ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

From the 'Most won't Touch it with a 10 Foot Poll, But I Feel Something Must Be Said' File: The Gay Thing

Updated on January 17, 2015

While watching a preview for an upcoming HBO show about gay men I had a thought. Call it more of a reaction. The ad depicts mustacheoed men gazing at one another with that certain twinkle in their eyes. This caused a physical sense of repulsion in me. Now, this does not mean I'm not tolerant. I am. I have no issue with homosexual people or how they choose to live. At the risk of sounding like that "I'm not racist, I have a black friend" guy, I've had many gay friends. When I worked in the travel industry I had a regular crew of drinking buddies of which I was the only heterosexual member. We had many good times together and I will love each of them for life. We've travelled together, shared beds, shared stories. I have no problem with their, or anyone's, sexuality.

My repulsed reaction was not intolerance on my part. It wasn't about me being close-minded or a bigot. It was about me being a physical/chemical/biological heterosexual male. Sex, in my mind, is hard-wired to only associate with women. So much so that if those wires get crossed, if my 'sexual' wiring crosses paths with thoughts of men, I have a physical reaction. This is programming so deeply ingrained that it goes back to the simplest forms of my ancestors. It runs deep. That inner code is the whole reason I, or anyone for that matter, even exists. It's as much a part of me as this big head of mine.

Now I'm not making a case here to put a stop to any and all shows that depict the gay lifestyle. I don't have to be comfortable with everything that's beamed into the social consciousness. There are homosexual people that, just as I am, are a part of the television watching community. They too should be represented. I have no issue with that.

The issue I have is more with the powers that be that produce these shows. Does it not seem to anyone else that there's an excessive amount of pandering going on here? Maybe it's just me, but I feel that if I were gay I'd be offended. Like this latest HBO show, called 'Looking'. I know it's quite trendy nowadays to be openly supportive of the "alternative lifestyle". You want to gain yourself some street-cred, maybe a few pats on the back, maybe an Emmy or two, make a show about the gay community. It's the way these companies nowadays set themselves apart as progressive, or artistic, or liberal, or whatever other trendy adjective they may want to evoke to show they're 'hip' and 'relevant'.

This HBO ad made no attempt to show that there was any more nuance to the story being told. No sense of the personalities of these characters, their particular situations or perdicerments, only that they were gay and that they were oogling one another. And in the 'hey, everybody look at how modern and forward thinking we are-vein', that's really all that needs to be shown.

I've talked to friends recently who had an issue with the show Game of Thrones for depicting more gay characters and situations in the show that what is found in the book. Where the book might just make a passing statement that suggests this one character may be gay, the show depicts a scene between this character and their gay lover, and turns it into this major thread in the overall narrative. I don't even have an issue with that. When you're writing a show that depicts such a large cast of characters, the numbers alone would suggest at least one of those characters is most likely gay. But Game of Thrones is a much bigger show than that. It has a much larger story to tell. The homosexual part is just a small strand in an otherwise very large story. If you want to make a sci-fi fantasy seem more grounded in the real world, then it makes sense to me that part of this 'real world' would be that some people in it are homosexual.

Now I realize the argument could be made that homosexual men may very well feel the same sense of repulsion when faced with the overabundant amount of hetero sex that's depicted in the media. Perhaps they do. That's what this is about. Having a conversation that's not very commonly had. A chance for those who disagree with me to make their case and help me expand my understanding and make me aware of things I maybe am not aware of currently.

Maybe it's my hetero-brain clouding my judgement, but shows like this 'Looking' seem to me to be the homosexual equivalent of the kinds of shows you catch late at night on "Skin-emax". Maybe just with a higher production value and more emphasis on advertising. No other real purpose than to just be eye-candy for those who might be looking for that kind of thing. If it were actually billed that way I'd have less of an issue with it. I think it more has to do with it being wrapped in this Emmy-bate veneer and bandied about by HBO as its next big, serious, forward-thinking, progressive.... whatever. It seems like a cheap grab for attention or maybe applause to me.

Now, as far as my feeling of repulsion, that merely started me on this train of thought. But I do know and understand that my admitting to this could put me in a bad light in the eyes of some. They might see me as intolerant, or close-minded. And that's their right. I don't think that's true. I could make the argument that in this age of tolerance that we find ourselves in, where those who are slow to accept the gay lifestyle being so brandishly waived in front of them, are shunned by the popular community, is that not in itself a form of intolerance? To shame those who aren't so quickly accepting? Is it really their fault that they were brought up in a life where such things were not spoken about? Where they may find it quite the shock to the system being that it's one of the first times they've really encountered it, and don't quite know what to make of it or how to handle it? Do they deserve to be shunned for being a little slow to 'get with the program'?

I know this isn't a popular topic to discuss, which is exactly why I feel it deserves discussing. I simply felt something should be said. But it's not like I get the last word. Please, have the discussion. Am I wrong?

Weigh in, what do you think? Am I wrong?

See results

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 2 years ago from Texas

      Jonny,

      I appreciate your attempts at adjusting my thinking to hopefully find new insights. But this particular topic is one I've probably spent the most time thinking about. The conclusions I've reached are the result of an in depth study of everything involved. I can consider the point of view of others, as long as that point of view in no way contradicts. There's really only one answer I've found thus far that manages that.

      I know you think I must have years of "fundamentalist training" that's shaped my thinking, but that's not the case. I did spend quite a bit of time in my early years attending my grandmother's baptist church, but it was my rejection of a lot of what they said that took me in the direction I went. I don't fear death. I don't fear oblivion. I don't fear a "hell". Fear does not shape my thinking. I just want to understand. And that understanding must be consistent across the board. Taking anything and everything into consideration, the answer must be universally applicable.

      I cannot accept the notion of an existence as you see it, as a reality that just came about on its own with no meaning or purpose, that we humans then rationalize ideals around later. I do not accept that our rational thinking/caring brains just came about unguided or unaided, or that we today find meaning and purpose in something that is ultimately meaningless and purposeless.

      Those elephants you speak of, along with many other creatures, can and will certainly leave their mark, but ultimately they do not upset the course of nature or leave a lasting impact. We reroute rivers, build structures that completely alter the landscape. It would be difficult to dig up and find the impact elephants have had archaeologically, but it's quite easy to recognize the work of humans throughout history in this same way. We don't live in harmony with nature. We bend nature to our will. Use it for our purposes. We are creators who don't leave nature as we found it. The entirety of our planet is lit up when viewed from space. Structures can be seen from space. Everywhere we go there are walls built, inventions created, an altered landscape.

      Behavior, and an in depth study of behavior, is where the answers are found. This is why the God of the bible got involved as He did. Interacted with us as He did. These are not mythological fables. these are accounts of real history. These are events that altered our course in history and shaped us. These interactions make perfect sense in light of the realities of this world as we understand them today. If there is indeed a God of natural world as described, then his vested interest in us and our behavior is exactly what we should expect Him to be most interested in. The answer is consistent and universally applicable.

    • jonnycomelately profile image

      Alan 2 years ago from Tasmania

      Headly, you have done enough study to know that "everything else" does not always live in harmony with nature.....either in the short term or the long term.

      A herd of elephant, a species which we recognise as having high intelligence, can destroy a huge area of bushland, not just from their need for immediate food, but also as just a sort of delinquency....for the apparent fun of it. The consequences are not necessarily bad for every other life form in the vicinity.... it can trigger regrowth patterns which benefit many other species in turn and, ultimately, reward the elephant with new trees to push down. Through evolutionary experience, elephant learn to live in and with their environment. We humans do the same. We all acquire and use the tools and skills that suit our niche in this world. We acquire the "intelligence" that is needed in our habitat. We don't need a "God" to help us in that physical encounter with reality any more than the elephant needs a "God" to direct its playtime in the bush.

      Lady Guinevere has tried to show how the metaphors can shine through those early scripture stories and give us real, in-depth personal understanding. This is where the intellectual mind of man finds its play space and the need for its imaginary "God." In fact, this "God" is nothing more than the composite consciousness brought about by the workings of our physiology, our mind, our 5 senses, our instinctive striving for survival.

      Your concentration on the conventional misapprehension of "sin" constricts your thinking into that guilt pattern. The "God" you formulate in your mind is set up to assuage the fear of oblivion which is inevitable at the end of your life. The learning you have received at the hand of fundamentalist preaching holds you in that grip of fear, guilt, submission.

      What if you were to look more from Lady Guinevere's point of view, rather than tending to disagree with her? Could that give you some valuable insight to your own personal situation?

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 2 years ago from Texas

      Guinevere,

      Only humans born of Eve can make their own world. We're the only ones gifted with a free will. Everything else works in accordance to God's will/natural law. That's why everything else lives in harmony with nature, yet we alter the landscape to suit our needs.

    • Lady Guinevere profile image

      Debra Allen 2 years ago from West By God

      God and the kingdom and Jesus and Satan or evil and the templ of god are all WITHIN each of us as so are the laws. We are NOT the only species that can think and make their world. That is a myth.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 2 years ago from Texas

      Jonny,

      Of course we share a lot with our ape cousins. That's where we come from. That's how we were made. The same traits that we have were first brought about through our ancestors. God made them too. He made them to make us. But, just like all the other animals, a bonobo is a bonobo and a chimpanzee is a chimpanzee. What sets humans apart still applies. Bonobos didn't create civilization or inventions that take control of the natural world. They still live in harmony with nature, like the rest of the animal world.

      My point in that we humans are the only ones in all the known natural world who's behavior isn't dictated is that everything else has rules. We don't. We make up our own rules and try to decide logically and through reason what is and isn't moral or right/wrong behavior. In the context of God, all the animals, including apes, live in harmony with nature, meaning they live in harmony with God's will. We have been gifted with a free will. This is why we live in such contrast with nature. This is why we constantly seem at odds with it. We're working according to our own will, separate from God's/nature.

      This is the whole point of the stories of the bible. The natural world that God created is totally within His control. But humans with free will, by design, are not within His control. The whole reason we're given commandments, the whole reason for judgement and all of that, is because of free will. Because we willfully choose our actions/behaviors. This is something God would have to account for. This is the whole point. This is why the story of the bible is so relevant. If there really is a God like described, then what the bible chooses as its central theme is the exact thing this God would take a vested interest in. All the natural world works according to God's will. It's behavior is predictable. Ours isn't. We have to willfully work in accordance to God's will the same way the rest of the natural world does naturally.

    • jonnycomelately profile image

      Alan 2 years ago from Tasmania

      Headly, please look at the research done with Bonobos and Chimpanzees. For a long time we humans, in our self-congratulatory smugness and ignorance considered ourselves one-up on those other primates. We put a "God" up there in our imaginations, just so we could claim superiority over those apes. The research now shows that many of our basic instinctive actions, reactions, traits, etc., are share very closely with the other primates. WE are a species of APE. It is only our human mind that conjures up the superiority.

      I know your religion tells you differently, and you want to believe different, because it serves the religious agenda.

      You, I, do not need to know everything, or understand everything about the differences. It's fun to explore and find out.... this being another of our characteristic survival techniques.

      One of the major reasons I am no longer leaning towards the christian message or dogma is that I cannot accept that stuff about us humans being closer to "God." In this you and I will remain totally at odds.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 2 years ago from Texas

      Jonny,

      We don't need an understanding of the various species capability to reason, nor do we really need any understanding of the environment they're in or the circumstances they face. We need only look at behavior. No matter where you go in the world, a wasp is a wasp, a cow is a cow, a deer is a deer. There's one exception to that. A human most assuredly isn't a human. We're each as unique as our finger prints. We use our logic and reason to alter our behavior. Animals don't. Insects don't. Plants don't. The environment they're in may cause differing behavior, but that's more reactionary.

      Plants, animals, and insects behave according to the laws of nature. "Mother nature". And their behavior is consistent. Just as the behavior of molecules or energy is consistent. But human behavior is a different story.

    • jonnycomelately profile image

      Alan 2 years ago from Tasmania

      Headly, a short while back you made this statement: "We are the only bundles of matter in all the known universe capable of choosing our actions and behaviors based on intellect and reason."

      I suggest it is only by your have some intellect and being able to reason you can make such a statement. Right?

      It's all based upon the human trait of being able to reason, in a human way. It's on human terms. How can we be sure that other species, of various types, cannot reason and use intellect appertaining to their own circumstances and habitat?

      When I observe a wasp seeming to taking and summing up a multitude of different options to arrive at just the right hole in which to bury its eggs, then I see obvious choice taking place. How much reason and intellect can we attribute to that wasp? Maybe we can never arrive at a definitive answer, because we can only come at it from a human point of view.

      Do we need an absolute and clear understanding of the processes taking place, in the wasp, our own minds, our own realm of existence? Or can we just play with possible answers, yet remain solid and content with what we have, right now?

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 2 years ago from Texas

      Lady Guinevere,

      You are wasting my time, and your own, with this. If there were ever actually a case, a documented case, that would be newsworthy. Yes, I'm sure you can find plenty of examples of teenagers and others claiming a pregnancy to be immaculately conceived to try to cover themselves. But this is not something that happens, and even if you were to find some case where it did, it's not something that happens on a regular enough basis to counted on in the interest of procreating future generations.

    • Lady Guinevere profile image

      Debra Allen 2 years ago from West By God

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 2 years ago from Texas

      Keyword "miraculous". So why are there no documented examples in modern times? Why only these here-say stories involving mythological gods and whatnot. Yes, do a quick internet search and you'll find all kinds of examples, but nothing valid. Nothing that isn't fiction. It's pointless to even try.

    • Lady Guinevere profile image

      Debra Allen 2 years ago from West By God

      Of the ancient Mexicans, it is said "they had the immaculate conception, the crucifixion, and the resurrection after three days." (Mex. Antiq., vol. i.) And in an ancient work called "Codex Vaticanus," the immaculate conception is spoken of as a part of the history of Quexalcote, the Mexican Savior. "Suchiquecal," says the Mexican Antiquities, "was called the Queen of Heaven. She conceived a son without connection with a man"—a very obvious case of immaculate conception.

    • Lady Guinevere profile image

      Debra Allen 2 years ago from West By God

      p. 46

      of the immaculate conception is of very ancient date. And this fastidious maiden lady and immaculate virgin, Juno, not only conceived the God Mars by the touch of a flower, but she also (so the story reads) conceived Vulcan by being overshadowed by the wind—exactly a parallel case with that of the virgin Mary, as we find that ghost, in the original, means wind. Thus we observe that Vulcan, long before Jesus Christ, was "born of the Holy Ghost, i.e., both were conceived by the "Holy Wind." And the author of the "Perennial Calendar" speaks of the miraculous conception of Juno Jugulis, "the blessed virgin queen of heaven," and describes it as falling on the second of February, the very day which the early Christians celebrated with a festival, as being the date of the conception of the "ever Blessed Virgin Mary."

      http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/cv/wscs/wscs09.htm

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 2 years ago from Texas

      Isis and Horus are mythological fiction. Unless you believe the cause of the Nile river every year was caused by the tears of sorrow that Isis wept over Horus. Both are just as likely to be true.

      And whether or not the hymen breaks is irrelevant. You're still talking about pregnancy caused by the fertilization of a female egg by a male sperm.

    • Lady Guinevere profile image

      Debra Allen 2 years ago from West By God

      Isis and Horus for one. According to Austinstar there have been many others. The hymen does not always break when having sex and so forth.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 2 years ago from Texas

      Name one example that isn't fictional.

    • Lady Guinevere profile image

      Debra Allen 2 years ago from West By God

      It is not the only time it has happened and it may happen more than you think.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 2 years ago from Texas

      I wouldn't bet any money on science ever figuring that one out.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 2 years ago from Texas

      There's a reason why the idea of Mary having Jesus without a father is referred to as the "immaculate conception". Because it's believed by many to be the one and only time in all of human history that that has happened.

    • Lady Guinevere profile image

      Debra Allen 2 years ago from West By God

      I do see what you are saying though, but that will depend on science in the future.

    • Lady Guinevere profile image

      Debra Allen 2 years ago from West By God

      How did Mary, mother of Jesus have a baby with no male, only a holy ghost?

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 2 years ago from Texas

      Test tube babies still require a male sperm cell and a female egg. We haven't yet reached a point where we can simulate either. Yes, we can sidestep the actual act of sex, but that's it. It still requires two people of the opposite sex.

      But I'd argue that you are paranoid. The fact that your mind made an association to the KKK or Westboro. Nobody else mentioned them. That was your mind that made that connection and brought them into the conversation, bringing with it all the associations and connotations that go along with it. Now you're making associations to how the black community or the Jewish community was treated in the past. Neither relevant to what we're talking about, yet because of your thought process and choice to bring them up, now I'm associated with those things as well. That's fear. That's paranoia. These are not logical progressions that led us here. It's something else.

    • Lady Guinevere profile image

      Debra Allen 2 years ago from West By God

      Here is the link to the first test tube baby and she was reported to having her own child in this news: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-first-test-tube-bab...

    • Lady Guinevere profile image

      Debra Allen 2 years ago from West By God

      Well it sure sounds like you are prejudice and I believe the rest of us see that too. Well I am not living in the FEAR of Church nor am I paranoid as you seem to be about the future and the Gay community. What you are saying here is exactly how they portrayed the Black community some 30 years ago and the Jews in the holocaust....and we have overcome and grew from that.

      I might add there there is this thing called test tube babies and yes there are a few living today. No two heterosexuals are or must be present. Neither people had sex either.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 2 years ago from Texas

      jlpark,

      "I still find it absurd that people think that only heterosexuals can have children"

      That's not absurd, that's a biological certainty. You make a good point that any homosexual couple who has taken the steps to procreate have done so through a vested interest. But, like you said, certain actions must be taken. A member of the opposite sex must be involved in some form or another. They can't do it themselves without involving an outside party who has to be okay with only being involved in a limited capacity.

      And what's absurd about recognizing the government's vested interest in procreation? That too is just a fact. Without procreation this country, no matter how strong or mighty it might seem now, would be dead in a century. In a population this size it's not really a concern. But in a smaller group, like say the Israelites numbering in the hundreds of thousands after escaping Egyptian slavery, when the interest is carving out a way to survive out in the wilderness. In a case like that, yes homosexuality can be detrimental. Because each homosexual couple removes two individuals from the gene pool. Unless they too take special precautions to ensure they too procreate. Which is a legitimate work-around. But it's something that has to be accounted for. We don't have to worry about it as much today because we have a population in the hundreds of millions. We have the luxury of not really having to think about it or account for it.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 2 years ago from Texas

      KKK or Westboro Church?! Seriously, Lady Guinevere? Only heterosexual sex leads to procreation. I'm not being mean, I'm not discriminating against LGBT. I'm pointing out a fact. That's biology. And what's with referring to anything I've said as "doom and gloom". These are the simple facts of the case based on an understanding of how evolution works. Granted this is tenuous territory. It can lead to thought processes that include controlled breeding and other such things which have in the past led to negative actions. I'm well aware of that. We humans have evolved brains that can see into the future and can imagine possible outcomes based on reason and intellect. That's all this is. Using that. It's people like you who are so quick to condemn that limit thought. It's fear and knee-jerk reactions that make jumps to associations to KKK or Westboro. That's how things turn bad. That's when the decisions being made begin to be made in fear rather than logic. When you get paranoid.

    • Lady Guinevere profile image

      Debra Allen 2 years ago from West By God

      Thank you Jlpark!!!! I was beginning to wonder if this guy is in the KKK or Westboro Church or some other cult.

    • jlpark profile image

      Jacqui 2 years ago from New Zealand

      I still find it absurd that people think that only heterosexuals can have children. And that the government has a vested interest in marriage because of this.

      There are many a gay man who has children - from a previous relationship before coming out, from a willing friend with whom they co-parent, from surrogacy, from adoption (more on that later). There are plenty of lesbians who have children - from previous relationships, from sex with a friend for the sole purpose of baby making, from 'turkey basting', from fertility assistance and donor sperm, from adoption.

      I'm one of those - my wife and I have a daughter conceived with assistance. We would also have adopted but it is unlikely even if we were straight in our country.

      On adoption - never has a gay couple had a child they did not want. Never has there been an 'accident'. All children are conceived or adopted with huge amounts of planning, and often huge costs (emotionally and financially). You also don't see gay couples disowning their children for beig straight but that's another topic.

      Maybe the government should have a vested interest in the next tax paying generation, but it is shortsighted and ignorant for them to think that ONLY straight couples will provide that generation and the ones after it.

      Procreation as an argument for marriage is a weak excuse to discriminate against LGBT - because if it was a decent one, you'd have fertility tests before marriage, the marriag contrAct would also include the requirement to reproduce without the choice not to, and older people and the infertile would not be allowed to marry. Yet you'd also have people protesting how that infringed on their human rights should we try to implement it - the things I could say to that argument...

      I think the arguments around marriage need to move away from the poor excuses, and look at the real reason behind feeling that way - whatever it is. Knowing why, is a step towards owning the issue

    • Lady Guinevere profile image

      Debra Allen 2 years ago from West By God

      I don't buy the doom and gloom stuff period. If we changed the past then we can also change the future....good things bring good things...good thoughts bring good things. I do not think that being gay is going to kill society in any way shape or form. That is a dellusion made up by some religious groups.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 2 years ago from Texas

      We as humans are here for a purpose. If we truly have a free will, then that is what makes us significant, and that is why we're here. Everything in the natural world behaves according to laws, or rules. Natural laws, instincts, etc. We are the only bundles of matter in all the known universe capable of choosing our actions and behaviors based on intellect and reason. And our freedom of choice sets us apart from the rest of the natural world. We behave differently. That's why I believe we're here. To learn to live and make decisions and how those decisions impact the world around us. To learn to wield free will responsibly.

      I don't see my views on humanity as negative. Just realistic. It's realistic to recognize how changing circumstances will have an impact. In the dark ages survival was still a struggle. Living until an age where you could then procreate was not a certainty. These days it practically is. No matter how smart or dumb or capable or not, society makes it so that you can live. Food is provided. Shelter. Things that at one time had to be handled on your own.

      The argument could be made that anyone still alive today has genes at least good enough to have survived the 10,000 or so generations that we have survived since homo sapiens first became anatomically modern. So the genes we carry can only be so bad. There are still harmful characteristics in there, sure, but for the most part they've proven successful. But there's no denying that we've changed things. We've changed the environment that changes us. So we've altered the trajectory of our own evolution.

    • Lady Guinevere profile image

      Debra Allen 2 years ago from West By God

      I dunno about all that. Where we all the strong in the dark ages and way before that? I don't see that we were. Medical advances is making the specie survive what it could not long ago. Yes the lanscape of human life is changing and will always change but we are here now and we are the product of what was and the advances came from those who want to change the world.

      I am not so sure I lke you negativity towards your fellow man. Where do you get your ideals from anyway?

      Yu say that you only can see what is around you...then go out into the wolderness and see what you can see there....go travle to other countries and see how they work around being human and perhaps go visit a gay community and see exactly first hand how they live and survive.

      Everyhitng does have a purpose.....and you said that you didn't believe that...how about your children...do you know what purpose they have and if it is different than yours what you say then?

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 2 years ago from Texas

      Lady Guinevere,

      I can only comment on what I see and know to be true. I can't ever stop learning. The fact is, the point I'm trying to make, is that the environment changes, priorities change, and those changes change the population. They change what genes are passed on. Now, rather than the natural order weeding out the weak or those less capable of carving a life out for themselves, now it's ideals that change the landscape. Ideals that decide it's better not to procreate. Or smarter. But smarter for who? Smarter for that person right now in the present. But smarter for the future? Survival now is easy. Society has been created so that nearly anyone can find a way to make it.

      Every way we as humanity progress, we weaken the future generations. Medical and dental advances make it better for those individuals having to live with faulty characteristics now, but fixing those things now means keeping those genes active and propagating them. Where before nature would have coldly weeded out those afflicted, now our good intentions only ensure future generations will have to continue to deal with these things.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 2 years ago from Texas

      Jonny,

      We will most definitely see differences in survival patterns as the landscape changes. We adapt to whatever environment we live in. Evolution always continues. As long as change continues, evolution continues. Just look at the younger generations these days who adapt quickly to new technologies. Babies using their parents phones and such. Toddlers navigating computers. Even driving cars and such. Most everyone now it seems has at least a bit of a natural knack for driving. Maybe through playing video games, maybe something more instinctual.

    • Lady Guinevere profile image

      Debra Allen 2 years ago from West By God

      You do not get it and refuse to see things other than what curcomstances that you are in now. Thank goodness you will learn more things in yur life and it isn't stationary.

    • jonnycomelately profile image

      Alan 2 years ago from Tasmania

      I strongly suspect that evolution continues to play its part in our journey as a species.

      When a large proportion of our young people, mostly young males before they have bred and raised offspring, get killed or seriously injured in motor vehicle crashes or dangerous pastimes, then there genes will not be passed on.

      The genes that might have given that person survival instincts and brain power to fathom out avoidance techniques have been lacking.... so the person becomes a victim and dies.

      Over a few generations the advantageous genes predominate, the weaker genes die out.

      Over a couple of thousand years we might see a difference in the survival patterns.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 2 years ago from Texas

      I'm not sure where you got those statistics, but that's not even possible. I mean, yeah, I'm sure the brain continues to develop relatively late into life, but 18 is long after the brain forms spatial reasoning and logical thought and all kinds of other things. But the foundation of brain development happens much earlier. Your learning of language, the associations you make with the thoughts in your mind and the material world around you, all these things happen much earlier. They have to or you wouldn't even be able to function in society on any level until you're nearly 20.

      Yes, it helps to live in an environment where the 'village' chips in educating children, but it's a simple fact that environments like inner cities basically just lead to more children growing into adults that continue to live in that inner city. There's always exceptions, certainly, but for the most part the environment creates a product not much different than the examples they have around them. Human children are certainly resilient, there's no doubt about that, but kids develop the foundation that the rest of their brain is built atop of very early on. And whatever genes they're given to work with came from the same people who ended up in that environment they find themselves growing up in. The main point to all of this is that genetic information. Those with strong genes, high intelligence, more often than not these days voluntarily choose to not have kids, or to wait to have kids.

      The fact is we live in a society now where that's safe and where most every child lives. There's no natural predators to weed out the slower and weaker. And with parents who put those safety plastic tabs over electrical outlets and make their kids wear helmets when they're riding their bikes, most every kid nowadays is going to live. The 'dummies' don't get weeded out and often go on to procreate.

      I don't buy into the idea that every human being is on the planet for a reason. I think we humans are here for a reason in general. But I also think we humans were given free will so its our choice who gets made and brought into the world.

    • Lady Guinevere profile image

      Debra Allen 2 years ago from West By God

      Ha! secret here... a brain is not fully formed or developed until the age of 28. The frontal lobe does not even start to grow until the age of 18.

      As for educating a child...that takes a village. people need to step up to help their neighbors and we must get rid of the thing called, I don't want to get involved. There are programs to help these kinds of people in these kinds of situations. It is just a matter of plugging them into the right ones and GETTING INVOLVED.

      Each and Every human being is on this planet for a reason. Not everyone needs or has the knowledge of why they are but they are and it doe not matter what the circumstances are...it is their learning that they are in those circumstances. It is the ripple effect.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 2 years ago from Texas

      Yeah, there's something to adversity and it being a motivator. But the formative years in a kid's life are key. Uneducated parents, parents who are often kids themselves, don't usually have the insight to help their kids organize themselves so that their formative years while their brain is forming have a good foundation to form on. While there may be the exception to the rule here and there that comes out of that kind of environment as a doctor or a scientist, more often than not they tend to emerge a product of the examples they're surrounded by.

    • Lady Guinevere profile image

      Debra Allen 2 years ago from West By God

      The thing with that being raised in a stable environment is a false thing. Those who are raised in less than perfect condition usually make the scientists and doctors of the world. They are the ones who want to make a differnce in the world. There is a balance in that as with everything there is a balance.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 2 years ago from Texas

      I'm considering the iinner city areas as well. Children having children. Children growing up with no real chance at being raised in a stable environment, little chance for a good education. It's not the quantity that's the concern, it's the quality. There will assuredly be plenty, numbers wise, but the environment they'll be reared in will most likely leave a lot to be desired. Meanwhile, those who do have the resources and such are willfully choosing to forgo having children because of the environment. Because they know the challenges they face.

    • Lady Guinevere profile image

      Debra Allen 2 years ago from West By God

      Well I wrote a comment and HP or cyberspace ate it! To bad for your wife. I am sorry to hear that.

      I had two daughters and my husband at the time wanted 6 children. After my scond I was so sick that I told him that was it. I almost lost my life and that of the baby's. My daughter has 2 and she waited until she was 32 to have children. My youngest had a baby and gave it away and now it will difficult for her to ever have children again.

      I think that you are looking at just your area and that is not how it is all over or in many other places. There are babies having babie in the inner cities of the world and believe me that are lots of inner cities. China has a cap on how many children and the sexes of them because of their over population. Many Bigger Cities are polluted because there are just too many people that live in them. Ever heard of suburban sprawl? That is where the cities are expanding into the areas around the city and they are also becoming over populated. All you need to do is do some research on population explosions in this century. There are going to be plenty of people in the world and it isn't going to be stopping anytime soon...may not even in the next 300 years.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 2 years ago from Texas

      I guess only time will tell. I know my wife and I waited to have children until we were in a better place financially, only for her to then be struck by ovarian tumors that ended up causing her to have a full hysterectomy. Now we can't have children. All I can go by is what I've seen in my life and the people around me. And in those cases nearly all the friends I have from high school are now entering their 40's, and none of them have children. I guess only time will tell.

    • Lady Guinevere profile image

      Debra Allen 2 years ago from West By God

      What if the heterosexuls can't have children...is the governemnt going to penalize them? What about all the people who do not even want to get married??

      I do not think we are going to be decreasing the number of children on this earth anytime soon especially in the US of A.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 2 years ago from Texas

      True, that's basically what we'll be left counting on. There are also many homosexual couples who look to find surrogate mothers to carry their children. If this is a common enough practice then all may be fine. But I'd say it's definitely a concern. These practices aren't as easy and wide spread as 'the old fashioned way'.

    • Lady Guinevere profile image

      Debra Allen 2 years ago from West By God

      Ah, I see. Did you know there are those who donate to sperm banks? They can all do that and procreate that way. That would produce those "smart" and "creative" traits without anyone ever knowing it.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 2 years ago from Texas

      To be clear, I'm not trying to make the point that homosexuality is a threat to the population. I was talking about government interest in heterosexual procreation. But, there is a case that I think can be made there. When you consider quality of genes being passed on, there are numerous homosexuals I have known in my life where I consider it a damn shame that their genes aren't going to be in the pool for future generations. These are some of the smartest, most creative, most compassionate people I have ever known.

      It's not so much the quantity of the human population, it's more the quality that's a potential issue.

    • Lady Guinevere profile image

      Debra Allen 2 years ago from West By God

      Have you seen how populated the earth is and how we are running out of food because of the OVER-population? Why is homosexuality a threat to the population when it is really some sort of smokescreen?

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 2 years ago from Texas

      Yes, certainly. The kids who already exist but who are not in the best of situations have people who can step up and take care of them. But ultimately what we're talking about here is the capability to 'make' them. The 'supply' has to be there first, before 'quality' can then be taken into consideration. Actually raising them and placing them in a good environment is secondary. The ability to conceive children is the key. It's the necessary component to making sure there are future generations to carry on.

      The movie 'Idiocracy' points out a rather troubling reality where people's values now-a-days have changed in a way that may ultimately prove detrimental. It's much more common in this age for couples to willfully choose to not have children. The movie talks about how it's primarily the more intelligent and educated couples choosing to do this, while the less intelligent and educated continue to procreate at a break-neck pace. So, rather than natural selection favoring the smarter/stronger, its now the other way around. Now the smarter/stronger are voluntarily removing themselves from the gene pool. When you consider each generation is made up of the children born of this one, it becomes apparent just how quickly things could really turn and go bad.

      Sorry, I kind of got off topic there.

    • jonnycomelately profile image

      Alan 2 years ago from Tasmania

      This brings me back to a point made earlier: If those couples who have no wish to, or can't, have children of their own could be allowed/encouraged/supported to nurture the children who are being neglected for one reason or another, that would serve the purpose you are discussing, Headly.

      Some natural parents are the least-equipped and capable of raising children. They might be so glad of some help from others who are more able. This would truly enhance the well being and longer-term survival of the next generation.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 2 years ago from Texas

      Well certainly part of the motivation is for monetary gain. That can always be assumed. But they actually require less money wise from married couples. If you're married you get a tax break. There are benefits that encourage marriage. It only makes sense that the government of a people would have a vested interest in the birth of future generations of tax payers. A country's survival is dependent on the procreation of the current generation in raising the next generation.

    • Lady Guinevere profile image

      Debra Allen 2 years ago from West By God

      You must know by now they are only using that as a way to gain taxes and other monies. Government is ALL about controlling the money and who gets it or who does not.

      As I tried to state above but you missed it, the Gay community is not a new thing...it was very much so back 2000+ years ago. It is just another prejudice they have started up. Look at the black community and how they prevented them from making money to support themselves. Look at the Jewish community and the Chineese and Japanese.....it is just another way to control the masses. It is no different.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 2 years ago from Texas

      Jonny,

      This is something I've wondered about as well. All I can really do is assess my own experiences and where/when I became aware of certain thoughts. It started fairly young. I remember being intrigued by a large (like 4 foot tall) barbie doll a friend had, as well as my princess Leia action figure. I remember being quite freaked out about girls in general. I was mainly surrounded by boys in my childhood. My poor mother was often outnumbered and wasn't allowed to be very "girly". So girls to me were alien and strange. I didn't know how to behave around them. It makes me wonder how/when these feelings come about. I feel like that was at least part of it. Discovering girls was like a feat of some sort that much of my life was made up of. Learning how to behave around them, how to talk to them, and finally how to interact sexually around them. Most of the biggest mistakes I made in life were sexual. Some of the worst things I've done to friends in my life were sexual.

      Here's my thoughts on it and why I think what I do. Any light you can shed on this will be hugely appreciated. In my mind, homosexuality cannot be genetic. If it were genetic it would have been weeded out of our genetics long ago. Plus, there doesn't seem to be any sort of pattern as far as homosexuals within a family. So that only leaves 'nurture' in the 'nature vs. nurture' way of looking at things. This is why I think it must be learned in some way. And something you said kind of reaffirmed that for me. Your statement about how some of your early life experiences of the opposite gender and their anatomy "put you off" heterosexuality.

      There's no doubt we're all right on the cusp between male and female. Just a small change in our levels of hormones and you can easily go the other way. So it would seem that our preferences can be just that close to going one way or the other as well. Maybe my feeling of being 'put off' where male anatomy or sexuality goes has something to do with life experience. I have at certain points in my life been aware of an appreciation of the male anatomy. I can appreciate a particularly "good looking" man. And that in itself doesn't bother me. It's only when 'sexual' thoughts cross with thoughts of a man that I get that 'put off' feeling.

      Yes, if there's anyone who has anything to add to this, please feel free. I find this topic fascinating. I might end up doing a hub specifically about it. I've hesitant in the past about my thoughts on homosexuality being more nurture-based than nature as I was afraid that might be taken as offensive.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 2 years ago from Texas

      Lady Guinevere,

      That's what I was looking at discussing. The Government does indeed involve themselves, so it makes me wonder what exactly their interest is and why. Like marriage in general, it has to be licensed and has to qualify as legal. It's legally binding. Here's an interesting article I haven't read all of yet, but thought I'd share as it might shed some light....

      "There are 1,138 benefits, rights and protections provided on the basis of marital status in Federal law. [1] Because the Defense of Marriage Act defines "marriage" as only a legal union between one man and one woman, same-sex couples - even if legally married in their state - will not be considered spouses for purposes of federal law."

      http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/an-overview-of-...

    • jonnycomelately profile image

      Alan 2 years ago from Tasmania

      Just as an add-on, I wonder if there is anyone else here would be willing to give a tiny bit of background on what they think was the main influence upon their particular sexual orientation. I know many of us regard sexuality as being very basic from the beginning of our lives. Whether that be true or not I am not concerned with right here and now. Maybe, maybe not. But anyone who is patient enough to be here discussing or at least reading about what we are thinking, will have a broad enough mind to discuss it at some length.

      For myself, yes, some of my early life experience and awareness of the opposite gender and their anatomy did indeed put me off heterosexuality, once I at last got to know what it was about. But I am 95% sure that did not CAUSE my homosexuality. Might have helped it along, I accept. Can't speak for other people, with other sexual variants, but I do know my own background and how it has influenced my development.

      I will leave it there and give others a chance to contribute.... hope you don't mind me opening up the topic in this way, Headly... it might help us all to a bit more understanding, mutually.

    • jonnycomelately profile image

      Alan 2 years ago from Tasmania

      Even if homosexual relationships are much more accepted in some societies these days, there is absolutely no fear of heterosexual coitus becoming obsolete, surely! Heterosexuality appears to he hugely popular.... with 7 billion people in the world I don't think there is the slightest chance that homosexuality will take over as predominant.

      But back to your main point, Headly, that visceral feeling you get when "gay stuff" is shoved in your face, expecting you to just put up with if you don't like it..... I fully understand you and feel that, in the ideal world, you would not have to put up with it. But the world is far from ideal for me, also. I get most uncomfortable when confronted with lesbian sexual acts. Not for long, though -- I turn away or switch off pronto. When I see a young couple lying on the grass in the park, necking obviously and, by a wild guess, doing somethings much more intimate, in full public view. Am I entitled to complain and get it stopped? Probably yes, but I don't reckon the cop shop would give me much support, as a grumpy old man in his 70s!

      A final thought has just occurred to me.... where is that uncomfortable feeling within you coming from, Headly? Any secret desires, I wonder? Any guilt from secret happenings in your life? (Please don't answer this, it's only rhetoric....none of our business, just for you to answer yourself.)

    • Lady Guinevere profile image

      Debra Allen 2 years ago from West By God

      Why would a government concern themselves with such in the first place if it was in any books prior to that. Where does it state this in the Constitution?

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 2 years ago from Texas

      To be clear, the statement I'm making has nothing to do with religion or the bible. It only has to do with a governing body having any sort of vested interest in marriage. Right now there's legislation on the books, in America at least, that encourages marriage. Tax breaks if you are married, and that kind of thing. Why else would a government encourage marriage but in the interest of procreation?

    • Lady Guinevere profile image

      Debra Allen 2 years ago from West By God

      That is why there is supposed to be division of church and state. Who says marriage is only to procreate and that only men/women are to be married and who says they cannot adopt children? It would be wise to read the bible about cocubines and Eunuchs to find out what really went on with those groups of people. Gay and Lesbian is NOT a new thing.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 2 years ago from Texas

      Jonny,

      I apologize. I wasn't very clear. I meant the interest of marriage where governmental legislation is concerned. Like tax cuts for married couples and such, things that encourage marriage from that standpoint. In the interest of a governing body, procreation is very important. For any country it is important. Without couples procreating America would be dead in a century. It has to encourage the procreation of future generations to ensure its own future.

      I didn't mean to suggest that homosexual couples are incapable of providing a loving home, or safety, or security, or any of the other things that marriage provides a heterosexual couple. What I mean is the fact that legislation would take any sort of interest at all in an institution such as marriage. My thought is that it has everything to do with encouraging procreation. I don't know that to be a fact, that just makes sense to me.

      Why else would a government have a vested, and legislated, interest in marriage? If not for some self-serving purpose? I can assure you if there were some reason homosexual marriage benefited government it wouldn't be near the issue it is to be legalized. They would have found some way to make it so by now. But they have no motivation if it only serves the interest of the people.

    • jonnycomelately profile image

      Alan 2 years ago from Tasmania

      Surely marriage is not solely concerned with reproduction of the species?

      How many couples, whether hetero-, homo-, male or female, young or old, are living happily together without a thought of producing offspring? Many are unable to because of, for example, infertility or physical limitations. Many just don't want to.

      Is it not accepted that pairing has much more significant purpose in providing safety and security, companionship, mutual support and sharing of skills, knowledge?

      What two persons "get up to" in their private lives together is no business of anyone else. If those two people make life more joyful and economical, perhaps providing a home and shelter for a third or fourth person to share, then that can be a very positive benefit for our species.

      Where a same-gender couple can give a young person a loving and nurturing home, when they would otherwise have none, how can that be in any way "bad?"

      I am suggesting that trying to find some kind of justification for either point of view from the pages of scripture is utterly silly and lacks any kind of loving compassion.... or good sense. Certainly not in the nature of one who people refer to as Jesus. We are blessed with brains that enable us to work out the best possible solutions in any circumstance.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 2 years ago from Texas

      Lady Guinevere,

      I never really thought about that. Ultimately, the whole point of dating/marrying is to procreate. The interest, in terms of this nation and other nations, is the conception of future generations. All the laws and rules that have to do with marriage and married couples is in light of this interest. Something that is impossible in the gay community.

      Personally, if I were gay, I would probably make use of dating sites geared towards the gay community. It's got to be difficult out in the world where the generally accepted "norm" is the pairing of women/men to find someone when you're gay. I know the gay friends I used to hang out with would explain to me all the little things that suggest to others that they are actively dating gays. Whether it be wearing certain shoes, certain clothes, or even driving a certain kind of car. These things were indicators to other gays to let them know you're gay an on the market. The world, it would seem, could be a very dangerous place for someone who's gay and is looking for love. Gay dating sites would be a way to ensure everyone you approach is after the same thing.

    • Lady Guinevere profile image

      Debra Allen 2 years ago from West By God

      Oh I see a problem with this and it isn't about Gays in particular. The first thing that I thought of was all the ad for all the matchmaking sites out there. That spells a FEAR in the public eye and the media wants to push this gay stuff under the rug, so to speak. I think that is wrong. If I were gay I would be offended and I am not and am offended by all these singles matchmaking sites that are obviously trying to shun the gay community. It is appalling what is happening with the media today. I thought we were progressing, not regressing.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 2 years ago from Texas

      Yeah, that's true. Ultimately they're just trying to make what they think the masses want. So it's all pandering on some level. What we see is ultimately what the powers that be think we want. That's a good point.

      It's just something about shows like this seem even more shameless, and less veiled, than the rest. I mean, the artist in me is offended in general that they have such a platform to do something meaningful with, but instead waste their time and energy on this sort of thing.

      I think the thing that gets to me about this is how obvious it is, yet everyone seems to be playing along like it isn't. I feel like someone needs to call them out on their BS. Challenge them to bring something better. To put some effort into it. Instead, awards season will roll around, all the rich people will fall over themselves patting each other on the back as they do annually, and of course they'll honor HBO for being so 'progressive'. And the crowd will applaud and they'll thank their parents and agents and such. And it all starts over again. All the while congratulating each other on how well they continue to sell us crap year after year like their fingers on the 'pulse'. I guess I just find the whole thing generally insulting.

    • jonnycomelately profile image

      Alan 2 years ago from Tasmania

      Like so many areas of the media, they do pander to the general public, because it's all driven by the Almighty Dollar, in my opinion.

      Anything that is patronising, anything that condemns, anything that is politically correct --- these will get people watching, paying attention (indeed, trapping our attention), is likely to get us going along with them and responding to their adverts.

      We, the general public, like a spectacle. We run with the crowd. We run to watch a football match, because that is what "everyone" is doing. We clamour to watch a talent show, because we are told that's what everyone is doing, and we don't want to be left out in the cold. And there is usually a sexy-looking contestant to move our emotions.

      Cock fights, bear-baiting, two-up and other gambling vices are a step up, because they actually offer the chance of a reward.

      Lynch mobs gather up the community to run and watch, in modern terms here on the Internet. It's fun and sensational, it gives a sort of adrenalin rush, gets us going in various parts of our anatomy and physiology.

      So, when the media display something that is in effect negative, in an underhand way, they are really pandering to our gut feelings. The outcome might be something pretty horrific and cruel if the crowd runs along with the hatred, but that is not usually the concern of the media chiefs....they only want the Ratings to rise.

      If you look at the story of a Man up there on a "tree," being jeered at, poked with a spear, providing the crowd with a spectacle, many years ago, you will see we have not changed much. Anyone who displays a trait which our society chooses to reject becomes one whom we can throw stones at...adding to the fun.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image
      Author

      Jeremy Christian 2 years ago from Texas

      Thank you for that, Jonny.

      I was briefly hesitant to share these thoughts because I didn't want offend some here that I consider friends, you being one of them. I just felt something should be said.

      So, I'm curious, do you feel shows like the one I spoke about are pandering to the homosexual community? Do they feel like cheap grabs for attention or kudos to you as they do to me? I feel like it such a blatant, obvious thing, and they must think the general public is just too ignorant to realize it. It comes off as insulting to me, but maybe that's just me.

    • jonnycomelately profile image

      Alan 2 years ago from Tasmania

      I am very comfortable that you voiced your opinions here, Headly. Well done... it takes courage, but you will probably get some flack from some unthinking person.... don't worry about it.'

      I get a similar visceral feeling to what you describe, when I see the female anatomy displayed "in my face," ... something I find quite revolting, but have to bow to the desires of straight guys.

    • Dip Mtra profile image

      Dip Mtra 2 years ago from World Citizen

      Interesting read. Voted up.

    • jlpark profile image

      Jacqui 2 years ago from New Zealand

      I don't see it as pandering per say. I see it as misrepresentation of those of us who are gay. From what you describe of the show Looking - and the poster promoting it - it seems to be portraying gay men as only looking for one night stands, a quick hook up etc - which SOME are but most definitely NOT all. Which then buys into the incorrect stereotypes, promoting the WRONG thing.

      I agree it's most likely about getting in on the 'look how tolerant we are' train. But rather than just add inaccurate 'gay' shows, or the odd token stereotypical gay character with little to no backstory - the occasional well researched, back storied and appropriately represented gay person in a show is perfectly ok.

      For example - the writers of Pretty Little Liars have done well with the gay character who is part of the main cast - because it's well researched, and appropriately represented - even done to the silly emotional things we as gay women get into with each other (no, 2 women is NOT easier!). (I don't watch GOT...so can't comment on that). Queer As Folk (US - again I never watched the UK one) was good, but I can't say I've watched a good one lately.

      I can see how it could be seen as pandering - I just see it as annoying.

      I do understand the physical reaction you had - as straight sex might have that reaction for many gay men and women - i don't have such as viserial reaction, but can't say the thought of straight does anything for me!

      I'm glad you said what you said tho, headly!

      (BTW if I've missed the point - reading on an iPhone is hard, and please feel free to remove my comment!)