Timewaster's Guide Archive

Ookla - Fine, I did bring up overpopulation and energy, but they were in a direct response to one of The Lost 24's comments. I'd rather not discuss them further in this thread because it derails the conversation; the topic is not about overpopulation nor the energy crisis. I'd rather keep it brief than allow the conversation to completely change topic.

Thank you, Archon. You're entirely correct. Ookla, responding to so many comments from people who all disagree with me is very far from easy. I'm giving the best responses I can with my limited timeframe; as you say, I've been otherwise occupied. My schedule is exceedingly busy, and this is hardly a top priority for me. And frankly, if you don't like the quality of my posts anymore, then stop reading them. Your complaints aren't going to affect the way I'm handling this, and they just clutter a conversation which, as you've so rudely pointed out, is already becoming too convoluted.

Jade Knight - I'm still working on it. You'll have to wait until tomorrow; I have an important geometry project to complete tonight, on top of a handful of other random assignments. Again, I apologize.

(Please forgive me if this is poorly phrased; I'm both sick and exhausted, a combination which never lends itself to lucidity.)

Okay, I know I said I wouldn't be responding anymore, but it seems some people really want to hear more. I'm not going to address the points about overpopulation, energy usage, or AIDS; I absolutely laothe discussions that get down to facts and figures. On top of that, both are topics which I find to be even more controversial in many ways than homosexuality is. My feelings on the way all three are handled are very strong, and I don't think the discussion would remain civil for much longer, were we to continue debating them. I have much more to say, but I'd rather not say it. I think there's a mutual understanding that I believe most (if not all) of you are wrong, and you probably feel the same way about me; let's just leave it at that.  This thread started as a question about morality, and I'd rather have it steered back that way.

That said, I'll address the on-topic points that have been made.  Also, please keep in mind that I'm using "homosexuality" with the blanket meaning it has adopted; I do not mean to limit my statement exclusively to either sexuality or emotions, unless otherwise noted.

Robert_Boyd - I agree entirely on the genetics/singing analogy. People are born with an inclination towards a certain sexuality, be it bi-, hetero-, or homo-. This can be denied or ignored, and thus not developed or further discovered. For example, had I not bothered considering my sexuality more closely, I may very well never have taken notice of the fact that I'm gay, or how this affects me. Similarly, because I did make that examination, I've developed to the point where I can make very confident statements about my orientation and how it affects me. But keep in mind, just as an innately talented singer cannot reasonably turn a good voice into a bad one, a gay man cannot simply erase the homosexual leanings he has. At best, a singer can allow his/her voice to fall into disrepair; in the same way, a gay man can at most ignore his sexuality to the point where it is neither practiced nor explored.

I disagree, though, with the insinuation that love can be forced. This is something that, again, is unable to be proved by science, due to the highly subjective nature of emotions, but it's my belief that love cannot be forced. Encouraged, perhaps, but it's not something that can be made to exist. I admit I'm relatively inexperienced in this area, having been in love only once before and that for a very brief period of time, but I don't think the extreme emotional connection I established with the boy I loved was forced, nor could it ever have been. It existed from the beginning, but was just undiscovered for a while. Performing acts of love can help reveal this connection. The story you reference is most likely a similar situation, in my opinion; the man did not love his wife because the connection he had with her had lain dormant for so long that he lost track of it. It existed from the beginning, but was somehow obscured. Far be it from me to second guess somebody's personal experience, but that's my interpretation. I don't think it's possible to fall in love with just anybody. That's not to say I endorse the "soul mate" theory, but I believe there are intrinsicly stronger connections between some people than between others.

And you've actually touched on one of the main things that perplexes me about this whole issue. Homosexual urges are there for a reason - yes, it's true that we can opt to act on them or opt not to, but they are present either way. If you believe homosexuality is not a choice, then I can't quite make sense of this - the God you've placed such faith in sees fit to instill homosexual urges in somebody, but these urges are less fit to act upon the heterosexual urges. Would anybody care to explain?

Sigyn - I shudder to think what kind of response this will provoke, but I'm a bit hazy on the history regarding one more issue I'd like to ask about. What, exactly, happened to so sharply reverse the pro-polygamy views your church once had?

Precious-jules - The story you've told about your brother could be another example of how experiences during developmental phases of life can heavily affect sexuality. If your brother admits that he never had any natural homosexual urges, it's probably true. The fact that he needed to perform homosexual acts to satisfy an addiction could very easily muddle the already complicated issue of sexuality. This is another situation where it's important to distinguish between sexuality and love, though - I'm willing to bet your brother has never nor would ever fall in love with another man.

The Jade Knight - Both of your posts will be addressed in another post in this thread. My mind isn't working clearly enough right now to give them the thought they deserve. Check back some time tomorrow.

SaintEhlers - I think the dicussion did stray very much from its original subject. I asked about Mormonism, and we wound up debating AIDS and overpopulation. The two are not the same.

Hauf - This is a big debate I've had many times before. We can have it somewhere else if you want (another thread or personal messages), but to sum up my views on it...

Peace and joy come from mastering the flesh. This is true, but I mean it in an entirely different sense. I believe sexuality exists within people not only for reproductive purposes. Sex is a pleasurable, joyous, and in many ways peaceful act which is practiced for more purpose than just to conceive a child. This strays dangerously close to justifying promiscuity (which I am not doing), but mastery of all aspects of humanity is what leads to ultimate peace, joy, and happiness. It involves celebrating both the fact that we have pleasurable physical urges and abilities, and also the fact that we have the capacity to control them (to a certain degree) if we so desire.

Ookla - I am still reading. You can thank Hauf for dragging me back.

Dawncawley - I'm glad this is pleasing to you. I hate uncivil discussions as much as all of you do; I appreciate the lack of conversion attempts and blatant "you're wrong" statements very profoundly. You're all making me dislike Mormonism much less than I did before I came here.

Also, Hauf, thanks very much for the book recommendation. That looks very interesting, and I'll try to find a copy at Barnes & Noble when I next stop by.

There we go. My head is spinning like a dreidel. I hope at least some of this made sense; I'll edit tomorrow if necessary.

Sorry that last thread got so radically off-topic; hopefully this one won't. I have a couple more questions, if you don't mind.

1. Were any aspects of Elantris at all biographical? In my case, at least, my writing is often unintentionally reflective of my own experiences. Is this the case for you as well?

2. You might get this a lot, but why did you become a writer in the first place? Did you ever see yourself doing something else instead?

3. I'm overjoyed to hear that you're probably doing a sequel to Elantris. I was wondering, though, if you plan to discuss anything further about the religions you mention less in the book. I think both Jesker and the Jeskeri Mysteries receive too little attention for how interesting they could be. It would be interesting if we got to learn more about the origins/tenets of both. It's rankled ever since the first time I read the book that something which seems so significant as Jesker is left so undeveloped.

Dragonfly - I'm glad to get another perspective on it, especially that of a parent. I'm always interested to hear exactly what my parents may have gone through/may be going through; neither has religious objections to my orientation, but regardless, I imagine many of their reactions may have been similar to yours.

Speaking of parents with gay children, if any of you are interested, there's a fantastic memoir entitled The Family Heart that chronicles a mother's experience with her son coming out. The mother is not particularly pious, either, but if you're intrigued by this thread, I'd certainly suggest reading it. It ranks among my favorites.

The Lost 24 - The professor you mention is, as far as I know, mistaken. There is no evidence to suggest that social acceptance of homosexuality will cause an increase in the number of homosexuals. In fact, just to bring this back a little bit toward Brandon, I made the connection between homosexuality and the Shaod when I first read Elantris; both "strike" at random, regardless of one's station. Gay parents are no more likely to raise gay children than straight parents are; in fact, the first gay children must, quite obviously, have come from a straight couple.

Also, the observation that homosexuals do not contribute to replenishing the population is an incorrect one. Many gay males become sperm donors, and lesbians are no less fertile than heterosexual women. While the means may not be conventional, homosexuals do still contribute to the population. Though, to be honest, the world hardly needs more people in it right now; it sounds callous (and to some of you, probably anti-family) but the simple fact is that we live in an overpopulated country on an overpopulated planet that is rapidly being stripped of the resources necessary to continue supporting its inhabitants. Also, one cannot "restrict" an oritentation; activity, perhaps, but the same-sex attraction still remains, whether or not society recognizes it. I request that you not speak of it as you would an epidemic; I find that trivializing and insulting.

Furthermore, whoever it was that presented this information to you grossly overestimates the number of gay men with AIDS. It's true that the first cases of AIDS in the U.S. were found in the gay community, giving rise to nicknames such as "gay cancer", but shortly afterwards, several cases within heterosexual people were found.

In a 2004 study (I may have the year wrong), the CDC estimated that of all cases in the United States, 48% were due to male-to-male contact, and 7% were due to male-to-male contact and intravenous drug use. This leaves 45% of different causes, divided as follows: 27% male-to-female contact with intravenous drug use, 16% male-to-female contact, and 2% of other causes, including blood transfusion, birth with infection, and other unknown or unidentified causes. As for other STDs, could you find a study suggesting gay people are more susceptible? All sexual contact carries risks, which a) can be avoided using proper precautions, and b) should be assessed by interested couples, not outside parties; while I appreciate your concern that homosexuals not be infected with AIDS or other STDs, I'll thank you not to imply that I shouldn't be allowed to engage in whatever sexual activity I choose simply because of the largely avoidable health ramifications. In short, what I do behind closed doors is not likely to affect you or your well-being.

Also, I think I've explained already that I'm not referring only to the choice to engage in same-sex sexual activity when I say "homosexuality". I'm also referring to the (I believe genetically determined) predisposition to same-sex attraction. Yes, the choice to engage in sexual activity is just that - a choice. However, the inclination towards same-sex attraction is not, in my mind. Frankly, I get very annoyed by people who use genetics as an explanation for behavior, primarily because it's scientifically incorrect in most cases. However, please don't draw a parallel between homosexuality and avarice or criminal activity. I'm not saying the behavior is genetic; I'm saying the inclination is.

EDIT - If you want a better understanding of the beginning of the AIDS pandemic, I suggest viewing the 1993 HBO film, "And the Band Played On".

Oh, boy. I'll handle this person-to-person.

Skar - I'd like to agree, because then it would be easier for people who want to change to do so. But sexuality has a physical, chemical basis; as such, if it's at all decided simply by perception, it cannot be entirely so. When I address Amyface's point, I'll add more to this thought.

SaintEhlers - I'll need to see if I can find that somewhere. If you could get me the author's name, I'd be grateful. Do you remember if it was very dense, dryly scientific writing, or was it something that I'd be able to read and comprehend the first time through?

Spriggan - That's completely fine and, frankly, I'm not asking you to defend them or to argue with me. This was started simply as a question about why you believe what you do, not to attack you for your beliefs. More people in the world should be so confident in what they believe; it would solve a lot of problems.

FMP - I appreciate you bringing that up. Always glad to have more assurance that, if I am wrong, I'm not going to hell because of it. Thanks for the addition!

Ladithien - Glad to know you're enjoying it! ^_^

MsFish - I think the nature/nurture debate tends not to get anywhere because there is no certain answer (yet); the success of a debate relies entirely on one party's willingness to change its stance. But, of course, due to the lack of convincing evidence in this case, I doubt anybody's viewpoint has been significantly altered.

I haven't honestly been thinking enough about other examples of the nature/nurture debate, actually. I've always sort of figured that depression has a chemical basis because there are medications that, purportedly, fix the chemical imbalance that's speculated as the cause. But then again, I'm in no position to judge it, being that I don't have it.

I don't really think homosexuality is the same way, though it very well could be. There's been no explanation of what factors or experiences lead to the development of latent homosexuality. All theories that have been put forward have a lack of evidence supporting them or a substantial amount of evidence against them, in my opinion.

I agree, we should all endeavor to live in harmony with each other, but the first step to attaining harmony between two disagreeing people or parties is understanding one another's views.

Also, I do plan to stick around. Thanks for the compliment and warm reception!

Amyface - I think I may know what you're talking about. There was an article published fairly recently in a newspaper's magazine (I can't remember if it's the New York Times Magazine or the Boston Globe, sorry) that's probably a watered-down version of what you're referencing. I may be misunderstanding it, but the general gist of the article was that there's a hormone that affect a baby's development while it's still in the womb. If this hormone isn't present or isn't in sufficient amounts, the "switch" for heterosexuality may not be flipped, and the baby may be homosexual. I'll see if I can find the article.

The reality is that there are a lot of studies to support each side. One of my friends, a student in Arizona, told me about a couple of studies (I believe unrelated) that suggest homosexuals process pheremones the same way the opposite sex does. So, according to this, I process pheremones like a woman, whereas my friend Julia processes them like a man. I've read dozens of other studies suggesting a variety of things, but I'm trying not to bring them up for fear of sounding... uhm... pompous? That's not the right word, but I hope you know what I mean. I like to rely on my own thoughts and opinions, not the largely inconclusive studies of other people.

Again, glad you're all enjoying this!

Spriggan - I agree. It does all boil down to whether or not one believes God commanded it. However, I don't quite agree with your perspective on why it's wrong - you say same-sex couples can't complete "the equation", but that relies entirely on the belief that there is an equation to complete. I don't doubt there's a reason we're here, but I don't presume to know what it is. The view that we exist only to perpetuate life seems, to me, fairly narrow. For, as I see it, I'm probably never going to pass on my genes, but I still exist. If I were meant only to procreate, I wouldn't exist. Now, that said, the validity of this depends entirely on whether or not you believe homosexuality is a choice.

Also, please don't make the mistake of saying someone "becomes homosexual" and then shifts back. Displaying homosexual tendencies does not make someone gay; plenty of angsty teenagers pretend to be bisexual because it gets attention. This does not make them truly bisexual. People who use sexuality as a publicity stunt demean and belittle the importance of the issue.

Sigyn - That's something I hadn't even considered. I'm actually a little bit stuck trying to refute it, because you have a very good point. I don't want to get too heavily into Freudian psychology (being that I'm about as much a psychologist as I am a Bible scholar) but I've heard from many sources that psychosexual development can be stunted  and/or warped by traumatic experiences. I've seen this used as an explanation for the whole pedophilia scandal that plagued the Catholic church. But let's assume that I'm speaking of people who have had no traumatic sexual experiences; I certainly never have. It's my firm belief that sexual orientation, unless affected by traumatic experience, can't be changed. Those who claim otherwise seem, to me, to be delusional; sometimes desire can override perception of reality, and if someone wants badly enough to be straight, he/she can convince him/herself that he/she is.

Hehe, not to worry. Living in small-town Massachusetts amidst petty, catty high school students tends to make people fairly thick-skinned. I'm almost impossible to offend, to the point where I often wind up mistakenly assuming what doesn't offend me won't often others. You can't fathom how many sarcastic religious quips I'm holding in. And don't worry about sticking your nose in either; I value everyone's two cents.