NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/soc/motss/48933

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-23 | 3.7 KB

Xref: sparky soc.motss:48933 soc.bi:15479
Newsgroups: soc.motss,soc.bi
Path: sparky!uunet!europa.asd.contel.com!emory!swrinde!ringer!lonestar.utsa.edu!dwells
From: [e-mail] (Darren . Wells)
Subject: Re: Oprah 11/19
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Nntp-Posting-Host: lonestar.utsa.edu
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 18:58:45 GMT
Lines: 65

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Walter Smith) writes:
>1) I believe that whether a person is gay or straight depends on genetics.
>Therefore, when a person is born, it has already been determined...being
>gay is not "learned behavior that one can change" as the religious fanatics
>would have us believe.  Is this belief correct?

That has yet to be demostrated effectively either way, but research in that
area shows that there is probably a genetic component, at least a genetic
predisposition.  The study I read about was looking at the brains of people
who had died of AIDS, both het and homo, and there was a significant size
difference in the part of the brain that controls motivation.  It's not
enough to say there is a correlation (yet) but it does support the theory
of a genetic component.

It does irk me though that some hets will/do look at this kind of thing
and say to themselves,"Oh, it's all genetic?  They can't help it?  Oh,
well, it's okay then."  Almost as if research were to find a gene that
causes people to be homicidal maniacs, then people would say, "Oh yes,
John kills people at random.  But he can't help it, it's in his genes."
I don't understand why it can't be okay (being lesbigay) regardless of
whether or not there is a genetic link, or why being lesbigay has to be
connected to a lot of sinister crap.

>  2) During the Oprah episode,
>several "straight" individuals accused a couple of lesbians on the show of
>really wanting to be men since they chose to dress or "act" like most people
>think men should behave.  My question then is:  Like a heterosexual relation-
>ship, do homosexual relationships generally have male and female roles...the
>more dominant individual portraying a male role?

I don't find that to be the case pesonally in my MOTSS relationships,
although it could be in some others.

>Before I get crucified,

Interesting choice of words here.   ;)

>  In fact, Jesus said we
>should love everyone and professed Christians should learn from Jesus'
>example that it is wrong to hate...we are all brothers (and sisters).  I
>continue to defend anyone who is looked down upon for being different than
>society dictates.

I hope I am not starting a religious thread here that might be more
appropriate on another newsgroup, but when I look at how Jesus dealt
with people, it was never the kind of hate campaign bullshit that certain
politicians (among others) seem to favor.  He worked with love.  He
also repeatedly attacked the Pharisees for being a smug, exclusive,
shallow, judgemental lot.  Does this description remind anyone of another
group of people?

>I know that being gay is far more than a sexual preference....heterosexuals
>will say the same thing.  It is who they are; it is their life.  I really
>don't have any gay friends (or maybe I do, but just aren't aware).

Very likely, on the last point.  And I see my sexuality as only a part
of who I am, one aspect.  I don't have a "bisexual lifestyle" per se,
but being bisexual is one element of my lifestyle.

It makes me happy to see (apparently) het people show an honest interest
in trying to understand different points of view.  Thanks for asking.

Have a big *hug* too.

Darren