CCU Demonstration

[Zerbie]

Originally Posted by Emproph

Ew, you believe in Love?

When I see a heterosexual, my mind immediately races to the bedroom. I find that revolting, But not having superiority tendencies, I "naturally" recognize the difference between “what they do” and “who they are,” making my version of equality, superior to theirs. (Keep in mind I’m one book short of being the most prejudiced person on the continental shelf, I still have to remind myself that vegan snake handling clowns are people too.)

Er, huhhhh??????????????

When I say folks learn to "think" homosexuality is unnatural, I really do mean "think" in the sense of: Thought. Done. Book written. Concluded. Over and out. I didn't mean the reasoning process, which is much more alive. That they are not reasoning, but thinking someone else's thought, which isn't sincerely theirs. A static thought which both comes from and feeds back into the culturally encrypted homophobia we observe. You find this natural? I find it most unnatural - have you watched the movie South Pacific lately? "You've got to be carefully taught." It applies here as well. People learn homophobia. Or - don't they?!?!

[Emproph]

Originally Posted by Zerbie

When I say folks learn to "think" homosexuality is unnatural, I really do mean "think" in the sense of: Thought. Done. Book written. Concluded. Over and out. I didn't mean the reasoning process, which is much more alive.

I think the reasoning process is the whole point. The real issue is how much importance is placed on thinking through the consequences of one’s actions, words, beliefs etc. Homophobia and prejudice is just one aspect of that.

Originally Posted by Zerbie

That they are not reasoning, but thinking someone else's thought, which isn't sincerely theirs. A static thought which both comes from and feeds back into the culturally encrypted homophobia we observe.

With some “Christians” intent on believing in Biblical inerrancy for the sake of superiority, they already have a foundation of denial paved for avoiding the importance of understanding. As long as this is maintained, anything desired can be believed or not. To that extent, yes people are definitely taught, ok, I think I see what you’re saying.
Yes, people are definitely taught to specifically hate for whatever reasons, without the programming to hate or think of someone or something as unnatural then it would simply be understood to “be.” Without the reasoning process, that’s what I consider to be assumption, I consider most people to be this. (Blanket acceptance of the lies told. The preacher’s saying it, it must be true.)

As far as those who’ve learned to hate, be prejudiced etc., are concerned, I think I’m trying to make a distinction between those who understand and agree with the “lesson” out of a sense of superiority and those who agree with it out of convenience of "certainty" or for fear of hell. The latter can be reached, the prior must be de-throned, a potentially big difference.

Originally Posted by Zerbie

You find this natural? I find it most unnatural - have you watched the movie South Pacific lately? "You've got to be carefully taught." It applies here as well. People learn homophobia. Or - don't they?!?!

That’s the 64,000 question! I see that it’s both. My question is, to what extent is it “nature vs. nurture.” But unlike homosexuality, the determination of “superiority tendencies” or being “taught” to hate can actually be measured in contrast with the guttural, immediate, face value response of disgust to the idea of homosexuality.

I’m thinking stereotypical genetic Male and Female characteristics here in response to social mores. Men are used to kill or be killed, Women are used to acceptance and nurture. That's just one regard in which I think there is a measurable difference of human egotistical behavior. That inclination to latch onto desired truth as opposed to actual truth.
What it really comes down to is, to what extent is social superiority taught and/or learned? (< Is that the crux of what you’re saying?)
{It’s been awhile since I’ve seen South Pacific, all I remember is peggy Lee singing scary high and something about shampoo.}

Am I understanding you or not? I wanna make sure we’re disagreeing about the same thing.

[Jamie McDaniel]

Zerbie had posted a good reponse that then moved this thread into a discussion deserving of its own thread. That thread can be found here:

Sexual Orientations that Shift

Unfortunately in the moving of posts and creating a new thread, I inadvertently lost Zerbie's response that started it! That post was going to stay here with this thread.

Here is part of Zerbie's post from Venari's message that quoted it. Hopefully Zerbie can remember the rest and repost. Sorry Zerbie.

Originally Posted by Zerbie

Those who have questioned what they were taught, or who somehow leap-frogged right over that lesson, are generally accepting and rather, what's the word? *neutral* in their reactions to gay people. And that reads as a much more natural way of being than the homophobic way. Whenever I was around homophobic persons, including semi-closeted, conflicted gays, I always felt awkward and uncomfortable with the issue. Once I met folks for whom it was a non-issue, suddenly the self-consciousness and awkwardness was gone from the room. Everyone was just living. Finally.

[Zerbie]

No, Jamie, it's mostly gone. The post you're talking about responded to Emproph, who went off on several nifty tangents, and brought him back to the same question I made about his basic premise: 'It's natural to find homosexuality unnatural.' I still say, no. It's unnatural to believe so, one has to be taught to believe such a thing.

Here's stuff not included in the deleted post: Emproph, since you forgot what South Pacific is all about (the something about shampoo was "I'm gonna was that man right outta my hair.) Go rent South Pacific and watch it through. Seriously. Please do. It's an excellent show. From, when? Around 1950 I think perhaps?

It deals strongly with racism - Army nurse Nellie Forbush falls in love with French exile Emile deBec who fathered 2 children with a polynesian woman (now deceased) and Nellie has been trained since childhood that mixed racial relationships are wrong. She doesn't know why she feels that way, she just does. Meanwhile, her platonic officer friend falls in love with a Polynesian girl and the islanders all expect him to marry her, but he embarasses and rejects her because his family in Philadelphia would never approve. He then sings the song "You've got to be carefully taught" to Emile deBec explaining how American culture teaches people from childhood to have these reactions, even though no one can give a logical reason for them. Now that I've spoiled much of the movie for you - go out and rent it! It's really a Must See. Too much of it is still relevant today.

[Emproph]

Originally Posted by Zerbie

Emproph, who went off on several nifty tangents, and brought him back to the same question I made about his basic premise: 'It's natural to find homosexuality unnatural.' I still say, no. It's unnatural to believe so, one has to be taught to believe such a thing.

Sorry for the circular tangents.

I don’t think I’m talking about sustained homophobia/prejudice.

Take a heterosexual male for example. To him, the idea of being attracted to other men is unnatural. Homosexuality for him is unnatural. He didn’t learn this, he knows it.

From there you can argue the extent to which this is projected onto others by self, by teaching, superiority tendencies, growing up in a society where most people are heterosexual, etc.

Homophobia may be the same principle as run of the mill bigotry, but because it deals with nature itself as far as what is perceived to be “nature of self,” there is an insidious “nature” to homophobic bigotry that needs to be rooted out and addressed. I guess I'm trying to pin down an explanation as to why it’s so easily not seen as bigotry.

I suppose if we grew up in a society with varying degrees of bisexuality, we’d learn as children that sexuality is not fixed. A member of this society might be much less likely to project what they find unnatural onto others. Unnatural to them would be understood to be different, not unnatural.

I’ll make it a point to catch South Pacific again.

[Zerbie]

So we are talking about different things. I was talking about the received opinion that there is something unnatural about same-sex love, and you were talking about how a straight person feels about the idea of romance with a member of their own sex. They are different points - one is a cuturally received conditioning, the other is the way someone's personal wiring is, uh, wired.