Sorry, Mississippi doesn't forget - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Mar 26, 2006

Sorry, Mississippi doesn't forget

Date: Mar 26, 2006

Preacher wrote:

Clarion Ledger has two letters on one day. Round 6 has started?
Philosophies differ in Evolution vs. design

Another writer says mainstream theologians have long since come to terms with evolution. Yes, and lots of other things, as well: homosexual preachers, preacherettes, the blessing of animals, denial of the biblical miracles. So?"

These right wing christians always seem to bring the subject around to Gays. Makes one wonder.....

Date: Mar 26, 2006

What, if you're gay? That's a question only you can answer, Richard Simmons

Date: Mar 26, 2006

These right wing christians always seem to bring the subject around to Gays. Makes one wonder.....

I am lost, I thought liberals liked talking about gays.

Date: Mar 26, 2006

Cossack wrote:

These right wing christians always seem to bring the subject around to Gays. Makes one wonder.....

I am lost, I thought liberals liked talking about gays.

Liberals don't talk much about Gays. What's to say? We're not interested with what people do in the privacy of their own bedroom.

Homosexuality is what all the religious conservatives seem to talk about these days. These folks are obsessed with homosexuality. Just now I went to the home page of the American Family Association home page [AFA.net]. There are five news stories at the top of the page. Two are about the homosexuality. Makes me wonder if some of those guys up in Tupelo aren't doing the "down low."

Date: Mar 26, 2006

S. Freud wrote:

These right wing christians always seem to bring the subject around to Gays. Makes one wonder.....

These evolutionists always seem to bring the subject around to Monkeys. Makes one wonder

Date: Mar 26, 2006

http://www.oogachaga.com/downloads/homophobia_and_homosexual_arousal.pdf

Date: Mar 26, 2006

C. Jung wrote:

These evolutionists always seem to bring the subject around to Monkeys. Makes one wonder

To say nothing of gay monkeys or other perversions!

Well, I set my monkey on the log
And ordered him to do the Dog
He wagged his tail and shook his head
And he went and did the Cat instead
He's a weird monkey, very funky.

(Bob Dylan, "I Shall Be Free No. 10," 1964)

[Explanatory footnote for the chronologically impaired: "The Dog" was a popular dance circa 1964. Use your imagination. It would make the Rev. Wildmon swallow his snuff.]

Date: Mar 26, 2006

A famous study

Can I read anything into the fact that this article was published in a journal called the Journal of Abnormal Psychology? Is homosexuality abnormal or is it abnormal to have an article published about homosexuality? As for the monkeys, I guess the connection is that homosexuals monkey around.

Date: Mar 26, 2006

Cossack wrote:

As for the monkeys, I guess the connection is that homosexuals monkey around.

Do a quick Google on our "kissin' cousin," the Bonobo Chimpanzee.

The Bonobo is best-known for resolving squabbles through sex rather than violence.

Date: Mar 26, 2006

Invictus,

It says their population is dwindling. Maybe they need to decrease the homo sex activities and increase the hetro sex act ivies. I also hope that you are not suggesting that faculty settle their problems with SFT by imitating the Bonobo Chimpanzee.

Date: Mar 26, 2006

Another thread on the interesting debate between Evolution and Intelligent Design turned into a thread on homosexuals.

Do you think the CoBers are behind this?

Date: Mar 26, 2006

Joker, good detective work!

Date: Mar 26, 2006

Joker wrote:

Another thread on the interesting debate between Evolution and Intelligent Design turned into a thread on homosexuals. Do you think the CoBers are behind this?

In some ways the issue of homosexuality is even more interesting -- or at least consequential -- than the debate about evolution. After all, no one (at least to my knowledge) gets beaten up or killed because of his or her position on evolution, but gays get attacked all the time (literally and figuratively) for being gay. Rarely do I hear people being mocked in casual conversation for their positions on evolution, but anti-gay remarks (some of them pretty vicious) are common, even among people who are otherwise "liberal."

Date: Mar 26, 2006

disgusted student wrote:

Joker, good detective work!

I think Joker is mistaken. The poster who pushed the topic in that direction was S. Freud. An unlikely name for someone in CoB. Hmmm.

Date: Mar 26, 2006

No cigar, you may be right. Unless...hmmm...unless he is using another name to throw us off - fairly common on this board.

Date: Mar 26, 2006

No cigar wrote:

disgusted student wrote: Joker, good detective work!

I think Joker is mistaken. The poster who pushed the topic in that direction was S. Freud. An unlikely name for someone in CoB. Hmmm.

Opps, I read the poster's name as S. Fraud. My bad.

Date: Mar 26, 2006

Joker wrote:

Opps, I read the poster's name as S. Fraud. My bad.

So now the glove fits. CoB it is. The name makes sense if you think about all of those national moguls of business and industry being escorted from jail to court these days.

Date: Mar 26, 2006

Joker wrote:

Another thread on the interesting debate between Evolution and Intelligent Design turned into a thread on homosexuals. Do you think the CoBers are behind this?

Actually, a discussion about homosexuals is quite germane to a discussion of evolution. Cossack hit the head squarely on the nail with this. Anyone who's read much Darwin knows it's not actually "survival of the fittest" but rather "survival of the sexiest." (Another way to summarize Darwin is "them that breeds, evolves, and them that don't breed, go extinct." Seems like homophobes ought to be squarely on the evolution bandwagon, if'n you think about it.)

Date: Mar 26, 2006

Invictus wrote:

Actually, a discussion about homosexuals is quite germane to a discussion of evolution. Cossack hit the head squarely on the nail with this. Anyone who's read much Darwin knows it's not actually "survival of the fittest" but rather "survival of the sexiest." (Another way to summarize Darwin is "them that breeds, evolves, and them that don't breed, go extinct." Seems like homophobes ought to be squarely on the evolution bandwagon, if'n you think about it.)

Good reasoning, Invictus. If homosexuals were allowed to just be homosexuals and not forced into trying to be hetero, they should evolve out of the gene pool. Of course, if they were intelligently designed, then the religious people are going against their designer.

Hey, this can get complicated.

Date: Mar 26, 2006

Joker wrote:

Invictus wrote: Actually, a discussion about homosexuals is quite germane to a discussion of evolution. Cossack hit the head squarely on the nail with this. Anyone who's read much Darwin knows it's not actually "survival of the fittest" but rather "survival of the sexiest." (Another way to summarize Darwin is "them that breeds, evolves, and them that don't breed, go extinct." Seems like homophobes ought to be squarely on the evolution bandwagon, if'n you think about it.) Good reasoning, Invictus. If homosexuals were allowed to just be homosexuals and not forced into trying to be hetero, they should evolve out of the gene pool. Of course, if they were intelligently designed, then the religious people are going against their designer. Hey, this can get complicated.

Cossack asked about Journal of Abnormal Psychology--it's actually consistently ranked in the top 5-10 journals in psychology. The study (if it is the one I am thinking about) is an experimental investigation of the psychoanalytic notion of reaction formation as a defense mechanism. Good tests of psychodynamic theory are few and far between--and this one was a pretty clever little study.

With respect to same-sex intercourse, it probably does have some adaptive function. Male sexuality exists along a continuum--men are not usually exclusively heterosexual or homosexual with respect to arousal potential (I hear the cries of "not me" out there). But most of us end up lining up on the same one side of the plate or the other across the life span for a variety of reasons.

Same sex encounters occur in both humans and lower animal species, and its social acceptability waxes and wanes across cultures. Given the enormously strong sex drive of the human male, and the fact that appropriate and willing female partners were not always available, it is not surprising that men have engaged in other forms of sexual release across the ages (until a female of child bearing potential crossed our path). Now, male arousal and sexuality is generally constrained to a single monogamous partner in our society (there is little need for a strong sex drive these days, or to spread our genes around indiscriminately, given contemporary reductions in infant mortality). But we still lust in our heart (name that quote and publication). Modern man still has his old dog genes, though neutered and spiffily groomed like a poodle (sorry poodle lovers).

Date: Mar 26, 2006

Godless Liberal wrote:But we still lust in our heart (name that quote and publication).

I know the answer to this one: Matthew 5:28 ["But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."]

AND!

Jimmy Carter, in an interview in Playboy Magazine during the 1976 election, where he said the same thing.