Naturalness of being gay

(note this is not really a comment because even I, who raised much of the dust Bora is helping to settle, have not yet read every last word of the linked pages. If we all abide by Bora's instructions, maybe commenting will be minimized and require less time to read yet impart more information. That would be a good thing, right? ;?)

Right!

Better no comments than uninformed comments.

Can't be assed reading the entries. Looking at the titles is enough.

Central point that no one seems to have noticed - there is no meaningful and well-defined concept as 'natural'. Either we have something totally arbitary, or we end up noting that *everything* is natural. And, to use my favourite analogy, saying that morality should be based on what is natural implies that gravity tells us that we should jump off tall buildings.

Accepting that 'is X natural?' is already taking a major and pointlessly irrational step. The only way to win is not to play this silly game.

You just made the mistake some others have done, namely judging the posts by the (somewhat misleading) titles instead of their full content. Thus, you do not know how much these people tried to define what is "natural". Thus, you should not comment until you DO read all those posts.

Ditto. Often "natural" is opposed not to the supernatural or paranormal but rather to the socially constructed or created by will. If we make natural too broad in our language use it tends to lose its meaning.

Exactly. That is why snarkily stating it as if it is the opposite of supernatural should bring out into sharp relief the untenability of their position.

Ed Cone observes: "...There is a strange disconnect between Kindley's personal style, which is warm and engaging, and his blog...."

That is another factor I should keep in mind as I post: I like my anonymity for some good reasons and do get to say anything I might find myself otherwise inhibited from saying by the roles and positions I occupy under my real name. But I should still post as if I were face to face with my readers. Quite aside from the basics of having your facts straight and possessing the full context of your subject, there is no communication that is made more effective by failing to consider who is reading it and how it is going to be understood.

If blogging begets a disconnect and deprsonalization in our interactions with readers akin to the sometimes dangerous social numbness that envelops drivers once they get behind the wheel, much of the goodness of this world wide hypertext conversation is lost.

Thanks for putting together this lesson, Bora.

[and my hit counter thanks you too!]

going through all the links (great, i've got 8 million windows to close now, but thanks)...there's one aspect/outlook that's missing from all and that's how gays (two-spirits in native indian or the mahu in hawaii) were regarded in tribal society. pre-christian civilizations , including european, offers us many clues to the topic here.

most, not all, native indian tribes held a place for two-spirits
http://www.imdiversity.com/Villages/Native/dialogue_opinion_letters/pns…

http://www.androphile.org/preview/Culture/NativeAmerica/amerindian.htm

what seems to stand out is that it's not a matter of what is 'natural' in society, but what is 'natural' for an individual. we see the same with biplars and schizophrenics in tribals life, for they were often the healers, visionaries and prophets too. most modern indigenous healers are of the mind that bipolar or schizophrenia only becomes a 'problem' when childhood trauma occurred, splitting the person off from themselves. working on these people involves helping them become 'whole' again.

berdache is still used as a term for native two-spririts, though with less frequency, as it came from the spanish colonizers and it's etymoloy is in the arabic language to describe a man with feminine traits.

if we look again at what is natural to the individual rather then comparing it to society, it makes more sense .....society is too convoluted with varying religions, cults, non-secularists, the politics of science, politics itself, and all the slants the major pillars and the power struggles within the pillars vie for.

gay and the 'search for it's being' is as many say, perhaps healthier to just accept, rather then search for 'why'.......it brings to mind the old joke about the alcohlic saying they drink because they have the 'why' gene.

it's no secret that psychology is a 'modern science', how old is it now? not very. the quest to unlock clues via varying scientific approaches can best be applied to 'helping and not hurting', so i question the validity of gay 'why' syndrome. if one puts any stock in the kinsey outlook then the vast majority of us are bisexual with very few 'true' homosexuals and heteros. in frank discussions with people of diverse nature i've yet had anyone deny they've never had an attraction to the same sex. it's a matter of whether we act on it or not.

the notion of 'race' is a modern concept and may help us better understand where politics and belief systems enter science.
http://www.pbs.org/race/000_About/002_04-background-02.htm

categorization is an easy, simple way to deal with what one doesn't understand instead of just accepting. looking again from 'what is natural to a person' we can view learning disorders within the education system. 'normal' is based on population studies rather then individuals, so from kindergarden up we get classified and taught en masse to 'what is normal or average'. if someone falls out of the pigeon hole special assistants are brought in to work with the geniuses or the learning disabled.

yet what about the child who is considered adht? stigma is placed and it's a scenario that says, 'mom, dad, we're sorry to say your child has a disability'. yet adht seem to excell as business people. so if we are to classify and 'why', then would it not be healthier to accept that this is normal for this person and guide them along their path rather then attempting to 'normalize' and stigmatize?

the hawaiian mahu are still raised by the women in non-christian families. the male ones were , originally, the only ones allowed to dance the hula (which is far more then a dance, hula is a spiritual ceremony and way of life). it was only when the conquerors came along that women entered the scene so the conquerors had an excuse to watch bare breasted women performing graceful (alluring in conqueror eyes) moves.

it's the APPROACH of science and INTENT that's all important whenever looking for keys to unlock what is not understood and merely accepted by some. i'm sure there would be an uproar in many quarters of the scientific community if the 'science minded' were to become the quinea pigs and psycholigical, biological et al approaches were used to find out 'why' this group of people are what they are instead of focussing on the individual.

is it 'natural' to be a scientist?

this is not to diminish science as a whole, there are many many good things we have all benefitted from. it's to encourage healthy intent and purpose.

'natural' is what is natural to an individual. i believe too many put the term, as noted in some observations above, onto what socieity views as 'normal'. most indigenous cultures just accecpted gays (two spirits) and believed , as today, that they possessed particular gifts, especially along the lines of healing, vision and were often the prophets. with some scientists bent on discovering the 'why' gene, intent and purpose are of utmost priority so as not to be used as a political or religious tool of harm.

here's some reverse food for thought: is it natural to be a scientist?

We are all scientists when we are kids. It gets beaten out of us by dogmatic parents, fiery preachers, and bad science teachers.

"We are all scientists when we are kids..

Hear, Hear! Well said, Bora.

We are all scientists when we are kids.

We're also all mind-body dualists who believe in intelligence design when we're kids. I suppose we might qualify Bora's statement with, "We are all old-school Aristotelian scientists when we are kids." ;)