are making their sexual lifestyle into their focus on who they are. Which means; they have lost the true person, somewhere else, underneath it all.

Swishiness would be considered this.

A real man; is not what the world thinks that it is. He is strong and feminine, masculine yet soft and his emotions and actions are true to his self identity, not to his outward appearances.

Not mister tuff sports fanatic, who never Cries. Not Mr. Eats nails for breakfast and spits a house.

[Boggy1 45]

frndofyaweh: Sorry, I dont understand, what shouldnt I say?

Its fact that gay people are more creative for the simple reason the brains are wired differently.

Obviously, there are exceptions, which is why I said "tend to be"

[TheCrybKeeper 300]

Okay, you could be correct. But maybe the wiring is not flawed at all? maybe some were meant to be this way for a purpose.

Remember I said I was borderline through my youth. Watching and knowing that I hated males and anything they stood for, but I found my revelation. They are all wrong! (now that sounds stereotypical, eh?)

[Boggy1 45]

frndofyaweh: oh no, of course, I wasnt saying that there is ANYTHING flawed at all. I'm gay myself, and am VERY creative. As for a purpose? Well, I dont believe in fate or any of that destiny stuff. In my opinion, its just caused by a number of different factors and conditions.

[TheCrybKeeper 300]

I believe it was meant to be. The creative genders are always supressed through history. men and women alike. Guess I shouldn't have assumed the flawed part. I still have some bad habits to break, it seems.

You are right, Boggy; It isn't a flaw, but i do not believe it was an accident either.

I have seen the studies that show chemical makeup of the brain. In a homosexual male and a heterosexual male and how the homosexual brain has different chemical levels than the Hetero.

I have also seen studies that show this may be self controlled, through emotional state. so it proves nothing concrete either way.

EDIT: I used to dream of being a girl. That is  as personal as I can get at ST.EDIT: guess I should say I am male)

My life was not very good for seven of my younger years. Believe me; I know what it is like to be different.

Another EDIT: @Duke

LOL for real! How does a closet have a curator? What's your job descriotion- regualar replacement of the mothbals in the coats?

Houzabout another EDIT: ThatMonkeySim: 

Well, we call the angels(greek meaning messenger) a-sexual, or having no reproductive organs.

There are 9 different kinds of angels(messengers) and none of them look masculine or feminine. The Bible just plainly states they are innocent and beautiful. So I believ all angel are child like, but according to the Bible; they are 9 feet tall and have 4 or 6 wings and since their bodies are spiritual material, their auras are so bright, that they glow all around themselves.

[RiverCocytus 0]

John Derbyshire, one of my favorite authors, has an article on this subject.

He lists 13 possible causes; and does a bit of dicussion about how they are inter-related and such. Its an interesting read, anyway.

[GingerBlokey 30]

As Curator I am incharge of stocking the machines and keeping a guard on you guys. Now dont kick the vending machines it sets off an alarm.

[vidioman 21]

I'm 'gay' and I'm not very 'creative'. I mean, most building's Ive made in BlockCAD are replicas of things that already exist!

Though I'm left handed, so my brain is rewired differently than a right handed person, whether theyre straight or gay... There are alot more brains that I though :-O

And if those big guys that watch foot balls and never cry while eating nails aren't men, what are they?

Wait, vending machines? This is a closet! Hell, poor matt is stuck crammed into the top shelf And you have vending machines!

Aren't we fat enough?

[RiverCocytus 0]

Simple explanation: 'false bravado' is redundant.

[vidioman 21]

Not really, it could be like a double negative. Fake fake courage could be true courage, per say. Or something.

[thesonofgray 0]

So I read John Derbyshire's article (link in RC's post above) and found it very interesting.  Although I do adamantly oppose a couple of things he said.

On the causes of homosexuality, I think everything but 10, 12, and 13 is false.  From what I have read, the reasons above seem to have the most credibility.  Plus, being a homosexual male, and on the question of the origin of my innate behaviour, I believe the reasons above to be true.  But, like John pointed out, Science is "cold," and doesn't care what we think or wish for.

One thing I definately oppose in his article is the -surprise!- the pargraph which justifies discrimination. 

Majorities have rights too; and while I want to see minority rights respected, I don't think that every minor inconvenience consequent on being a member of a minority should be raised to the level of an intolerable injustice requiring drastic legislative or judicial remedy. We all have to put up with some inconveniences arising from our particular natures.quote>

Heh.  Inconvenience? I could go on a flambouyant rampage right now, but I'll hold myself back.  And before I comment on his anti-gay marriage comment, I would like to know his position on civil unions, since they would not relate to any historical religious event and be completely civil.  If he is opposed to civil unions, then I would have to send him an angry letter (since I bet he doesn't get enough already). 

His argument about being able to still oppose a behaviour which is inborn is completely ridiculous.

I don't think that the fact of a predilection's being inborn should necessarily lead us to a morally neutral view of the acts it prompts. If you could prove to me that pyromania is inborn, I should not feel any better disposed towards arson.quote>

This doesn't relate at all.  Pyromania causes harm, damage, even injury and death.  Homosexuality causes NO ILL towards you and society.  But it is hard to make that point in the current social climate since the large majority of religious individuals claim it does just that.  Ill and offense are two different things and should not be confused.  People's rights should not be restricted because it offends.  But certainly should be if it's detrimental.  Pyromania is detrimental.  Homosexuality is not.  Oh and pyromania has not been attributed to inborn conditions. (not that he said it was)

(If anyone was going to ask, I have read Stanley Kurtz's arguments and equally his ctritic's work.  It seems to me there is some major framing going on here, on both sides.)

I found this comment interesting and amusing:

Science is full of conundrums like this, to the delight of unscientific cranks, who leap on them as evidence of supernatural intervention. History shows that these puzzles always get resolved sooner or later in a natural way, however, sending the "God of the Gaps" traipsing off to find a new place where he can hang his starry cloak for a while.quote>

I would like to hear how the faithful explain the seemingly inborn nature of homosexuality.  As long as it stays civil. 

And for the unfaithful (and faithful), what's your pick of the 13 different causes of homosexualty?

Look!...I think you can see the "God of Gaps" traipsing off into the distance!

[RiverCocytus 0]

Well, Mr. Derybshire may believe in evolution, and be quite tolerant, but he still is conservative.

That being said; both sides are careful to frame their arguments. For instance, you have done this as well (though you do it with more subtlety that others, which I find commendable.) This is my way of saying that pointing out framing of arguments does not defeat them.

I will do my best to explain his positions, as quoted from the paragraphs above.

Paragraph 1: Don't reframe his argument; please. I will distill it for you.

"In my experience people take a claimed grievance to be grounds to impose beliefs on others."

He is of course implying a few things including gay marriage. The same could have been said for reparations, and I'm sure you could come up with a list of things that conservatives or others have pulled the same tack on.

Paragraph 2: His meaning is absolutely clear. Well, I can still cut away a little fat:

"People have dismissed predilictions because they are inborn. I will not."

Obviously, given the subject, it holds special weight for you. (And not particulary for me.)

However, to be fair, he is not addressing you. He is addressing people who would try to end the debate about homosexuality because they find it to be inborn, and feel that what is inborn is inherently neutral. I doubt you feel that way. I would assume that your position is to reserve judgement on people's proclivities and choices whether they are they are directed by something inborn or not. (I certainly hope that I am correct.)

If you like his comment about science, you might find him a very engaging writer. He's a terrible pessimist, though.

As for the causes of homosexuality, I can't say I know. I find the 'something happens during pregnancy' thing incredibly fascinating; much of what makes you who you are is what happened during pregnancy, not just your genes. Pregnancy is like your pre-life; the life you live before you exit the womb. So in a similar fashion to how two brothers can be vastly different because of life experience, you and I could be different also because of what happened before we were born. (during pregnancy.) I might be partly wacked because my mother smoked during pregnancy. Eh, who knows. (But I am partly off my rocker )

My pick, if I had to pick one, is number 2. In my view it is most consistent with history. But, I won't choose one, because I'm not foolish enough to think anything can be derived from just one single cause. 2 interests me a lot, because it hits on a very important point; human understanding evolves; and new concepts are born in the way that new generations of men are born. Whether or not it is true (the statement of number 2) still does not settle the issue though.

About 'false courage' Courage does not imply falseness, or any form of pretense.

Courage implies genuine valor.

Bravado is a false display, created to indimidate or impress. As a man, I can tell you that all bravado and machismo is innately false. What is manly or not manly goes deeper than that. Just working out, eating raw egg, wearing muscle shirts, ogling women, cussing, doing rodeo, fighting, and so forth, does not make someone a man. Doing any of these things could be impressive or intimidating to some people.

It is odd to me that people don't get that bravado is false. Machismo is also pretense; whether or not the guy really likes to work out and drive muscle cars does not make him or make him a man. Machismo is a sort of perversion of courtship displays; it can be fun to do any of those things, and there is often a drive to. But, doing them or abstaining from them is not what makes a man a man.

Maybe this is what he was getting at; manliness itself is about responsibility, endurance, integrity, sincerity, strength, faith (not necessarily in God,) courage, justice, and so forth. Manliness is what makes a man a man, just as womanliness is what makes a woman a woman.

I was once speaking to a Christian freind of mine, and I related to her my opinion on this matter. She thought for a moment, and said, "How is that any different from womanliness?"

That's just it, of course; In Christ there is no male or female?

Instead, the difference between manliness and womanliness is in the uniquely different way that each of those virtues is expressed by men and by women. (Which may seem tautalogical. -- but there is an undeniable circularity to it; as there is with many things.)

So if you want to -be a man-, as they say, then the secret is that there is no secret.

Mostly people telling other people to 'be a man' is a form of machismo itself anyway. Which brings me back to the beginning, which also means I'm done here, having completed the circle.

Welcome to the weird mind of River Cocytus.

[vidioman 21]

But we all know the bible says that women are less than men. Oops, was that offensive?... He said it. *points up*

1. Satan? No... If God doesn't exist neither does satan. The second point would possibly support my 'everyone is bisexual theory' (it isn't mine, I just believe it) in which all mammals are bisexual and depending on other factors determins what they do and who they do it with. Three makes a bit of sense. As for four.. to be honest, I am attract to both genders but more towards men at the moment so I would probably choose one over a women, but over all, if I had a choice whether to be gay or straight I think the answer is quite clear. As for five, my dad is an alcoholic and I'm close to my mom. So that could be a factor. But, I know *someone* who is closer to his father than his mother, and he's gay. Six: Hmm.... I have alot of stress, but most of that is because I'm like this in the first place. Before I 'knew' I was 'pretty normal'.. For number seven, I did have a few sexual experiences when I was younger but it wasn't molestation, or with anyone more than a year older or younger than me. But it was with a girl, that might be a cause. After mom found out she told me never to do it again..... and I never will. :0 Eight makes a good amount of sense. Places that are gay-friendly have more gays than places that aren't. I know the gay community here is tiny, and there is alot of anti-homosexual bias in the community. We're probably the largest community in Canada, outside of Alberta, that holds those 'values'. Though the gay population is becoming more vocal, there is a difference between being vocal and being large. Nine and ten make a bit of sense. For number eleven, I read somewhere that homosexuality could be linked to estrogen levels in water supplies. Twelve doesnt make much sense to me, 13 does a little.. I think it's a combination of any number of those factors. You can't choose one, but as you read on in the article they seem to be trying to.

My brothers doctor's name is John Derbyshire... I wonder if theyre related... Hmmm....

[Zelgadis 638]

Okay, out of morbid curiosity, I read the article.  Now I could go on a huge rant about it, but it isn't necessary.

Here's my question:  Who is this guy?

Is he a doctor of psychology?  Sociology?  Biology?

I think he's just a pundit.

Never trust a pundit, liberal or conservative, Maureen Dowd or George Will.

They're all full of themselves, and they actually know nothing of value. 

Kind of makes me sick that people like those have high-paying jobs.  They don't deserve it.

ISF

[RiverCocytus 0]

zelgadis:

1. who cares what kind of 'official expert' he is; as long as he is offering interesting ideas and commentary. I have seen many doctors of sociology, psychology and biology who are more full of bullcrap than this guy ever was.

2. He's not highly paid. Not in the sense that Micheal Moore is, or any of those doctors of psych, soc or bio.

3. Nice use of the ad hominem, athough the subtlety is not there...

Vidio: Jesus didn't say men were less than women. Although the old law definitely did. That was part of what Jesus was doing; they say that Jesus was the 'first feminist'. (Take that or leave it.) It is very clear that he regarded women the equals of men.

Also, I like your comments. Because one thing I like about the article is that he has -13- possible ideas, any of which could be intertwined, and you have gone about examining each one in turn (as I did when I originally read the article.)

Also, I'm not offended yet. I was offended when they had the virgin Mary covered in dung.

[ephorex_77 0]

Originally posted by: zelgadis Okay, out of morbid curiosity, I read the article.  Now I could go on a huge rant about it, but it isn't necessary.

Here's my question:  Who is this guy?

Is he a doctor of psychology?  Sociology?  Biology?

I think he's just a pundit.

Never trust a pundit, liberal or conservative, Maureen Dowd or George Will.

They're all full of themselves, and they actually know nothing of value. 

Kind of makes me sick that people like those have high-paying jobs.  They don't deserve it.

ISFquote>

 

Hmm...I find it strange that you're so quick to dismiss the views of other, in your opinion at least, less qualified people. I suspect it's his viewpoint you're annoyed with, and not the lack of half the alphabet after his name. 

It really doesn't hurt to consider everything you read and not merely to dismiss it so blithely. If he was advocating homosexuality, would his lack of credentials bother you?? 

[Zelgadis 638]

Hmm...I find it strange that you're so quick to dismiss the views of other, in your opinion at least, less qualified people. I suspect it's his viewpoint you're annoyed with, and not the lack of half the alphabet after his name. 

It really doesn't hurt to consider everything you read and not merely to dismiss it so blithely. If he was advocating homosexuality, would his lack of credentials bother you?? quote>

It's not worth the effort to consider everything I read.  Sometimes, it takes 5 seconds to tell if something isn't going to be worth the time.  Topic:  homosexuality.  Author:  somebody with no experience or education on the matter.  Done.  Good, saved myself some time.  If I really want to find information, I'll do some real research.

I don't have a problem with this person having a viewpoint.  I do have a problem with this person getting paid for it and padding his credentials with it for no other reason other than that he's published.  Pundits, no matter the topic, embellish and bend the truth.  "Truthiness," to quote Steven Colbert, is their world.

I'm also not interested in biased publications, and that goes for either the National Review (conservative) or Advocate (gay rights).  If I want news, I pick up the Globe and Mail.  If I want information, I visit the appropriate research site (or sites).  If I want baloney, I pick up the Weekly World News.

As for the question, "would his lack of credentials bother you?"  Yes, it would.  No experience?  No education on the topic?  Excuse me while I find someone who has.  If I wanted an opinion on genetic engineering, I wouldn't pay an English teacher to write about it.  It's a waste of money.  Essentially, what is unsaid here, is "Hey!  I'm published!  I must be right!"

So, in keeping with that philosophy and also for the third or fourth time I've done this in this thread: here is an article from the APA (American Psychological Association).  Call me crazy, but I'm more apt to believe the APA than a pundit.

http://www.apa.org/topics/sbehaviorsub1.html

ISF

[RiverCocytus 0]

The APA is highly biased, and I would not believe them more than I would believe a pundit. My father is a Psychologist (a PHD, just so YOU know) and he has told me time and time again of how the APA has become politicized. So...

I could take each of the claims in this article to task, but maybe I'll just do what you did, and dismiss it before even reading it in depth! Yes, lets see what kind of world we will live in when everyone does that...

But I won't! One of the problems I have with this APA propaganda is that it talks about 'studies show...' without citing any studies. You would think that as the APA, being all high and credentialed and all, they would have loads and loads of studies to link to! But they don't... They position themselves as THE authority without backing it up. They know that people will get on, see that they are the 'official American Psychological Association' and assume that they are automatically correct and canonical.

Since they don't state 'opinions' it is hard to argue with them. For instance, they deny the existance of ex-gays; though I know people who are. Each of their 'points' is merely an authoritatively stated version of something that you might read in the 'Advocate'. They declare that 'coming out' is extremely important, by calling it important to 'the process of identity development' - what is that? Identity development? I'm not going to say something either way about coming out, but I wonder what they even mean?

Another quote:

"Are All Gay and Bisexual Men HIV Infected?

No. This is a commonly held myth. In reality, the risk of exposure to HIV is related to a person's behavior, not their sexual orientation. What's important to remember about HIV/AIDS is it is a preventable disease through the use of safe sex practices and by not using drugs."

What a cheap shot. WHAT A CHEAP SHOT. Commonly held myth? Where? 'Red America'? Commonly held? The things you can get away with when you put a phd on the end of your name, huh?

Here's another one:

"Can Lesbians, Gay Men, and Bisexuals Be Good Parents?

Yes. Studies comparing groups of children raised by homosexual and by heterosexual parents find no developmental differences between the two groups of children in four critical areas: their intelligence, psychological adjustment, social adjustment, and popularity with friends. It is also important to realize that a parent's sexual orientation does not dictate his or her children's. "

There are also studies that show the opposite. But since they do not quote any studies, I feel no obligation to quote any myself. One of my problems is, they are framing all questions/responses for the advancement of their agenda. For instance, all studies may agree on the areas of 'intelligence, psychological adjustment, social adjustment and popularity with friends'-- but these are subjective terms at best. Zelgadis; I am not saying this because I have it in for gay people, but this is also "baloney" as you said.

I'm sure this offends many of you; (or maybe not) but I think it is a fair assessment to say that if John Derbyshire is slanted to the 'right' in his interpretation of homosexuality, then the APA is slanted to the 'left'. What I don't like about the APA's statements is that they are delivered in an authoritative manner that masks the real uncertainty of the subject. Its hard to argue effectively against an organization that delivers their statements with such authority, which they are keenly aware of. So, take it with a grain of salt. I can't claim that all of what they are saying is true or false; but they want to make it seem unarguable. To me, that sounds like a challenge.

What is the APA's agenda? Well, I would bet that they are hooked quite strongly up with the far-left/liberal political lifeline; from what I have read from them in the past, and what I have heard in regards to public declarations, I find it to be veritable.

I'm bothered by the fact that I cannot find a single source about homosexuality that I could deem unbiased... even Derbyshire I can tell has a bias (though I think that it isn't very much, probably because I am a conservative.)

What is your reaction, Zelgadis?

[vidioman 21]

«I was offended when they had the virgin Mary covered in dung.»

What if she appeared in the dung? Would you be offended then? And what if a pilgrimage came to kiss the Holy Mary Dung Effegie. Would you still be offended, or not? How about the Holy Mary Pancakes and Felafels?

«Steven Colbert»

It's Stephen, not Steven. *waves at Stephen*

That man is a Gawd!

«If I want baloney, I pick up the Weekly World News.»

When I want Baloney, I go to a deli. Or my grade 6 teacher. She was a Baloney, too. Mrs Baloney.

As for the APA, it is a much better source of information on the issue than Mr Nobody there.

Hmm.. I was going to mentioned APAs bias but I havent heard much about it, but now that RC mentioned it, yes, APA is biased a fair bit. Especially from a scientologists point of view.

«they deny the existance of ex-gays; though I know people who are.»

Do a bit of research into puberty and bisexuality. A lot of people have a 'gay period' when theyre young and more religious people that experience that may consider it as 'being cured of homosexuality' when they werent actually gay in the first place.

«what is that? Identity development?»

Development of a personal identity? I would imagine it has something to do with not lying about who you are to fit in?

"Are All Gay and Bisexual Men HIV Infected?

No. This is a commonly held myth. In reality, the risk of exposure to HIV is related to a person's behavior, not their sexual orientation. What's important to remember about HIV/AIDS is it is a preventable disease through the use of safe sex practices and by not using drugs."

What a cheap shot. WHAT A CHEAP SHOT. Commonly held myth? Where? 'Red America'? Commonly held? The things you can get away with when you put a phd on the end of your name, huh? quote>

How is it a cheap shot? Lots of people say people living with AIDS are gay. While according to Thunder Bay District Health Unit, a good majority of it's HIV/AIDS patients go it from drug use, and a very small percentage are gay.

«There are also studies that show the opposite.»

Same for heterosexual parents. They aren't all perfect. I'd say gay and straight parents are on par when it comes to parenting ability. The difference is, when gay people have kids, it's because they want to have kids. It isn't by accident like it is with straight people, because it can't happen by accident. So, obviously, they would love their kids and take much better care of them than a straight couple that had 'accidents', IE, my parents.

[thesonofgray 0]

Phew.

The APA is highly biased, and I would not believe them more than I would believe a pundit. My father is a Psychologist (a PHD, just so YOU know) and he has told me time and time again of how the APA has become politicized.quote>

Pretty much everything except a newly born child has a bias, including your father.  But I'm sure you knew that.

And everyone likes to read things that substantiate their bias.  I'm sure you and zelgadis knew that, too.  Let's be realistic.

(sorry bout that - I like being "lofty" every once in a while )

What a cheap shot. WHAT A CHEAP SHOT. Commonly held myth?quote>

The first thing my mother said to me regarding my sexuality after I "came out" was: As my son, I worry about you a lot and just want you to be safe.

She was referring to having safe sex because she and my father knew gay people who died from AIDs when it was a very big problem for the homosexual community.  Thankfully it is much less of an issue now with the spread of awareness.  But I think many people, like my parents, who were aware of the AIDs epidemic in gay males in the late 70's and early 80's keep that in the forefront of their minds when the issue of homosexuality is raised.

Hopefully what the APA believes to be a myth will soon fade with time.

I'm bothered by the fact that I cannot find a single source about homosexuality that I could deem unbiased... even Derbyshire I can tell has a biasquote>

I would be hard pressed to find one too.  If you locate one I'd be very happy to see it.

[thatmonkeysim 8]

ahem

*changes subject real quick*

So what do you people look for in a person you would like to date?

Looks? Personality? Anything Breathing? lol

[Fanaza 0]

I'm gay.

[thesonofgray 0]

Welcome Fanaza!

Fell free to express your opinion on any of the subjects being discussed.  Or just sit back and watch the show!

[thatmonkeysim 8]

we have another closet memeber now!

[ephorex_77 0]

zel: My, that post came across as quite sarcastic now, didn't it?? But surely no one would dare to edit your posts....??

Anyway, I'll leave RC to answer your post (which he's already done quite admirably) as he's in a far better position to do so and also because at the moment, I have no interest in this issue, hence the short reply to your post previously.

What if she appeared in the dung? Would you be offended then? And what if a pilgrimage came to kiss the Holy Mary Dung Effegie. Would you still be offended, or not? How about the Holy Mary Pancakes and Felafels? quote>

What on earth are you talking about?? I'm confused here, sorry. 

EDIT: Sorry, something was wrong with how my quote turned out. I think I forgot to put the "/" in. =P

[Boggy1 45]

thatmonkeysim: For me, looks is the last thing I look for. Intelligence would probably be the first. I mean, wouldnt it be horrible to have a really rich person with great looks and personality but with no intelligence at all?! I mean, what could you talk about with them? Football? Blah. Personality follows close behind intelligence. I like people who have a sense of humor and are understanding etc.

Probably then would be wealth. I mean, I wouldnt mind having a civil union with a rich person, but it wouldnt really matter if he was dead poor either.

(wow, I wrote "...if HE was..." automatically. I didn't even think of putting a "she". Cool"

[RiverCocytus 0]

I took Art Studio when i was in 12th grade, and I was the only guy in the class... its very interesting to be considered 'normal' by societal standards and always be in the minority.

About the Cheap Shot thing, I really do think they are taking a cheap shot. They realise that most people who will read that will believe that it is true; that is, that all gay people having aids is true... kind of a myth about a myth.

I guess it depends on where you live. But where I am from, I doubt anyone would believe it.

vidioman: Are you actually a closet Discordian? You would enjoy discordianism or at least the Church of the Subgenius. Lively chaps, really.

On the Meaning of Life thread the first post links to a discordian page.

The substance of my argument is to not take the APA too seriously just because they speak in an authoritative tone. Among Psychologists there is a great deal of disagreement about what homosexuality is, much less as to whether it would be considered a disorder or not. Some might argue that what society you live in would change its status as a disorder or not. I like people like Derbyshire because he is willing to question accepted ideas about it, instead of railing from the walls of rigidity.

I do, however believe that there may be a position of neutrality. But as long as we politicize issues because they have a personal touch for us, we may never discover that position. Some people don't even want to; sadly.

Edit: in the above line, I am referring to EVERYONE, not just pro-gay people.

[Zelgadis 638]

Interesting.  Very interesting.  Well, my little experiment is now complete, so no more debating for me.

We have a new closet member!  Have a seat and have a chat!  Welcome!

Funny, TMS, but I haven't thought about who I would like to date for a long time.  I've been with my bf for 5 years now, so I guess I stopped thinking about that.

On the other hand, asking what I find attractive is a whole different ball of wax. 

One could say that I like older, Asian guys, because I wound up with one who's 14 years older than I am. 

ISF