They were less likely to be taunted because people didn’t think they were lesbians. Believe me, if teens actually do think one of their peers is a lesbian they become much less understanding.
**
Oh yes they do! Adolescent girls and young women especially are expected to show a proper feminine interest in clothing, makeup, boys, dating, and childcare/babysitting, just as boys and young men are expected to show a proper masculine interest in sports, cars, girls, sex, and aggression/fighting. Anyone who deviates too far from these norms might as well bring their own stake.
Does homosexuality prevent a person from providing food and shelter for oneself? No.
Does homosexuality prevent a person from loving and being loved? No.
Do the great majority of those in the medical or mental health fields consider homosexuality a pathology? No.
Are heterosexuals who practice contraception or engage in intercourse past fertility an abberation? No.
Is homosexuality abnormal? Well, statistically, yes. So is being left-handed, a twin, or red-haired. Do any of those traits make a person dysfunctional? No. Only in as far as irrational prejudice exists against such characteristics. But that is society’s doing, not the individual.
Here’s my take on the Origins of anti-gay attitudes:
30% Violation of biological imperatives
15% Fear and disgust of the unknown
10% Sexual identity confusion perceived in the other
10% Sexual identity confusion perceived in the self
10% Biblical imperatives
10% Threat to male social status and bonding rituals
5% Disgust with counter-productive tactics
5% Notice of unhealthy over-emphasis on sexual identity.
5% Irresponsible and unhealthy behavior by Gay men
0% Personal interaction with Gay men
Okay, unnatural. Let’s suppose it is. So? Snake venom, poison ivy and dog crap is all natural. And it’s still disgusting and dangerous. So what difference does it make?
Non-beneficial to the species. It’s also non-beneficial to dye one’s hair, go to the movies, and play video games.
Smacks of mental illness-well, where did you get your degree?
Mangetout, he was quoting the Cecil article that was linked by Sparc in order to show that homosexuality is natural. Basically using Sparc’s cites against him. Well, attempting to at any rate.
MrVisible, so does that argument stand when the argument is reversed and folks say that homosexuality is perfectly natural and our sex drive is perfectly natural so we should embrace it?
This actually went to trial. The Supreme Court in 1952 ruled that it was the mango’s fault because it looked too provocative. The chimp was sent to therapy, however, and whenever it reached for the forbidden fruit it was shocked with electricity while zoologists screamed out “No Mango for you!”
Please identify any empire or state that has ever suffered economically, militarily, socially, or in any other way due to the presence of or even overabundance of gays and or lesbians.
My argument was that the entire idea of judging whether anything was good or bad depending on what animals do is ludicrous. Irrelevant. I don’t look to my dogs for moral advice, and I don’t presume that the stray cats in the neighborhood are privy to the wisdom of the ages.
That doesn’t negate the fact that humans have had homosexual tendencies since the dawn of history, that it is just as completely a part of gay people’s psychology as heterosexuality is for straight people. Whether homosexuality is natural for animals or not, it has a huge amount of precedent as a human orientation.
Well, bear in mind, that the Western Empire fell after it abandoned its pagan tolerance for homosexuality and adopted Christianity as the state religion. I think we can all draw the obvious lesson here.
Of course, the eastern Roman empire, which we know as the Byzantine empire, lasted until 1453, when Constantinople was conquered by the Turks.
Heh. Trying to cram in more than 100% into your list, eh?
I personally think the whole “do they choose it” debate is balderdash before the “is it right?” debate. The choice debate, provided the existence of a moderately intelligent anti-homosexual advocate, stalemates at “well, you may indeed naturally desire men/women, but it’s still wrong to actually choose to have sex with them, kiss them, or pursue homosexual relationships. I desire (such and such bad thing: children, cows, dead people) but I refrain from giving in to my desire.”
So the “is it wrong” debate seems to be where all the action is, especially since the significance of the choice debate is premised on it. The only reasonable arguements I’ve ever heard on this score are premised on particular religious convictions that are themselves usually entirely unsupported. So here I am, left without any reason to think that making out with Tim is any better or worse than making out with Erica, morally. Indeed, the whole association of morality with, almost entirely, sexual practice, has got to go. There’s nothing morally special about sex: like every other human activity it has its risks and its benefits, and it affects other people in various ways that need to be considered. But even gay sex has risks that straight sex does not, that’s no reason to think its immoral, any more than choosing to drive is more immoral than walking, despite being riskier.
vanilla, for an historical analysis of societal attitudes toward homosexuality, you should check out this book, but you better hurry- it looks like there’s not many copies left.
I’m about a third of the way through it. Deep stuff, heavily footnoted. It’s surprised me how much variation there has been in various times and cultures, as well as within one culture over time.
