Bisexuality / Homosexuality and Radical Feminism - Connection ?

[dusty_david]

Some friends and I beat up homosexuals back in the 70s. Back then, no one said anything. Men fought and men did not put up with homosexuals. And the homosexuals kept quiet.

When I mentioned these 30+ year old fights, I got verbally jumped on here. Now it’s different. Boys put on makeup in junior high and no one says a word. Not the world I wanted.

Sorry some homosexual boys got hurt. I’m more sorry that being a heterosexual boy has got so much harder.

 

[John21652]

Ending slavery was surely a radical idea for White Southerners. I hope you’re not disputing that, in your implicit attempt to paint the word “radical” as ALWAYS equivalent to “wrong.” As Angry also points out, interracial marriage was a radical idea up until the latter half of the 20th century. Even having a discussion about homosexuality was not too long ago regarded as radical. Women going to college was once another radical notion. There are several more examples, if you like. The word “radical” is not inherently something bad. (In fact, the etymology of the word is “root,” and it originally meant just the opposite of “extreme,” that is, “something fundamental” or “back to basics.”)

Well Meltzerboy, once again you prove yourself to be a champion of moral relativism.
The topic of my response was the point about the ending of slavery being radical or not. Of course, once you wrote of the opinion of the southerners you adopted a relativist stance. Objectively, slavery had been considered as “wrong” for a long time and the so the ending of it was not radical. If you’d bothered to read Somersett’s case you’d have realised that. While your at it, look up your own Thomas Jefferson’s attempts to eradicate slavery and long before the Civil War.

Next, you made one of your quantum leaps in logic to suggest that I ALWAYS (your emphasis) equated “radical” with “wrong”. I never mentioned the wrongness of slavery at all, just pointed out that ending it was not “radical” because it had been considered “wrong” for a long time. Now, Meltzerboy, I’d be more than happy if you could show me where, in my post, I equated "radical’ with “wrong” and please, oh please, do show me where I equated “wrong” as ALWAYS being equivalent to “radical”. The only place that equation was made was in your head.

And of course in your attempt to “prove” that I made some connection between “radical” and 'wrong" you widened the point about slavery to include women in college and even interracial marriage. It never ceases to amaze me how moral relativists, such as yourself, will put themselves through mental gymnastics to prove a point they invent in their heads and in the process, suspend all logic and commonsense.

 

[meltzerboy]

Well Meltzerboy, once again you prove yourself to be a champion of moral relativism.
The topic of my response was the point about the ending of slavery being radical or not. Of course, once you wrote of the opinion of the southerners you adopted a relativist stance. Objectively, slavery had been considered as “wrong” for a long time and the so the ending of it was not radical. If you’d bothered to read Somersett’s case you’d have realised that. While your at it, look up your own Thomas Jefferson’s attempts to eradicate slavery and long before the Civil War.

Next, you made one of your quantum leaps in logic to suggest that I ALWAYS (your emphasis) equated “radical” with “wrong”. I never mentioned the wrongness of slavery at all, just pointed out that ending it was not “radical” because it had been considered “wrong” for a long time. Now, Meltzerboy, I’d be more than happy if you could show me where, in my post, I equated "radical’ with “wrong” and please, oh please, do show me where I equated “wrong” as ALWAYS being equivalent to “radical”. The only place that equation was made was in your head.

And of course in your attempt to “prove” that I made some connection between “radical” and 'wrong" you widened the point about slavery to include women in college and even interracial marriage. It never ceases to amaze me how moral relativists, such as yourself, will put themselves through mental gymnastics to prove a point they invent in their heads and in the process, suspend all logic and commonsense.

So, John, you don’t believe that “radical” is always wrong. That’s good to hear! Note, however, I said you “implicitly” made the connection, not explicitly: there is a difference. I inferred you thought it always wrong based on the comments you made. You are apparently fond of mentioning the concept of “moral relativism,” as I’ve gathered from your posts. I would call it cognitive complexity (a psychological term), which means that I don’t see the world in black and white, the way some people do. How do you see the world? I believe there are many gray areas in life that need to be discussed and sometimes issues are complicated: religious issues, political issues, social issues, aesthetic issues. I would say moral relativism involves analytical thinking and is nothing to be ashamed of. At the same time, I have certain moral values I strongly believe in; but I’m willing to listen to different, as well as opposing, perspectives, and sometimes I change my mind as a result of having an open mind to new ideas. That’s the way I view moral relativism, perhaps not the orthodox meaning. BTW, is it fair to say you see “moral relativism” as always wrong, or am I again making a quantum leap in my thinking?

 

[Elizabeth502]

I was not lying about your words.

What exactly is your definition of lying? In most people’s dictionaries it involves misrepresenting the facts. That is precisely what you did, with regard to my words. Anyone reading my last post can see for themselves precisely where you altered my post, without notifying the CAF community what you were doing. And that’s why it violates Forum Rules to do that. It’s extremely disrespectful.

I was questioning their truthfulness in a humorous (to me at least) way. That’s why I highlighted the relevant words.

No, all you did was bold the words. You did not own the words. Huge difference.

As to questioning their truthfulness, that is precisely my point. All gays do is question whether any other human being they could not possibly know from the inside, could remotely have a different experience of the Grand Experiment in Homosexuality that they have. If it’s not identical with their experience (which is to make the experience the most important aspect of your "identity’), they reject such (different) experiences. It’s a fundamental lack of respect for the separate dignity of the human person.

The “truthfulness of my words” is represented regularly in the mainstream media. Again, fourth time now: if you “come out” as “gay,” you’re a “hero.” If you “come out” as having rejected a lifestyle you experimented with, including for a long period of time, you are not to be believed, you are mocked, reviled, and discredited as being – in the self-appointed omniscience of the mainstream media, combined with the same self-appointed omniscience of the Gay Lobby – of no value to a political agenda, in fact a threat to a political agenda.

I will however, admit I may have done so in a clumsy and unclear way.

If you were thinking of comedy, it’s probably best if you Don’t Quit Your Day Job.

 

[CollegeStinks]

for anyone who takes what phychologysts say as Gospel, i would really takes it with a VERY large grain of salt. This is NOT an exact science and it never was. Guesses and theories premominate as opposed to solid scientific research. This is not to put down psycologysts but just to let people know if you will go to 4 different ones with a problem, you probably will get 4 different answers on what the problem is and how to treat it. I totally agree with your post here

Hahahahahahahahahaha. Oh that’s too good, I can tell right now that you are not a student of science… or at least not a very honest one. Oh boy nothing makes me more disappointed in my own field than when people show absolutely no understanding of it. I know Discovery channel and those pop science magazines might make science out to be some prophetic crystal ball in the mind’s eye, but nothing is further from the reality. Here is a secret: ALL of science is predominated by guesses and theories. THAT is the essence of scientific research.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

I was not lying about your words.

I was questioning their truthfulness in a humorous (to me at least) way. That’s why I highlighted the relevant words.

I will however, admit I may have done so in a clumsy and unclear way.

That’s clumsy backpedaling, as well. Elizabeth is right in calling your offense as expressly listed in forum rules.
,

 

[meltzerboy]

Hahahahahahahahahaha. Oh that’s too good, I can tell right now that you are not a student of science… or at least not a very honest one. Oh boy nothing makes me more disappointed in my own field than when people show absolutely no understanding of it. I know Discovery channel and those pop science magazines might make science out to be some prophetic crystal ball in the mind’s eye, but nothing is further from the reality. Here is a secret: ALL of science is predominated by guesses and theories. THAT is the essence of scientific research.

Although you’re right about the nature of science, your tone is uncharitable and, furthermore, the poster was discussing psychology, not science in general. Psychology, of course, is a science and includes much more than clinical psychology (psychotherapy and abnormal psychology). So I think it might be preferable to discuss briefly the nature of psychology rather than laugh at someone who is not a member of that field. (Sorry if I was a little harsh, especially to a new member. Welcome!)

 

[Elizabeth502]

Hahahahahahahahahaha. Oh that’s too good, I can tell right now that you are not a student of science… or at least not a very honest one. Oh boy nothing makes me more disappointed in my own field than when people show absolutely no understanding of it. I know Discovery channel and those pop science magazines might make science out to be some prophetic crystal ball in the mind’s eye, but nothing is further from the reality. Here is a secret: ALL of science is predominated by guesses and theories. THAT is the essence of scientific research.

Hmmm. Did she say that she got her information about science from The Discovery Channel “and those pop science magazines,” or rather was she referring to the inexact science of psychology, including the several schools of psychotherapeutic methodologies? For what exactly are you mocking her?

Yes, I did see the sentence of hers which you bolded. I don’t think she was quite meaning it in the sense in which you received it. I think she was referring to the intellectually dishonest (or sometimes amateurish) habit of psychologists to elevate their field to an undeservedly absolutist quality, which you yourself mention would not be warranted.

 

[John21652]

So, John, you don’t believe that “radical” is always wrong. That’s good to hear! Note, however, I said you “implicitly” made the connection, not explicitly: there is a difference. I inferred you thought it always wrong based on the comments you made. You are apparently fond of mentioning the concept of “moral relativism,” as I’ve gathered from your posts. I would call it cognitive complexity (a psychological term), which means that I don’t see the world in black and white, the way some people do. How do you see the world? I believe there are many gray areas in life that need to be discussed and sometimes issues are complicated: religious issues, political issues, social issues, aesthetic issues. I would say moral relativism involves analytical thinking and is nothing to be ashamed of. At the same time, I have certain moral values I strongly believe in; but I’m willing to listen to different, as well as opposing, perspectives, and sometimes I change my mind as a result of having an open mind to new ideas. That’s the way I view moral relativism, perhaps not the orthodox meaning. BTW, is it fair to say you see “moral relativism” as always wrong, or am I again making a quantum leap in my thinking?

Oh man, how in God’s name did you manage to extrapolate my little rejoinder about the “radicalism” of the ending of slavery into a discussion about whether or not I equate “radical” with “wrong”. It wasn’t even an issue until it became one in your head. You admit as much when you state I “implicitly” made the connection. Scoose me, but the implication was your own subjective reaction to what I wrote. Nothing more and nothing less. C’mon, own up!

As for “moral relativity” being “cognitive complexity”, well, that made me laugh. I’d prefer to call moral relativism “cognitive dissonance” ( a psychological term ). Actually “moral dissonance” might be a more apt phrase, but the former probably leads to the latter.

On another thread you very graciously and very bravely stuck up for Catholicism. I admired you for that. You also advertise your jewishness. I admire you for that. In fact, I am of the school that sees a Judeo-Christian ethic as foundational to our western societies. In other words I will stick up for your Jewishness. Rumour has it we even had common ancestors!

Now get this, both Judaism and Catholicism are Natural Law religions. If you would but embrace your religion’s intellectual foundations, you would find the tools to cut through all the mumbo jumbo **** in the world that turns things grey. Moral relativism does not require analytical thinking. It requires a rationalisation of reality. The search for Truth, Objective Truth, is what requires analytical thinking that has a foundation upon something concrete. Moral relativism rests on nothing but subjective human desires and they just happen to reside in a bottomless pit.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

**The Suffragettes were extremely **tame by today’s standards and although their ideas seemed radical - even for the time - they were not.

They wanted equal treatment, the right to vote, the right to be treated as humans and not property. They wanted Prohibition because of the actions of some abusive men.

This is HARDLY what today’s radical feminist agenda is about. Heavily influenced by a lesbian, man-hating ideal, Abortion is at the forefront. The right to kill children and the indoctrination of the homosexual agenda has become the cause célèbre of the feminist movement of today.
…

**I was responding you your **statement:
"Of course some people follow fads - but does that prove that everyone is just following fashion?"

The fact is that many people are experimenting with homosexual behavior out of pure fashion and fad because of societal conditioning. There are also those who were conditioned in their formative years who may not have been homosexual at all.

It seems the argument with L&L is about the definition of radical feminism.

To add further context to your posts, radical feminism is an extreme version of the feminism born out of the initial women’s movement that fought for voting rights. A strong Marxist streak (Master-Slave dialectic took root) within said movement, with existentialist influence also filtering in. Radfem is not confined to women’s violent reaction to men’s abuse that takes all forms, as indicated in praxising’s two posts.

Radical feminists are not concerned with transitory and faddish concerns. Of note, they seek: the abolition of patriarchy that is deemed oppressive of women, expansion of reproductive freedoms (hence the embrace of the birth control pill in addition to abortion on demand) for the pragmatic purpose of disengaging themselves from the ‘slavery’ of family, and, more recently, the promotion of an existentialist vision that sexual attractions are inherently flexible.

In the radical feminists’ view, men always had sexual license, unencumbered by pregnancy and raising of children, so the women demanded that they have the same freedoms. Sex therefore became detached from pro-creation, which opened and led to promiscuity and adultery, things that the Catholic Church foresaw. The status of being married and having a family began to lose its appeal to an increasing number of women, not necessarily their desired life goals anymore.

The Pill and accompanying sexual revolution had removed the necessary link between sex and children, and the institutionalization of common-law relationship weakened the sense of a link between marriage, sex, and children. For many, one did not get married to have kids but to make a public declaration of love for the other.

Cohabitation then became prevalent, making prolonged, not necessarily permanent, sexual pairing convenient without the commitment. And for the already married, promiscuity and adultery no longer result in the same kind of scandal as happened in previous decades.

As the gates were swung wide open, homosexuals and lesbians were asking: why is heterosexuality assumed in the quest for rights and happiness? Since pro-creation is removed from marriage, are heterosexual unions really that meaningful, really the ideal?

In parallel, lesbian women and homosexual men clamored and pushed hard for clergy positions, as long as they were in committed relationships, with a number of Christian churches accepting the idea for their ministries.

So a move for same-sex marriage was inevitable, another step on the long road to re-structuring society without gender distinction. Radical feminism became a partner, a support base for the latest of movements, the gay liberation movement.

These ideas and events are necessarily linked to radical feminism.

Elvisman, like you, I find it lamentable that many young people today are encouraged to be open in their sexuality, and to experiment with same-sex relationships. Further, the march to same-sex ‘marriage’ will also want to see entrenched changes in the educational systems for children to promote this openness to homosexuality.
,

 

[marica_mandic]

According to researchers like Dr. Joseph Nicolosi (Catholic) and Joe Dallas (Protestant), many, if not most cases of homosexuality manifest themselves in homes with domineering or feminist mothers in the early developmental years of life.

Both men have counseled many people with similar stories “back” (for lack of a better term) to heterosexuality. In Dallas’s case - he himself lived a homosexual lifestyle before coming to God and changing his life. After counseling and learning where his behavior came from - he changed his life around. He is married with a family and is an author of books on the subject, as is Dr. Nicolosi.

Thanks for explanation.
This connection feminized mother and behaviour, can help in therapy many people.

 

[LemonAndLime]

Hahahahahahahahahaha. Oh that’s too good, I can tell right now that you are not a student of science… or at least not a very honest one. Oh boy nothing makes me more disappointed in my own field than when people show absolutely no understanding of it. I know Discovery channel and those pop science magazines might make science out to be some prophetic crystal ball in the mind’s eye, but nothing is further from the reality. Here is a secret: ALL of science is predominated by guesses and theories. THAT is the essence of scientific research.

Actually, science is something that for the most part can be empirically proven.

I could use a bunsen burner to prove that water can evaporate, for example. That is a proven fact in science. I could use a freezer to prove that water can freeze. That isn’t a guess or a theory.

Things like psychology however is different - nothing can be proven in psychology, there can only ever be theories.

Subjects like biology, geology and archaeology are different - new evidence is appearing all of the time. But it is very naiive to suggest that science cannot prove something.

 

[LemonAndLime]

**The current **feminist movemen has morphed into a gay/lesbian front that promotes free, open and unlimited abortion on demand. I never said that ALL feminists were lesbian man-haters.

Abortion and gay rights - these are the 2 pillars of the current movement and for somebody not to be able to see this is truly frightening.

So where is the proof that feminism is a secret cover for gay rights?

For feminists to take up arms to promote lesbianism sounds very much to me like the stereotypical view of feminists - lesbians who obviously must hate men. Not only that, but lesbianism is very rarely outlawed against or disapproved of by men, so an unusual cause.

 

[elvisman]

So you’re relatively old.

So what?

As for your evidence…

It was taken for granted until the 20th century in the West that interracial marriage was bad and that educating females was significantly less important than educating males (or even that educating women was bad for social and physiological reasons). Should we respect these ideas just because they have so much history behind them and were once endorsed by the power that be?

**Now you’re going to the other extreme and it’s a silly premise.

My point is that because the behavioral sciences are constantly changing you cannot call one doctor a quack simply because he is getting different results that his peers becaue of a different approach.

Albert Einstein once said, "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
Dr. Nicolosi, Joe Dallas and others are getting results because of their different therapies.

 

[elvisman]

Hahahahahahahahahaha. Oh that’s too good, I can tell right now that you are not a student of science… or at least not a very honest one. Oh boy nothing makes me more disappointed in my own field than when people show absolutely no understanding of it. I know Discovery channel and those pop science magazines might make science out to be some prophetic crystal ball in the mind’s eye, but nothing is further from the reality. Here is a secret: ALL of science is predominated by guesses and theories. THAT is the essence of scientific research.

I think Bev’s answer was right on the money. Your last line proves her point.

Also - I’m just guessing here, but if you’re still in college – you don’t have a “field” yet, so your apparent arrogance hasn’t yet been earned.
Perhaps when you get out of college and into the real world - you’ll see the honesty of her answer.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

for anyone who takes what phychologysts say as Gospel, i would really takes it with a VERY large grain of salt. This is NOT an exact science and it never was. Guesses and theories premominate as opposed to solid scientific research. This is not to put down psycologysts but just to let people know if you will go to 4 different ones with a problem, you probably will get 4 different answers on what the problem is and how to treat it. I totally agree with your post here

The reason psychology/psychiatry cannot ever be an exact science is that we cannot dissect the human brain while someone is alive, to find out exactly what is taking place during therapy, or with medication.

Now, there have been incredible developments in instruments like CAT and PET scans, that help scientists of the mind figure out what is going on biochemically when medications are taken, but THE MIND does not exist in any physical form, cannot be located in the brain. Our MINDS are not just our brains.

Yes, it is correct to say that the “science” of psychology/psychiatry are not true science because most of the theories can never be adequately proven.

Researchers still don’t know exactly why anti-depressant medications work. There was a big article in Newsweek, I believe, a few years ago, saying that the effect must be that of a placebo. I do not believe this but there is no proof for either side of the argument.

 

[elvisman]

So where is the proof that feminism is a secret cover for gay rights?

For feminists to take up arms to promote lesbianism sounds very much to me like the stereotypical view of feminists - lesbians who obviously must hate men. Not only that, but lesbianism is very rarely outlawed against or disapproved of by men, so an unusual cause.

And just when did I say that feminisim was “secret” in their support of the homosexual lobby? There support is ANYTHING but secret. Where did I promote the stereotype of feminists “taking up arms” to promote lesbianism?? Where are you getting this from? READ the posts carefully before responding.

**As for your last line, lesbianism - as glamorized by the porn industry - may be something that immoral men may find enticing, but that doesn’t mean that is is generally accepted by men. **

 

[LemonAndLime]

And just when did I say that feminisim was “secret” in their support of the homosexual lobby? There support is ANYTHING but secret. Where did I promote the stereotype of feminists “taking up arms” to promote lesbianism?? Where are you getting this from? READ the posts carefully before responding.

As for your last line, lesbianism - as glamorized by the porn industry - may be something that immoral men may find enticing, but that doesn’t mean that is is generally accepted by men.

It was never made illegal in the UK in my countrys long existence, and that pre-dates the porn industry.

By secret I was responding to your assertion that radical feminism is essentially a cover/linked in with lesbianism, as it’s their true “agenda”.

You might not have used those words, but you have certainly implied that radical feminists are campaigning for lesbianism/homosexual rights. That’s not a far jump from saying that they are taking up arms - it’s an expression, please read my posts.

If it’s anything but secret, surely it cannot be hard for you to post a link to a feminist website which demonstrates this?

 

[meltzerboy]

Oh man, how in God’s name did you manage to extrapolate my little rejoinder about the “radicalism” of the ending of slavery into a discussion about whether or not I equate “radical” with “wrong”. It wasn’t even an issue until it became one in your head. You admit as much when you state I “implicitly” made the connection. Scoose me, but the implication was your own subjective reaction to what I wrote. Nothing more and nothing less. C’mon, own up!

As for “moral relativity” being “cognitive complexity”, well, that made me laugh. I’d prefer to call moral relativism “cognitive dissonance” ( a psychological term ). Actually “moral dissonance” might be a more apt phrase, but the former probably leads to the latter.

On another thread you very graciously and very bravely stuck up for Catholicism. I admired you for that. You also advertise your jewishness. I admire you for that. In fact, I am of the school that sees a Judeo-Christian ethic as foundational to our western societies. In other words I will stick up for your Jewishness. Rumour has it we even had common ancestors!

Now get this, both Judaism and Catholicism are Natural Law religions. If you would but embrace your religion’s intellectual foundations, you would find the tools to cut through all the mumbo jumbo **** in the world that turns things grey. Moral relativism does not require analytical thinking. It requires a rationalisation of reality. The search for Truth, Objective Truth, is what requires analytical thinking that has a foundation upon something concrete. Moral relativism rests on nothing but subjective human desires and they just happen to reside in a bottomless pit.

Thank you, John, for your kind words and advice. A Blessed Easter to you and your family.

 

[meltzerboy]

The reason psychology/psychiatry cannot ever be an exact science is that we cannot dissect the human brain while someone is alive, to find out exactly what is taking place during therapy, or with medication.

Now, there have been incredible developments in instruments like CAT and PET scans, that help scientists of the mind figure out what is going on biochemically when medications are taken, but THE MIND does not exist in any physical form, cannot be located in the brain. Our MINDS are not just our brains.

Yes, it is correct to say that the “science” of psychology/psychiatry are not true science because most of the theories can never be adequately proven.

Researchers still don’t know exactly why anti-depressant medications work. There was a big article in Newsweek, I believe, a few years ago, saying that the effect must be that of a placebo. I do not believe this but there is no proof for either side of the argument.

First of all, this thread is way off topic. However, I feel the need to set the record straight (no pun intended) about what psychology is since I am a psychologist. PSYCHOLOGY IS A SCIENCE. It consists of several branches. What all of you are talking about is called abnormal psychology and clinical psychology. Those branches study mental disorders and clinical psychologists are therapists (some of them are also researchers) who treat people who have psychological disorders. That’s also what psychiatrists do. The OTHER MAJOR BRANCHES of psychology have LITTLE, IF ANYTHING to do with psychological disorders. They consist of cognitive psychology, which studies ONLY normal thought processes (such as memory, attention, and decision making); developmental psychology, which studies MAINLY normal changes throughout the lifespan; personality psychology, which studies MAINLY normal individual differences in personality and how personality is shaped; social psychology, which studies MAINLY how normal situations influence people’s thoughts, emotions, behaviors, and motivations (topics include, for example, conformity, prejudice, interpersonal attraction, and helping behavior); and biological psychology, which studies BOTH the normal and abnormal influence of brain chemicals on people’s thoughts, emotions, behaviors, and motivations. As I stated, psychology is a science, BECAUSE it uses the scientific method, which consists of observation, forming a hypothesis (defined as an informed opinion), testing the hypothesis (by means of experiments and other research methodologies), and forming a theory if the hypothesis is proven correct. A psychological (or any other scientific) theory is actually BETTER than a fact. It is defined as an organized collection of facts that have been tested and proven correct. That doesn’t mean that a theory cannot be changed if new facts are found that the theory cannot explain. This is true for ALL of the sciences, including psychology. Science is based on CHANGE. Final point: the word “psychologist” applies to ANY type of psychologist, not only to those who are therapists.