Hello everyone,
There was a study of Penquins in
Antarctica. Penquins stay together for life and often walk long
distances together to find their nests. In the study they found one
pair of Gay Penquins. Upon following them to their nest they also
discovered that the cave where they made their nest was the cleanest of all of
the caves in this definitely overpopulated area. According to
current heterosexual myth it is reported that they planned to open a hair
salon.
PETE said: However,
Some of the ancilliary traits often associated with homosexuality in males
make them less than ideal candidates for warriors,
In Gestalt therapy as well as in Native
religions there is a process that is based upon exploration through role
reversal. For example, if someone is considered an "animal" by
another person and is judged based upon that prejudice then in order to judge
the judgment it is important to discover the intent of the person doing the
judging. One way is to look at the actions through the filter of role
reversal. Simply call the judge the repugnant term, animal, savage,
homosexual, whatever and call the judged the human being and see how the
judgment reads or feels. For example it is interesting to
explore the irrational fear of heterosexual men around Gays as to being raped or
at least being ogled in the shower. Maybe, since this is
an activity that is considered normal for healthy heterosexual men with
women, the role reversal is that they don't like Gays considering them in
the same manner or at least considering the possibility that they might be
treated the way they (the heterosexual men) treat women. Can
you imagine how a short delicate woman feels around a big muscular "possible
rapist?" All of the stereotypes of Gay behavior in the
military is nothing like the people that I knew when I was in the
military. They were just as macho and no more smoozy (soft
eyed) than the people that I knew who frequented the most macho brothels
around. In short, most of the stereo types are pretty adolescent as
is what is supposed to constitute a proper heterosexual.
If you want to create a vicious stereotype in a macho movie, make the villain a
really competent martial arts Gay
guy.
As for over population, you can check the archives,
I made this case sometime ago so obviously I think there is a lot that has to do
with what the specie's needs at the time. I believe the same is true
with left handed babies who have initially a more solid inclination for
music. But I suspect that the process of free will and hard
work gets beyond that quickly. As for whether Gays have a
biological basis which I hear you saying, I suspect that the biological
inclination to be Gay is the same as being Straight. I don't believe
this should be any more or less interesting than studies of what makes the
difference between boy and girl children. Unfortunately all of this is,
like girls in certain countries (who are aborted), an all too easy political
issue for the bigots of the world. That is why I tried to treat it
with a light touch in both of my last posts. But you
guys are really serious dudes.
Keith said: As to homosexuals being in the
vanguard of the creative movement, I'm not
> so sure. A full-scale statistical analysis (assuming one could make an
> objective choice of creative people) would have to be done on this
> question. What I'm more sure about is that creative people need plenty of
> time to gestate ideas so, without families to care for, homosexuals would
> seem to have an advantage.
> so sure. A full-scale statistical analysis (assuming one could make an
> objective choice of creative people) would have to be done on this
> question. What I'm more sure about is that creative people need plenty of
> time to gestate ideas so, without families to care for, homosexuals would
> seem to have an advantage.
Are there more Blacks in sports?
In the end, there is a very powerful network of Gay Creative people in the Arts
and other Creative Industries. Even when the oppression was
almost total, they were, like Jews, unbelievably creative.
Even with AIDS destroying a whole generation, the rebound has been
phenomenol. I can't believe that the same is not true in the
UK. This is where I work and I am well aware of
the situation. They are an encredible resource to
whatever society they happen to belong to. Just imagine how
many blank walls there would be in the world if all of the works of Gay
artists were suddenly to disappear.
You are right, as I teasingly wrote two
posts ago, that their family situation makes it easier for them to work 18 hour
days with a partner in the same profession. The
traditional Western family structure is at odds with the business of the
Arts as well as other Creative endeavors. It is not only
composers who must work in schools to survive but theoretical physicists and
economists as well. In all of these endeavors success
demands quality and quality demands that the value must be in the project and
not in the profit if you are to succeed. In
the Creative endeavors the failure rate is greater than the "four
common failures" the market analysts like to quote before the fifth big
success in regular business.
In the Creative endeavors, if the issue is
primarily profit then the failure rate, even for businesses like Sony,
resembles the Internet.com companies in the last market.
Entertainment companies were the original virtual companies and anyone
familiar with entertainment companies would never have been fooled by the dot
com's hokum. I wasn't. As for the Gays all you have
to do is look at the figures and compare their per capita to the rest of the
population. Unfortunately heterosexuals looking at Gays
is a little like Moslems looking at Jews. You would think that there
were a billion Jews in the world and that they were all named Sharon, to
listen to the fear of the average Arabic man on the street.
Actually there are fewer Jews to all of the Moslems than there are Native
Americans to the population of the US.
I am not threatened by the Gays and I both teach
them and some have been my Masters. Am I Gay or do I have
those stress tendencies. No. Am I afraid or have
I been approached yes and I said no. Just as some
women have through the years said no to me as well. I don't have to
assault a woman because I see her naked anymore than the Gays in the showers in
the Army have to treat me with disrespect if they are attracted to
me. Some Gays give it up and become heterosexual.
Some heterosexuals like Leonard Bernstein give that up as
well. Some Gays are narcissists, a comparable number
of Heterosexuals are narcissists as well. Some Gays are
pedophiles. Some heterosexuals are pedophiles as
well.
In point of fact, I consider any talented
group of people who care deeply about their work and give significantly to the
cultures where they live as gifts to the society rather than considering the %
of sick folks in every population as damning the population.
So, because of the political issues involved I
choose to consider all of these issues lightly or
bluntly. Women have been oppressed throughout Western male
history. So have homosexuals and to a large degree
certain minorities like the Jews and Gypsies. There is a time
when being "objective" about certain issues can not be objective at
all. In fact the distance required by objectivity itself
can destroy empathy and make people into objects that can then be treated
badly. I am against any group being treated as sick, disfunctional
or a function of a biological problem or disaster that then kicks the "medical
model" into use and ends up in abuse. I know enough history to
know that history treats such things very badly and I would prefer a better
heritage for my descendants than my behaving in such a
fashion.
I'm not accusing anyone of such but
considering the "scientific" studies that ended up "Sticking it"
to Indian people in the last century and that I have seen at
times considered as "givens" on internet lists, even today, I think we have
to always make our intentions very clear about some
things. Today's "givens" when it comes to human
groups are often tomorrow's attrocities. That is the reason I
stepped back from the comments on the Dene people even though my adopted father
was 1/8th Apache and grew up at White River Apache
Reservation. He was always good with money as was
Geronimo. I think also that we have to remember that
statements being made by groups who are under serious stress from huge external
groups often say things that they wouldn't say given another
situation. You need to consider the context for what they say as
much as the specific. Taking aim at the specific often misses the
point as I may have done in the Gay discussion.
In point of fact, I'm not sure just why it came up
at this time except for Keith's comment about Gays and school
curriculums. In point of fact also, the Catholic
population of the world is 1.8 billion people on the planet but on my little
reservation there were NO Catholics and if you had written a school text that
excused them and explained Priestly celebacy they would have taken offense and
aimed their derision at that as much as the Gays have taken it in the
schools. They were 100% Masons and they all were sure that
every Catholic was split in loyalty with most of it going to the
Pope. What was the bad guy yesterday is tomorrow's neighbor and you
have to get along with your neighbors.
So you might consider what it is that makes
Heterosexuals. All of the books explain it but what if it is just as
common for a % of the world to be Homosexuals as it is for there to
be heterosexual men and women? My culture has always
assumed a certain number of Gay people in the population and has even considered
a common role for them. We also considered and consider women to be
equal to men in everyday life but that gender has tendencies that make most
"move" one way or other. We observe this in all of life as
well. Even the Blue Bass that is hermafroditic needs a partner to
stimulate the egg laying and to fertilize those eggs.
Theoretically one could do it all but the dance wouldn't happen without the
other and without the dance there would be no eggs.
We have a sacred government where each of us assume
the stereotype and conventions of our rolls in human and Cherokee
nature. Men work essentially strategically while women work
tactically. Women own the property but men use the
property. Cooperation is necessary or nothing is done.
Nothing is done unless both agree. There is no conquest here only
cooperation and agreement to use one's gifts for the good of the family and
community. If you break that contract you are not welcome in the sacred
community since examining that contract is the purpose of that community in the
first place.
But in regular life you must fill in the blank
spaces that are framed by stereotype and convention, with the uniqueness of your
own vision that is given by the Great Mystery of the Universe.
We can call it anything but the one place where we split with the classical
humanist is in the sense of consciousness in everything including the Great
Mystery. We take an agnostic stand when it comes to the form this
all takes. We believe that all of existance can only be described in
metaphor since today's truths are tomorrow's folllies. But we
do believe that all of life is essentially balanced, symetrical and purposeful
in that sense. But it is a Great Mystery which we will study all of
our life as a species and will only know partially even when we are
through. So before I go further about the Gay issue I must be
sure of the purpose and intent of such a study and whether it means to
go further than the simple Stereotype Frame and convention or style of the
culture being looked at.
I believe in your good will but this did make me
quesy. I've lost friends over the middle east
recently. And I have worked through the homosexual issue from the
time that I met and became friends with Gay people. I am
convinced that attitudes to Gays are like the old stories about sex and
masturbation neither of which ever made me crazy in spite of all of the
authorities both published and in power who swore that they would.
Yours in the spirit of fun as we paddle up
stream.
Ray Evans Harrell
----- Original Message -----
From: "Keith Hudson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Ray Evans Harrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "pete" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2002 4:50 PM
Subject: Re: Cause of homosexuality? (was Women,
men and stress)
>
> At 13:21 11/04/02 -0400,
> (REH)
> >I don't know Pete. It sounds a little like herding porcupines to me.
>
> Apart from agreeing with what Pete wrote I don't think I have anything to
> add -- save to comment on his final paragraph:
>
> (PV)
> >> I didn't notice it mentioned here (may have missed it), but one of
> >> the types of stress which affected the rats, if I recall, was
> >> overpopulation. Some researchers then of course proposed that the
> >> purpose of the whole mechanism was to limit population levels.
> >> I believe the (darwinian) selectability of such a mechanism was then
> >> hotly debated, and I don't recall the outcome.
>
> This was indeed the reason why Reg Morrison mentioned the research into
> homosexuality because his book is mainly about overpopulation and other
> limits to economic growth. Another hormonal factor which limits human
> population growth (or used to, in bygone hunter-gathering eras) is that
> while a mother is suckling her baby (so long as it's very regular and
> frequent) her hormones prevent further conception. In the agricultural era,
> when mothers were needed at peak times in the fields to sow and harvest
> (probably leaving her baby with grandparents at home), then they would
> easily have become fertile again (apparently only a short pause in suckling
> is necessary for the normal hormones to re-assert themselves) -- thus one
> of the reasons for very large families in agrarian regions. A great deal of
> this research used to be done at Edinburgh University but I have no
> references to this.
>
> As to homosexuals being in the vanguard of the creative movement, I'm not
> so sure. A full-scale statistical analysis (assuming one could make an
> objective choice of creative people) would have to be done on this
> question. What I'm more sure about is that creative people need plenty of
> time to gestate ideas so, without families to care for, homosexuals would
> seem to have an advantage.
>
> Keith
> __________________________________________________________
> "Writers used to write because they had something to say; now they write in
> order to discover if they have something to say." John D. Barrow
> _________________________________________________
> Keith Hudson, Bath, England; e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> _________________________________________________
>
