|
|
|
|
Ga. Principal Defends Anti-Gay Student Editorial
by Kilian Melloy, EDGE Boston Contributor
A high school paper op-ed piece that characterized GLBT people as the result of "reproductive errors" has ignited a controversy in the Georgia school where the paper was published.
CNN and rawstory.com reported yesterday on the outcry that greeted the publication of an opinion piece titled, Homosexuality: Beyond the Bible.
Some students at Kell High School said that the piece was hurtful, and that they found it to be shocking. Others said that the paper has an obligation to report on issues from various perspectives.
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported on Oct. 2 that that article, written by a student named Thomas Benjamin, offers the theory that GLBT people are not heterosexual because of their upbringing, or due to "reproductive error."
Kurt Webster, a Kell High School sophomore, said of the op-ed piece, "It should not have been in the paper."
Continued Webster, "It could hurt people’s feelings."
The school’s principal, Trudi Donovan, acknowledged having read the piece before its appearance in the paper, but said that excising the piece or asking it to be modified fell outside her purview.
Said Donovan, "My job is the safety and security of the school, not censorship."
A spokesman for the Cobb County school district, Jay Dillon, echoed that, saying that principals have no legal right to prohibit what goes into the school paper, due to school district policies and court rulings that specify that students have the right to self-expression, including written expression in the school paper.
Said Dillon, "There may be no interference with that, even if a student’s opinion is unpopular."
Certain exceptions to that rule apply, such as prohibiting obscenities or articles that might provoke a major disturbance, according to Dillon, who went on to say of the principal, "In such cases, she would be protected in censoring materials."
The article was published last Friday, Sept. 28, in the inaugural edition of the school’s new student paper, Inkwell.
The author of the piece wrote that his suggestion that gays were the result of "reproductive errors," and that they should be denied marriage equality, was not rooted in religion, but on science and reasoning.
Wrote Benjamin, "I realize biology commits many reproductive errors. Homosexuality can be one of them."
Stephen Davis, a junior at the school, offered the opinion that GLBT students ought to have been consulted before the piece ran. Another junior, Allison Koons, said that the article’s text did not offend her, but that its appearance in the school paper "shocked" her.
Rawstory.com reported that another student had a different view, saying, "Everybody’s opinion’s going to offend somebody."
Said the student, "I mean, if that’s the case, then you can’t publish anything."
Lisa Jordan, a teacher, said, "Some of the kids are upset about it," and suggested that the paper’s next issue might include a rebuttal.
Dillon also said that a future issue of the student publication would probably contain an article offering another perspective on the issue.
The Atlanta journal-Constitution noted that in 2004, at Berkmar High School in Gwinnett County, principal Kendall Johnson ordered two LGBT-related articles to be excised from the school paper.
The articles, editorials addressing a gay / straight alliance at the school called the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Society, were pulled, according to school district authorities, because Johnson was concerned that they would create tension at the school during end-of-semester exams.
Sloan Roach, a spokesperson for Gwinnet Schools, said at the time that the editorials took a "point-counterpoint" format on the issue, and that they could have had a disruptive effect.
Said Roach, "People have very strong feelings about this issue."
The article’s claim more or less parallels an argument advanced by "Dr. Laura" Schlesinger, who posted a comment on her Web site in 1998 reading, "If you’re gay or a lesbian, it’s a biological error that inhibits you from relating normally to the opposite sex."
Dr. Laura’s comment that homosexuality was attributable to "biological error" was cited numerous times in 2000, when GLBT groups lobbied to prevent her short-lived TV talk show from debuting on UPN, the netlet that later merged with the WB to form the CW.
edgeboston.com
(\\__/) And if you don't believe The sun will rise
(='.'=) Stand alone and greet The coming night
(")_(") In the last remaining light. (C. Cornell)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
 |
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13800
|
|
|
I'd like to read the student's article before passing judgment on it, but I do defend the principal who states that the job is not about censorship, unless and until they show me that they have censored other work. However, a school newspaper does require some form of censorship, otherwise it will be full of fun expletives.
I do believe that homosexual people are the result of a "miss-wiring" of some brain elements, and this could thus be considered a "reproductive error". I do not support a link from this to denial of rights. We do not deny those with genetic complications rights based upon the complication, so, if homosexuality were the same kind of thing, we should not deny homosexuals those rights.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A reproductive error on the scale of homosexuality would represent a severe evolutionary disadvantage to a species. For homosexuality to have survived this long, it must represent a great enough advantage overall that it overcomes the smaller likelihood of gay people to reproduce.
I don't think, therefore, that terms such as 'miswiring' or 'reproductive error' are at all useful: we are the way we are because that is how the species has developed -- and it has been remarkably successful thus far. Many organs in the human body were 'miswirings' or adaptations from something completely different. You can't always tell why they are the way they are without looking back over the entire history of the species. The same goes for homosexuality. Only a creationist could see normality as an absolute rather than the result of millions or billions of small factors that we don't have the knowledge or the brain power to understand. Who is to say which factor is 'right' and which is 'wrong'? Often the most counter-intuitive turn out also to be some of the most important.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
jack
|
 |
Likes it here |
Location: England
Registered: September 2006
Messages: 304
|
|
|
Deeej wrote:
> A reproductive error on the scale of homosexuality would represent a severe evolutionary disadvantage to a species. For homosexuality to have survived this long, it must represent a great enough advantage overall that it overcomes the smaller likelihood of gay people to reproduce.
>
The number of st8 people world wide vastly outweighs the gay population.
so mankind will survive.
some animals like cows/ horses etc don't give a dam as to is it a male or a female in the species if it smells nice it will mount, we all seem to forget that the cave man used his sense of smell and the same goes today except you don't know you do it. so i do not think that gay people have a dodgy gene.
just my uneducated opinion.
life is to enjoy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
More and more I come to appreciate David's ability to think along logical lines. I would like to add my speculations to his observations.
It doesn't take much of a googler to ascertain that there have been many homosexuals that have made their marks in the history books. Gays have contributed to society in diverse areas, the arts and humanities are only the most noted. Could our contribution to the human race and its maintenance be a factor in whatever evolutionary forces allowed the introduction and sustainability of homosexuality? Just as gainsayers are unable to establish that we are "genetic errors", they are equally unable to show that we aren't a necessary adjunct to societal and species preservation. We probably comprise ten percent or less of the race yet our contributions seem to go far beyond that. Our nominal makeup of society is obviously not enough to inhibit the races' ability to reproduce, yet it may be enough to contribute to its cohesiveness and sustainability. On this basis, who is to say that we are a reproductive error?
Youth crisis hot-line 866-488-7386, 24 hr (U.S.A.)
There are people who want to help you cope with being you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13800
|
|
|
I appreciate the logic. But I still "feel wrong". This means that to rationalise it to myself I need to clutch at the accident of miss-wiring. Does that make sense?
To me homosexuality is a fact, but my being homosexual was such an awful personal shock that it removed any logic.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
 |
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Homosexuality is not a deviation it is a variation.
Every person has differences that are programmed into their makeup. It is only when specific differences are spotlighted by one group much to the detriment of another group that they are called deviant or genetically defective.
If every difference were equally viewed ad deviant the world would be a place of utter chaos indeed.
I see being gay as a part of who makes me who I am. A me that I am, for the most part, comfortable with, reasonably happy and reasonably productive as a member of the society I live in.
What more can a person ask for..... Love, well I have that too..... Im several forms and at several levels.
I feel myself becoming stronger as a person since I've found this new therapist and am now able to finally work through several issues that have haunted my past. I've overcome some things and am working on dealing with the rest.
Yeah.... I'm happy with who I am....
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>Homosexuality is not a deviation it is a variation.
Exactly, Marc!
But as we know all too well, lots of people tend to dislike variations, especially those related to sexuality, and often the dislike turns into hysteria and to hatred against those representing the 'deviation' from 'normality'.
One day, scientists will probably crack the 'gay' code, and they may even be close to doing so, and to presenting a plausible, scientific explanation to what causes homosexuality. Perhaps they will also be able to diagnose it at an early stage of life, even before birth, but I fear that that knowledge won't necessarily wipe out homophobia. In fact, it may even increase the pressure upon mothers and kids to receive 'appropriate treatment', although the only feasible 'treatment' is love.
One reason for my fear is that young Thomas Benjamin can be sure to find lots of supporters among an increasing group of Christian 'creationists', who are more than willing to reject all scientific evidence which contradict their own home-made 'truths'.
http://www.mdjonline.com says that, 'At the end of the column, Benjamin says science endorses a Christian perspective on homosexuality. The column's last words are, "Good luck, atheists and agnostics." '
No doubt, a large number of people cheer words like that, while to others, religious believers and not, they send chills down our spines.
[Updated on: Sun, 07 October 2007 00:00] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I read the posting and poor Benjamine, the first word that came to mind was IDIOT .
Sweet dreams till sunbeams find you......
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
 |
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
There are obviously two distinct questions here; what are 'the facts', and was Benjamin entitled to express his view.
I've ranted and rambled on the 'scientific facts' about homosexuality on more than a few occasions in the past, so I’ll keep this bit as short as I can.
• As yet, there hasn’t been nearly enough research to establish conclusively the causes of homosexuality.
• A problem with the research that HAS been undertaken is that some of the studies were undertaken by, or financed by, groups with a vested interest in the outcome.
• The most telling research is that involving twins.
Monozygotic (identical) twins share precisely the same genes. Dizygotic (fraternal) twins are no more alike than any other siblings; they share around 50% of their genes, but if brought up together their environmental influences are likely to be similar. Adopted children share few, if any genes with their adoptive siblings. The largest study suggests that if one monozygotic twin is gay, there is a probability of around 50% that the other twin will also be gay; between dizygotic twins the probability falls to 22%, and between unrelated adoptive siblings the probability is only 11%. Without getting too scientific, it is more than twice as likely that both of a pair of identical twins will be gay than that both of a pair of fraternal twins will be gay – and almost five times more likely than that two unrelated adoptive siblings will both be gay.
That amounts to pretty convincing proof that genetic factors play a significant part, though ‘gayness’ cannot be wholly genetic – if it were, the probability for identical twins mention above would be 100% rather than 50%. It therefore follows that environmental factors must also play a part – but remember that in this context ‘environmental’ means anything not genetic, so any influence after conception counts as environmental, and there can be significant variation in concurrent development when there is more than one foetus in the womb.
Deeej and Paul have said pretty much all that can be said about the relationship between evolution and homosexuality; for the reasons they give, it cannot possibly be dismissed as a simple case of mis-wiring.
And as far as science goes, that’s about it. There’s a short, but well balanced, article by Dr. Barry Starr of Stanford University at http://www.thetech.org/genetics/ask.php?id=155 – but if you’re even mildly interested in genetics, you may find the site addictive!
So back to young Mr. Benjamin. There is absolutely no generally-accepted scientific basis for the fundamentalist view that homosexuality is a choice which is capable of adjustment – so his pseudo-scientific arguments are blatant misrepresentation. Would the principal have approved publication if he had argued that the population of Washington DC were descended from Martians? In terms of scientific validity, one argument is as good – or as bad – as the other.
More importantly, the whole tone of his piece was discriminatory and offensive. Not so long ago, there was (and in some pockets there may still be) a genuinely held belief that black people are an inferior species of humanity. Would Benjamin have been allowed to write a piece expressing THAT view? So what’s the difference? I suspect that such a discriminatory article would nowadays be illegal under UK law; in any event, I disagree with Timmy about the principal’s duty; discriminatory and offensive features have no place in a school magazine. Freedom of speech is not absolute; like any other freedom, it is limited by responsibility.
As regards Benjamin, his only redeeming feature is the probability that he has been brainwashed by his parents and church; any normal human being would be able to see through the fundamentalist posturing, but as he appears unable to do so, he’s probably mis-wired.
Whatever next? Before we know where we are, someone will be suggesting that human characteristics can be identified in people from Yorkshire!
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Your funny
Sweet dreams till sunbeams find you......
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
saben
|
|
On fire! |
Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537
|
|
|
There is a difference between posting an article with a controversial point of view based on fact and one based on misinformation. He obviously hadn't done much reading and indeed his desire for biological perfection is somewhat reminiscent of Hitler's "perfect race". Biological deviation, as others have said, does not mean biological flaw. We don't exclude left-handers, blondes or other genetic minorities from participating in society. His argument was probably that marriage is based around child rearing, in which case there is no "need" for gay couples to marry, however it misses the point as gay couples want equal, legal partnership rights. Inability to follow the genetic drive to reproduce is not reason to be excluded from participation in society and the rights and responsibilities associated with that. Even if it is genetic deviance it is a big jump to say rights should be excluded over that.
As for the principal, I'm in two minds, there are certain standards of academic integrity that he should adhere to. But he may not fully understand the issue, or even have read the article. Free speech is important, but an individual school still has the ability to censor as they wish, additionally allowing publication of misinformation should be frowned on in the academic sphere. He should of rejected it on a factuality basis rather than the basis that it's taboo.
Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cossie,
just wondering if you had read the opinion piece writen by Thomas Benjamin. If have been able to locate it, please post the link. If you haven't read the article, I wonder if it is wise to judge someone based entirely on a third party's opinion.
This comment from an editorial writer from the Atlanta newspaper:
Kell High School student newspaper controversy: Students at Cobb County's Kell High School got a lesson in First Amendment freedoms after an opinion column in the school newspaper sparked heated debate among students who wondered if it should have been allowed to run.
AJC opinion page editor David Beasley received a copy of the column, which described gay people as "reproductive errors." Beasley opted not to run it since author Thomas Benjamin didn't back up his opinion with sound arguments.
While it is commendable that Kell principal Trudy Donovan chose not to censor the article, the publication should have included an opposing view since Benjamin's opinion was so extreme.
Cobb schools spokesman Jay Dillon said Kell students will have an opportunity to respond to Benjamin's column in future issues of The Inkwell newspaper.
High school newspapers rarely publish controversial articles and opinions since they are often censored by school officials worried about creating a disruption. In that respect, it was refreshing to see the newspaper take on the topic. But student journalists have the same obligation as professional journalists — to exercise freedom of the press responsibly.
Another article about the article:
http://www.splc.org/newsflash.asp?id=1620&year=
School officials in Ga. 'standing by' decision to run controversial column
Article compared homosexuality to Down syndrome
© 2007 Student Press Law Center
October 3, 2007
GEORGIA — District officials are standing by a Marietta high school principal's decision not to censor an opinion piece calling homosexuality one of biology's "reproductive errors," despite high profile media attention describing the "furor" caused by the article.
A column by Carlton J. Kell High School senior Thomas Benjamin appeared in this year's first edition of the school's student newspaper, The Inkwell, arguing that homosexuality is a medical disorder "as much as Down's syndrome."
After copies of the paper were distributed on Friday, some students said they were "upset" the column was allowed to run, according to articles in both The Atlanta Journal-Constitution and The Marietta Daily Journal.
Principal Trudie Donovan reviewed the article before publication and determined it did not violate the student publication policy.
"I'm standing by my decision," Donovan said. She referred other questions to district representatives.
Cobb County School District spokesman Doug Goodwin said the usual steps were taken before the article was printed, including the principal's review.
"Whether the content is popular or not, it's not up to us to decide what runs as long as it's not disruptive," Goodwin, said.
Goodwin said the district would not consider any changes to its policy in light of the recent article.
The district policy regarding student publications states that the guidelines for the newspaper are not "intended to allow censoring of any article merely because it is controversial."
Goodwin said students would have a chance to write a counterpoint article in future issues if they choose to.
"This was just one student's opinion," he said. "Other students will have plenty of opportunities to write theirs."
By Maggie Beckwith, SPLC staff writer
(\\__/) And if you don't believe The sun will rise
(='.'=) Stand alone and greet The coming night
(")_(") In the last remaining light. (C. Cornell)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
No, I haven't read the article in full; so far as I can see (and surprisingly, in view of the furore it has caused) it doesn't seem to be available on the net.
However, I think that my response was justified in view of the specific quotations I have seen. There is NO scientific evidence to suggest that homosexuality is either a medical condition or a chosen path.
The 'freedom of the press' is a somewhat dubious liberty. I would defend absolutely the right of the press to publish the results of properly conducted investigative journalism, but that wasn't the issue here. We have moved on since the days of the (possibly mis-attributed) Voltaire quote: 'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it'. To publish a view which is unsupported by any scientific evidence and which is discriminatory and offensive to a significant part of the population is indefensible in the name of freedom, since it impinges significantly upon the freedom of others to live their lives in peace. Freedom is always a subjective concept; if you live in a block of flats (a condominium) you are not free to play music at maximum volume in the early hours of the morning because to do so infringes the freedom of other residents to sleep in peace.
Surely it's all a matter of balance - the press should be free to report facts, however unpalatable they may be, but why should they have the right to express discriminatory opinions which are unsupported by any form of evidence?
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This special piece really got my attention. i lived in the south for two years and i'm very familiar with the Atlanta area.
> The Atlanta journal-Constitution noted that in 2004, at Berkmar High School in Gwinnett County, principal Kendall Johnson ordered two LGBT-related articles to be excised from the school paper.
>
However, this is the part of the article that made me want to reply. I attended that school and also met the students involved in the scandal. Scandal? Yea, because it was in a small town just north of Atlanta. When i started attending the school, i heard about LGBT club. I rememeber seeing a flyier in the lunch room. Wrote down when the next meeting was going to happen and decided to attend and see what it was all about. Made me excited  Everybody was very friendly.
Talking to the founder of the club. She (it was a girl and guy who started the controvercy) told me the difficult time she and her friend had trying to get the club approved. Mainly due to the opposition from various religious clubs, parents, and teacher at the school. But, from what i was told, the founders of the club were not afraid to be speak their minds and never hid their sexuality.
Taking the issue to the school board and getting some media attention. The pricipal let his guard down and the club was approved. They were allowed to publish the articles and put fliers around the school talking about the club. I started attening the club one year after it happened so i didn't see any of this, but sure heard about it
P.S i had fun meeting those people. We did partied at the club several times hahaha
You don't love someone because they are beautiful, they are beautiful because you love them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hey Cossie I really believe about the exact same way you do but just can't express it quite so well.
I try to make the same point as you just did and I get all the rhetoric directed at me about how utterly uninformed, unscientific, and totally at odds with reality my statements are.
In my own case I know that I never made a choice to be attracted to other boys and I can also say to you that in a lot of cases where I did have opportunity for sex with another guy, I was "turned off" by it. I went for a long time being completely confused by my own attractions to others but could never seem to be attracted to girls in any way.
I would always want to be attracted and always felt wrong that I was not, but in all the times I did have any attractions to anyone it was a boy.
I would say that is conflicted at the very least!
Also I can see why some would want to say it is a choice, but they are absolutely wrong! Why in hell would anyone want all these issues in life?
I can also see where environment can be a cause of it too. I can see things in my own past that did more to prevent or discourage me from hetrosexual relationships than it did to make me gay. Of course sex is a strong drive and will go where it can in my opinion. For me I think boys were a lot less anxiety for me and so I chose to go that way.
Well you can all pick this apart all you want, but it is the way I am. If I could push a button and make myself want to have sex with a girl, I would do it in a heartbeat. I would not be here now. And I know I never chose being gay so some genetic thing is probably at work as well.
So Cossie it is as you say............not proven one way or another.
[Updated on: Thu, 11 October 2007 06:16]
Ken
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Benji
|
|
Likes it here |
Location: USA
Registered: August 2007
Messages: 297
|
|
|
I have read all the posts with interest, the fact that the GLBT group was 1st opposed by the school administration, the principal denied two articles by GLBT, but when it came to Thomas Benjamin piece she quotes, "My job is the safety and security of the school, not censorship." Then on the article itself, that I could only get by the excerpts in this forum. (M can you get a copy of this article since you might know some of the GLBT students?) This Benjamin sounds like a lot of puppets I have heard before, spouting their ignorant views that have no credence, bear no facts, just special selected pages from their bible. Well I'm not surprised, I wonder if the Mentally Handicap took offense?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Benji wrote:
> the fact that the GLBT group was 1st opposed by the school administration, the principal denied two articles by GLBT, but when it came to Thomas Benjamin piece she quotes, "My job is the safety and security of the school, not censorship."
Different principal, different school, even a different county.
You most likely will not ever get to read the actual article. The newspaper in question was acually a small newsletter put together by the graphic arts department and handed out during lunch.
(\\__/) And if you don't believe The sun will rise
(='.'=) Stand alone and greet The coming night
(")_(") In the last remaining light. (C. Cornell)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(\\__/)
(='.'=) If at first you don't succeed don't
(")_(") try sky diving.
Youth crisis hot-line 866-488-7386, 24 hr (U.S.A.)
There are people who want to help you cope with being you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13800
|
|
|
We have someone here who has that in his signature block, or something very like it
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>We have someone here who has that in his signature block, or something very like it
lol... back up one more thread from my post!
Youth crisis hot-line 866-488-7386, 24 hr (U.S.A.)
There are people who want to help you cope with being you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How can anyone believe that homosexuality arises from 'miswiring'?
You might equally well believe that the whole superstructure of heterosexuality was there to ensure that there will be some homosexuals, whose creation is the purpose of the universe.
Bear in mind that natural selection "ought" to have eliminated homosexuality but that the proportion of the population that is homosexual seems to be fairly constant at around 10%.
It is most churches and many societies that are wrong and I think the problem is that they fail to understand how people can find other people sexually attractive even if they are the same sex. Colour, religion, language and other things have been 'made' a reason for some societies to oppress others.
You aren't mis-wired if you are black or jewish or gay; one might say that only Nazis think like that.
Rant over - but I really believe this.
Anthony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13800
|
|
|
How odd. I had just not sen it. I was thinking of someone different! Ah me!
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13800
|
|
|
Hmm. So, if I think the way I think that means I have to be a nazi?
I don't agree with that at all. I would be persuaded to think differently, but not by the "if you are not with me then you are against me" type of faux logic.
If a species is "designed" to reproduce, a reasonable but unprovable proposition, then a sub-element of that species that has no inherent desire to mate with the opposite sex in order to allow reproduction is some form of design error, or a failure to follow the blueprint.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I only said Nazis think like that. I certainly didn't mean to suggest you were a Nazi. I was asking you to agree with me that the line of argument was distasteful.
I'm sorry if I offended anyone.
"If a species is designed to reproduce" already has in it the seeds of a rejection of sexual behaviour that cannot reproduce. What I don't see is why activity that cannot reproduce is thereby made wrong. Heterosexual manual, oral, post-menopausal and anal sex, masturbation (not to mention use of contraception) and so on - why are they wrong or mis-wirings?
If they are not, why are homosexual acts mis-wiring? There is abundant evidence that such acts are natural and common in the animal world as well as man.
Of course I don't believe that the human race was designed because there are so many hereditary weaknesses that a benevolent designer should have avoided (and if really benevolent and omnipotent would have avoided).
But I don't want to get into a theological argument. What I want to do is to encourage people who have homosexual desires not to think worse of themselves but to recognise how society is likely to cause them pain if they are too open about it. Act so as to avoid the pain and keep your self respect. In particular do not weep because you are not like other men; nobody is like other men - it is just that the differences between some heterosexuals and others may be less obvious and widely varied and not cause them the same sort of grief.
Anthony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Timmy said,
>If a species is "designed" to reproduce, a reasonable but unprovable proposition, then a sub-element of that species that has no inherent desire to mate with the opposite sex in order to allow reproduction is some form of design error, or a failure to follow the blueprint.
That is faulty logic. A species is NOT designed to reproduce. A species is adapted to *survive*. If it were not, it would not exist any more. But, and this is the big but, as a species, not on the individual level. Throughout nature not all individuals will survive to reproduce. This does not mean that they are worthless. Provided that they fulfil a function they will help others to do so, and propagate the species.
The vast majority of bees in a hive are sterile females. By your logic, they are all design errors, "failures to follow the blueprint". That is absurd. It is the worker bees that make it possible for the queen to survive to lay eggs and ensure that the species does not die out.
Just because it is slightly less obvious what purpose gay people have in the perpetuation of the human species does not mean that there is none, that they are design errors, and it would be naive to assert otherwise.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JimB
|
|
Likes it here |
Registered: December 2006
Messages: 349
|
|
|
The basic biological function of all living organisms is to reproduce and propagate the species. However, perpetuation is a totally different subject. Even raising adopted children is perpetuation as opposed to propagation.
Humans have developed far beyond our basic biological function and gays certainly do have a role in perpetuating the species. We can even reproduce without engaging in sexual activity, assuming you will accept masterbation as not a sexual activity.
JimB
[Updated on: Sun, 14 October 2007 19:20] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe gays are around to love those who have been unloved. You said adaption. Perhaps we are here to adopt the ones who are unadoptable. To give them love and a home. Roger (who post here)said he was unloved as a kid and wasnt taught how to love. Then he met someone gay who turned that all around for him. There must be a purpose for gay people or nature would have eliminated something that is useless.
Sweet dreams till sunbeams find you......
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JimB said,
>The basic biological function of all living organisms is to reproduce and propagate the species.
That is untrue. Propagate, yes, but not necessarily to reproduce. Did you read my example about the bees?
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13800
|
|
|
Ah, here you are taking my statement and implying motivation:
acam wrote:
> "If a species is designed to reproduce" already has in it the seeds of a rejection of sexual behaviour that cannot reproduce. What I don't see is why activity that cannot reproduce is thereby made wrong. Heterosexual manual, oral, post-menopausal and anal sex, masturbation (not to mention use of contraception) and so on - why are they wrong or mis-wirings?
I am simply looking at biological function. "Put one of those in one of those, jiggle it about a bit and reproduction occurs". I all species other than the human species, which insists on rationalising it, copulation is normal, masturbation is normal, and breeding is normal.
Oh, the nazi thing? I took no offence, but I could have
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JimB
|
|
Likes it here |
Registered: December 2006
Messages: 349
|
|
|
Yes, I did read your post regarding the bees and agree that it is an example contrary to my preposition. One of the points I was trying to make, and am still unclear about, is that propagation and reproduction are almost synonymous. The role of the bees that do not reproduce is one of perpetuation; I suspect that there are other examples in nature of a species sub-set whose role is not reproduction related.
Nature is good at proving generalizations wrong, that's why it is so fascinating.
JimB
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
Re: a little news from the south 
