Official Homo Premed Thread

[pillion]

...I KNEW it would somehow erupt into a debate on whether being gay was right or wrong.

That's because it IS an issue of right and wrong. If all those who act on their incestuous impulses came out and started "supporting" one another, people would shove them back into their little incestuous corner. Of course, doing so would be as bigoted and unjust as shoving gays back into the closet.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Tazdoc]

Ok, let's get off this topic, I KNEW it would somehow erupt into a debate on whether being gay was right or wrong.

Ya' know, TravellinDoc, it really doesn't have to erupt into a debate
on whether being gay was right or wrong, or it shouldn't.

Let's dialogue a bit. Good explanation on what gay people go through. Thanks for taking the time. But I wonder how much of the fear and internal conflict is perceived and how much of it is real. Everything you said was true about feeling pressure from peers and society, and that was a good comparison as far as the "guy liking the woman" thing. But let's say, I (being straight) was attracted to another guy's wife. I mean let's say I had an almost uncontrollable attraction to her. To me, it would not consume the other, let's say 95%, of living life. The reason I say that is because I remember before I ever had sex for the first time, that once I did, I felt such a let down. Meaning, I had built it up to such a high level of gratification in my mind that when it was done--to tell you the truth, I felt a little cheated.

Don't get me wrong, it was good

It's just that I put relationships and all that goes with that at about 5% of good life experiences. That's the balance and the right perspective, I think. Sex isn't everything and relationships with a man or a woman shouldn't be so all consuming that it messes up the rest of your life.

Do you understand, what I'm trying to say?? (I'm probably a bit naive)

 

[hamhamfan]

It's just that I put relationships and all that goes with that at about 5% of good life experiences. That's the balance and the right perspective, I think. Sex isn't everything and relationships with a man or a woman shouldn't be so all consuming that it messes up the rest of your life.

Do you understand, what I'm trying to say?? (I'm probably a bit naive)

I hope I got your post right....

A lot of people seem to generalize that gay guys are like these nymphomaniacs who are utterly driven by sex. That generalization is too broad and unfair to those who don't participate in that. There are gay people who want monogamous relationships with another. When you have feelings for another, it doesn't just disappear simply because you find someone else attractive. It's the personality... it's just the whole package.

I for one have never done drugs or gotten drunk. There are queers out there who just like any other heterosexual, but simply find themselves attracted physically and emotionally to the same gender.

As for the comparision to incest: I think that the argument against incest lies primarily on two things.
1. The mating of two people with similar genotypes can bring out recessive phenotypes that can adversely affect the children.
2. There may be pressures within the family. I know of a girl who was pressured into having sex with her uncle for quite a long time as a child. Nowadays, her mom blames her for that problem. Within a family, it's a lot harder to avoid things like that.

However, in homosexuals, those two problems are not present by definition.

 

[pillion]

I guess it doesn't matter now. Anyone notice the "BANNED" under her name.


Oh well, May she rest in peace

...banning Dr. P only demonstrates where the "powers that be" stand on the issue.

Why should health concerns or mutual consent be required in order to make something morally acceptable? Is that just your opinion or do you have some insight into some objective moral standard?

 

[ZephyrX]

I would really like to have pillion say those things in front of my face.

Of course we all know that gay people are STD carrying, drug abusing (last time i checked it was a conservative involved in a drug scandal, no?), disco dancing fem men. Similar to black men acting the same way like Lil John and Ludacris. Or black females are just like Lil Kim and Trina.

Congratulations on being able to base your decisions on what the media presents the minorities to be like.

 

[baya]

And on a more related note...thanks TravellinDoc for starting this thread. I definately hope there arn't just heteros at my med school

Well, I'll be there, and I ain't no het!

 

[Asclepius]

I just read a newspaper article about a guy in my hometown who has been openly homosexual for years. He has actually been bisexual, however, and recently came out of that closet to the gay community only to be ostracized by them. kinda sad and hypocritical, I thought.

 

[Cerberus]

I just read a newspaper article about a guy in my hometown who has been openly homosexual for years. He has actually been bisexual, however, and recently came out of that closet to the gay community only to be ostracized by them. kinda sad and hypocritical, I thought.

From the gay people I know, this seems to be a fairly common thing.

 

[Cerberus]

wow, wasnt really expecting to see all the hate in this thread...guess it is inevitable on SDN though. Anyhow here are a few comments.

People who are flaming gays on the grounds of it being wrong, wtf do you care what gay people do? Seriously, lets just say for a minute that being gay is a "sin". Well big ****ing deal, there are lots of sins out there that I dont hear you prattling on about. Do you go and protest in front of the homes of unwed mothers? Mind your own GD business for a change.

On gay marriage destroying the sanctity of marriage: Why dont you bitch about something that actually is destroying the sanctity of marriage. Shows like "Who wants to marry a millionaire" make an absolute mockery of "marriage". Also, if you are going to use the "gays are promiscous blah blah blahs", well...shouldnt you support gay marriage then since it would likely reduce the promiscuity of the participants?

Also, in my experience the "wild alcohol/drug addict promiscous homosexuals" tend to be the homosexuals who get the most resistance coming out. They seem to be overwhelmingly the gays whose parents disowned them/etc. It makes sense that you would embrace such a damaging lifestyle when you go through that much trauma.

Anyhow, I wish all you "fags and queers" the best of luck

 

[TravellinDoc]

ok, another comment to Tazdoc,
your comparison to being attracted to a married woman and homosexuality is utter bs. I know you can't possibly understand what it's like to be gay, that's why I'm not offended. But honestly, I don't put sex as 95% of my life. My point is that your sexuality is what makes up a large part of who you are. I"m not talking about the act itself, rather the relationships you will have for the rest of your life. How you interact with people is affected as a closeted homo because you are super paranoid that people will know and so you drastically alter your behavior to look or seem more "straight". Personally, I act and seem straight, but all my life I thought everyone suspected me being gay because i was so paranoid about it. Now that I've come out, i was expecting everyone to say, "yeah, we know, what took you so long." However, the opposite was true, people have been utterly stunned and some even freaked out because they never suspected it. The whole time i thought everyone knew and altered myself because of it, when in fact, it never crossed anyone's mind. So anyways, that's where i'm coming from. If you're telling me that who you're going to spend the rest of your life with isn't a big deal, a huge percentage of your daily life, then you must be incredibly naive. Pull your head out of your a$$ if that's the case (sorry to be disrespectful, but seriously, man).
TD
oh, one more thing, I'd honestly like to know what is intrinsically wrong with homosexuality. Aside from your religious beliefs which are not grounded on fact, how does loving someone of your same gender hurt society at all? How is it different if I love and have sex with someone with different genitals versus the same? And I don't want the bible or stereotypes mentioned (like the spread of AIDS, which by the way, has infected more of the black heterosexual male population).

 

[DrSal]

I'd honestly like to know what is intrinsically wrong with homosexuality. Aside from your religious beliefs which are not grounded on fact, how does loving someone of your same gender hurt society at all?

u don't make babies...human race at risk of extinction. If everyone suddenly became homosexual, we'd all die out. ===> Society, and the entire race suffers.

 

[pillion]

I would really like to have pillion say those things in front of my face.

Why? So you could physically beat me into thinking your right and I'm wrong. How tolerant and accepting of you.

 

[Eraserhead]

u don't make babies...human race at risk of extinction. If everyone suddenly became homosexual, we'd all die out. ===> Society, and the entire race suffers.

Jesus Christ... I'm through with this thread, its horrifying to be exposed to how ignorant some people are... and to think that some are/ will become physicians and scientists, well sometimes I just can't believe it. This has to be one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read.

 

[pillion]

People who are flaming gays on the grounds of it being wrong, wtf do you care what gay people do? Seriously, lets just say for a minute that being gay is a "sin". Well big ****ing deal, there are lots of sins out there that I dont hear you prattling on about. Do you go and protest in front of the homes of unwed mothers? Mind your own GD business for a change.

...what if my business is to mind other people's business? Who are you to say what my business is? If you practicied what you preached, you wouldn't even post. You would just shut up and "mind your own business."

On gay marriage destroying the sanctity of marriage: Why dont you bitch about something that actually is destroying the sanctity of marriage.

...don't worry, we'll bitch about those other things, too.

 

[pillion]

...its horrifying to be exposed to how ignorant some people are... and to think that some are/ will become physicians and scientists, well sometimes I just can't believe it.

The reason why "gays" have to support each other on a forum like this is because they are battling against the majority view out there, namely, that homosexual activity is not acceptable. So as far as I'm concerned, I'm in line with the majority view. But if someone who has sex with other men comes to me as a physician, I'll treat him like the rest. Do I have to think his actions are morally acceptable? Hell no.

 

[Eraserhead]

The reason why "gays" have to support each other on a forum like this is because they are battling against the majority view out there, namely, that homosexual activity is not acceptable. So as far as I'm concerned, I'm in line with the majority view. But if someone who has sex with other men comes to me as a physician, I'll treat him like the rest. Do I have to think his actions are morally acceptable? Hell no.

As a physician and a scientist, you leave morals out of the picture in performing procedures and taking care of people. I just think some people posting on this thread might have trouble with that.

Its not so hard for me to accept that the "majority" is wrong just as often as it is right--but I'm not going to try to change the years of unfortunate brainwashing some of you have experienced. I'll just pity you.

 

[DrSal]

Jesus Christ... I'm through with this thread, its horrifying to be exposed to how ignorant some people are... and to think that some are/ will become physicians and scientists, well sometimes I just can't believe it. This has to be one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read.

why ridiculous?

from a totally objective biological stand point, that's the whole point of sex, right? The other stuff (love/pleasure) are by-products.

And please, i hope i'm not offending anyone. I know where i stand on the issue, but i'd hate to hurt someone else's feelings. I was simply answering the other person's Q.

 

[Eraserhead]

why ridiculous?

from a totally objective biological stand point, that's the whole point of sex, right? The other stuff (love/pleasure) are by-products.

And please, i hope i'm not offending anyone. I know where i stand on the issue, but i'd hate to hurt someone else's feelings. I was simply answering the other person's Q.

OK but the assertion that we are hurting society by existing in our natural state, that's just annoying as hell. The biological purpose of sex may be to reproduce but there is much more too it than just that for most of everyone I would imagine. Its just not fair to ignore all the sex heterosexuals have with birth control/condoms in making your assertion. And, the idea that everyone will "become gay" or "turn gay" is the ridiculous part.

 

[DrSal]

OK but the assertion that we are hurting society by existing in our natural state, that's just annoying as hell. The biological purpose of sex may be to reproduce but there is much more too it than just that for most of everyone I would imagine. Its just not fair to ignore all the sex heterosexuals have with birth control/condoms in making your assertion. And, the idea that everyone will "become gay" or "turn gay" is the ridiculous part.

oh, i think u mis-understood. In some phil class somewhere the prof said that to determine whether somethign is good or bad, imagine if everyone did it. What would the world be like? So if everyone were gay, there would be no more humans after a while....

i'm sure they'd develop something, where guys would go and donate sperm, and then women would volunteer, or get paid to get pregnant.... cuz it would be such a crisis...ok ...i'm definitely sleep deprived..

 

[Cerberus]

The "argument by biology" is flawed because by the same logic people who decide not to have children are also immoral as are people who use a condom.

 

[pillion]

...from a totally objective biological stand point, that's the whole point of sex, right? The other stuff (love/pleasure) are by-products.

I tend to think that reprduction and love both constitute the purpose of sex. I can simpathize that men feel love for one another, but I don't think nature has ordained that their love be expressed sexually. Why can't two men express their love in the form of male friendship? How is anal sex an expression of love? As for pleasure, it's certainly a part of sex, but it's not the purpose of sex.

 

[pillion]

..Its just not fair to ignore all the sex heterosexuals have with birth control/condoms in making your assertion.

Well then, let's not ignore it. How about another thread about the immorality of birth control?

 

[baya]

I tend to think that reprduction and love both constitute the purpose of sex. I can simpathize that men feel love for one another, but I don't think nature has ordained that their love be expressed sexually. Why can't two men express their love in the form of male friendship? How is anal sex an expression of love? As for pleasure, it's certainly a part of sex, but it's not the purpose of sex.

omg. people.

Since when does "nature ordain" anything? How is vaginal sex an expression of love? Kinda the same way anal sex is an expression of love.

Right and wrong has to do with helping vs. hurting people. If gay people actually hurt others, then it would be wrong. But they don't.

You can't decide wrong from right by imaging if everyone did it. Imagine if everyone (yes, everyone) were doctors, and no one had any other profession. What would you eat? Where would you live? There's a snowball's chance in hell of everyone becoming queer, and it's just not relevent to imagine the scenario. Imagine if everyone was a plumber. Imagine if everyone was anything. Good grief, what a pointless philosophical exercise.

So let's forget the melodramatic fantasy, and think about reality. Are queer people hurting society because they don't have children? Humm... What are some of the world's larger problems.... over population... orphans/unstable homes for youth. (Among many others, of course.) Queer couples who don't have their own biological children are helping the rest of us out with our over-population problem. Queer couples who adopt are also helping give loving up-bringings to children who otherwise might float from foster home to foster home. I know, I know. If you feel this way about gays, you probably don't want them raising any kids, whether or not you have anything to do with the children. But that's a circluar argument, because we still haven't found anything wrong with being queer, and I maintain that being raised by a loving lesbian couple beats hell out of finding your "home" in a street gang.

What it comes down to is that people who have a problem with queer people have a very specific idea of how people ought to behave sexually, and they're disturbed that everyone doesn't follow their (or their God's) rules.

No, it's not about just being disgusted. I'm disgusted if I think about old, fat, ugly, flatulent people having sex. But why would I bother thinking about it in the first place? And even if I do and have a little moment of revulsion, I'm not going to say it's immoral for them to do something I find gross to think about. 'Cause guess what? It's their business, not mine, and doesn't hurt me. The last thing I would do about it is start a crusade to make it illegal and discriminate against one old, fat, flatuent, ugly person if I suspect that person had sex with similar others. I mean, what the hell would make me wanna do that? It's just pointless.

So just admit they're not hurting you one damn bit.

 

[Tazdoc]

ok, another comment to Tazdoc,....has infected more of the black heterosexual male population).

Hey Travellin, sorry I?ve been away from SDN foe a couple of days. Sorry if I offended you in anyway, you know that hasn?t been my tone and I don?t want to do that at all. How can we exchange conversation if I mean to offend???

You do realize that the 95% was a random, generalized number, don?t you? Yes, after looking back at my post I could see how you could think that I meant that sex shouldn?t be 95% of one?s life. I also said, ?It's just that I put relationships and all that goes with that at about 5% of good life experiences?. I wasn?t talking about just sex, but sex and an entire relationship. I?m sorry I wasn?t more clear.

You said, ?My point is that your sexuality is what makes up a large part of who you are. So, I"m not talking about the act itself, rather the relationships you will have for the rest of your life.? Here?s how I see it. Relationships consume a large percentage of our lives. Whether it be a lover or kids, these experiences are a huge part of who we are and who we become BUT falling in love and all the actual good times and struggles of those relationships do not become a predominant part of public knowledge. It?s just natural. We relish love and the act of loving but I think for a majority of people it remains in context. I don?t think people are constantly preoccupied with relationships to the extent of where it interferes with the other more numerous areas of one?s life.

That was the point I was making whether a 5/95, 10/90, or a 60/40 ratio. Please understand that this post, and my first post to you is a direct reply to the context of your posts on this thread. That is, it seems to me that relationships with you are out of balance. And I?ve seen this trend with a lot of my gay friends. I mean that?s just been my experience, though. And, of course, you started this thread as a question about ?coming out? with ADCOMs. That?s what started me posting. My experience has been that people don?t normally talk about their personal relationships in professional settings. And, they certainly don?t talk about struggles in their dating life let?s say with rejection, and then put it in the context of how it has molded or affected them (rejection does leaves marks upon us and it does come out in how we deal with life)

Are there any other people out there that see this as well??? Maybe we should do a poll.

Now, I know the next thing is that you might say, ?well, if being with another man was as equal in society as being with a woman, perhaps our relationships would take it?s proper proportion, and be more normalized.? That could very well be true. But what I want to get from you is an understanding of why did it bother you to the extent that you were ? super paranoid?, that you had to ?drastically alter your behavior to look or seem more ?straight??.?, ?had to play this game of hiding who you really are, even not participating in certain activities because you think it will make everyone ?suspect?? .

I mean let?s say, I liked to flatulate when around other people. I think it?s safe to say that most people could not stand that. Many would be against that. I don?t think I would have much internal conflict about it because of what other people think and that the fact that the majority don?t enjoy it the way I do. I mean, I would just face the fact that hey, people are against it, and it would be stupid of me to raise the issue due to the wrath it could engender. But would that stop me from doing, heck no. Not everything one does in life is everyone going to agree with. (I know?.flatulation is a poor comparison to relationships?.I?m just making a point)

BTW, why are you asking me, ?what is intrinsically wrong with homosexuality?? As far as I know, I haven?t said there?s anything wrong with homosexuality, have I? I do hear both sides of the issue and I was just trying to gain more understanding about the issue from you.

Also, why this assumption, ?Aside from your religious beliefs which are not grounded on fact, how does loving someone of your same gender hurt society at all?? I never told you what my religious beliefs on being gay is, either.

You also asked me, ?How is it different if I love and have sex with someone with different genitals versus the same?? To me, there is no difference. They?re both physical acts and both give physical gratification.

Like all things in life we have a personal responsibility to the knowledge we gain along the way. Whether that knowledge comes from friends, religious beliefs, watertight logic, or precedence, one thing is true: Freedom to choose is the most valuable and solemn ability that we possess. That should never be taken away. But we must make wise choices by determining where those choices will lead us.

 

[pillion]

Since when does "nature ordain" anything? How is vaginal sex an expression of love? Kinda the same way anal sex is an expression of love.

Just as nature has ordained that food enter the mouth, not the ear or some other hole, nature has ordained that a penis enters the vagina, deposits semen, and fuses with a woman's ovum, establishing the beginning of a new human existence. How is this an expression of love and not anal sex? If we can distinguish between egoism of seeking one's own self-satsfaction from the self-giving nature of love, we'd recognize that, on the level of intimacy and relationship, depositing semen is not just a biological act. Just as a handshake, an embrace, and a kiss communicate something and express a certain level of "giving one's self" to another, sexual union is a total gift of one's self to another. That physical union is not just a moment of intimacy between the spouses; it may become incarnate in the creation of a new human being - a physical sign of the spouses unity and love. (granted, our egoism usually falls short of such idealism) Anal sex is a pathetic imitation of this. It is rooted in a desire for a pleasure detached from its purpose. Of course, maybe evolution will lead to the formation of a new type of human being... one born from the fusion of semen and ****.

 

[Cerberus]

Just as nature has ordained that food enter the mouth, not the ear or some other hole, nature has ordained that a penis enters the vagina, deposits semen, and fuses with a woman's ovum, establishing the beginning of a new human existence. How is this an expression of love and not anal sex? If we can distinguish between egoism of seeking one's own self-satsfaction from the self-giving nature of love, we'd recognize that, on the level of intimacy and relationship, depositing semen is not just a biological act. Just as a handshake, an embrace, and a kiss communicate something and express a certain level of "giving one's self" to another, sexual union is a total gift of one's self to another. That physical union is not just a moment of intimacy between the spouses; it may become incarnate in the creation of a new human being - a physical sign of the spouses unity and love. (granted, our egoism usually falls short of such idealism) Anal sex is a pathetic imitation of this. It is rooted in a desire for a pleasure detached from its purpose. Of course, maybe evolution will lead to the formation of a new type of human being... one born from the fusion of semen and ****.

Things that are abominations of nature:
Organ transplants - nature meant for you to die
not having children, your purpose is to make children...sinner!

In fact, damn near everything modern is "unnatural". How bout an argument based on logic not BS? I am convinced you are just a troll so i wont be expecting one.

 

[hamhamfan]

How is this an expression of love and not anal sex? If we can distinguish between egoism of seeking one's own self-satsfaction from the self-giving nature of love, we'd recognize that, on the level of intimacy and relationship, depositing semen is not just a biological act. Just as a handshake, an embrace, and a kiss communicate something and express a certain level of "giving one's self" to another, sexual union is a total gift of one's self to another. That physical union is not just a moment of intimacy between the spouses; it may become incarnate in the creation of a new human being - a physical sign of the spouses unity and love. (granted, our egoism usually falls short of such idealism) Anal sex is a pathetic imitation of this. It is rooted in a desire for a pleasure detached from its purpose. Of course, maybe evolution will lead to the formation of a new type of human being... one born from the fusion of semen and ****.

Since when did anyone gay on this thread say that anal sex is only for pleasure? It is also about physical intimacy with their partners. Of course, not everyone adheres to this thought, but there are definately people who agree to this. Think of gay couples who have been together for a long time. It's not just about the momentary pleasure, but it's also about sharing and finding comfort in their partner's body. It can be an intensely bonding and emotional experience for the two.

Also, evolution doesn't result in the spontaneous generation of life or mixing of two very diverse materials to form life. It is merely concerned with changes in existing species.

 

[pillion]

Things that are abominations of nature:
Organ transplants - nature meant for you to die
not having children, your purpose is to make children...sinner!

In fact, damn near everything modern is "unnatural". How bout an argument based on logic not BS? I am convinced you are just a troll so i wont be expecting one.

The control over nature that modern science and technology affords is, in itself, amoral. The morality of it is determined by the end/purpose for which it is used. Organ transplants seem to be a good use of technology. Why? Because it saves lives. Of course, if your kidney goes and no transplant is available, yes, you're meant to die. What's your point?

"My purpose" or the purpose of sex? Yes, the purpose of sex is to have children, although its purpose is also unitive. To engage in sex without keeping both ends in view distorts the nature of the act. Hence my views on contraception, masterbation, anal sex, and the like.

...and yes, I am a sinner, which is why I'll hang out with other sinners and why I'll treat sinners who come to my office. But I'll be damned if I don't strive for the ideal. IMO, homosexual actions are disordered, not the ideal.

 

[hamhamfan]

The control over nature that modern science and technology affords is, in itself, amoral. The morality of it is determined by the end/purpose for which it is used. Organ transplants seem to be a good use of technology. Why? Because it saves lives. Of course, if your kidney goes and no transplant is available, yes, you're meant to die. What's your point?

"My purpose" or the purpose of sex? Yes, the purpose of sex is to have children, although its purpose is also unitive. To engage in sex without keeping both ends in view distorts the nature of the act. Hence my views on contraception, masterbation, anal sex, and the like.

...and yes, I am a sinner, which is why I'll hang out with other sinners and why I'll treat sinners who come to my office. But I'll be damned if I don't strive for the ideal. IMO, homosexual actions are disordered, not the ideal.

What do you mean by the "unitive" purpose of sex? Are you talking about bonding between two people or what?

 

[pillion]

Since when did anyone gay on this thread say that anal sex is only for pleasure? It is also about physical intimacy with their partners. Of course, not everyone adheres to this thought, but there are definately people who agree to this. Think of gay couples who have been together for a long time. It's not just about the momentary pleasure, but it's also about sharing and finding comfort in their partner's body. It can be an intensely bonding and emotional experience for the two.

I must be getting my homo threads mixed up. Someone on another homo thread spoke about anal sex for erotic kicks. I agree that males could express their feelings through physical contact, as when two men embrace, shake hands, or perhaps even kiss. But genital contact goes to far. Why? Because of the purpose of genital activity, which is not just for kicks. I'm sure two men could have itense bonding experiences, but the fact that they "can" does not legitimate that they "should." A married man "can" have intense bonding experiences with another woman or even with his own sister, but "should" he? There are limits to our freedom.

Also, evolution doesn't result in the spontaneous generation of life or mixing of two very diverse materials to form life. It is merely concerned with changes in existing species.

I was being sarcastic.

 

[hamhamfan]

I must be getting my homo threads mixed up. Someone on another homo thread spoke about anal sex for erotic kicks. I agree that males could express their feelings through physical contact, as when two men embrace, shake hands, or perhaps even kiss. But genital contact goes to far. Why? Because of the purpose of genital activity, which is not just for kicks. I'm sure two men could have itense bonding experiences, but the fact that they "can" does not legitimate that they "should." A married man "can" have intense bonding experiences with another woman or even with his own sister, but "should" he? There are limits to our freedom.



I was being sarcastic.

According to you, if genital activity is "not just for kicks", what "natural" purpose do hand-shakes, kissing, and hugs provide?

Gays "should" not have an intense bonding experience simply because of other people who have different religious/philosophical viewpoints?

 

[pillion]

What do you mean by the "unitive" purpose of sex? Are you talking about bonding between two people or what?

Ok, bonding. I don't doubt that two men can love each other and bond, but modes of expressing love are dependent upon the nature of the relationship. I should love the person walking by me on the street, but it would be out of line to grab him and kiss him. I should love my mother, but the nature of our relationship does not allow for me to have sex with her. I should love other men, but the nature of our relationship prescribes certain modes of expression. I have loved other men, enjoyed being with them, talking for hours, delighting in their personality, even admiring their body. But genital relations does not fit. I've thought about it, even wanted to try it. But it's not according to the nature of male relationships. I don't think having had such thoughts makes me "gay", and I think many boys growing up have had such thoughts, but to encourage people to act on them only confuses their situation more. Our sexuality is indeed a part of who we are, so reflect on what it means to be male or female. The drama of human life revolves around the attept to bring our passions in line with our reason.

 

[pillion]

According to you, if genital activity is "not just for kicks", what "natural" purpose do hand-shakes, kissing, and hugs provide?

They are modes of communication; body language, if you will. Moreover, when your friend is down, do you hug him because YOU get some kick from it or because you want THEM to be comforted?

Gays "should" not have an intense bonding experience simply because of other people who have different religious/philosophical viewpoints?

"Should" is grounded in both nature and society. As I said, sex is for babies and bonding. That's not just someone's religious/philosophical view. You can deny it all day, but don't expect the rest of rational society to adopt your religious/philosophical moral view of the world.

 

[hamhamfan]

They are modes of communication; body language, if you will. Moreover, when your friend is down, do you hug him because YOU get some kick from it or because you want THEM to be comforted?

I hug the friend because I can comfort them. How do we know if these things are natural or human constructs. Especially the handshake, it might be something that our bodies might not have been "made" to do, if you adhere to that viewpoint.

"Should" is grounded in both nature and society. As I said, sex is for babies and bonding. That's not just someone's religious/philosophical view. You can deny it all day, but don't expect the rest of rational society to adopt your religious/philosophical moral view of the world.

So, is your view something that you would like to be legislated? Or is this something that people can figure out for themselves? BTW just in case, this discussion was about homosexuality itself, not marriage.

I never said that the rest of society needs to accept my religious/philosphical moral view of the world. Don't put things in my mouth that I never said.

 

[TweetyPie]

.

 

[BjOrKnRaDiOhEaD]

First off I am a gay male and I am proud of it.....this is the way God made me, and yes i do believe in god. I am thankful for all the things he has given me: food, clothes, loving parents and friends, a roof over my head, the opportunity to get an education, meeting the love of my life (my boyfriend for 14 months), and having the opportunity to give back to the community.

I think all of us SDNers really need to reanalyze this thread...the whole purpose seems to have been lost, plus...there are too many arguments and feelings of hate/disgust being spread around.....

one main thing we must all realize in life is that the not everyone is the same....we must at the very least RESPECT one another for the many facets that make up one life......yes we may not agree and we may be disgusted at certain people, but we must respect one another for the many life struggles each of us has made .......it is through our DIVERSITY that we can learn and grow as individuals.....if everyone was honestly the same.....identical practices, identical religions, cultures, races, sexuality...what would we learn?

personally i believe one of the purposes god has put me here on earth is to grow as an individual....and it is through the diverse people i meet that i can learn and grow......


i think we should all consider that here and seriously stop the hurtful comments that are occuring on this thread......just remember, we shall all be colleagues one day, lets RESPECT each other!!

much love to everyone

 

[SoCalOrBust]

"Should" is grounded in both nature and society. As I said, sex is for babies and bonding. That's not just someone's religious/philosophical view. You can deny it all day, but don't expect the rest of rational society to adopt your religious/philosophical moral view of the world.

To impose a teleological view on nature is kinda short-sighted. Following your logic, one could have said 100 million years ago that a dinosaur "should" use its hands to grab something, and to try to use them to fly would be wrong! I guess birds should have never existed. Am i suggesting that the penis should evolve for homosexual sex? No. I'm simplying demonstrating the problem with concluding that there is any purpose to anything in nature at all. Who are you to dictate the purpose of everything around us?

If you are against homosexuals practicing sex for religious reasons, those are your beliefs and there's not much anyone here can say against that. However, if you are trying to logically label it as wrong by discussing natural law you have to reevaluate your arguement. Nature hasn't inscribed in stone that a man cannot have sex with another man.

Just my five cents. Yo baya- glad to see some diversity in our class! Looking forward to meeting you and the other USC folks!

PS- I'm not trying to dis' the religous folks out there either!

 

[pillion]

To impose a teleological view on nature is kinda short-sighted. Following your logic, one could have said 100 million years ago that a dinosaur "should" use its hands to grab something, and to try to use them to fly would be wrong! I guess birds should have never existed. Am i suggesting that the penis should evolve for homosexual sex? No. I'm simplying demonstrating the problem with concluding that there is any purpose to anything in nature at all. Who are you to dictate the purpose of everything around us?

Your theories (not truths) about evolution and the "malleability of nature" lead to the conclusion that nothing in nature has an inherent purpose. This leads to the idea that we can control nature and use it for whatever purpose we want, right? Tell me then, what guides human action at that point? Our desires. And if someone desires to impose his will, or his morality, on everyone else, what appeal can you make other than "that's not what I want!" So let's be honest, from your perspective, there's no injustice being done by discouraging homosexuality. You just don't like it.

If you are against homosexuals practicing sex for religious reasons, those are your beliefs and there's not much anyone here can say against that. However, if you are trying to logically label it as wrong by discussing natural law you have to reevaluate your arguement. Nature hasn't inscribed in stone that a man cannot have sex with another man.

According to your moral view of the world, nature hasn't inscribed in stone any moral precepts, whether its killing, raping, robbing.

 

[pillion]

I think all of us SDNers really need to reanalyze this thread...the whole purpose seems to have been lost, plus...there are too many arguments and feelings of hate/disgust being spread around....

Look, I apologize if I sound indignant. I do not hate gays. If we were in a bar, I'd chat with you all night about this or that. But just as gays want people to undertand their moral view, I want people to understand my moral view. But instead, I'm classified as the hateful one, the bigot, right? If you want to be consistent about loving and understanding people different from yourself, apply that to me and let me talk about the immorality of homosexual ACTION. Let me give public speeches, have my own tv shows on public television, and institutionalize my views to make them permanent fixtures in society. Like me, you also draw lines of acceptable/unacceptable action. Why should lines be drawn your way and not mine?

...yes we may not agree and we may be disgusted at certain people, but we must respect one another for the many life struggles each of us has made .......it is through our DIVERSITY that we can learn and grow as individuals.....if everyone was honestly the same.....identical practices, identical religions, cultures, races, sexuality...what would we learn?

You wouldn't like it if a person murdered your boyfriend. You can love and respect that person all day, but you will still judge the action as wrong. Does that make you close-minded? Does that mean you don't respect the diversity among people... that there are murderers, missionaries, rapists, and saints? But don't misunderstand me, I don't put homosexual ACTION in the same category as murder or rape; I simply think its an inappropriate use of the sexual faculties.

 

[supereagles]

And I'm a **** (or a lesbian). My label depends on how radical I am feeling on a given day

I was out my my applications, not on the AMCAS because being gay was not really part of my decision to pursue medicine. But I was out on all my secondaries, talked about having to transfer out of my first college due to homophobia/harassment, and like DK the friend I had whose lives were nearly ruined, and how all of that inspired me to work for change. I only applied to 9 schools, have gotten 5 interviews so far, no rejections yet. So I really doubt it has hurt me. It was brought up in 2 interviews, once by a student, once by faculty, and I brought it up at another one. Each time the conversations were very positive. I only applied to schools in places that I would want to live as an out lesbian so I think that plays a role too.

My only concern is at a couple of the schools it seemed that while the interviewers were fine with it, there was no GLBT presence among the students. But I recognize that there are few out GLBT med students, especially lesbian med students, so it isn't that surprising. I do not feel like I would have a BAD experience being out at any of the schools I have been to.

Dont we all love lesbians.

 

[SoCalOrBust]

According to your moral view of the world, nature hasn't inscribed in stone any moral precepts, whether its killing, raping, robbing.

Well technically yes- so called morals are only social norms that allow us to survive around each other. There is no natural "legislation" saying we shouldnt kill each other. To create these "rules" in order to live in society is necessary since society would actually fall apart if we did go around killing each other. Thats why so many societies list murder as a no-no- its still not inscribed anywhere that it is bad though. And to add to that, how can two men having sex bring the fall of a society?? What we have here is a conflict in what people think the social norm should be- (this is where subjectivity comes in) I personally think we should only force such a rule when safety is in order or when the freedom of one person or group comes at the expense (stolen property, injury, BASIC FREEDOMS, etc.) of another group or person, and not when a few people are disgusted about the thought of another group's activities. I'm sure you may have differing views on this but, hey, that's everyone's freedom.

"And if someone desires to impose his will, or his morality, on everyone else, what appeal can you make other than "that's not what I want!" So let's be honest, from your perspective, there's no injustice being done by discouraging homosexuality. You just don't like it."

I'm arguing the opposite within the context of the reasoning and subject in your discussion (natural law); I didn't bring up include subjective reasoning. I was simply making the point that infering that there is a purpose in nature isn't supported by any facts and that nature has kinda shown that we couldnt possible discern it even if there was one.

I think there is a an injustice being done in discouraging homosexuality mainly in that it deprives certain people of the right to happiness in expressing their love (something i consider a basic freedom) simply because some people think it's unnatural. I believe this not because it's writen by natural law but because that is my basic belief on how we should establish morals (again there is subjectivity here). I think people need to realize that morals are only what we make them to be- there is not natural entity dictating them (unless you are religous of course- again i'm not attacking religon here!)

Ok gotta get to work. Not trying to be an a$$hole or anything- I still respect ya! Just sharing my thoughts.

 

[BjOrKnRaDiOhEaD]

hey pillon

sorry i never implied or said that people who are against homosexuals should not voice their opinion.....not at all.....everyone in this world has a right to voice his or her own opinion and i TOTALLY RESPECT him or her.....i was just saying it seems like this thread is getting a little hateful and hurtful to fellow sdners.....i never pointed out you at all...

also, i never mentioned lets respect murderers and rapists......i just meant we need to respect each other's life struggles and the many facets that make up all of us.....just respect.......we are going to all be future colleagues....

show the love people

 

[pillion]

Well technically yes- so called morals are only social normas that allow us to survive around each other. There is no nature "legislation" saying we shouldnt kill each other. To create these "rules" in order to live in society is necessary since society would actually fall apart if we did go around killing each other. Thats why wo many societies list murder as a no-no- its still not inscribed anywhere that it is bad though. Can you show me where? And to add to that, how can two men having sex bring the fall of a society?? What we have here is a conflict in what people think the social norm should be- I personally think we should only force such a rule when safety is in order or when the freedom of one person or group comes at the expense (stolen property, injury, BASIC FREEDOMS, etc.) of another group or person, and not when a few people are disgusted about the thought of another group's activities. I'm sure you may have differing views on this but, hey, that's everyone's freedom.

...why is it that just about every human society outlaws murder? I wouldn't call that purely conventional. It's a natural impulse to survive. It rests on a fundamental recognition that life is something good and should be sustained. This recongition imposes certain limits to our freedom; not that we can't kill somebody, simply that we "ought not" kill somebody. We recognize that their life is as good and valuable as mine. And so on with the formation of a natural basis of morality. However, once we deny a natural basis, and conclude that "morals are what you make of them," you cannot offer any reasonable justification why one group cannot extinguish some other group simply because they don't like them. You cannot make a claim like "discouraging homosexual is unjust" because justice is simply what the strongest says it is (according to your positivist morality). And if "gays" are squashed because they are the minority, too bad for them. At least argue that "gay rights" have some moral foundation besides "morals are what you make of them." That is just self-defeating.

Anyway, like I said, if your gay, I'll chat with you all night long (but just chat). I'll leave your post now. tootles

 

[SoCalOrBust]

However, once we deny a natural basis, and conclude that "morals are what you make of them," you cannot offer any reasonable justification why one group cannot extinguish some other group simply because they don't like them.

Murder is an extreme, let's take another example: polygamy. We think it's wrong, but in certain native south american cultures you would be an outcast for not sharing your spouse! So who is following according to a "natural basis" (our society or there's) and more importantly how do you know???

I think that the moral against murder is a manifestation of something invented by man kind; however, let's say that it is caused by a natural drive. The only problem I have with that is that history disagrees with that assertion- how many times have people not had this innate inability to kill (stalin, hitler, etc.)?!?! It's just that the people that happen to abide by the social norm that killing is a no-no tend to have surviving, healthy societies. If someone "makes up" the rule that is ok to kill (how many times has that happened?), there is ussually resistance that keeps it from destroying all of mankind. Thus, the fact that so many cultures think that murder is wrong is not in itself proof that there is a natural impulse to think that murder is a no-no, just an impulse to survive (and establishing such a rule ensures that.)

I am completely in agreement with what you say about injustice following the majority, at least what it ends up being in the real world. I offered my opinion on what I think is justified and if the majority disagrees with it than discouraging homosexuality is the norm.

Ok i'll shut up now- let's get back to the original point of this thread.

 

[CoverMe]

hummm... the flavor of this thread has changed since i read it a few days ago.

just for clarification:

Illegal acts can essentially be broken down into two categories..
"Mala In Se" (evil/wrong in itself) such as murder.
"Malum Prohibitum" (wrongs that are prohibited, not inherently immoral or hurtful, but only wrong by statute) such as parking violations.

Being a serious fruit-fly (what I would do without my best Pottery Barn friend Kevvie, i have no idea), I'm just glad that the majority of society has changed to accept people for whomever they are.

 

[hamhamfan]

Look, I apologize if I sound indignant. I do not hate gays. If we were in a bar, I'd chat with you all night about this or that. But just as gays want people to undertand their moral view, I want people to understand my moral view. But instead, I'm classified as the hateful one, the bigot, right? If you want to be consistent about loving and understanding people different from yourself, apply that to me and let me talk about the immorality of homosexual ACTION. Let me give public speeches, have my own tv shows on public television, and institutionalize my views to make them permanent fixtures in society. Like me, you also draw lines of acceptable/unacceptable action. Why should lines be drawn your way and not mine?



You wouldn't like it if a person murdered your boyfriend. You can love and respect that person all day, but you will still judge the action as wrong. Does that make you close-minded? Does that mean you don't respect the diversity among people... that there are murderers, missionaries, rapists, and saints? But don't misunderstand me, I don't put homosexual ACTION in the same category as murder or rape; I simply think its an inappropriate use of the sexual faculties.

How about gay guys giving bj's one another? Do you put that in the same category as hetero oral? How about hand jobs? What is the "point" of a clitoris other than sexual pleasure? I know you disapprve of oral anyways.

Also, you were the one who offered to go "stone pagans" in the other thread in the Everyone forum.

 

[SoCalOrBust]

Do you guys think that homosexuals generally are more sympathetic to people that have gone through other stuggles like with URMs or people with disabilities? Or do you think that someone who is homosexual is just as likely as any heterosexual to not sympathize with someone else that has had to go through hardships because of who they are?

 

[TravellinDoc]

So by citing "natural laws," I'm disappointed to discover that nobody has yet mentioned nature other than in the context of human beings. Why don't we look at nature in the animal kingdom since this is truly nature's purest form uninhibited by self-awareness. As we all may or may not know, homosexuality is present in the animal kingdom. It occurs "naturally" and has been well documented in a variety of species. Secondly, there is really no natural morality or laws as everyone has said. You use murder as an example of something that is universally discouraged/outlawed, however, have you noticed in the animal kingdom infanticide, murder, matricide, patricide, fratricide, stealing, etc? These things exist for the survival of each individual and the means of survival have not been dictated by nature, so to say evolution is involved in ingraining these morals into our heads for some purpose would be insane. We are social creatures and we have created the world we live in. so much of what we think is part of nature is simply a social construct. Your religion and idea of morality is nothing more than your environment you were brought up in, otherwise, if it was true about morality being naturally upheld, then all people would uphold it or believe in similar morals (which is not the case . . . except murder, but hey, who wants to be killed, right Although, some societies believe one act of killing is ok, while another might find that wrong, i.e. stoning a woman for adultery, killing your sister because she looked at a man (actually happened and was socially accepted in middle east)) Anyways, I would lastly like to remind pillon and everyone that anal sex is not used solely by gays, but is practiced rather widely (almost mainstream) by heterosexual couples. To say sex is merely for procreation and an expression of love is rather sad. Just because you want to feel pleasure means you are being immoral? Then by that token, we should eliminate chocolate (cuz it has no other positive aspects to it and is even a detriment to your health). I'm sorry you feel that I'm using my manhood improperly, someone must have forgotten to give me the instruction manual.
So . . . I'm thinking being that most adcomm members are heterosexual and many heteros on here have shown me that they can't possibly understand what I'm saying regarding the relevance of my sexuality in the med school app. then I shouldn't include it if it's this poorly received. Comments?
TD

 

[pillion]

How about gay guys giving bj's one another? Do you put that in the same category as hetero oral? How about hand jobs? What is the "point" of a clitoris other than sexual pleasure? I know you disapprve of oral anyways.

Also, you were the one who offered to go "stone pagans" in the other thread in the Everyone forum.

Please... as if I really think people should stone pagans. Since I've already said my piece about homosexual ACTION, I'll respond to the other comments regarding sexual morality on another thread. See you there....

 

[snowbear]

So by citing "natural laws," I'm disappointed to discover that nobody has yet mentioned nature other than in the context of human beings. Why don't we look at nature in the animal kingdom since this is truly nature's purest form uninhibited by self-awareness. As we all may or may not know, homosexuality is present in the animal kingdom. It occurs "naturally" and has been well documented in a variety of species. Secondly, there is really no natural morality or laws as everyone has said. You use murder as an example of something that is universally discouraged/outlawed, however, have you noticed in the animal kingdom infanticide, murder, matricide, patricide, fratricide, stealing, etc? These things exist for the survival of each individual and the means of survival have not been dictated by nature, so to say evolution is involved in ingraining these morals into our heads for some purpose would be insane. We are social creatures and we have created the world we live in. so much of what we think is part of nature is simply a social construct. Your religion and idea of morality is nothing more than your environment you were brought up in, otherwise, if it was true about morality being naturally upheld, then all people would uphold it or believe in similar morals (which is not the case . . . except murder, but hey, who wants to be killed, right Although, some societies believe one act of killing is ok, while another might find that wrong, i.e. stoning a woman for adultery, killing your sister because she looked at a man (actually happened and was socially accepted in middle east)) Anyways, I would lastly like to remind pillon and everyone that anal sex is not used solely by gays, but is practiced rather widely (almost mainstream) by heterosexual couples. To say sex is merely for procreation and an expression of love is rather sad. Just because you want to feel pleasure means you are being immoral? Then by that token, we should eliminate chocolate (cuz it has no other positive aspects to it and is even a detriment to your health). I'm sorry you feel that I'm using my manhood improperly, someone must have forgotten to give me the instruction manual.
So . . . I'm thinking being that most adcomm members are heterosexual and many heteros on here have shown me that they can't possibly understand what I'm saying regarding the relevance of my sexuality in the med school app. then I shouldn't include it if it's this poorly received. Comments?
TD

First off, I wanted to say that I 100% agree with you argument against some "natural morality".

Also, I don't know if I am wrong on this, but my impression is that a lot of heterosexuals on here and adcoms would understand why discussing your sexuality in the PS would be relevant.

For some heterosexuals, understanding this may be dificult because they don't believe discussing their own sexuality in their PS would be relevant and they therefore conclude that it wouldn't be relevant in your situation. This way of thinking underlies, to a large extent, why people judge others. A lot of the time, people don't realize that other people have different life experiences and different genetic make-ups, and conclude that everyone should make decisions that they believe are "right".