Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditIn May, the American Psychiatric Association announced the makeup of the team responsible for revising the fifth (and latest) edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, known as the DSM-V.
The DSM-V will serve as a manual for mental health professionals as well as policy makers and pharmaceutical companies concerned with mental health issues. As such, the views it presents will play a major role in shaping the national understanding and discussion of mental health as well as the legislative and regulatory climate on issues relating to employment discrimination and insurance coverage.
When the APA named the researchers, major alarm bells sounded in the transgender community when Dr. Kenneth Zucker surfaced as the head of the group on "Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders" The executive director of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto, Zucker is a chief proponent of the theory that children who fail to conform to typical gender identity in youth are merely indicating an eventual homosexual identity in adulthood, rather than as an expression of a core identity. This view is in direct contrast to the bulk of the scientific community which recognizes an inherent difference between gender identity and sexual orientation.
Zucker is also an advocate of reparative therapy for transgender or gender-variant children and youth. Sometimes known as conversion therapy, this school of thought refers to methods aimed at changing a person with primarily homosexual attractions to heterosexual, or at eliminating or diminishing homosexual desires and behaviors. According to reports issued by the American Psychological Association, the medical and mental health consensus in the United States is that there is no scientifically adequate research showing that conversion therapies are effective or safe, and there is some evidence that they are potentially harmful. Zucker's approach to treating transgender and gender-variant children was documented as part of a recent NPR story on the subject -- listen here.
Given his regressive and out-of-the-mainstream views, Dr. Zucker's appointment to chair this working group has been met with heavy opposition from transgender and transsexual activists and their allies. This video diary below explains the case against Zucker's nomination.
The stakes are high. With Zucker running the working group on "Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders," there is a significant risk that the DSM-V will recommend reparative therapy and there is some risk that Gender Identity Disorder – the APA's term for transsexuality – could be classified as a type of homosexuality, reversing the APA's decision in 1973 to remove homosexuality from the manual thereby affirming that homosexuality is not a mental illness.
Please sign a petition calling for the removal of Dr. Zucker from this committee along with his fellow retrograde allies Dr. Ray Blanchard and Dr. Anne Lawrence.
Co-written and researched by Naomi Sobel.
Share this article
News & Analysis »
Peter Rothberg
Your guide to expressing informed dissent to war, racism, sexism, environmental degradation and market-based solutions to social problems.
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrick Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Wonkette
RSS
Peter, promoting leftist thought police now?
You seem to have no difficulty joining the leftwing spin masters in labeling someone as having a fear of something because they don't embrace it. It is not phobia to find something you disagree with, especially when you state a specific reason that has some rational basis (ie desire to uphold a religious doctrine).
The left misuses this term with regularity in an attempt to avoid real dialogue and to manipulate the public.
Phobia: an exaggerated usually inexplicable and illogical fear of a particular object, class of objects, or situation
So we see by definition, your attack on Mr Zucker is merely one of a ad hominem style rather than one of substance.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/24/2008 @ 1:26pm
'Okay, so now they're telling us alcoholism IS a mental disorder, homosexuality ISNT' -- George Carlin, 1989
Posted by HonestLiberal at 06/24/2008 @ 1:36pm
LL -- If I take the word "homophobe" out of the title will you sign the petition?
Posted by Peter Rothberg at 06/24/2008 @ 1:39pm
LL -- If I take the word "homophobe" out of the title will you sign the petition?
Posted by Peter Rothberg at 06/24/2008
I think you knew the answer before you posted the question.
No. I think that the whole so-called "transgender" thing is the failure of people to be who they are. It is both a character weakness and an emotional weakness. Not to mention all of the segment of this group that practice extreme demonstrations of outrageousness to satisfy some unmet needs for acceptance.
I think back to the topic that Mr Zucker will bring needed debate to this and other subjects. Something the Psychiatric profession has been deficient in for quite some time.
BTW, only 25% of the APA's membership voted to make that change in 1973.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/24/2008 @ 1:55pm
(ie desire to uphold a religious doctrine).
Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/24/2008
Well there is your problem right there. Religious doctrine is not rational. The belief in something with no evidence or hard proof beyond the promise of other people is not rational. It is faith based. Faith inherently is not rational. Rational states that if you have never seen and no one you know has ever seen something it probably doesn't exist ie. Sasquatch, Santa Clause, The Spaghetti Monster in the sky. Faith is irrational. Faith leads you to believe in something absolutely no hard evidence beyond things that can be interpreted. You can never actually prove to me using hard evidence that God exists. It is a faith based assumption. Therefore If the God associated with the religion is faith based then religious doctrine is faith based. Therefore morality and ethics are subject to the doctrine of a system that is entirely based on a lack of fact and an abundance of faith.
Do I think faith is bad? No. I am all for religion. I study religion. I find it interesting on a theoretical level. Many of my family members are very very religious. However when it comes to you dictating how a multitude of people are going to be medically treated, religion needs to stay out of it entirely. This is a matter of science not religion. The two are not mutually exclusive but on the other you should only be using treatments that have been observed scientifically to work. There are plenty of people who have been transgender who when using regressive methods like the one this doctor proposes have ended up committing suicide because they were not themselves which sent them into depression. Religion and science when coming to medical treatment should not be mixed. There are plenty of sects of religion who consider blood transfusion, skin grafts and organ transplants to be vampirism would you want those people dictating how you are going to be treated?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/24/2008 @ 1:56pm
LL -- Is it fair to call you a homophobe?
Posted by Peter Rothberg at 06/24/2008 @ 2:00pm
"This view is in direct contrast to the bulk of the scientific community which recognizes an inherent difference between gender identity and sexual orientation."
What!?!? Peter, either you or your co-writer, Naomi are cheating. There are many segments of the scientific community that never deal with sexual and gender issues. How could you paint them with such a broad brush?
Peter you're an excellent writer, and probably one of the best the Nation has to offer, you don't need to stoop to using ambiguous facts to make your point. Your writings are very informative and usually on target, but this piece today, looks like it was written by a first year intern.
Your writings are one of the reasons I visit this site because level-headed journalists like yourself are in such short supply.
Posted by ACook at 06/24/2008 @ 2:03pm
No. I think that the whole so-called "transgender" thing is the failure of people to be who they are. It is both a character weakness and an emotional weakness. Not to mention all of the segment of this group that practice extreme demonstrations of outrageousness to satisfy some unmet needs for acceptance.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/24/2008
Why should you care if it's what makes them happy?
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
I believe wholly in this statement. It is what I base much of my life philosophy on. I believe that if a person is doing what makes them happy and they are not hurting anyone in the process then they should be allowed to do whatever they like. I have no right to criticize someone for doing what makes them happy. It is why I hate people like PETA, Right To Life and those other self righteous groups who's opinions I have to constantly hear about that usually just involve criticizing other people. It is why I have a problem with the extra-religious. Because rarely is their religion a personal thing like God called for. I can't remember the passage but I remember something in the Bible about praying silently to ones self instead of calling out for all to see. I feel like the extra-religious always feel the need to criticize others. They never go forth and preach the word of God. They go forth and attempt to guilt and insult people into believe in God. LVL is a prime figure of this. He never preaches the word of God to us he only ever criticizes and tells us what we are doing wrong.
Let people do what makes them happy. I don't need to hear what your book says is right or wrong. I have chosen not to make it apart of my life so respect my choice just as much as I respect your choice to make it apart of yours.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/24/2008 @ 2:12pm
LL -- Is it fair to call you a homophobe?
Posted by Peter Rothberg at 06/24/2008
No, not unless you are going to rewrite Websters.
I have no fear of homosexuals. I just have a moral objection (not a legal one)to the behavior based upon my faith.
Again, you are showing the left's abuse of words in order to create a false image and impression.
For the 100's of millions of traditional Christians around the world, homosexuality is not something to be feared but represents a moral failing. You do not fear a moral failing with perhaps the exception of someone threatening you bodily harm as they engage in a moral failing (ie murder or assault).
What you are demonstrating is the intolerance of many on the left who do not accept as legitimate, anyone who has a difference of belief or opinion on moral issues. Especially those that are faith based. Instead, you resort to ad hominem attacks and false labels. As I've noted on numerous occasions to other bloggers here, they are sometimes grudgingly willing to accept my right to be a Christian as long as I am willing to abandon the historic teachings of my faith.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/24/2008 @ 2:14pm
Posted by HonestLiberal at 06/24/2008
Could you cite the album/CD or concert where Carlin made that remark?
Posted by Mask at 06/24/2008 @ 2:29pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/24/2008
What TERM would you use, LL?
"anti-homosexual"?...."contra-homosexual"?..."ahomosexual"?
Posted by Mask at 06/24/2008 @ 2:31pm
What you are demonstrating is the intolerance of many on the left who do not accept as legitimate, anyone who has a difference of belief or opinion on moral issues.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/24/2008
As opposed to those on the religious right who believe anyone who doesn't agree with them on moral issue is a sinner? You have the partisan streak that is hilarious you ignore the fact that your party does the same exact thing in order to make a point.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/24/2008 @ 2:38pm
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/US/03/06/btsc.lavandrera.funerals/
Yeah LVL the religious right are always so tolerant of other views. THIS at a FUNERAL for a dead solider of all places. Signs that say God Hates Fags. Really very tolerant LVL. Do homosexuals come protest you going to church on Sunday?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/24/2008 @ 2:41pm
"Religious doctrine is not rational. The belief in something with no evidence or hard proof beyond the promise of other people is not rational. It is faith based. Faith inherently is not rational." Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/24/2008
Whoops! You took a sudden leap from science to philosophy.
Is it not apparent the scientific community disagrees on this subject? I would conclude,therefore, there is no universal and irrefutable truth. The position one wishes to take on this arguement, by your own definition, would then be a matter of faith.
Knowledge is not finite. (OK. That's philosophy.) That should lead us to realize scientific certainties can later be found erroneous. I remember when the atom was the smallest component of the universe.
If you studied the scientific community as much as you have studied religion, I'm sure you would find many instances where they have been just as protective of their dogma as any church.
I argue I could take your quote shown above, substitute 'science'for religion and faith.
Posted by RAGGEDSTEP at 06/24/2008 @ 2:46pm
Thanks for the kind words Cook. What I menat was that those members of the scientific community who study these things are in general agreement on some basic ideas and Zucker is outside of this consensus. Sort of like a creationist in biology.
LL -- Somehow I see you as the intolerant one here.
Posted by Peter Rothberg at 06/24/2008 @ 2:57pm
So being true to one's self and coming to grips with one's sexual orientation, (especially in the face of heterosexual prejudice), is a sign of weakness...
...but turning to an invisible power in order to know how to behave, or to find the strength to deal with the things in life beyond one's control, is not.
Sure.
Posted by drhammer at 06/24/2008 @ 3:04pm
As opposed to those on the religious right who believe anyone who doesn't agree with them on moral issue is a sinner? You have the partisan streak that is hilarious you ignore the fact that your party does the same exact thing in order to make a point.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/24/2008
Whoa! Sinner is not a legal standing. It is a moral declaration.
And I take an equal stand against any conservative with a moral failing. I have repeatedly said so on this site. I offered no willingness to excuse people like Foley, Craig, or Haggard.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/24/2008 @ 3:07pm
Yeah LVL the religious right are always so tolerant of other views. THIS at a FUNERAL for a dead solider of all places. Signs that say God Hates Fags. Really very tolerant LVL. Do homosexuals come protest you going to church on Sunday?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/24/2008
Very few Christians consider that group and their "Pastor" to be following the Christian faith. They live lives of hatred towards everyone outside their little group. G-d doesn't hate anyone. He hates sin because it seperates people from their relationship with Him.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/24/2008 @ 3:09pm
Yeah LVL the religious right are always so tolerant of other views. THIS at a FUNERAL for a dead solider of all places. Signs that say God Hates Fags. Really very tolerant LVL. Do homosexuals come protest you going to church on Sunday?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/24/2008
Please! That makes as much sense as trying to equate all gay men to those who wish to parade down the street dressed as Dolly Parton.
Let's try using a logical arguement.
Posted by RAGGEDSTEP at 06/24/2008 @ 3:17pm
LL -- Somehow I see you as the intolerant one here.
Posted by Peter Rothberg at 06/24/2008
Again Peter, you make my point. You find me to be intolerant for following my religious faith. If I stated I was willing to abandon my faith because of this subject, I would suddenly be acceptable in this regard.
I speak as a Ordained Minister and like Rev Wright said, I have to speak to moral issues because:
1) As an ordained minister, I carry the office of spiritual authority within my faith to address moral issues.
2) I am accountable to G-d for not only speaking out on moral issues within my society, but how I do so.
I have not called for legal recourse against these people. But I am required by G-d to address them in a way that calls sin for what it is, a moral failing. And to call people to change from their failings to be acceptable to G-d.
The moral breakdown in much of the world including the US has seen a growing percentage of the population become intolerant of religious leaders who do speak to moral issues when it doesn't agree with their own views. We in positions of authority within the faith community must deal with these issues as we believe our faith requires and G-d demands of us, not to please or be accepted by those who disagree.
That is why I had no real objections to Rev Wright's sermons in general (even the curse America one), because I understand where he was coming from. I might not employ the same language, but I understood him and his reasons.
If this still leaves you calling me intolerant, that is more reflective of a problem for you rather than me. It would not be an objective conclusion.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/24/2008 @ 3:21pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/24/2008
But, LL, you seek to impose your religious views into the political discourse...all the while claiming dishonestly that you are FOR separation of Church & State.
For instance on the political issue of providing equal benefits and legal status to a marriage license between two homosexual adults....you use your RELIGIOUS belief to argue against that, not some argument against the "equal protection" clause of the 14th Amendment.
On a personal note, what moral standing do you have anyway?
You are a rather energetic enthusiast for war both calling for "total war" and "Dresdenization" as an answer to the "War on Terror"...as well as historically, calling for the "selective nuking" of China as a means of "winning" the Korean War.
Yet find excuses why this is not in conflict with your faith in a "Prince of Peace".
In your mind, vaporizing thousands, if not millions of people is "moral"...yet two adults expressing LOVE for each other is a moral outrage.
And you fail to see why no one takes you seriously...
Posted by Mask at 06/24/2008 @ 3:59pm
Whoa! Sinner is not a legal standing. It is a moral declaration.
And I take an equal stand against any conservative with a moral failing. I have repeatedly said so on this site. I offered no willingness to excuse people like Foley, Craig, or Haggard.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/24/2008
Homophobia i don't believe is a legal standing either. It's a psychological description.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/24/2008 @ 4:53pm
Let's try using a logical arguement.
Posted by RAGGEDSTEP at 06/24/2008
Actually my argument WAS based on LVL's previous logic. I know how to deferential a few from the many. LVL thinks all gay people are prone to these things so none of them should be allowed. Just like LVL thinks SOME left are prone to the things he quotes so ALL of them are. Look at what I was responding too before you criticize me for using the logic of the poster against themself.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/24/2008 @ 4:55pm
I argue I could take your quote shown above, substitute 'science'for religion and faith.
Posted by RAGGEDSTEP at 06/24/2008
You could. But the difference between religion and science is, science is based on observable phenomenon. Yes as science advances those observations can be proven to be false ie. Earth is flat. However it is not fully faith based because it is based somewhere in a reality that can be observed. Science says if a man and a woman has sex and the egg is fertilized by the sperm it will produce a human child barring any problems. Religion can say there is a chance that the baby will come out a goat if the parents sin. Now there is no proof that that has ever happened but if it is written in an ancient text people will believe it without any observable fact stating the opposite. Science is constantly updated to match the times and the technology. Christianity is based on antiquated traditions written in a 1400(I think) year old text.
YES science can protect it's dogma with as much zealotry and hatred as religion. Those are scientists who missed the point. Theories must be changed as observable facts change. Religion is the opposite. Religion can not change because it is based on a system set up by an infinite being. So while you can substitute science for religion in my above statements the sentiment will not hold true because science is subject to technology of the times and the growing knowledge of mankind. Religion is subject to age old sayings and a never changing tradition of belief with no observable fact to back it up. Science whether right or wrong will sooner or later be proven right or wrong by fact. Religion can never be proven right or wrong because there is no observable fact to back it up.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/24/2008 @ 5:02pm
"I can't remember the passage but I remember something in the Bible about praying silently to ones self instead of calling out for all to see."
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/24/2008
From the Book of Matthew - Chapter 6
v5 And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
v6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
Posted by ACook at 06/24/2008 @ 5:04pm
What you are demonstrating is the intolerance of many on the left who do not accept as legitimate, anyone who has a difference of belief or opinion on moral issues. Especially those that are faith based.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/24/2008 |
Here I did the work for you Ragged. You say how he uses the word left to describe everyone liberal in order to make a broad generalization that we are all intolerant. I am only playing by the rules he chooses to use.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/24/2008 @ 5:06pm
v5 And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
v6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
Posted by ACook at 06/24/2008
Thank you Cook.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/24/2008 @ 5:06pm
What you are demonstrating is the intolerance of many on the left who do not accept as legitimate, anyone who has a difference of belief or opinion on moral issues. Especially those that are faith based.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/24/2008 |
Here I did the work for you Ragged. You say how he uses the word left to describe everyone liberal in order to make a broad generalization that we are all intolerant. I am only playing by the rules he chooses to use.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/24/2008
But you are guilty are taking my statement and increasing it's scope. I said many, not all. You changed that to everyone. You are not playing by the rules of myself or any recognized rules of grammar.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/24/2008 @ 5:13pm
But you are guilty are taking my statement and increasing it's scope. I said many, not all. You changed that to everyone. You are not playing by the rules of myself or any recognized rules of grammar.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/24/2008
Ok I'm sorry LVL. Then a large number of which in most realms means the majority, over 51%. You generally say many to mask that you mean a much large scope than a few. If you want to be specific in your targeting you would say "some of the left" or a "few on the left" by saying many we all know you mean most.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/24/2008 @ 5:30pm
Please don't play games LVL. The multitude of times you use this phrase and the multitude of times you DON'T is enough that no one believes you when you say you aren't just generalizing. Often times you say it without the many part in front too.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/24/2008 @ 5:34pm
"Like most leftists, you rely upon your own ignorance and prejudice rather than any objective knowledge."
"I guess the concept of acquital by our justice system doesn't mean anything when it is applied by leftists to our military personnel."
Before LVL tries to contend that he never does this. Here are two examples of LVL making sweeping generalizations with no fact to base them on.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/24/2008 @ 5:38pm
Sorry CCC,
Words do have meaning. I use them appropriate to the context.
Many means more than a few. Websters says it is a large but indefinite number.
Most means a great majority.
The context of the military example you cite speaks for itself. It speaks specifically to those on the left who have criticized our military personnel. That is not a generalization.
You say you are a college grad and I have no reason to doubt you. However, it seems to me that the junction of grammar and context seem to have been in short thrift in high school and college classes in recent years.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/24/2008 @ 5:59pm
Religion is the opposite. Religion can not change because it is based on a system set up by an infinite being. So while you can substitute science for religion in my above statements the sentiment will not hold true because science is subject to technology of the times and the growing knowledge of mankind. Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/24/2008
666,er, I mean Ccc, (Let's have some levity.) You define religion in a way I do not accept. It is true that G-d does not change but religion can and should change as our knowledge of the Scriptures increases.
I would hope that means I understand His will better today than I did twenty years ago. This should be true for Christians both individually and collectively.
Sounds a little bit like science doesn't it?
By the way, lvl did not say gay behavior should not be allowed or that gays should be punished under man's law. He is simply stating his moral position based on his sincere beliefs. He should have every right to express those views.
Also, he said "those on the left" and not liberal. I will let him speak for himself but I consider myself a liberal. I hasten to caution that the term "liberal' should never be confused with 'progressive.' That I am certainly not.
Posted by RAGGEDSTEP at 06/24/2008 @ 6:03pm
I would hope that means I understand His will better today than I did twenty years ago. This should be true for Christians both individually and collectively.
Sounds a little bit like science doesn't it?
By the way, lvl did not say gay behavior should not be allowed or that gays should be punished under man's law. He is simply stating his moral position based on his sincere beliefs. He should have every right to express those views.
Also, he said "those on the left" and not liberal. I will let him speak for himself but I consider myself a liberal. I hasten to caution that the term "liberal' should never be confused with 'progressive.' That I am certainly not.
Posted by RAGGEDSTEP at 06/24/2008
A well stated post!
Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/24/2008 @ 6:05pm
Posted by RAGGEDSTEP at 06/24/200
I hate to split up posts but you made multiple points so I am going to split this into it's main points and address them individually.
"666,er, I mean Ccc, (Let's have some levity.) You define religion in a way I do not accept. It is true that G-d does not change but religion can and should change as our knowledge of the Scriptures increases.
I would hope that means I understand His will better today than I did twenty years ago. This should be true for Christians both individually and collectively.
Sounds a little bit like science doesn't it?"
I am not SATAN!(little bit of levity) Here is the difference between your claim that change in religion is the same as change in science. Knowledge of scripture does not change based on different observable phenomenon that dispute the earlier interpretation because scripture is just that, an interpretation. Saying that your interpretation is MORE correct than another defeats the point of interpretation. An interpretation can not be more or less correct where as an observation can. If I observe and animal nuzzling it's baby and say "I am observing and animal nuzzling it's baby." That observation can be disputed based on the fact that it was actually biting it's baby and then we can go back to the tale of that tape and prove it. However the second I say "the animal is nuzzling it's baby because..." If I have no observable fact to base my comment on then it can be said to be an interpretation of the intentions of a creature with no knowledge of it's real intention, which means you can assign any number of meanings to the action with no way to prove unless you use observable fact which then enters the realm of science again.
Your understanding of Scripture may be deeper now than it was when you were younger. BUT the problem with traditions like Scripture is that it is regressive. I mean that as we get farther way from the crafting of the text our knowledge of it becomes less and less because we bottleneck ourselves into accepted interpretations. For instance Easter by contention is actually a pagan holiday. However it was procured by Christians. Same with Christmas after all why is the birth of Christ celebrated in December when I understand that most biblical scholars would argue that Christ was born in spring. However this meaning has been lost through interpretation. Christians took the festival and turned it into Christian holidays. Surprisingly not too many people know that these are pagan holidays because they are based on traditions so old that most people have forgotten them and have accepted their alternative reasons for existing, they have lost the meaning of the holiday because so much time has passed. I contend that the same thing happens with scripture. The farther you get away from the writing the less and less accurate the interpretation becomes until soon you pigeon-hole yourself into a meaning that precludes all other meanings. This is observable in sects of Christianity that believe that the earth was created in 7 days. Even though all observable phenomenon points to it being billions of years old there are people who are basing it entirely on a book assuming that the book is fact. However nothing in the book can actually be proven based on observable fact. Find me the burning bush, find me the ark of the covenant, find me the holy grail, find me Jesus' tomb and then we will talk about observable fact. But as of now it stands that scripture is nothing more than a book of lessons much like Aesop's tales. Yes you can gain understanding through repeated reading but unlike science this can not be observed and documented. Change in science comes through observation, change in religion comes through interpretation. Both can be wrong, but one can be PROVEN wrong, the other can not.
"By the way, lvl did not say gay behavior should not be allowed or that gays should be punished under man's law. He is simply stating his moral position based on his sincere beliefs. He should have every right to express those views.
Also, he said "those on the left" and not liberal. I will let him speak for himself but I consider myself a liberal. I hasten to caution that the term "liberal' should never be confused with 'progressive.' That I am certainly not."
I don't think I ever said that LVL said gays should be arrested. I also never said he can't express those views. I simply expressed my view of dislike for people who think that everyone needs to hear their self-righteous diatribes.
About the liberal as opposed to left comment. I am working off accepted interpretation. Maybe this has been pigeon holed into a certain meaning but I am working off of what it is accepted to mean.
"2 of or relating to a person or group favoring liberal, socialist, or radical views : Left politics"
That is from Oxford English Dictionary for the political definition of left. As you Liberal is in there. So when you say left you do according to the dictionary mean liberal. Maybe you don't mean Liberal maybe you mean Socialist or Radical but when you say left you include them all in your generalization and since we are having a discussion of semantics if behooves him to use his words more carefully.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/24/2008 @ 6:45pm
Like I have stated before. I have no objections to religion. I think religion has its great aspects. I think anyone who takes anything to the extreme is the problem, not the religion itself. So don't interpret my religion versus science dialogue with as an attack on religion.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/24/2008 @ 6:47pm
Posted by ACook at 06/24/2008 @ 5:04pm
Wouldn't that mean that all those televised church services violate Matthew 6:5-6?
Posted by Mask at 06/24/2008 @ 7:20pm
ACook:
If Rothberg is the best The Nation has to offer, then it is probably one of the worst researched, most ridiculously biased publications in the world...Who am I kidding? We already knew that...The following is a link to the APA's statement regarding Dr. Zucker's assignment. Read with added emphasis the last two paragraphs.
http://wthrockmorton.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/zucker-statement-fin al-may23-2008apa.doc
Maybe Rothberg should quit taking talking points from The Advocate, BGLAD, or whoever is leading him around by the nose and do some actual research. For example, he could have given the APA's position as I easily found it with a few click of the mouse...that seems like Journalism 101 to me, but Rothberg is obviously operating from a different textbook...Advanced Activism...and failing miserably.
And BTW, according to the APA, he is the chair of the entire Sexual and Gender Identity Disorder section, but the actual task force charged with vetting the research on Gender Identity Disorders is headed by someone else.
Posted by usc1 at 06/24/2008 @ 8:32pm
remove the space in the word "final" in the above link
Posted by usc1 at 06/24/2008 @ 8:33pm
remove the space in the word "final" in the above link
Posted by usc1 at 06/24/2008 @ 8:33pm
You say you are a college grad and I have no reason to doubt you. However, it seems to me that the junction of grammar and context seem to have been in short thrift in high school and college classes in recent years.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/24/2008 @ 5:59pm
Ok here we go LVL. You insulted so now I will give you a lesson in the English language and context. The word many has multiple ACCEPTED definitions. If I point to a table and say many of those crayons are blue. You will accept the word many if 4 out 10 are blue equally as quickly as you will accept the word many if 4 out 7 are blue. Now in the case of 4 out 7 many is interchangeable with most. In the case of 4 our 10 it is not. What does this mean for the word many? Well it means that many in order to have a context needs a visual or numerical description in order to tell you what it actually means. No where in your comments did you make any reference o the amount you were actually talking about so therefore no where in your comments did you give a context for what many meant. Therefore without context many is left to my interpretation and educated guess. Judging by the many(as an often times) times you have made broad sweeping generalizations I deduced that you meant it as most. Since you never bothered providing a context for you meaning until AFTER I brought the point my educated guess is just as correct as anyone else's.
I recommend before you attempt to insult someone that you actually have an understanding of the words you are talking about yourself. If you actually knew what context meant you would know that you have never provided a context for many because you have never given a number reference.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/24/2008 @ 9:02pm
Posted by usc1 at 06/24/2008 @ 8:32pm
USC your link is bad. I plugged it in and got a not found message.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/24/2008 @ 9:04pm
remove the space in the word "final" in the above link
Posted by usc1 at 06/24/2008 @ 8:33pm
Nevermind, hadn't read this yet.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/24/2008 @ 9:05pm
Posted by usc1 at 06/24/2008 @ 8:32pm
The statement you linked was not about Zuckers assignment in the APA it was basically a resume about him. It had less than 4 lines addressing what his actual role was. It says he will coordinate and facilitate which can in the end mean any number of the things. The link they provide also does not provide a full description of his role. This doesn't really help much. I mean it's a good recipe and I'm happy he done so much but it doesn't help me to know what he will do for the APA.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/24/2008 @ 9:11pm
Ccc, excuse the delay but I had errors to run. Are you by any chance a highschool English teacher?
Just a few comments about your observations on science, please. Biologist observe animals and draw conclusions all the time. They don't need to enter the mind of my dog in order to determine why he lifts his leg to piss.
Now, on to anthropology. They collect artifacts, examine physical structures and then go on to explain the reasons ancient people did what they did. They weren't there to observe. They also realize they can draw more precise conclusions as the body of knowledge increases or,as you would say, the further they are from the source.
Then, as I knew you would, you wandered into Creationism. I hate having conversations about that because it's hard enough dealing with all the forgiving and loving I'm supposed to do. Let's just say I am willing to accept that G-d provided a narrative and didn't go into all the nuts and bolts. I don't think of Him as a wizard and that's all I need to know.
Look, you and I could have a conversation about thermo-dynamics and the expansion of matter in the universe or whatever unprovable scientific theory is in fashion today. That would get us nowhere. At best, we would know the mechanics but not the motivations. We would not know the alpha and omega.
I find intelligent design more plausible than random occurance. Then, what is this Creator? We know Christ walked the earth and said what he said. Our knowledge of that is much closer in time than we are to Plato or Socrates.
So, there you have it. My Faith.
Posted by RAGGEDSTEP at 06/24/2008 @ 10:11pm
We know Christ walked the earth and said what he said.----Posted by RAGGEDSTEP at 06/24/2008
No, technically, RAGGED, you know what HIS FRIENDS said he said.
Oh, and usually it's archeologists, not anthropologists who dig up stuff.
Posted by Mask at 06/24/2008 @ 10:45pm
So, there you have it. My Faith.
Posted by RAGGEDSTEP at 06/24/2008 @ 10:11pm
I knock no ones faith. And yes we can go on for lifetimes about science versus religion because in the end like I said before they are not mutually exclusive. My faith is based on observable occurrences as well as spirituality. I believe that the universe is infinite(energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only changed) and I contend that this is no more farfetched than the belief in an infinite living being. I believe in a universal consciousness. A force that connects all living things but is not in and of itself intelligent. It is what provides the balance needed to sustain life. When a creature dies it reenter this consciousness and becomes a perfect being, one which does nothing. Which is completely neutral.
So, there you have it. My Faith.
PS: I am not a high school English teacher BUT I did very well in English. I thought about becoming a journalist because my writing also received compliments. On top of that I have an interest in English and specifically etymology of words. Which means I very much enjoy the study of languages.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/25/2008 @ 12:15am
While your guys were not communicating back and forth, a bunch of male bonobos were 'penis fencing (see below for the climax)...
'Homosexuality's been documented in over 450 different vertebrate species'
including lots and lots of - indeed many - liberty loving Christian military heroes.
"Giraffes have all-male orgies. So do bottlenose dolphins, killer whales, gray whales, and West Indian manatees. Japanese macaques, on the other hand, are ardent lesbians; the females enthusiastically mount each other. Bonobos, one of our closest primate relatives, are similar, except that their lesbian sexual encounters occur every two hours. Male bonobos engage in "penis fencing," which leads, surprisingly enough, to ejaculation. They also give each other genital massages."
Posted by winyahn at 06/25/2008 @ 12:16am
I just have a moral objection to the behavior based upon my faith.
Posted by lvliberty1
jesus won't like that syntax.
Posted by frosty zoom at 06/25/2008 @ 12:20am
The scientific name for the Bonobo is Pan paniscus. Initial genetic studies have characterised their DNA as more than 98% identical to that of Homo sapiens, e.g., lvliberty & Zucker & Reagan.
Anti-gay vet Dr. Zucker DVD, now providing reparative penis fencing therapy for weak Bonobos.
Posted by winyahn at 06/25/2008 @ 12:25am
jesus won't like that syntax.
Posted by frosty zoom at 06/25/2008 @ 12:20am
That's why I'm so happy that He forgives all our failings when we ask.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/25/2008 @ 12:28am
CCC
Yep...and a pretty impressive resume it is. The two points of that link are to show that he is more than qualified to chair the section and that he is not some crackpot "reparative therapist" as the gay groups (and Rothberg) are trying to make him out to be.
The head of the Gender Identity Disorder task force is Peggy Cohen-Kettenis, PhD. I read on a separate link that she supposedly is "pro-transgender" or whatever you want to call it...so it looks like the parts are in place to have a thorough evaluation of all sides of the issue...which I believe is how it's supposed to be done.
(The Nation can feel free to mail me a check for doing their research for them.)
Posted by usc1 at 06/25/2008 @ 12:28am
Yawn
Not an animal researcher here, but I'm always amazed when scientists place distinctly human characteristics on animals...calling them "homosexual", etc...In other words, how do we know the purspose of the supposedly homosexual acts since we can't ask the monkeys themselves? Since we can't state exactly the purpose, then how can we say that they are "homosexual?" (My dog humps my leg on occasion...does that make him gay?) The researchers are essentially guessing.
Posted by usc1 at 06/25/2008 @ 12:42am
First, a superficial comment on writing. Roman numerals really shouldn't be used together with abbreviations. The DSM-V seems for all the world to be a new kind of downloadable video, or perhaps a new kind of deadly virus. If we must abbreviate this term, then please let's call it "DSM-5." Thank you.
Now, back to the issue.
Actually, to call this a "gay" issue is to miss the point. This is about boys who want to act like girls, or about girls who want to act like boys. It is also about people who are born intersexual, that is, with both male and female traits, who may choose to identify as male or female.
The catch-all term for these difficulties is "transgender." The word "gender" has long been preferred over "sex" in cases in which sexuality is deemed to be something that a person chooses rather than something that is preordained at birth, that is, a matter of the brain rather than of the body.
There is actually a lot of philosophical conflict between gays and lesbians on the one hand and transgender people on the other, because the former often argue that sexual orientation (nota bene: not "gender" orientation) is a matter of the body and hence not of choice, whereas transgender identity may be a matter of the brain and hence of choice.
I agree with Peter Rothberg that the "chosen" nature of transgender identity does not make it a thing that doctors should coerce, because supposedly there are "right" and "wrong" choices that one can make about one's own gender. If one does no harm to oneself or to others by one's choice, then one should be free to choose; for those of us who have a correct understanding of the word "morality," this is what it means. The principle that non-harmful choices cannot be morally wrong applies to transgender identity as well as it applies to gay or lesbian marriage. Nobody who finds any of this "morally offensive" (and what a hideous debasement of the word "moral" this is, to use it to dress up one's own prejudice) can claim that any of it causes any real harm. If you don't like gay marriage, then don't have one! If you don't like transgender behavior, then just act like Ozzie or Harriet, and do so to your heart's content! But please leave the rest of us in peace!
I believe strongly that corrective surgery is not a thing that should be coerced, even though doctors like Kenneth Zucker claim that early surgical "correction" performed on children (prior to the age of legal consent!) is more "effective" in creating a more "natural" male or female and hence a "more well-adjusted" individual. How much better it would be for our society to learn what some other traditional societies have always known, which is that intersexual people belong, too, just as they are!
After all, corrective surgery, if applied (and coerced) broadly enough, could eliminate not only intersexuals, but also homosexuals, simply by surgically changing all gay men into women and all lesbians into gay men. Coerced surgery (or at best, coerced aversion therapy, which, like any other kind of torture, is cruel and DOES NOT WORK) for everybody who acts differently is NOT my idea of a utopia.
Posted by JakobFabian at 06/25/2008 @ 08:18am
By the way, I warmly recommend the book "Middlesex" by Jeffrey Eugenides. Not only does this book explain a lot about intersexuality, but it's also a great historical novel about the experience of Greek immigrants in Detroit (Michigan) and a highly entertaining family drama.
Posted by JakobFabian at 06/25/2008 @ 08:32am
Regarding "homophobia" and similar terms:
I have often bristled at the abbreviated nature of the word "homophobia," since it lacks any mention of "sex" and seems to mean "fear of oneself" in Greek.
I also am annoyed that anti-gay bigots object to this term because they "do not fear" homosexuals. No, what they do is hate them. Is this any better?
Allow me to explain. In a previous posting, I defined "immoral" behavior as that which causes harm. To object to perfectly harmless behavior is therefore not moral, but personal, and it is the result of strong emotional, but not rational, distaste. This is in my opinion an adequate definition of "hate."
So, no, I don't accept the notion that Catholics, for example, actually LOVE gays and lesbians when they condemn homosexual behavior. If Catholics truly loved gays and lesbians, then they would not give them so much grief for behaving in a way that does no harm. No, this is not love; this is hate, however mildly it may be expressed. And even in the mildest case, this hate expresses itself not only through peevish and phony moralizing, but also through the denial of equal rights to gays, lesbians, and transgender people - which does constitute real harm.
Now for the term "phobia." This commonly means "irrational fear." (Indeed, I believe even Webster's dictionary concurs.) For example, "arachnophobia" means "fear of spiders."
Most of us are not extreme arachnophobes in the sense that we run away screaming when we see a bit of cobweb in a corner. However, a great many of us have a mild form of arachnophobia, which motivates us to kill spiders on sight because we're "creeped out" by them. This is obviously irrational fear in most cases, since most spiders are harmful and even beneficial.
Similarly, a homophobe is a person who harbors some irrational fear about homosexuals, for example imagining that they are "threatening the American family" or "endangering their soul" or doing some other purportedly harmful thing, for which not one shred of evidence can be found.
Is this irrational? Yes. Is it fear? Yes. Is it, then, a phobia? Most certainly.
So to all you homophobes who don't like the term "homophobia," I say: If the shoe fits, you've got to wear it.
Posted by JakobFabian at 06/25/2008 @ 08:53am
Posted by usc1 at 06/25/2008 @ 12:42am
What is the problem the Right has with science?!?!?
Posted by Mask at 06/25/2008 @ 08:54am
Pfui, what a silly error I let slip into my previous posting!
I meant to say, of course, that most spiders are "HARMLESS and even beneficial," not "harmful and even beneficial."
Posted by JakobFabian at 06/25/2008 @ 09:00am
usc1
there you go again trying to impersonate an intelligent human being.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/25/2008 @ 10:08am
Posted by usc1 at 06/25/2008 @ 1:39pm
See, what usc is driving at is the idea that since human beings are the only ones with "souls" and "tainted by Adam's sin", only WE can engage in a sinful activity like homosexuality.
If animals "deliberately" were homosexual, it would mean they were "choosing" to "commit a sin"...and by extension would have "souls" and be capable of moral choices.
Or worse, it would indicate that humans and animals share an instinctual sub-pattern of homosexuality that is INNATE and genetic in nature.
By removing the idea that animals engage in homosexuality that is not merely a "human perception of homosexuality", he attempts to confine it SOLELY to the human experience...and therefore a "moral choice" by the planet's highest and "God imaged" species.
It is the flawed logic of the fundamentalists who faced with increasing data that homosexuality IS an hereditary/genetic matter...and not a "mental disorder" or "environmentally-induced deviancy".
BTW, ask one of them sometime why Mary Cheney (daughter of Dick and Lynne) "chose" to be a lesbian. Amazingly their "expertise" in the subject of homosexuality ...dries up.
heheh
Posted by Mask at 06/25/2008 @ 10:26am
"By the way, lvl did not say gay behavior should not be allowed or that gays should be punished under man's law. He is simply stating his moral position based on his sincere beliefs. He should have every right to express those views. "
He has every right to express his views, but the idea that he is doing just that here is nonsense. By advocating for a homophobe to be put on a task force that is designing the next diagnostic manual, he is advocating that said manual be open to the possibility of labelling homosexuality as a disease that can be "cured". If there were some scientific basis for that opinion, that would be one thing, but as a prior poster pointed out, the position is analogous to being a creationist in biology.
Likewise, for him to say that he is simply stating his faith is something of a cop-out. As the current schism within the Anglican church shows, persons of faith can differ on the Christian take on homosexuality. Ultimately, LL's embrace of a homophobic variant is a matter or choice on his part, as is his periodic reference to them as perverts.
As to the word "homophobia", Merriam-Websters Online Dictionary defines it as "irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals" while my hard copy of The American Collegiate Dictionary defines it as "aversion to gay or lesbian people or their lifestyle or culture". It isn't just referring to fear and LL's attitude certainly qualifies.
Posted by brunowe at 06/25/2008 @ 10:31am
Naomi Sobel wrote, "Zucker is a chief proponent of the theory that children who fail to conform to typical gender identity in youth are merely indicating an eventual homosexual identity in adulthood.... This view is in direct contrast to the bulk of the scientific community which recognizes an inherent difference between gender identity and sexual orientation."
And that's an important distinction. Not only is there a difference between the two, they are largely unrelated. Transsexuals can be any sexual orientation, gay, straight, or bi, posttransition. There are also butch lesbian transwomen and effeminate gay transmen, suggesting that even some aspects of gender are independent of transsexualism.
This is a very complex subject. I'm amazed at how supposedly intellegent scientists can think that they understand something they've erroneously simplified to the point of absurdity.
Posted by Wolfgang_Eli at 06/25/2008 @ 10:34am
those who wish to parade down the street dressed as Dolly Parton
are not necessarily gay.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/25/2008 @ 10:46am
Wrong. We PERCEIVE it as homosexual activity because that's what HUMANS are conditioned to think of it is as...it may mean something entirely different to the animals. Until someone starts speaking "whale" or "monkey" we will never know the actions true meaning...we can only assume.
Posted by usc1 at 06/25/2008 @ 1:39pm
Well no. Homosexual activity is sex with someone of the same sex. It doesn't matter what the action MEANS. If a male is having sex with another male it is homosexual. Why they do it is irrelevant. If a male penis enters another male then it is considered homosexual.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/25/2008 @ 10:55am
those who wish to parade down the street dressed as Dolly Parton
are not necessarily gay.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/25/2008 @ 10:46am
Let's not knock anyone weekend plans here.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/25/2008 @ 10:59am
those who wish to parade down the street dressed as Dolly Parton
are not necessarily gay. We know Christ walked the earth and said what he said.
we know nothing of the kind.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/25/2008 @ 11:03am
Posted by usc1 at 06/25/2008 @ 12:42am | ignore
this is nonsense.
when we observe two creatures of the same gender engaging in sex, that is homosexual activity. motivation? sexual gratification.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/25/2008 @ 11:06am
I have often bristled at the abbreviated nature of the word "homophobia," since it lacks any mention of "sex" and seems to mean "fear of oneself" in Greek.
you are misinformed. the homo in homosexual means SAME.
it does NOT mean "man" as in homo sapiens.
you're not nearly as smart as you convinced yourself as being.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/25/2008 @ 11:09am
JakobFabian
sorry about the attack, allow me to take it back.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/25/2008 @ 11:12am
when we observe two creatures of the same gender engaging in sex, that is homosexual activity. motivation? sexual gratification.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/25/2008 @ 11:06am
It's true. Your dog humps your leg because it likes to. The problem is we like to think animals only act out of instinct. However this is accepted by many animal behaviorists to be untrue.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/25/2008 @ 11:20am
Emile DuBois wrote, "when we observe two creatures of the same gender engaging in sex, that is homosexual activity. motivation? sexual gratification."
And heterosexuals never engage in non-procreative sex for the purpose of sexual gratification, right?
Posted by Wolfgang_Eli at 06/25/2008 @ 11:26am
CCC
I'm probably not being clear enough with my nuances. As an example, if we saw two men on the street kiss each other and then walk off holding hands, we might think that they are exhibiting homosexual behavior...however, in some South American countries this is considered normal behavior among heterosexual male friends.
For the animals, what might seem to be "homosexual" behavior to us might mean something entirely different to the animals...we simply don't know.
Posted by usc1 at 06/25/2008 @ 11:26am
it has nothing to do with the animals. it is we humans who observe behavior and it is we who describe it. end of story.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/25/2008 @ 11:38am
Lvliberty1 wrote, "What you are demonstrating is the intolerance of many on the left who do not accept as legitimate, anyone who has a difference of belief or opinion on moral issues. Especially those that are faith based."
Why should we be tolerant toward those who do harm to us? Objection to homsexuality and transsexuality has prevented us from securing basic human rights worldwide. You might say that you're objecting to certain behavior, but homosexuals and transsexuals are not defined solely by behavior of any kind, any more than are heterosexuals and cissexuals.
Being gay or transsexual, or both in some cases, is a fundamental part of who we are and it has a huge impact on every aspect of our lives, from birth onward. So when you object to this part of us, you are objecting to our very existence as people because we're different from you and you can't identify with our life experience.
There is nothing ethical (as opposed to moral) about this objection. It is, in fact, unethical, because it facilitates the oppression and persecution of a group of people who pose no threat to you.
Your religious objections are not based in reason. They are based on a collection of books written between about 600 B.C. and 135 A.D. by people who shared your prejudices. Human beings have a long history of arrogantly attributing their own beliefs to God. It always leads to the suffering of atypical individuals and minority groups in the name of "morality." It is nothing more than a fear of people you don't understand.
Posted by Wolfgang_Eli at 06/25/2008 @ 12:14pm
Posted by usc1 at 06/25/2008 @ 11:26am
usc, is "true, unbiased" homosexuality purely a human activity?
Posted by Mask at 06/25/2008 @ 12:15pm
For the animals, what might seem to be "homosexual" behavior to us might mean something entirely different to the animals...we simply don't know.
Posted by usc1 at 06/25/2008 @ 11:26am
The example you gave is too benign. The animals aren't kissing. Let's say you walked into a bedroom and you saw one man having sex with another man. Penis inside of the other man to be graphic. Now would you just say to yourself, oh in other countries that is a method of greeting? No. It takes a sexual attraction to actually have sex with something of the same species. Also. Since it is not a behavior showed by the entire species only select animals within a species then it can be said that it is not a form of communication because otherwise it would be displayed throughout the entire species.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/25/2008 @ 12:27pm
the religion freaks assume a moral superiority they have not earned.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/25/2008 @ 12:43pm
"it has nothing to do with the animals. it is we humans who observe behavior and it is we who describe it."
And because of that, we put a distinctly human spin on what we observe...
Posted by usc1 at 06/25/2008 @ 1:20pm
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/25/2008 @ 12:27pm
the behavior itself, graphic or not, isn't the point...the point is it is how we as humans INTERPRET the behavior...the scientists think of it as homosexual behavior, but that doesn't make it so...it might look like a duck and act like a duck, but sometimes it's a goose or swan or loon...know what I mean? Again you gotta ask the monkey what it means.
That being said, what do you think it means, Emile?
Anyway...kind of beating a dead horse here so I'll let it go...
Posted by usc1 at 06/25/2008 @ 1:36pm
Posted by emile duBois at 06/25/2008
Wrong. We PERCEIVE it as homosexual activity because that's what HUMANS are conditioned to think of it is as...it may mean something entirely different to the animals. Until someone starts speaking "whale" or "monkey" we will never know the actions true meaning...we can only assume.
Posted by usc1 at 06/25/2008 @ 1:39pm
you are a nut case. sex between two creatures of the same gender is by definition homo(same) sexual.
it defies credulity to assume that the animals are unable to distinguish one sex from another. that would defy biology.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/25/2008 @ 1:45pm
Dear "USC1,"
There is a fable told about Confucius and Lao-Tse. It goes like this.
As Confucius and Lao-Tse were walking across a bridge, they both noticed some fish jumping and splashing over the surface of the water.
"Look at how those fish are enjoying themselves," Lao-Tse remarked.
Confucius regarded Lao-Tse skeptically. "You are not a fish," he said. "How do you know what gives pleasure to a fish?"
"You are not I," Lao-Tse responded. "How do you know that I do not know what gives pleasure to a fish?"
It is probable that we can make educated guesses about how animals feel, even though we cannot talk to them, because their behaviors are analogous to human behaviors. Of course, analogy is an inexact form of logic. But if we could not use any analogy at all, then how would we know when a baby needed to be held, changed, or fed? How would we know when it was happy? After all, babies can't talk, either.
Posted by JakobFabian at 06/25/2008 @ 6:10pm
Now that I have read over the article and the thread of comments yet again, I confess that I may have wronged poor Dr. Zucker. "Corrective surgery" is a thing that Jeffrey Eugenides described in his wonderful book ("Middlesex"), and not long ago, it was common practice to perform it on children with ambiguous sexual traits, but actually I have no evidence that Dr. Zucker favors corrective surgery or ever favored it in the past. Instead, the article says only that he favors some kind of aversion therapy to "correct" gender confusion, not surgery.
I was careless and must retract what I wrote. Sorry about that.
Posted by JakobFabian at 06/25/2008 @ 6:15pm
JakobFabian, I've enjoyed, learned from your contributions.
There's a couple of rubs being being played out here. One is inner-outer: "identity," "orientation" vs. behavior. Apples, oranges.
Jako, I think you make a good case for a link between these domains (inner and outer) in your supposition, if I read you correctly, that harmdoers hate.
Would only add the conscious/unconscious layer.
Another tension in these posts his been the old cautionary tale, summed up as anthropomorphism.
But this gets thin when pushed too far, as the wonderful Lao-Tse reveals. I love that!
Also, cautious inferences (derived from primate research) regarding sexuality ane not in the same league as inferences (derived from primate research) regarding say internet blogging.
Posted by winyahn at 06/25/2008 @ 9:25pm
Posted by JakobFabian at 06/25/2008 @ 6:10pm
Have you ever tried to give a crying baby a bottle and he doesn't take it? The cues were there, but our interpretation was incorrect.
You have just confirmed what I've been saying all along...they are, to use your words, analogies and therefore inexact...so can't be sure what the behavior means...we can only guess. When scientists make statements that animals are homosexuals, we must take it with a grain of salt.
Posted by usc1 at 06/26/2008 @ 09:34am
When scientists make statements that animals are homosexuals, we must take it with a grain of salt.
Posted by usc1
this was not the issue I discussed.
what you are stating is also true with humans. when a human engages in a homosexual act, or in many for that matter, that does not mean that he/she is homosexual. they could be bisexual.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/26/2008 @ 09:42am
Posted by usc1 at 06/26/2008 @ 09:34am
usc, again, why so circumspect?
WHY do you believe that homosexuality is limited ONLY to humans?
Posted by Mask at 06/26/2008 @ 11:56am
A whole lot of mindless meandering spent by the left here trying to explain away perverse behavior as "normal"
As Paul noted in Romans chapter 1:32, not only will those who engage in such behavior deserve G-d's judgment but also those who approve that behavior.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/26/2008 @ 12:29pm
Emile DuBois wrote, "when a human engages in a homosexual act, or in many for that matter, that does not mean that he/she is homosexual. they could be bisexual."
True. They could be heterosexual as well. Homosexual behavior is very common among straight men in America's jails and prisons. Is it that their sex drive is stronger than their orientation, so that in the absence of females, they'll take whatever they can get? Is there a temporary shift in sexual orientation due to hormone fluctuations somehow tied to the prison environment, or lack of females? Are some men who call themselves straight actually bisexual?
In a survey last year, 10% of New York men who identified as heterosexual also said that they had had sex with other men exclusively in the past 12 months. The survey didn't ask detailed questions about their sexual habits that might have revealed the meaning in them.
Posted by Wolfgang_Eli at 06/26/2008 @ 12:53pm
lvliberty1
shove it up your ass. you are not preaching to your flock here. I don't give a damn what Paul is said to have said.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/26/2008 @ 12:57pm
Lvliberty1 wrote, "A whole lot of mindless meandering spent by the left here trying to explain away perverse behavior as "normal.""
Clearly, you can't make an effective argument for your position without referring to a book that you have imbued with great personal sigificance. If you can't provide a rational basis for your opinions, no one outside of your fellow cultists is going to take you seriously.
Posted by Wolfgang_Eli at 06/26/2008 @ 2:12pm
mankind has progressed since the days of the Roman Empire. the sayings ascribed to Paul, are from that time. they are anachronistic, to say the least. ever try to show up at work or in court in a toga? checking entrails to decide actions in the future?
Posted by emile duBois at 06/26/2008 @ 2:26pm
A whole lot of mindless meandering spent by the left here trying to explain away perverse behavior as "normal"
That would include the American Psychiatric Association, which is arguably far better qualified to describe perverse than you are, which removed homosexuality from its list of mental disorders back in 1973.
You reveal your homophobia with every utterance on this subject.
Posted by brunowe at 06/26/2008 @ 2:36pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/26/2008 @ 12:29pm
Interestingly enough, aside from the Old Test stuff about KILLING gays...
Paul is the only one that seemed to CONCENTRATE on it in the New Testament.
This is the same Paul who was NEVER MARRIED....urged people NOT to get married...etc.
Things that make you go hmmmmmmm?
Posted by Mask at 06/26/2008 @ 3:12pm
Brunowe wrote, "That would include the American Psychiatric Association, which is arguably far better qualified to describe perverse than you are, which removed homosexuality from its list of mental disorders back in 1973."
That would also include the American Medical Association, which has added Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and Expression to it's non-discrimination policy, effective for all doctors, nurses, patients, hospitals, clinics, etc. Plus, just this month, the AMA formally recognized transsexualism as a legitimate medical condition that should be covered by health insurance.
Posted by Wolfgang_Eli at 06/26/2008 @ 3:28pm
The tenor of this discussion is sickening.
I am a lucky woman. If I know any religious, social or cultural bigots, they keep their bigotry in the closet, where it belongs.
I just don't understand how a thinking, sensing being can ever dare to think s/he knows, with any certainty, what is right for anyone other than themselves.
Posted by TreeFitz at 06/26/2008 @ 7:12pm
Emily suggests that when two persons of the same gender (I know that is not as precise as it might seem. . . what the heck is gender?) have sex, they do for sexual gratification.
Not ncessarily.
Why do heterosexuals have sex? Do hets ONLY have sex for sexual gratification?
I think there are many reasons animals, including humans, have urges to have sex. ONE reason must be sexual gratification.
Another reason, surely, is BEING.
We are called to 'be'. Human BEINGS tend to 'be' human. Our 'being' is not limited to the physical. Feeling an impulse to try and connect with another animal more closely or intimately (as in sex) might be hardwired into us. . . and maybe it's not just hardwired into us physically, genetically . . . being the BEING part of us, that energetic part of us that goes beyond the phsyical. . . maybe that BEINGNESS seeks expression. . . .
I know what I am writing does not matter to the bigoted zealots in this thread. . . . but exchanging physical contact with another human of the same sex (which precludes the possibility of procreation) might be hardwired into our very being. Nobody really knows different.
Posted by TreeFitz at 06/26/2008 @ 7:23pm