Gay Marriage

[Pilgram]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Oh great! Derail a thread with a pissin' contest. Do you mind carrying your squabble somewhere else, like maybe the lobster thread?

Perhaps you jest or you may want to change your byline, QUESTION AUTHORITY? You want to suggest that two people, one of which is not even yourself, carry thier "pissing" contest someplace else?

Since you speak with the tone of authority I'll play along. What should one person do when another sticks his nose in affairs that don't concern him or her? Questions authority!? That's really funny.

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by Pilgram

What should one person do when another sticks his nose in affairs that don't concern him or her?

Yes, pray tell, what does one do when another sticks their nose where it doesn't belong, such as bringing an inconsiderate diatribe into a conversation that has absolutely nothing to do with the piss off?

Yes, I question authority. [Admin edit - I, Brian]

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Kaldayen!

Originally Posted by Kaldayen

Geez... I never called anyone a cretin nor was offended by your post.
My post was to point you out something you might have missed in your own arguments. I never intented to be agressive. If I was (and I don't see where), I'll have to put that on my second language english skills.

My sincere apologies if I misinterpreted. I have dealt with others elsewhere that had "in the face" attitudes, and I was trying to circumvent any such before it began. Now that I understand better where you are coming from, I again apologize.

As for not considering things you pointed out, I believed I had covered them already, if not specifically then in general terms. I also hoped others here would see the things I have considered and presented, perhaps not agree, but at least understand.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, suanni!

Originally Posted by suanni

If a gay is heterophobic, they could well have the right to be. I've never heard of a heterosexual male be seriously beaten up merely because of their sexual orientation by homosexuals.

With all due respect, what does retroactive antagonism accomplish?

As for homosexuals "beating up" heterosexuals, I have heard a number of stories through the years, from prison rapes to child molestation by priests to police brutality, where an unwilling male was forced by another male. Because one is homosexual does not immediately incur some form of social mildness, although I will grant these examples are exceptions. But then, mass murderers are exceptions too.

Homosexuality is legal in our society so let us not be hypocrites. Either allow them to have the same civil rights as any other heterosexual couple or outlaw it again.

This is implying an either/or argument (false dilemma), and it is not. There is a spectrum across which this subject runs, and within which society has a vested interest in choosing where it will stand. As an example, suppose marijuana were legalized, it would not be mandated. That is, just because it is legal does not mean it is required. Beer is legal, but people are free not to drink, or to drink in moderation. Maybe these are bad examples, but I'm hoping my point comes across. Because homosexuality is "overlooked" (I believe in some places it is still technically illegal), does not mean it is required. As for the legal ramifications of civil union versus marriage, those are being addressed far better on a separate thread. This thread kind of evolved into one discussing the social and philosophical aspects.

[suanni]

I speak for the UK with regard to the legality of homosexuality. It is not an offence for a man to have a sexual union for a man. I cannot speak for other countries. I am aware that some sexual acts within a heterosexual relationship whilst are legal in the UK are illegal in other countries.
Yes, I am fully aware that men get raped, but I have heard and seen more cases where it is the homosexual has been victimised. I can only speak from a personal perspective. I have never heard of a group of homosexuals go out with the explicit intent of raping a heterosexual man but I have known of groups of heterosexual males go out with the sole intent of gay bashing (quite literally) for enjoyment! If we speak of rape, more women get violently raped by heterosexual males than heterosexual males get raped by homosexuals.
Child molestation, that is something entirely different. That is paedophilia, its not just boys who get molested, little girls get molested too. (By the way, I think all paedophiles found guilty should be castrated.)
It is often assumed that all paedophiles are homosexuals and this is just not the case.You will also find that if you were to talk to the gay community that they find this act equally abhorrent.
It is often said all transvestites are homosexual. That is incorrect. And whilst men are perceived very strangely, the biggest transvestites in society are women....and I admit, I'm an offender in this aspect. I dress in male's clothing (basically out of comfort, I find skirts etc limiting to physical movement and comfort....also fit) but it isn't frowned upon.
Why should one sector of society be denied civil rights within a partnership just because of their adult sexual orientation?
However, I think a person's perspective upon this issue revolves around their personal religious beliefs.
I do see what you are getting at. Just cos its legal doesn't mean to say you have to do it.
Legal or not, a person is born that way and whilst some may strive not to follow their inborne sexual preference, others can't help it because it is that strong. The biggest argument against homosexuality is that it is considered 'not natural'. Perhaps somebody could define natural. Mother Nature allows this gene into our genetic code.
I suspect (this is merely an opinion, I cannot prove it) when homosexuality was illegal in the UK and it was considered a failure for a person not to find themselves in a 'worthwhile marriage' (ie had children), those who were born homosexual could find solace in the church. It wasn't considered unnatural for the priest to be alone all of his life. Where would the homosexual who had no inclination whatsoever find a place where he would fit, without the frown of society falling upon him?
In another thread there was suggestions that there is no homosexuality in the animal kingdom, there is. In our nearest ape 'relative', as far as we know the only animal that shares mankind's capability of being able to enjoy a sexual union without a 'season', there is rampant homosexuality within the troupe....or rather bi-sexuality.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, suanni!

Originally Posted by suanni

I have never heard of a group of homosexuals go out with the explicit intent of raping a heterosexual man but I have known of groups of heterosexual males go out with the sole intent of gay bashing (quite literally) for enjoyment!

There is validity to what you say here. With both of our examples, to make our points we are looking at extremes. Not everyone engages in anti-social behavior. And participating in one anti-social behavior doesn't automatically imply participation in any other forms of anti-social behavior.

If we speak of rape, more women get violently raped by heterosexual males than heterosexual males get raped by homosexuals.

Yes, but this is off the subject. Because heterosexual males comprise a greater percentage of a given population, there are more of them capable of other anti-social behavior, such as raping women. If considering statistics, one must also consider the underlying causes and conditions. If there is a greater proportion, it is expected there will be a greater implication. That's just basic math.

Child molestation, that is something entirely different. That is paedophilia, its not just boys who get molested, little girls get molested too. (By the way, I think all paedophiles found guilty should be castrated.)

Yes, child molestation enters a different realm of anti-social behavior, my point was that when a man rapes a boy, it is anti-social on three levels: rape, underage, and same-sex. BTW, I agree about the castration bit.

It is often assumed that all paedophiles are homosexuals and this is just not the case.You will also find that if you were to talk to the gay community that they find this act equally abhorrent.

I think I see where you may have thought this was my point of view, but it is not. I agree with you in that because a person is homosexual does not make them a pedophile. However, when a pedophile preys on a child of the same sex, does that not also make them homosexual in addition to being a pedophile?

It is often said all transvestites are homosexual. That is incorrect. And whilst men are perceived very strangely, the biggest transvestites in society are women....and I admit, I'm an offender in this aspect. I dress in male's clothing (basically out of comfort, I find skirts etc limiting to physical movement and comfort....also fit) but it isn't frowned upon.

You are correct, cross dressing by itself is not implicit indication of homosexuality. Yet, one must admit, it is a favorite pastime of many homosexuals. I agree there is a social double standard applied to women as opposed to men. It is a difficult subject to address objectively, because society attaches such stigma to the subject. I view the matter using Taoist "Yin/Yang" to better clarify it to myself. I will try to explain.

With "Yin" being the female principle, and "Yang" being the male principle, Yin is receptive, Yang is generative (for lack of a better term). This is sometimes called "negative" and "positive", but I don't like to use those terms because they are misleading. There is a spiritual energy generated and amplified when the two come together. I understand this to be the basis of Tantra. In same-sex union, this spiritual energy is circumvented. Two "Yangs" do not provide the "electrical" flow that would generate or amplify the spiritual energy. Likewise with two "Yins". It is only with the union of "Yang" and "Yin" that the circuit is completed. Society generally holds a lesser "attitude" towards female homosexuality, but it is still there. The Taoist perspective, (in my understanding, and I am not deeply versed), two receptive principles cannot generate anything seriously threatening to the Tao. But two generative principles acting on each other conflict with the Tao by interrupting the flow. This is somewhat esoteric, and perhaps not a very clear description of what I wish to convey, but it is the best I can do for the moment.

I know there are many here of the opinion that the New Testament does not address female homosexuality, but it does, in the verse telling women not to wear men's clothes. This is a figure of speech from the Aramaic that means a woman should not take the role of a man in the sex act. If it were to be interpreted literally, then women should not wear skirts. After all, what did men wear at the time this was written?

Why should one sector of society be denied civil rights within a partnership just because of their adult sexual orientation?

Society apportions civil rights. That is a simple fact of culture and anthropology. It happens all of the time. Convicted felons here are not allowed to vote. By my understanding, in the UK society decided that the civilian population should not be allowed to own firearms. What I have tried to get across here, is that society should be allowed to make the decisions concerning legalization and civil rights apportioned specifically to homosexuals, as they are and should be allowed to make such decisions for all of its members. The question is whether or not homosexuals are willing to abide by the decisions of society? If things don't go the way they want, how long will they continue with the political manipulations until they do? And once they do, where then? And what are the ramifications for society in general, and families in particular? A lot of these things cannot be answered definitely until we have been there and seen what comes from it. I know there is a lot of hype suggesting how benign it would be to allow complete legal acceptance, but like nuclear energy, I am not so sure. I think there are a lot of things that are not being considered, and a lot of things that are being glossed over, all for political expediency. Like nuclear energy, I think there will be a lot of fallout and dangerous "waste" that will require some difficult manuevering to overcome, and the repercussions will be long-ranging. We can only guess what letting the genie out of the bottle will do, but once it is out, society will have to deal with it from that point on, until that society is replaced with another.

It is acceptable that the homosexual community has a political interest in promoting their point of view. The rest of society also must be considered in the equation, and I don't think the homosexual community really considers that aspect, because it is contrary to their vested political aims. In the end, society is the one that will bear the brunt of the decision, and I think that society should move in the direction it feels is in its best interests as a whole, not those of a select group. Oh boy, now I sound like Johns Mills' "utilitarianism."

However, I think a person's perspective upon this issue revolves around their personal religious beliefs.

Agreed, but it is not limited solely to that. I have my religious beliefs in the matter as well, and I have purposely left them out of this discussion except in a cursory manner. Even the Taoist principles I mentioned, while religious for many, are philosophical to me.

Legal or not, a person is born that way and whilst some may strive not to follow their inborne sexual preference, others can't help it because it is that strong.

I have tried very hard to present reasons why I believe otherwise. We will have to agree to disagree.

The biggest argument against homosexuality is that it is considered 'not natural'. Perhaps somebody could define natural. Mother Nature allows this gene into our genetic code.

By "natural" I mean what is prevalent and ordinary in a natural setting, in the wild, creatures acting as they were intended without artificial stimulus or instigation. With no human sexual connotations or innuendo or pun intended.

I suspect (this is merely an opinion, I cannot prove it) when homosexuality was illegal in the UK and it was considered a failure for a person not to find themselves in a 'worthwhile marriage' (ie had children), those who were born homosexual could find solace in the church. It wasn't considered unnatural for the priest to be alone all of his life. Where would the homosexual who had no inclination whatsoever find a place where he would fit, without the frown of society falling upon him?

This is a very good point. I think the reduction of the number of new recruits in monastic life has a number of causes, and the results definitely reflect on what you say here.

In another thread there was suggestions that there is no homosexuality in the animal kingdom, there is. In our nearest ape 'relative', as far as we know the only animal that shares mankind's capability of being able to enjoy a sexual union without a 'season', there is rampant homosexuality within the troupe....or rather bi-sexuality.

It was in this thread, I said it. Except I didn't say there were no examples, there are plenty, such as fish changing gender. But they do so because there is a drastic reduction in the population of one gender (such as overfishing), and they do so to perpetuate the species. I have heard of female seagulls becoming a "bull dyke" to fill in for a male that has disappeared or died, in order to assist in raising a nest full of chicks. Again, to continue the species. Garden snails (escargot) are morphodites, having both male and female organs. But they use one or the other at a given time. Two snails do not use their male organs on each other at the same time, ditto female.

I would really like to know the source of your "ape" example so I could look into it more fully, but my first reaction is that they are not monogamous (mate-for-life), they are "herd" or "pack" animals, the dominant male mates with as many females as he can control. My point was specifically made towards monogamous creatures, which are few in nature, swans and geese being the only two that come to mind immediately, and I have never heard of homosexual interaction with these specifically (mate-for-life/monogamous creatures) in a natural setting. THAT is what I said, expanded on here.

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

However, when a pedophile preys on a child of the same sex, does that not also make them homosexual in addition to being a pedophile?

I don't believe this is admissable as both the homosexual and heterosexual act - so far as I understand it - are defined in terms of consent.

Using same-gender paedophile behaviour as a general rebuke against homosexuality logically invites the same rebuke against heterosexuality for mixed-gender paedophile behaviour.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

This is a very good point. I think the reduction of the number of new recruits in monastic life has a number of causes, and the results definitely reflect on what you say here.

It was actually a very good point raised, Suanni, about homosexual people taking refuge in the church as a different form of outcast. Very interesting comment.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

By "natural" I mean what is prevalent and ordinary in a natural setting, in the wild, creatures acting as they were intended without artificial stimulus or instigation. With no human sexual connotations or innuendo or pun intended.

I would really like to know the source of your "ape" example so I could look into it more fully

The ape example sounds like the Bonobo, a species of chimpanzee that is pretty renown for its indulgent sexual behaviour.

As for examples of homosexuality in nature - there was actually a very good article in New Scientist a while back on the issue, covering various behaviour patterns in a number of species. Of course, it required some degree of interpretation, but interesting nonetheless.

[suanni]

I have checked that out, Brian, it is the bonobo monkey that I was referring to. If we are comparing the animal kingdom with our sexual habits it really must be taken in context, to choose an animal that has a similar 'season' or rather open season and similar intelligence (Okay, we ain't going to get this exactly). To compare with arthropods, and animals that have one breeding season a year isn't, in my mind, a good comparison.

Yes, juantoo3, society does apportion civil rights, well, not so much society as government; society deceives itself if it thinks that the populous makes the laws of the land. From what I understand in the UK steps are being taken to address a form of civil ceremony for gays in this country. As far as I'm aware in Holland (I think...somebody correct me if I'm wrong) there is a sort of contract of marriage for gays. I think Holland is one of the most forward countries there is. Much of what the US and the UK frown upon is legal there and there are less violent crimes than there in the US and the UK even with regard to percentages in population.
UK citizens can own guns but the laws regarding the ownership and usage of firearms are very different here, which is why so few have guns. There is a very strict criteria for being able to own a firearm and this criteria has to be checked every 3 years. However I do not see the relevence between firearms and civil rights for gay couples. Firearms kill, which is why there are such strict guidelines in owning a gun.
It isn't society that makes the laws. The population as a whole shouldn't flatter themselves to think this. It is our governing bodies who make the laws. Many laws that are passed a great deal disagree with. Okay, we vote the governing bodies in who in turn have promised the population all kinds if they are voted into power....I can't recall when they've ever honoured their election pledges. The only time the governing bodies tend to think of the impact that their laws and actions may have upon the population as a whole is when its coming up to election time and then they pander to the population in the hope of being re-elected into power.
Exactly what impact would allowing homosexuals have a legitimate binding civil service that gives them the same legal rights as married couples have upon society? From my point of view, none. The service is not going to hurt anybody, it isn't seeking to devalue the marriage ceremony. It may make a couple of people feel 'awkward' if they were invited to one of these services but it would be their choice to go. Its not going to create any issues that isn't already there about homosexuality as a whole. Its still going to be the same, some people will accept it, some people won't.
It is not like, say legalising incest by allowing brother and sister to marry because that would have an impact upon society. A devastating impact. The law regarding such unions have a sound biological base to them.
It is interesting that you raised that bit in the New Testament because in a way it couldn't be more relevant.
I was taught that a woman wearing men's clothes meant that a woman should be subserviant to man, that she shouldn't 'wear the trousers'. This was also used in argument against the idea of women having civil rights. For a long time women had few civil rights, nevermind the vote. A woman couldn't divorce a violent man but a man could divorce a woman who hadn't bore him any children. A man could play away as much as he wanted but still she couldn't do anything other than suffer. Rape within marriage was considered legal, even the most violent of rapes. And this thinking with regard to a woman's rights as a person was derived from that little passage in the New Testament, that woman should be subserviant to man.
I also find it interesting that of all the arguments against this the only partnership that has been highly criticised is male-male and not female-female. But this has happened throughout time. Two women can live for years in the same house, maybe even for it to be known that they share the same bed and nothing is ever said. Yet, if two men share a house for any length of time, questions are raised as to their sexuality.
I have changed many a person's perception upon the concept of transvestism, but this has basically been due to the fact that the people concerned have known little about it and when confronted with the issue, I've had the same question thrown at me, "Could you live with a man who dresses up in women's clothing" and my answer has always been the same, "Yes" This answer has always been questioned until I have revealed that I had a boyfriend who was a partial transvestite and we would swop feminine underwear cos we were of a similar size.
With regard to homosexuality, the men who seem to have the biggest hang ups about it are what women would describe as the pushy ones, the men who won't take no for an answer. When the subject of homosexuality has been raised, there is always the same argument, if the gay man comes onto them, judging the gays by their own code of sexual conduct, refusing to take no for an answer. When questionned this has never happened to them, its just the thought of being chatted up by a man who's gay who has the same standard of aggressive sexual conduct. The men I know/have known who aren't as sexually aggressive have a similar stand point to me, 'its not hurting me, that's their choice, let them get on with it'
I actually find it interesting that after homosexuality was allowed to happen without criminal prosecution that the concerns over the victims of paedophilia was brought to the public eye with the aims of addressing this abhorrent act. This is more about consent (or possibly power) rather than sexual orientation and although the public's attention is brought to the sick gangs who prey upon our children through the media, more acts of paedophilia happen within the family home and they aren't publicised. It isn't the homosexual who preys upon the young boy (or girl) of the family, it is very often the father or other male family member who does these things and very often the perpertrator is a fine upstanding (very often macho heterosexual male) family man.
Rape again has nothing to do with the sexual act, nor sexual orientation; it is an act of power; one person overpowering another, which is probably why it is known to happen regularly within prison inmates

[suanni]

I have just noticed that I missed a point or two here so will address them now.
Dressing up in women's clothing some homosexuals like to do. Again, personal perspective & experience here, I haven't known it but am aware of it. However, with regard to dressing up, don't heterosexual couples enjoy this play?
Yin and Yang, the feminine aspect is still there even within homosexuality. The circuit is still complete, it is there, but I would argue that the Yin and yang symbolism is missing with regard to lesbian relationships rather than homosexual relationships.To go into in any great depth would border upon pornographic text. However as you say this is a merely esoteric concept.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Brian!

Originally Posted by I, Brian

I don't believe this is admissable as both the homosexual and heterosexual act - so far as I understand it - are defined in terms of consent.

Fair enough, I stand corrected.

Using same-gender paedophile behaviour as a general rebuke against homosexuality logically invites the same rebuke against heterosexuality for mixed-gender paedophile behaviour.

Perhaps my earlier stanzas in the previous post didn't set my take on the matter clearly. I agree, homosexuals are not pedophiles by nature. And suanni's point about rape being (psychologically) an "expression" of power are valid, yet in my mind there is something about same sex pedophilia that transcends opposite sex pedophilia. Both are abhorrent.

It was actually a very good point raised, Suanni, about homosexual people taking refuge in the church as a different form of outcast. Very interesting comment.

Yes, and a very valid one. I cannot help but wonder if, as times change, this might be an "indication" of the pedophilia that is coming to light in the church over here among monastics. I don't wish to stray into this subject, it could become quite involved.

The ape example sounds like the Bonobo, a species of chimpanzee that is pretty renown for its indulgent sexual behaviour.

As for examples of homosexuality in nature - there was actually a very good article in New Scientist a while back on the issue, covering various behaviour patterns in a number of species. Of course, it required some degree of interpretation, but interesting nonetheless.

Thank you for the tip. I looked at a number of sites dealing with the bonobo, but I haven't had the time yet to study the material I printed with any detail yet, please be patient. I would love to look at the magazine article, and as you said, I think even the material I have looked at requires some degree of interpretation.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, suanni!

Originally Posted by suanni

If we are comparing the animal kingdom with our sexual habits it really must be taken in context, to choose an animal that has a similar 'season' or rather open season and similar intelligence (Okay, we ain't going to get this exactly). To compare with arthropods, and animals that have one breeding season a year isn't, in my mind, a good comparison.

I see where you are coming from, yet I cannot help but see things somewhat differently. Since all living creatures share genomic traits, we can conclude that there are similarities that can be drawn from disparate sources. Stated another way, (spiritually speaking) in the martial arts, (here, I believe it is the Buddhist tradition, but it may be Taoist), adepts look to the animals in nature to gain wisdom and insight into how to act, even to conduct their lives. Not just mammals, but birds, reptiles and insects. Such as monkeys, cranes, snakes and mantids. Yet another example of what I am attempting here to say is that of the Native American tradition of totem animals. Again, totem animals are looked to in nature for wisdom in conducting earthly affairs, and not just mammals but also reptiles and birds (I'm not aware of insects, but that remains a possibility). My point being, those societies that look to nature for guidance in the conduct of their affairs with wisdom for the purpose of civility do not limit themselves to mammals, and certainly not only "related" ones.

It is really a very Western view to limit one's insight to a very narrow band of nature, particularly in regard to this subject, rather than viewing nature in greater totality.

... society does apportion civil rights, well, not so much society as government; society deceives itself if it thinks that the populous makes the laws of the land.

You hit the nail on the head later in your post, in that society chooses those that govern it and make the rules to abide by. In the end, society is what makes the rules, and/or chooses to abide by them or not.

From what I understand in the UK steps are being taken to address a form of civil ceremony for gays in this country.

Great! The same is taking place in this country in places, and other places are dragging their feet. I think those that are not as receptive to the idea are equally justified in taking that position.

UK citizens can own guns but the laws regarding the ownership and usage of firearms are very different here, which is why so few have guns. However I do not see the relevence between firearms and civil rights for gay couples.

Thank you for the clarification. Perhaps the firearm example was not a good one, the point was about society/government apportioning "rights."

Many laws that are passed a great deal disagree with.

How can legislation possibly please everyone? While there are professional politicians that do pay mere lip service, there are many public servants that honestly try the best they believe in conducting themselves for the greater good of society as a whole. Even these cannot make everybody happy all of the time. Because some few disagree is no reason the many should have to bear the results of radical change against their collective will.

Exactly what impact would allowing homosexuals have a legitimate binding civil service that gives them the same legal rights as married couples have upon society? From my point of view, none. The service is not going to hurt anybody, it isn't seeking to devalue the marriage ceremony.

I am not a seer. There is the distinct possibility my concerns are unfounded. But I think the repercussions on society as a whole should be considered, deeply and well, before proceeding in a wholesale manner. Some places are receptive to the idea, fine, let them be the proving grounds.

It is interesting that you raised that bit in the New Testament because in a way it couldn't be more relevant.

Your concerns about women's rights are very valid. I realize there are many who use various passages of scripture in an effort to hold women in a subservient role. I also feel this is a gross misinterpretation of scripture, as I have pointed out elsewhere. Paul it was who said, "husbands, love your wives, even as your own flesh." This I understand to mean "equal footing." What man in his "right" mind would willingly choose to harm his helpmate and lifepartner? Yes, there are societies that have inflicted gross inequites on women, just as there are societies that have not. In many Native American tribes, women had far more equity than is commonly ascribed. I think that if one could look really closely and sincerely at the anthropology through history, in very many societies, men "ruled" outside of the home, women ruled the home. We still say, "if Momma ain't happy, ain't nobody happy."

I also find it interesting that of all the arguments against this the only partnership that has been highly criticised is male-male and not female-female.

I agree, but to imply that female homosexuality is ignored is not quite correct. I have heard many, many women express disgust at the concept of lesbianism. Men, I suspect, thinking with their little "heads," figure it's a "two for one deal," assuming of course they could somehow get in on the act. Men are more likely to carry their opinions into physical acts (like violence), and have the "power" to do so (such as towards male homosexuality, which is often viewed as a threat). Women are not nearly as likely to carry out their opinions into physical acts, they merely make snide comments and avoid interaction with those they deem socially contrary. Women, in my experience (some of them the same women I just spoke of concerning lesbianism), seem to have no problem dealing with male homosexuals, I suspect because the sexual tension between male/female is removed from their social dialogue. In other words, men (especially men of lesser intellect) tend to deal with things physically, women tend to deal with things mentally. That's just one of those things that are different between the sexes.

The men I know/have known who aren't as sexually aggressive have a similar stand point to me, 'its not hurting me, that's their choice, let them get on with it'

Granted, and these tend to be the more intellectual men who actually use their minds for something other than putting a hat on. I state again for clarity, I am not opposed to an individual, I realize it goes on around me. There is a lot of other behavior that goes on around me that I do not find wise or beneficial (especially on a social level), and I do not feel these things should be "legalized" either. Even so, I realize these are my personal opinions, and the only life I can guide by my personal opinions is my own. I can however, as a member of society, exercise my right to vote, and cast my ballot in favor of my position.

Rape again has nothing to do with the sexual act, nor sexual orientation; it is an act of power;

Agreed, as I stated earlier.

However, with regard to dressing up, don't heterosexual couples enjoy this play?

I would guess you are correct, at least for some. That "dress up" is seldom in the other gender's clothes, at least regarding men wearing women's clothes. Women I believe sometimes wear "their" men's clothes as some form of romantic reminder, much like a man might carry his lady's garter. The weird ones might collect their "conquest's" underwear, but that goes into other psychological issues.

Yin and Yang, the feminine aspect is still there even within homosexuality. The circuit is still complete, it is there, but I would argue that the Yin and yang symbolism is missing with regard to lesbian relationships rather than homosexual relationships.To go into in any great depth would border upon pornographic text. However as you say this is a merely esoteric concept.

I will have to defer to someone better versed in the principles of the Tao, but that is not my understanding. To enter the out door is not completing the circuit.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards!

I finally found a little time to go over some of the material pertaining to the bonobo.

What I found was insightful, but often politically slanted. One site was evidently a soft porn site, complete with a "bonobo gang" who advocated a sexual free-for-all. I suppose any justification will do.

The site that seemed the best academically based, yet written in fairly easy to understand language was written by a gentleman named de Waal. I believe this was probably the article referred to. While de Waal did note some of the exploits of the bonobo, I saw nothing to specifically identify sodomy as a "natural" trait among them. And while the females were noted as engaging in "rubbing", some of the instances he described as "sex" I would have difficulty seeing as such. One specific example noted a female caressing a young male's shoulder with her "private" parts. While this was described as a sexual encounter, I would be more inclined to view it as an intimate caress, from a creature with no "inhibition." Especially since this specific example noted that it was quite evidently a caress to calm an upset youngster, not an attempt to "get off."

There were other examples as well, a bit graphic I think for here, but the end result returns to my conclusion about "caress," although some of the male examples were more "agressive". This is not to say there were no exploits that were not sexual in nature, he described several, many of them female/female. Like many animals, their sexual encounters are promiscuous, free and open-handed. Of course, they also have little morality, little society, elemental language, and very rudimentary technology.

I also looked into the monogamous animals, of which I only found a few examples. In addition to the geese and swans, I found the prairie vole and couple of others that escape me at the moment. Most birds, it turns out, are basically monogamous because of the time and energy spent in raising young. It seems that, like humans, monogamy is no guaranteed insurance that the offspring the male helps raise are his. The female apparently sometimes "wanders" (which implies the males probably do as well), which is very much in line with traditional human behavior.

I suppose anybody can look to see, and pick and choose which examples best fit their specific outlook. Which returns us to morality, and social conduct, and "equity" (fairness). Do we collectively wish a society engaged in enlightened behavior, striving for the elevation of the whole? Or do we collectively wish to revert to a baser evolutionary level? Elevation requires personal control of each individual human animal, or at least the sincere attempt in that direction.

Ultimately, these questions rely on the individual's interpretations of "enlightened behavior" and "elevation." I see it one way, some see things otherwise. I can live with that, can others? Respectfully submitted, juan.

PS, I know the examples of "arthropods", seagulls and fish seemed a bit off-course for some, they have stood out in my mind all these many years because they were specifically pointed out in a couple of articles I read in the late '80's that were then advocating how homosexuality was "natural." My response was a specific rebuttal to specific points presented in favor of that political position. 'Nuf said.

[suanni]

Which returns us to morality, and social conduct, and "equity" (fairness). Do we collectively wish a society engaged in enlightened behavior, striving for the elevation of the whole?

Well said, and to me enlightened behaviour means live and let live; give equal rights to all regardless of their sexual orientation.


Kindest regards

Suanni