Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
ExChristian.Net Open Forums > Rants & Replies > Homosexuality
Posted by: BillJ Dec 18 2003, 05:34 PM
The Bible stops one from thinking, it tells you straight up that God doesn't condone homosexuality. No thinking can be done, when your already at the conclusion, this is why it is impossible to be a freethinking christian, because once you have questioned the Bible, your not christian for the moment you doubted what the bible said. Anyone with a logical mind would think hmm, why are teenage boys attracted to other boys? hmm why do teenage girls like other girls?
Is it because they want to get beat up everyday, rejected by their families, or are they just trying to piss off Jesus. No it is because they are truly attracted to the same sex in the same sense a straight male is attracted to a female. Homosexuals are proud to be themselves, just like I am proud to be heterosexual because I desire women, and I feel good about it. No one wakes up one day and decides they're going to be gay because its the new hip thing, they make that decision based on human instincts.
A gay man doesn't have the same type of brain as the alpha male, because if he did he wouldn't be able to be aroused by another male, and he would feel guilty about thoughts of the same sex. Some people don't like chocolate some people do, it has nothing to do with your gender. Same goes for homosexuality, it all has to do with the brain.
There are many arguments against homosexuality, I will start off with this one, the classic "Homosexuality isn't natural, and is, therefore, wrong" argument. Humans aren't the only creatures to engage in homosexual behavior, homosexuality is found in nature, when I say nature I'm talking about everything on planet earth, because we are a part of nature, just because man can modify his environment doesn't mean he isn't a part of it.
Now lets examine Biblical Fundamentalists moral standards. Religious nuts are the people that tell teenagers not to have sex before marriage. Do we see animals undergoing marriage rituals? No, therefore marriage rituals are unnatural and wrong. The fundamentalist may retort by saying that man is "above the animals," so we have to make up such rituals. Does this seem like a double-standard to anyone else?
There is a flaw in the argument "if it is against natures laws, than it is immoral" Many times in nature, the male has sex with a female of his choosing, and the female puts up no resistance. Thus, it is wrong for a woman to resist when a man wants to have sex with her, and the man is right to force himself on her, because what he's doing is only natural.
Talk about a huge flaw!!!
My conclusion: The morality of an action is dependent upon its implications on the rights of others. If what you do violates someone else's rights, it's morally wrong. Homosexuality is neither morally right nor wrong. It is simply an amoral act. It has no positive moral implications or negative moral implications. It is simply an act between two consensual partners of the same sex.
Posted by: I Broke Free Dec 18 2003, 07:12 PM
QUOTE (BillJ @ Dec 18 2003, 08:34 PM)
A gay man doesn't have the same type of brain as the alpha male, because if he did he wouldn't be able to be aroused by another male, and he would feel guilty about thoughts of the same sex. Some people don't like chocolate some people do, it has nothing to do with your gender. Same goes for homosexuality, it all has to do with the brain.
There are many arguments against homosexuality, I will start off with this one, the classic "Homosexuality isn't natural, and is, therefore, wrong" argument. Humans aren't the only creatures to engage in homosexual behavior, homosexuality is found in nature, when I say nature I'm talking about everything on planet earth, because we are a part of nature, just because man can modify his environment doesn't mean he isn't a part of it.
Your Alpha Male Theory rings true with me. It may explain why most gay men just don't get the "competitive sports" thing. I just cannot comprehend why men would WANT to play football. (You could get hurt!) A nice friendly game of croquet where everybody cheats is a lot more entertaining.
I am also glad you brought up the issue of xtians using nature to justify anything. They get all worked up by evolution placing humans as just another mammal, then have the audacity to point to nature to prove a biblical point. Will they ever see their own hypocrisy?
Posted by: Dhampir Dec 18 2003, 09:11 PM
First, these days, girls like girls a lot of the time, 'cause boys like girls who like girls. Secondly, of course it's not unnatural, especially because of natures tendency to spit out a few gay animals. There was this naturalist on this site a few months ago, that was not religious, but was against homosex because he felt that it was against the workings of life, etc.
I feel, as I've said before, that a freer society would exhibit a greater degree of sexual ambiguity, in fact, the highly advanced pagan societies were very much so. I think it was the Spartans (or some other antique military) that originated the concepts espoused with sickening exaggeration by NAMBLA, wherein an older veteran and a young recruit would be paired up in a relationship that often included sex. When and if the young man got married, the older companion would sometimes sleep with the couple on the wedding night to ease his adjustment into heterosexual relations.
There are times when I as a purely heterosexual man, completely secure in said preference, find myself attracted for a time to a male face (not the body, man bodies are hideous to me, though I like muscular women). I think, after getting over my religious programming that that is totally natural, when you're formed in the womb, you are 100 percent androgynous for about the first trimester. Because of that, homosexuality, wherein one is exclusively attracted to one's own sex is merely a defect, NOT wrong, brought on by nature's (there's that N word again) imperfect way of creating a foil, if you will for the female body that is capable of impregnating a female. Now, no one should be offended by that, 'cause no one alive is without some defect or another.
Someone said that religion will always exist because it evolves. I think evolution will be the downfall of the church. Soon they will be accepting gays, I mean really accepting gays, not just loving the sinner and hating the sin, as they hypocritically put it, then, after doing away with that major distinguishing feature of their faith, they will be more and more mainstream "worldly". Prohibitions make most religions, and I predict, sooner or later, religion, and the xtian chruch (I didn't misspell) especially will be so accepting, that there will be almost nothing distinguishing religion from non religion.
Ya think?
Posted by: Matthew Dec 18 2003, 11:07 PM
QUOTE
No one wakes up one day and decides they're going to be gay because its the new hip thing, they make that decision based on human instincts.
Actually..I am not too sure of that. I know of some girls who were straight but got sick of men and decided to be lesbians because they got to the point where they just hated men. They got sick of men playing games with them..cheating on them..or some other kind of complaint like that. I don't think that there is one underlying cause for homosexuality. I think it can be biological in origin or it can be psychological.
Perhaps in IBF's case, Tex's case or Shadfox's ..it's biological. Who knows? If someone has never been attracted to the opposite sex and has always had a preference for the same sex because it's biological in origin, I can understand that. If being attracted to the same sex floats your boat because of your biology-go for it! But it disturbs me when someone who was straight decides to turn gay or lesbian because of a disgust for the opposite sex such as a man-hating lesbian. I don't think that they need a romance with the same sex so much as they need to grow up. Not to sound mean-spirited but just because there are some bad apples in the barrel doesn't mean that the whole fruit is rotten.
It's actually interesting. I have absolutely no problem with a man who is gay..but it always disturbs me when a girl is a lesbian because I can't help but wonder if she was originally straight but just encountered one too many jerks in her life and decide that a same sex romance was what she wanted. This happened to a girl named Shawna who is the sister of my brother's best buddy Brian. She was heterosexual for a number of years before she became a lesbian because she encountered one too many jerks and thought there were no nice men left. That Shawna did this disturbs me somewhat. I also read this in a Dear Abbey/Ann Landers where a similar woman decided that she was disgusted with men and wanted to date women. I wanted to beat the living hell out of every man who was less than civil with her.
So..I guess I am in support of "natural gays" ( gays/lesbians born with a genetic/biological basis for it who just can't be attracted to the same sex) as opposed to misogynistic gays or man-hating lesbians who loathe the opposite sex.
Matthew
Posted by: Emperor Norton II Dec 18 2003, 11:53 PM
QUOTE
Not to sound mean-spirited but just because there are some bad apples in the barrel doesn't mean that the whole fruit is rotten.
Where are these ladies going to find men, that all they get are bad apples? I consider myself a decent person, but I've been single the last two years. I have never cheated in a relationship- hell, the only one I've had, I treated her like a princess. It almost seems like women TRY to date assholes.
Posted by: BillJ Dec 19 2003, 12:08 AM
I will agree with you mathew, homosexuality can be psychological. But I was right in saying that someone doesn't do it because the majority is doing it, that is in fact quite the opposite. They do it because it feels right, someone of the same sex made them feel good.
QUOTE
but it always disturbs me when a girl is a lesbian because I can't help but wonder if she was originally straight but just encountered one too many jerks in her life and decide that a same sex romance was what she wanted. This happened to a girl named Shawna who is the sister of my brother's best buddy Brian.
I don't think Shawna likes women because of bad experiences, I think she always would of had the potential to like a female. Shawna isn't very intelligent if she hates all men because of a few assholes giving her a bad experience. That is no different from me hating all asians because an asian guy stole my car. I might as well hate all christians because a fundie told me to go to hell. Ah well, who cares about ugly man hating lesbians. I have met attractive lesbians, but they weren't man haters. Than I see all the feminist man hating lesbians who look like shit.
I have no respect for people who are discriminatory to a group of individuals with a relation, based on few bad experiences.
Posted by: Matthew Dec 19 2003, 12:33 AM
QUOTE
will agree with you mathew, homosexuality can be psychological. But I was right in saying that someone doesn't do it because the majority is doing it, that is in fact quite the opposite. They do it because it feels right, someone of the same sex made them feel good
If some cases are psychological in origin, should they be required to be treated? I mean if someone is schizophrenic and there is medication or therapy to treat it..I am wondering if they should get it? But as for the natural gays and lesbians whose attraction is biological or genetic in origin..I would support them. As for Shawna..I can't say that I know enough of her history to conclude that she was a natural or "converted" lesbian. I do believe that the distinction exists. I do think that if someone is a "converted" homosexual..they might want to seek therapy. I can understand if someone is a natural homosexual and seriously tries the heterosexual lifestyle and concludes that it's not in their nature. That may have happened to Shawna.
As for "converted" gays/lesbians..is it possible that some of them became straight after they met the right person? Actress Anne Hesche (former lover of Ellen DeGeneres) turned straight and married a guy. Or perhaps she is really bisexual. I don't know. I think that perhaps some "converted" homosexuals might actually turn straight.
Now for something funny: I think that there have been some natural gays who have decieved themselves into turning straight like John Paulk. He was a gay man and drag queen who claimed to have converted heterosexual and became a Christian. He married a girl who claimed to be a former lesbian and they have two kids. For a while he was the poster boy for Focus on the Family and Exodus International. That was until some time back..Paulk was caught at a gay bar. He claims to have been using the restroom but was there for a total of 40 minutes. It's said that when someone there asked him if he was gay..he answered affirmatively. Even though Paulk humiliated the Christian community and damaged the credibility of Exodus..James Dobson is sincerely convinced that Paulk is absolutely straight.
Matthew
Posted by: Matthew Dec 19 2003, 12:38 AM
QUOTE
It almost seems like women TRY to date assholes.
I have noticed this as well. I hear the stupidest rationales behind this. Well yeah..the assholes mistreat them and lie to them and try to take advantage or even seduce them but the girls continue to like them because they're "exciting". They don't care for the nicer guys because they're "boring". It's not true of all women..but it's true of some of them.
Matthew
Posted by: BillJ Dec 19 2003, 01:46 AM
I won't respond to anything else you said mathew, it basically reflects my thoughts.
I have one thing to say, I think someone who starts off straight and turns gay is really bisexual.
Posted by: sexkitten Dec 19 2003, 06:42 AM
QUOTE (BillJ @ Dec 19 2003, 01:46 AM)
I won't respond to anything else you said mathew, it basically reflects my thoughts.
I have one thing to say, I think someone who starts off straight and turns gay is really bisexual.
I agree. Many bisexuals will identify as straight because its a whole lot easier socially in this society. I know some of the gay men here have said that they tried to be attracted to and have relationships with women so they could be "normal." Its not too much of a leap to think that a woman who is attracted to both genders would limit herself to men in order to fit the norm. But if her relationships with men tend to be unhappy, perhaps after a while she'll decide that it's *not* easier to play it straight after all.
Posted by: AggieNostic Dec 19 2003, 08:17 AM
If unnatural means immoral, organ transplant recipients have to be some of the most evil people around.
Posted by: AggieNostic Dec 19 2003, 08:21 AM
QUOTE (Dhampir @ Dec 19 2003, 12:11 AM)
...of course it's not unnatural, especially because of natures tendency to spit out a few gay animals.
Biological Exuberance : Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity By Bruce Bagemihl
http://enotalone.com/books/0312192398.html
The author very carefully examines the marginalizing that has occurred in this exceedingly common set of same-sex behaviors and sets things right...I wish every fundamentalist would read this book and wrap their minds around the phenomenon of widespread bisexual and homosexual behaviors of many diff. types in the "lower" animals.
Posted by: AggieNostic Dec 19 2003, 08:23 AM
QUOTE (BillJ @ Dec 19 2003, 03:08 AM)
I will agree with you mathew, homosexuality can be psychological. But I was right in saying that someone doesn't do it because the majority is doing it, that is in fact quite the opposite. They do it because it feels right, someone of the same sex made them feel good.
Considering the bulls**t homosexuals have to deal with (especially those still in school, getting beat up, etc.), I think someone "deciding" to be gay would have to be insane ... or masochistic.
Posted by: AggieNostic Dec 19 2003, 08:28 AM
QUOTE
It almost seems like women TRY to date assholes.
I used to work for a guy who believed women (at their basest -- i.e. wired by evolution) were attracted to power -- whether it be physical strength power ... or money power. The more I live, the more convinced I am that his view is correct. Show me a woman who falls for a muscle-challenged, sensitive, modern guy ... and I'll show you ten women who fall for the brute.
Posted by: Cain Dec 19 2003, 08:33 AM
Women date assholes?!?!?! Oh, come on.
http://www.laddertheory.com/
Posted by: sexkitten Dec 19 2003, 08:34 AM
QUOTE
gay animals
Another board that I frequent had a discussion on household pets exhibiting homosexual behavior. It wasn't a serious discussion on the whys, just a "pet owners sharing silly pet stories" thread. But it just goes to show that its not that uncommon.
I had to toss out the "no gay animals" line years ago when I started bird watching as a teen. One week observing male mallards during mating season will cure anyone of that silly notion...
Posted by: sexkitten Dec 19 2003, 09:05 AM
QUOTE
If some cases are psychological in origin, should they be required to be treated?
Required? No way. First of all, even if we take as a given that homosexuality can be caused by a variety of factors, there is at this time no way to know for certain which factor(s) caused an individual person to be gay. Identifying patients properly will be an issue, and it is likely that treatable patients will be identified based on the doctor's attitudes towards homosexuals rather than an objective diagnosis. Requiring treatment for people who are gay for one reason is opening the door to requiring treatment to all gays.
Secondly, can you be forced into treatment for any other psychological condition without having done something to endanger someone's life (your own included)? I don't think that you can be forced - and I'm pretty sure I don't want anyone to have that kind of authority.
As to whether someone should get therapy, I think that depends on whether or not they are okay with their sexuality and how it affects their lives. Just a guess, but I think a "converted" gay who was truly straight will be as unhappy or more so in homosexual relationships as they were in hetero ones, and would eventually need to seek therapy to make any relationship at all work and find out what they hell they want out of one.
QUOTE
Now for something funny: I think that there have been some natural gays who have decieved themselves into turning straight like John Paulk.
That sounds a little more like he went back into the closet because of his religion and is trying to deceive everyone. That's very sad, both for him and his wife, that they feel they have to do this in this day and age, and after having been openly homosexual in the past.
Posted by: TexasFreethinker Dec 19 2003, 11:43 AM
I think one of the biggest problems is the attempt to attach one simple sexual label to a person.
It's been my experience and observation that there are several continuums related to sexuality, and each individual can be anywhere on these scales (and can change positions as time progresses as well).
Sorry to powerpoint you all, but I put together a graphic showing a few of the different aspects of sexuality that I'm aware of - I'm sure there are many more that come into play.
The bottom line is that human sexuality is EXTREMELY complex.
Although it's convenient to attach a label to someone, in the case of sexuality labels are misleading and meaningless. For example (using the characteristics from the chart), what should you call someone who:
Has female body characteristics, is very masculine acting, identifies as male gender, and is attracted to the same sex (female), but sleeps only with males.
On the surface, such a person would appear to be "straight" since she has female body parts and sleeps with people who have male body parts. But, there is so much more going on under the surface that is ignored by a simple label.
Posted by: Doug2 Dec 19 2003, 12:35 PM
I have to agree with Tex on this one. (Actually I seem to agree with him on a lot of things. Still waiting for him to run for pres)
Does masterbating make you sexually attracted to hands or gay since you had sex with a body part of someone of the same gender?
Posted by: TexasFreethinker Dec 19 2003, 12:49 PM
QUOTE (Doug2 @ Dec 19 2003, 03:35 PM)
I have to agree with Tex on this one. (Actually I seem to agree with him on a lot of things. Still waiting for him to run for pres)
That'll be the day - Gay Atheist for President!!!
Talk about two labels that would attract some negative attention.
Posted by: Lanakila Dec 19 2003, 01:24 PM
I agree that sexuality is alot more complicated than many folks like to think. Most everyone has some desire for their same sex. That some desire is just stronger in some people than others. But most repress it. But orientation can also be repressed, and is by religious folks all the time. Because its against their religion to be gay or even have those thoughts they repress and bury those thoughts, and desires. Some of the most homophobic people are actually repressing IMO, and lash out against their own desires by attacking those that are living out the desires. I have found that those that hang out in the sexuality forums in a Christian area just to attack homosexuals or bisexuals, are most likely repressing their own homosexual or bisexual natures.
Not everyone who claims to be hetersexual and later changes does so out of anger for the opposite sex. That is a sterotype, that can easily be dashed with just one person who actually repressed their homosexual desires for either religious, social, or another reason. I am sure that those women who decide to be lesbian out of anger at men, are most likely bi, instead of lesbian, and just choose that type life for now. From my reading the least understood of all is the bisexual. They really aren't confused, most of the time. A Bisexuals may be 50-50 on either sex attraction or 70-30 either way too. They may choose their own gender for awhile and change back, or migrate towards polyamorous (multi-partner) relationships.
Posted by: Doug2 Dec 19 2003, 01:25 PM
QUOTE
Gay Atheist for President!!!
One step at a time. First we need to get an unmarried unitarian president.
Simpsons quote 1:
QUOTE
Bart: When I'm feeling low, you know what cheers me up?
Rod: Kindness?
Bart: Oooh, tough room. Video games! Whaddyagot?
(He reaches to the bookshelf and picks up a copy of "Billy Graham's Blasters," and they begin to play.)
Rod: Keep firing! Convert the heathens!
(A series of "heathens" crosses the video screen as a "Bible gun" fires Bibles at them. When a "heathen" is hit, he turns into a conservatively dressed man with a halo.)
Bart: Got him!
Rod: No, you just winged him and made him a Unitarian.
Todd: Look out, Bart! A gentle Baha'i!
(Bart zaps the Baha'i, turning him into another suit with a halo).
Bart: All right! Full conversion!
Quote 2: At a gay republican meeting
Bumper sticker reads: A gay president in 2065. We're realistic.
Posted by: Doug2 Dec 19 2003, 01:34 PM
QUOTE
Most everyone has some desire for their same sex.
I think most everyone has a desire for sex, and different people express that desire in different ways. If that expression is between consenting people, in a mutually enjoyable and balanced relationship, then what gives anyone else the right to say it is not proper?
Posted by: TexasFreethinker Dec 19 2003, 01:36 PM
QUOTE (Doug2 @ Dec 19 2003, 04:25 PM)
Bumper sticker reads: A gay president in 2065. We're realistic.
Big Gay Al "I invented interior design" Gore in 2065!
He can run with one of the gay relatives of Republican leaders such as Dick Cheney, Ronald Reagan or Newt Gingrich.
Posted by: I Broke Free Dec 19 2003, 01:51 PM
QUOTE (AggieNostic @ Dec 19 2003, 11:28 AM)
Show me a woman who falls for a muscle-challenged, sensitive, modern guy ... and I'll show you ten women who fall for the brute.
Interesting comment...
Most gay men I know also look for the same qualities in men as you mentioned. (over six feet tall) It made it easier for me, as I have always been attracted to small men. My partner is about 5'5" and 130lbs soaking wet. We met over the internet and I was not specific about height and weight, I just lucked out that he was exactly what I was looking for.
I had this strange idea that small men would be easier to control (what a fallacy that turned out to be!) (Just kidding)
I have also met many gay men who fall into the same trap as straight women; looking for someone who will take care of them. Which usually ends up in the same type of abusive relationship straight women find themselves in. I was shocked when I read years ago and learned of the domestic violence that goes on in some gay/lesbian relationships. I had never thought about it before. I could conceive why a straight women with children might put up with violence considering the alternative, but a single man? I would beat the crap out of ANYONE who tried that on me.
Posted by: I Broke Free Dec 19 2003, 02:36 PM
I am currently reading a book titled “Anything But Straight” by Wayne Besen. It is about unmasking the scandals and lies behind the ex-gay myth. So far I have not learned much that I did not already suspect regarding these xtian based ‘conversion’ programs.
I first accepted I was gay when I was 19 back in 1979. Unlike today where gay kids can at least gets a glimpse of gay people leading happy productive lives, there were no such role models back then. I went to a xtian therapist for two miserable sessions where we attempted to find the “cause” of my homosexuality. Xtians just cannot accept the fact people are born gay, so they must find the cause. Much to the dismay of most xtian parents of gay children, the blame is place squarely at their feet. The guilt dumped on these poor parents is terrible. My therapist was annoyed with me because my relationship with both my parents was very good. He was very anxious to find something, anything to pin my homosexuality on. My relationship with my father was far better than most. From the day I was born until he died last year, my father and I were VERY close. We could and did talk about everything. He loved and accepted me for who I was and was truly happy for me when I met my partner. They both got along great.
The book I am reading goes into this also. Take for instance that claim that most gay men have poor and distant relationships with their father’s. Firstly, these therapists never consider cause and affect. Are gay men gay because of a distant relationship with their father? Or do fathers of obviously gay sons distance themselves from their own child? I think many fathers are uncomfortable when they begin to notice that Timmy is just a little different from the rest of the boys on the block. My partner has to deal with this from his own father. My partner was born into a working class family and excelled at school. He was awarded a partial scholarship to Stanford University. He graduated with honors and has a great job; we own our home and have a slice of the American dream. But to his father, it means nothing! To him my partner is nothing but an embarrassment.
Another interesting chapter of the book deals with how gay men will seek treatment to change their sexual orientation because the “gay lifestyle” is nothing but a series of
anonymous sexual encounters, sex, drugs, and failed relationships. Again, the therapist is not focusing on the problem. The problem is not that they are gay, but that they are making poor life choices. If the patient had been straight would they have blamed their patient’s sexual orientation?
I think the saddest lie they tell their patients is that change is even possible. It appears that all the success stories (100 to 200 men) are currently running ex-gay programs of their own. They are very lucrative enterprises. When you press these people for a list a success stories you will find that they quickly tell you that “change” to them does not mean a conversion to heterosexuality, but a “change” in behavior. Apparently success to them is list of lonely men who hate what they are, hate what they desire, and have resigned themselves to life of loneliness.
Posted by: sexkitten Dec 19 2003, 03:07 PM
IBrokefree -
That sounds like an interesting book. I'll have to check it out.
Posted by: bob Dec 19 2003, 03:26 PM
QUOTE (I BROKE FREE @ Dec 19 2003, 02:36 PM)
Xtians just cannot accept the fact people are born gay,
IBF,
If you have the time, could you elaborate on that a little, or maybe direct me to some links that might address this idea. As an xtian, I was repulsed at the idea of a man being with another man in a sexual way. (Of course, the idea of lesbianism didn't bother me one bit, but don't tell any of my former brethren.) As an atheist, it has absolutely no effect on me. But I still have the idea in my head that it is largely a result of environment (parents, friends, the media). Of course, I don't consider it a sin (my definition for sin is 'a good time'). I don't consider it unhealthy or abnormal, yet I don't consider it normal (open mouth-insert size 10). Just being honest. I am un informed and would like to be able to have a reply ready for the next xtian who informs me that "homersexialaty" is a sinful choice.
Posted by: MalaInSe Dec 19 2003, 04:13 PM
QUOTE (I BROKE FREE @ Dec 19 2003, 01:51 PM)
Show me a I have also met many gay men who fall into the same trap as straight women; looking for someone who will take care of them. Which usually ends up in the same type of abusive relationship straight women find themselves in. I was shocked when I read years ago and learned of the domestic violence that goes on in some gay/lesbian relationships. I had never thought about it before. I could conceive why a straight women with children might put up with violence considering the alternative, but a single man? I would beat the crap out of ANYONE who tried that on me.
I hate to tell you this, IBF, but in my experience its worse in the gay community than in the straight. This is based on a lot of factors but some that come to mind are:
1. A lack of comfort with the person's own sexuality that makes them lash out at the person that represents that "deviant" or "immoral" sexuality.
2. A lack of services directed toward DV in the gay community (just due to a lack of funding or simple population numbers).
3. A fear to report DV because it requires coming out.
4. A fear to report DV because it reinforces negative stereotypes about the gay community.
5. A failure by existing services to treat DV in the gay community seriously because (a) boys will be boys or (
how much injury can two girls cause (I'm using the diminutives for effect).6. Prejudice by police officers in enforcement of DV Restraining Orders. I personally encountered this one. Quote from the officer: "You're a guy. Why don't you just get your friends together and jump him."
There are other factors that come into play. I've been told that the numbers of gay and straight are comparable, but I just don't believe that, based on my experiences.
DV is one of my specialty areas.
Renee
Posted by: toecutter Dec 19 2003, 04:31 PM
you know, i'd still identify myself christian, despite my questions and doubts, but the issue of homosexuality is really sore for me. I don't know why christians place this sin on a different level than others. it's really infuriating to me that an overweight pastor with possible maritial infidelities would have the gall to act superiour to a moral, kind, caring gay man. Honestly, it's one of the big things that got me thinking about the group i've been involved with. I simply cannot stand the church's view on homosexuality. Even if it is a sin, as the bible states, then that is all it is. Lying to your mom, stealing a candy bar... sin. all these are the same in the eyes of the lord. so they say. why then on the same breath do the crucify the homosexuals? why do they feel that their own heterosexual lust is somehow superior? if it is a sin, it is a sin. end of discussion. it makes me sick. my mom and dad are huge right-wingers, and my dad and I have been talking a whole lot about this subject, because i feel like not only is his opinion on homosexuals offensive, but unbiblical.
agh.
anyways, i think that everyone is born slightly bisexual. a hot body is a hot body. an attractive face is an attractive face.
i dont know anything.
Posted by: michelle Dec 19 2003, 04:37 PM
What I got from this is that being gay is not a BEHAVIOR.
And that you are born gay. I beleive it, when was the last time you looked at your heterosexuality as a BEHAVIOR?
And once again somebody is making money off trying to CHANGE you. Everywhere you go, its about change. There is something wrong with you & you have to change! All this social bullshit that tells people theyre not okay. And the idea that its because of your parents that you are gay is stupid.
Its very STUPID indeed. Just like Christianity, stupid, stupid, stupid! And why is it that so many people I meet who are gay are so damn happy? For the same reason some heterosexuals are, theyre not hiding, theyre happy because theyre FREE. My new philosophy should be: "Dont hide yourself, Express Yourself! Being an atheist, there is nobody to HIDE from.
Posted by: likeafish Dec 19 2003, 04:56 PM
You know a little, Toe.
Many theologians and exegetes have made a good case for the FACT that homosexuality as we know it today does not actually exist in the bible. That is to say, the sorts of relationships referenced in the bible are so far removed from the way that relationships are structured today that the passages used to condemn homosexuality simply do not apply.
This goes to heterosexual relationships as well. The truth is, the are NO adult relationships that are between people of equal social status. Romans 1 for instance, refers to the cultural practices of the Greeks and how they treated their slaves. Sexual acts were acts of dominance--essentually political you might say, a way to show who was who. They were not about consenual realtionships of love. This was true for heterosexual marrage as well, no matter what the culture. Is it any wonder that women are accorded along with cattle and other possessions on the 10 commandments?
That is not to say that people didn'tlove each other back then, but the structure of social ralationships was nothing liek what we imagine when we talk about gay and lesbian relationships today. Today, we are talking about relationships between free people. Then was day of arranged marriage, clannish behaviors of all sorts, and master/slave and even teacher/student relations that were sometimes concretized through the act of sex.
The bible just doesn't apply here. Honest research bears this out.
Steve
Posted by: JezebelLeFey Dec 19 2003, 05:55 PM
QUOTE (toecutter @ Dec 19 2003, 04:31 PM)
anyways, i think that everyone is born slightly bisexual. a hot body is a hot body. an attractive face is an attractive face.
I totally agree! There are quite a few celebrity women that I find just unbelievably beautiful in both face and body. Especially as an artist, I appreciate beauty for beauty's sake. Though I wouldn't proposition them for sex, I would ask for hair, makeup and style tips.
Posted by: chefranden Dec 19 2003, 06:02 PM
I don't know much about the feelings of being homosexual. Nevertheless, if an evil doctor came and gave me a sex change tonight, I would wake up a lesbian in the morning.
Posted by: michelle Dec 19 2003, 07:17 PM
that last post by chef has me laughing near the floor again.
This place is funnier than George Carlin. Maybe Chef should be a writer for the Simpsons lol Imagine this from an ex preacher. Every time I come here I laugh.
Steve brought new info for me. Most people are probably free today but some still live like that. The bible cannot be a good thing. Not for me anyway. Its good to be free out here.
Posted by: Dhampir Dec 19 2003, 08:22 PM
QUOTE (chefranden @ Dec 19 2003, 09:02 PM)
I don't know much about the feelings of being homosexual. Nevertheless, if an evil doctor came and gave me a sex change tonight, I would wake up a lesbian in the morning.
here, here!
Posted by: sexkitten Dec 19 2003, 08:45 PM
QUOTE (chefranden @ Dec 19 2003, 06:02 PM)
I don't know much about the feelings of being homosexual. Nevertheless, if an evil doctor came and gave me a sex change tonight, I would wake up a lesbian in the morning.
That's the good thing about being bi... if an evil doctor gives you a sex change in the middle of the night, your orientation stays the same!
Posted by: sexkitten Dec 19 2003, 09:10 PM
QUOTE
Many theologians and exegetes have made a good case for the FACT that homosexuality as we know it today does not actually exist in the bible. That is to say, the sorts of relationships referenced in the bible are so far removed from the way that relationships are structured today that the passages used to condemn homosexuality simply do not apply.
I'd like to add to and clarify Steve's post for toe. Current Biblical scholarship suggests that the Greek words translated "homosexual" in most English Bibles refer to a few very specific practices: pederasty (power/sex relationship between an adult teacher and a boy/young teen), male temple prostitution, and heterosexuals engaging with homosexual acts against their own nature.
Most of which do not apply to the vast majority of normal adult homosexuals in the Western world.
There are a few websites that are linked to at religioustolerance.org that might be of interest. I know I've read other very detailed discussions on this matter, I'll have to look for them, though.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibl1.htm
Posted by: pitchu Dec 19 2003, 10:05 PM
TF,
Again our thinking meshes; we are hand in oven mitt.
Not too long ago, on another thread, I posted the thought that sexual orientation is on a continuum, with lots of movement for any individual, based on age and circumstance.
I also think that if most of us stayed, in terms of sexual orientation, where we were at ages 11 through, say, 16, without the religious and social pressures, we'd all see much more sexual variety in ourselves and others as adults. At those early ages, so darn much looks good and feels good to our "untrained" senses that, with no adult around to say, "Go for it" and nearly every influence telling us that humans are either A or B, it's no wonder adolescents are confused and, tragically, even suicidal about their sexuality.
Would that we could all be more widely embracing.
Posted by: Doug2 Dec 20 2003, 12:42 AM
QUOTE (sexkitten @ Dec 19 2003, 09:10 PM)
Current Biblical scholarship suggests that the Greek words translated "homosexual" in most English Bibles refer to a few very specific practices
Oh, so that is how christianity is going to allow homosexuality once the rest of the world accepts it and calls them on their hate crimes. We all knew they would have to some day.
Posted by: Lokmer Dec 20 2003, 03:08 AM
To be fair, the church did recognize such relationships as being expected and an equivalent to marraige before the 13th century. The dominance of the "hate queers" faction is long established, but it was not always the dominant one.
Refs: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0679751645/qid=1071918284//ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i0_xgl14/104-3436538-5896753?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0226067114/ref=pd_bxgy_text_1/104-3436538-5896753?v=glance&s=books&st=*
I agree, though, that like with most other theological/moral issues, the church is trailing the times once again and syncretizing rather than innovating. Not something you would expect from a body indwelt by the spirit of God and informed by it.
-Lokmer
Posted by: TexasFreethinker Dec 20 2003, 05:30 AM
QUOTE (bob @ Dec 19 2003, 06:26 PM)
But I still have the idea in my head that it is largely a result of environment (parents, friends, the media). Of course, I don't consider it a sin (my definition for sin is 'a good time'). I don't consider it unhealthy or abnormal, yet I don't consider it normal (open mouth-insert size 10).
Bob,
I appreciate your honesty - a lot of non-fundie folks think the same as you do.
If you get a chance, I'd recommend reading Biological Exuberance by Bruce Bagemihl. It's a great book on homosexuality across the entire animal kingdom. Here's a quote that pertains to your comments...
QUOTE
The only claim about naturalness that is actually consistent with the facts is the following: homosexual behavior is as natural as heterosexual behavior. What this means is that homosexuality is found in virtually all animal groups, in virtually all georgraphic areas and time periods, and in a wide variety of forms - as are heterosexuality, divorce, monogamy, and infanticide, among other things.
Conversely, heterosexuality is as "unnatural" as homosexuality is, since it often exhibits social elaboration or cultural "embellishment," as well as many of the "unacceptable" features stereotypically associated with same-sex relations, such as promiscuity, nonreproduction, pursuit of sexual pleasure, and interactions marked by instability, ineptitude, and even hostility.
(pp78-79)
Homosexuality is less common than heterosexuality, but that doesn't make it any less normal. Would you consider left-handedness "not normal" just because there are fewer "lefties" out there?
Posted by: bob Dec 20 2003, 07:42 AM
QUOTE (TexasFreethinker @ Dec 20 2003, 05:30 AM)
Homosexuality is less common than heterosexuality, but that doesn't make it any less normal. Would you consider left-handedness "not normal" just because there are fewer "lefties" out there?
I thought left-handedness was a sure sign of demon possession. Damn. Learn something new everyday.
No, I appreciate the comparison Tex. I had never thought of it that way. Why does it take so long for the attitudes of a society to change? I guess because society changes, one person at a time.
But I still have a question. No, I have lots of questions and I'm running out of time. I'll post them later for any interested readers to answer.
Posted by: Shadfox Dec 20 2003, 08:21 AM
QUOTE
If you have the time, could you elaborate on that a little, or maybe direct me to some links that might address this idea.
I don't have a website to reference, but I think I have a handle on the reason why this is so. To be born gay is equivalent to god making you that way in most eyes. You can't go toting "God hates Fags" signs and take it to the level of hatred it's been when the general belief is that a gay person had no choice in the matter. In order to justify the hatred it has to be presented as a filthy, immoral choice a person makes to rebel. They also have to make it appear completely reversible.
I don't think the gay community as a whole has done much to reverse the prejudices and stereotypes, which infuriates me. For every person who fights for dignity and respect, there will be thousands parading down Folsom in bondage gear and showcasing sexual acts inappropriate for public display even by heterosexuals. For every person fighting against AIDS, there will be charity fundraiser circuit parties that turn into STD orgies. If these were minority instances, I would dismiss them. But every time I walk into a gay bar or gathering place I'm hit in the face with this. It's made it near impossible for more timid, conservative people to come out of the closet.
I'd like to walk into a gay establishment which doesn't have visuals of young, nude men plastered across the wall. I'd like to hear something other than Cher and circuit noise. And I'd like to attend a gay pride day without being smacked with a giant, pink condom sticker.
Posted by: I Broke Free Dec 20 2003, 08:55 AM
QUOTE (bob @ Dec 19 2003, 06:26 PM)
QUOTE (I BROKE FREE @ Dec 19 2003, 02:36 PM)
Xtians just cannot accept the fact people are born gay,
IBF,
If you have the time, could you elaborate on that a little, or maybe direct me to some links that might address this idea. As an xtian, I was repulsed at the idea of a man being with another man in a sexual way. (Of course, the idea of lesbianism didn't bother me one bit, but don't tell any of my former brethren.) As an atheist, it has absolutely no effect on me. But I still have the idea in my head that it is largely a result of environment (parents, friends, the media). Of course, I don't consider it a sin (my definition for sin is 'a good time'). I don't consider it unhealthy or abnormal, yet I don't consider it normal (open mouth-insert size 10). Just being honest. I am un informed and would like to be able to have a reply ready for the next xtian who informs me that "homersexialaty" is a sinful choice.
Bob, I should delete the word “fact” and rephrased that comment to “Why can’t xtians just accept that people are born gay. From what I have read and form personally experience it is clear that no one has a choice in their sexual orientation, but as to whether or not people are born with a homosexual or any sexual orientation, the jury is still out. If there was an event in my early life that changed me from straight to gay, I was not aware of it. If there was an event in my early life that changed me from straight to gay, it was not abusive, violent or sexual. I was the most sexually naïve kid you could have ever met! Except for my mother not wearing pearls, I LIVED the life of Beaver Cleaver.
I can also understand why you may feel that a homosexual orientation is the result of environmental factors (sexual molestation, bad parenting, etc.) Almost any study you come across will indicate that gay and lesbian people had such factors in their childhood. But one must remember that getting accurate statistical data on homosexuals is very difficult. In every study I have come across the information is gathered from gays seeking physiological treatment. This would hardly be a representative population. Can you imagine interviewing a group of straight people in the waiting room of a shrink to determine what the typical childhood was like for straight people? Yet this is the only kind of data being spewed out by the religious right as concrete information on the early lives of gay people. We don’t even have a clue as to what percentage of the population is gay, so how can anyone figure out what percentage of gay people had screwed up childhoods? After 25 years in the gay community my own very unscientific study shows that gay people differ little in their backgrounds from straight people. On average there is definitely more emotional distance between the gay son and the straight father, but as I have said before this is due to the rejection of the gay son rather than the emotional distance causing a gay son.
It is natural to project our own “revulsion” of an activity on to those who are engaging in it. From what you wrote, once you left xtianity you were able to separate those feelings from your attitudes regarding gay people. I am glad to hear that. Gay people have mastered that as well. Yes, if you pressed me I could tell you how the thought of straight and lesbian sex turns my stomach. It just feels wrong! Unnatural! But I just don’t dwell on it. It never enters my mind to envision people I meet having sex. My mind just doesn’t work that way. I don’t know if that is unusual or not.
If you would like for information, the two links below might be a good place to start.
http://www.anythingbutstraight.com/
http://www.lionking.org/~kovu/bible/section10.html
Posted by: I Broke Free Dec 20 2003, 09:07 AM
QUOTE (Shadfox @ Dec 20 2003, 11:21 AM)
I'd like to walk into a gay establishment which doesn't have visuals of young, nude men plastered across the wall. I'd like to hear something other than Cher and circuit noise. And I'd like to attend a gay pride day without being smacked with a giant, pink condom sticker.
I haven't been to gay bar in years. Our friends like to go dancing three or four times a year and they take my partner with them. I refuse to go! The NOISE is deafening and the entire atmosphere has always been something I tried to avoid. When I lived in San Francisco the gay community was large enough to support a variety of activities and I miss that now that I am living in New Hampshire. I used to bowl every week on gay league and it turned into a great place gay men who were not into the bar scene.
Posted by: Shadfox Dec 20 2003, 09:19 AM
QUOTE
I haven't been to gay bar in years. Our friends like to go dancing three or four times a year and they take my partner with them. I refuse to go! The NOISE is deafening and the entire atmosphere has always been something I tried to avoid. When I lived in San Francisco the gay community was large enough to support a variety of activities and I miss that now that I am living in New Hampshire. I used to bowl every week on gay league and it turned into a great place gay men who were not into the bar scene.
I've been trying to find a subfacet of the culture that doesn't revolve around bar nights and camp, but I've had no success yet. I live in a small city, right wing and conservative but ironically containing 4+ gay bars.
Posted by: pitchu Dec 20 2003, 01:14 PM
Several years back I heard a hypothesis that women stressed at a certain point in pregnancy might be a (the) factor in determining male homosexuality. Is anyone familiar with this?
I tried to find a link to a study done in Great Britain involving a finding of higher rates of gay men among those whose mothers, when pregnant with them, were repeatedly driven into bomb shelters during the WWII blitz, but I had no success at locating that. I did find, however, a reference to a related study done on rats in Japan:
http://www.orwant.com/blog/
(Scroll down to the heading in bold black that says: What's Going On In There? -- 3/25/03)
When I first heard about this phenomenon, and talked about it with several gay guy friends, they all averred as how they knew of acute stressors during their mothers' pregnancies -- but then, they may just have been humoring me (which they tend to do a lot).
I'm curious as to what you think.
Posted by: bob Dec 20 2003, 02:57 PM
IBF, you state that the thought of lesbian sex is not very appealing to you. As a straight male, I wonder why I find it extremely stimulating, to the point that when my wife confided in me that a female co-worker had been flirting with her, I told her that if she wanted to experiment, I had no problem with it. She experimented.
Is it simply that I like women, and the thought of two women together sexually just increases the stimulation for me? I realize there may not be an expert in the bunch. But I am interested in your opinions.
Posted by: Doug2 Dec 20 2003, 03:00 PM
QUOTE
how they knew of acute stressors during their mothers' pregnancies
Interesting article. Nine months is a long time to be pregnant though, and I think most of us could say that our mothers went through some stress during that time. The article seems to indicate a small portion of the second trimester as the time that this accelerated testosterone production occurs. That still doesn't explain female homosexuality, or the case of twins with differing sexual preferences.
Pitchu I love reading your posts. I learn a new word almost every time. Do you have a set exercise routine to get such a big vocabulary?
Posted by: likeafish Dec 20 2003, 05:07 PM
There is a danger in searching for a "cause" for homosexuality. This may be an extreme example, but think of the medical experiments performed by Mengle at Auschwitz. Suppose we find the "gay" gene, how long before we find the gay "cure." Who is deciding what is normal here? I think it is worth considering.
The way IBF restated things in his post to Bob is instructive I think. No one "decides" their orientation, that is clear. And that our sexuality is on some kind of continuum seems also to be what lies beneath our facades of gender identity. Sexkitten may be more in touch with something that we all are "naturally" but the point is, what is natural and what has been nurtured in us has never been so cleanly divided to tell us the entire measure of who we are. Should we let science have primacy in defining our sexuality, then there are consequences in that realm. Anyone want to have their children inoculated perhaps?
Out there somewhere is an article called "One Hundred Years of Homosexuality" that I have since lost and cannot remember the author (Lokmer?). It was, at the time it was written, a rather important piece of scholarship that traced the origins of the term to its first use in the 19th century and went on to a discussion of gender roles in such places as prisons that challenged the idea that sexual orientation was set in stone, or in our genes. If anyone finds it, it is a dense read, but addresses the whole idea of a scientific search for a cause and its possible implications.
Myself, I lean toward an anthropological and social explanation for most things human, and that goes for sexual orientation. I have a friend who is a lesbian who was sexually abused by her father. I have no doubt that she really is a lesbian. I also have no doubt that what happened with her father had something to do with it. Does that mean her orientation is inauthentic? I have never thought that. I also do not think she needs to be "healed" of it or changed. She also likes softball, camping and woodworking, as well as cooking and gardening? Shall we cure her of some of those things too? She has found a way to love, if that is a way to say it, that she is comfortable with and that is fine with me. Her partner, by the way, suffered none of these sorts of things.
I really appreciate the analysis that IBF has given of the studies that have been done, once again, looking for a cause. There is a preconception in that approach from the very beginning. Such studies are done by our surrogate high priests of human suffering--psychologists--whose intentions may be admirable, but nonetheless, depending upon what they hope to achieve, they may also be misguided.
Steve
Posted by: pitchu Dec 20 2003, 05:21 PM
Doug2,
You're right, of course, that it doesn't answer the question across the board, but it might be one of many possible links to greater understanding. Would you think so?
As to my vocabulary... well, D2, therein lies a sort of xian/pagan/insane tale, which I'll try to make short.
My father was a brilliant but 3rd-grade-educated Arkansas farmboy turned Pentecostal minister (a post he later rejected in favor of the more honorable profession of shooting wharf rats on the San Pedro, CA, docks).
He taught himself nearly everything he knew through reading, and read difficult passages aloud to his kids, debated with us on every topic, always displaying his captivation with ideas and words. There was no way we could avoid having vocabularies bigger than we were.
This, however, was also a bit of a curse. When I was four, I was the recipient of unbridled laughter from the members of a household from which I was about to depart, because, in my words, "I don't want to be an imposition." And all through school, my clothes, sack lunches and hygiene spoke of wracking poverty, while my vocabulary would not have been out of place at a Gertrude Stein soiree.
I was one fucking odd little duck.
Schoolmates teased me, avoided me, said things like, "Who does she think she is?!" At any opportunity to make a friend, I would try, with everything in me, to keep my words simple and my statements colorless, but it was as though a kind of madness would descend on me, and I'd become this freakish Appalachian child version of William F. Buckley.
It was during these tender years that I did the only praying I can recall having done in the entirety of my life. I prayed to stop using big words so that I might have a chance to make a friend. My concept of deity, though, had been more than a little skewed by various influences in my life, so, on my knees, before going to bed, I would whisper, "Dear God of poly-syllabicy..."
Posted by: pitchu Dec 20 2003, 05:33 PM
Steve,
I just read your post after posting my own.
I don't disagree with anything you say. When I used the term "greater understanding" I really meant "greater understanding". All understanding comes with the possibility of misuse and misapplication, but I don't think, because of this, we should halt our further understanding of how anything occurs in life. Rather we should energetically tackle the societal misappropriation of knowledge, call it what it is, and do all we can to alleviate its harm.
Posted by: likeafish Dec 20 2003, 06:21 PM
Pitchu,
Sure, I agree with that, and I wasn't suggesting we stop asking questions. And my post wasn't directed towards anyone in particular, it's just a "take" I have on this issue that I often bring to the discussion. I think it gets easily overlooked.
So, I was sort of trying to reframe things I suppose, because it did seem this question of "what's the source" is, to me, a rather narrow way of looking at the whole spectrum of possibilities. But you are right. We shouldn't be afraid of where the questions lead. I just wonder if we are squandering our resources, and to what end and for what purposes, to answer this question.
To put it another way perhaps: There are gay people. This is how they are. What would be gained by puzzling out the origins of this way of being? Are we doing this to "help" them in some way? What is it we need to understand further, and why?
And to be honest, these were the kinds of questions or approaches that I brought into the church when I was a seminary student and was asked to enter into the debate over this issue. I found that on a fundamental level, the debate was flawed because it already set gays outside as "other" when they were nothing of the sort. They were not outside the church seeking admittance, they were already in the church. They are us was my point.
I think the same applies to the human family when it comes to a conversation about gays. Them is us.
Maybe that doesn't make any sense, maybe it's too subtle or maybe I'm making too much out of it. Or maybe it's as simple as me asking, "If we knew why people are gay, what would it matter?" Maybe I think that is a better question and that is my thing.
I sure wasn't picking on you. Heck, no! I consider you somewhat of a teacher. I was just throwing in.
Steve
Posted by: I Broke Free Dec 20 2003, 06:23 PM
QUOTE (likeafish @ Dec 20 2003, 08:07 PM)
Out there somewhere is an article called "One Hundred Years of Homosexuality" that I have since lost and cannot remember the author (Lokmer?). It was, at the time it was written, a rather important piece of scholarship that traced the origins of the term to its first use in the 19th century and went on to a discussion of gender roles in such places as prisons that challenged the idea that sexual orientation was set in stone, or in our genes. If anyone finds it, it is a dense read, but addresses the whole idea of a scientific search for a cause and its possible implications.
Back in 1998 I took a semester course at San Francisco's Community College. It was called Gay & Lesbian Culture and Society in the 20th Century. It was fascinating to see how our modern concept of a gay person is a recent construct. I learned during WWI the U.S. Navy did some sting operations to find the homosexuals within its ranks. Today if the Navy found two of its male members having sex, both would labeled homosexual and both would be out of the service, but less than 100 years ago, only the "receptive" man was considered homosexual! The "penetrator" was just having a sexual release and was sent on his merry way.
Posted by: chefranden Dec 20 2003, 06:27 PM
QUOTE (I BROKE FREE)
I can also understand why you may feel that a homosexual orientation is the result of environmental factors (sexual molestation, bad parenting, etc.) Almost any study you come across will indicate that gay and lesbian people had such factors in their childhood. But one must remember that getting accurate statistical data on homosexuals is very difficult.
I bet you'd find a simular distribution of abuse among heterosexuals. However, I doubt anybody is doing studies on what causes hetersexuality.
Posted by: I Broke Free Dec 20 2003, 06:39 PM
QUOTE (bob @ Dec 20 2003, 05:57 PM)
IBF, you state that the thought of lesbian sex is not very appealing to you. As a straight male, I wonder why I find it extremely stimulating, to the point that when my wife confided in me that a female co-worker had been flirting with her, I told her that if she wanted to experiment, I had no problem with it. She experimented.
Is it simply that I like women, and the thought of two women together sexually just increases the stimulation for me? I realize there may not be an expert in the bunch. But I am interested in your opinions.
Good