Shirley wrote:> Does love between two people just happen by chance, is it a choice, or is it created by actions? I know that there are many different types of love depending on the two (or more) people involved.
What is love? What constitutes love? What is the difference between being in love and being "deeply in like"?
There are human needs. Some are physical, such as the need of most people for sex, or at least a release of sexual tension within ourselves. There is also the need for touch, which is almost never mentioned in any literature.
Shirley, the child you grew for nine months inside of you touched you (and you touched him) every moment of every day. When he was born, he could pick you out of a crowd by smell, even if he was unable to focus his eyes.
The other child that you adopted at eight months had been betrayed, abandoned by the mother who had carried him for nine months (at that time, his whole life, and by age 8 months at least half of his life). I don't mean abandoned in a legal sense, of course.
Remember, a child knows only a small amount. So far as the child knows, there is nothing else in the world other than what his parents tell or show him or what he has experienced. Your newly adopted 8 month old baby knew nothing about you...nothing. You, so far as he knew, were the cause for his world being torn apart. What he had been learning for 17 months completely disappeared, totally obliterated. You were not just a stranger, but perhaps the enemy, the equivalent of the antichrist.
By the same token, you had not had that same touch and smell association with your adopted baby as you did with the one you carried yourself.
I am convinced that the close association of mother and offspring (the closest bond known) is a direct result of continuous touching for nine months. When an unwanted child is born, the baby still wants the only person in his world, but the mother feels a final release (especially if she is able to give it up for adoption).
As for other questions of love, any legal or moral bond that does not address the needs of the people involved, whether physical, intellectual, emotional or social, is bound for destruction.
In the case of physical needs of a sexual nature, these change more often with women than with men. Either way, how can a spouse adjust when total sexual commitment is required by legal and religious law, but one partner is no longer able to commit to sex the way he or she used to?
Perhaps the greatest commitment of one spouse or partner to another is the commitment to touch frequently and in a comfortable manner. When that breaks down, we can call it sexual dysfunction or differences in sexual needs, but the differences may be irreconcilable. When one partner doesn't want to touch the other, the differences really are irreconcilable. The rest is wordplay.
> In the Christian Bible Jesus gives us the command (not suggesstion)to love. He directly tell us to make it a choice...you love, or you hate. The words of Jesus are that direct...if we have not love then we have not God within us, because God is Love.
God's love is neither sexual nor physical. If you argue that God created sexuality in humans, does that mean that he intended it to be used extensively (promiscuously) for the propagation of the species, as we believe is the case for all other species of life?
If we humans are different from all other species of life, then how do we act differently? So long as we do not teach what we have learned and change our actions and behaviour based on new information, we are no different from other animals.
The most clear and commanding parts of the Christian Bible were written over five thousand years ago, which is nearly half the time that humans have had agriculture and lived together in civilised groups (towns). Have we learned nothing in half the time of our existence on Earth as thinking sapiens that should cause us to change how we do things? Our major religions say NO. Our governments say NO. Our militaries say NO.
Not many are prepared to say YES. The ones who do will be castigated. In this world, only a few people are prepared to say that to grow means to change. Without change, there is no growth. Those who forbid change defy the laws of nature and of God.
God dictated change and the evidence is all around us. The Bible even says that God changed, when he agreed that he would not drown the world again after the incident with Noah. Yet Christians claim that God never changes.
Sorry, that does not make sense. It's not even true. The Bible says so.
Bill Allin
'Turning it Around: Causes and Cures for Today's Epidemic Social Problems'
www.billallin.com
Tuesday, March 29, 2005
Saturday, March 26, 2005
Babies learn early
Research recently revealed that babies just four days old have a basic understanding of addition and subtraction. Now, University of Reading research psychologist Graham Schafer has discovered that infants—-typically considered prelinguistic—-can learn words for uncommon things long before they can speak.
He reports that babies of nine months can learn, through repeated show and tell, the names for various objects that have no direct meaning in their lives--that is, they can't eat it or poop into it.
Here is how Schafer describes it: “This is the first demonstration that we can choose what words the children will learn and that they can respond to them with an unfamiliar voice giving instructions in an unfamiliar setting.”
This is my interpretation of the importance of his findings: young children, even babies, understand things that their parents say and do, or at least they conceptualise (make sense of) what they see and hear, in their own ways.
In other words, as I have been saying for years and as I have said in TIA, babies learn from their parents from the early days after they are born.
Schafer hopes that his studies of language development will help scientists to understand more about autism and Williams syndrome.
He also notes that children who are taught language skills by their parents earlier than most other children do not have a significant advnatage over others that learn them later. The others catch up, so the early teaching of language skills does little to help and may even harm the child by forcing something that does not come naturally.
I question the wisdom of spending a month teaching a young child something that the child could learn in an hour a year or two later. But that is how the school systems work.
Bill Allin
www.billallin.com
He reports that babies of nine months can learn, through repeated show and tell, the names for various objects that have no direct meaning in their lives--that is, they can't eat it or poop into it.
Here is how Schafer describes it: “This is the first demonstration that we can choose what words the children will learn and that they can respond to them with an unfamiliar voice giving instructions in an unfamiliar setting.”
This is my interpretation of the importance of his findings: young children, even babies, understand things that their parents say and do, or at least they conceptualise (make sense of) what they see and hear, in their own ways.
In other words, as I have been saying for years and as I have said in TIA, babies learn from their parents from the early days after they are born.
Schafer hopes that his studies of language development will help scientists to understand more about autism and Williams syndrome.
He also notes that children who are taught language skills by their parents earlier than most other children do not have a significant advnatage over others that learn them later. The others catch up, so the early teaching of language skills does little to help and may even harm the child by forcing something that does not come naturally.
I question the wisdom of spending a month teaching a young child something that the child could learn in an hour a year or two later. But that is how the school systems work.
Bill Allin
www.billallin.com
Wednesday, March 23, 2005
Fragile personal relationships
A member of one of my internet communities replied, as follows, to a recommendation I made about marriage relationships:
> I appreciate the advice Bill.... a very useful tool in a marriage,or any relationship.
There is nothing easy about a marriage or any other relationship. Those who believe a marriage is easy are self-delusional.
There are numerous reasons for this social difficulty. One is that the world is no longer the setting for thousands of agriculture-based villages where each man truly is the brother of the next man (usually out of necessity).
In the complex world of today, we need to teach skills regarding relationships. Those who formulate school curriculum blithely believe that the only curriculum worth teaching is that relating to future jobs (the exception being religion-based schools, some of which teach nothing but religion).
We need to teach social skills. It isn't working to leave this up to chance or the inconsistency of parental guidance. My parents, for example, simply didn't know what to teach me. They were not alone, judging by the life experiences of many people I know.
In tribal or village-based societies, it could safely be assumed that a child would learn all the social skills necessary to survive in the group, by the time they reached adulthood. That accidental school of management style fails in megalopic societies.
If we teach, they will learn. If we do not teach, life becomes a game of chance.
Bill Allin
'Turning it Around: Causes and Cures for Today's Epidemic Social Problems'
http://www.billallin.com/
> I appreciate the advice Bill.... a very useful tool in a marriage,or any relationship.
There is nothing easy about a marriage or any other relationship. Those who believe a marriage is easy are self-delusional.
There are numerous reasons for this social difficulty. One is that the world is no longer the setting for thousands of agriculture-based villages where each man truly is the brother of the next man (usually out of necessity).
In the complex world of today, we need to teach skills regarding relationships. Those who formulate school curriculum blithely believe that the only curriculum worth teaching is that relating to future jobs (the exception being religion-based schools, some of which teach nothing but religion).
We need to teach social skills. It isn't working to leave this up to chance or the inconsistency of parental guidance. My parents, for example, simply didn't know what to teach me. They were not alone, judging by the life experiences of many people I know.
In tribal or village-based societies, it could safely be assumed that a child would learn all the social skills necessary to survive in the group, by the time they reached adulthood. That accidental school of management style fails in megalopic societies.
If we teach, they will learn. If we do not teach, life becomes a game of chance.
Bill Allin
'Turning it Around: Causes and Cures for Today's Epidemic Social Problems'
http://www.billallin.com/
Tuesday, March 22, 2005
US Government versus God
The US government and administration firmly believe and freely tell the world that they speak on behalf of God. They use the same kind of rationale as the monarchs of Europe used during the period of the Divine Right of Kings.
However, both now consider it their right to either play god or defy God, depending on how you want to think of their actions.
Terri Schiavo, a Florida resident, has been a body without a soul for 15 years. As a result of an unfortunate health attack in 1990, her heart stopped pumping blood long enough that her brain virtually ceased to function. Her autonomic systems work, but she has no other brain function at all.
Hospital physicians refer to her condition as a persistent vegetative state.
The US government and administration are controlled by conservative Christian power groups. Like dictators, these groups need to exercise their powers once in a while or those who have nominal control of the positions of power will forget who is in charge behind the scenes.
Congress, dominated by Republicans, passed legislation that overturned a ruling by a Florida judge saying that the feeding tube that has been keeping the body of Terri Schiavo
alive could be removed. President Bush signed it into law. Without sustenance, the body one inhabited by her will not longer pump blood or breath within two weeks.
But what, exactly, is being kept alive in that hospital bed? Is this woman being starved to death, as we are asked to believe?
Republicans who claim to believe in God, the human soul and an afterlife want to force a body that their God decided 15 years ago had lived its full term to continue to exist strictly on life-support technology. What is really being kept alive are the billions of bacteria and other microscopic life that live in symbiosis with the body of the former Terri Schiavo. Her body cells have not died because they have not contracted a fatal disease in 15 years.
We need to understand that this microscopic life will continue to exist or will moderate its form only slightly if the body of Terri Schiavo ceases to exist. Only the shell of Terri will break down over time. There has been no Terri Schiavo, as such, for 15 years. Elvis has left the building.
Scientists can create life in a test tube, in a laboratory. This can be kept "alive" using life support technology. No one claims that this life should continue to exist indefinitely, until it contracts a disease from other microscopic life and ceases to function. Conservative Christians claim that it should never have been created in the first place, that scientists are playing god.
Yet that is exactly what they are doing themselves by keeping a non-functioning entity "alive." For whatever reason, their God decided that Terri Schiavo should die on February 25, 1990. As they believe they know better than their God, they have decided that they will do whatever they must to see that the lifeless body of this woman (the bacteria have life, but the woman does not) remains in existence.
Congress passed into law a bill that would force the feeding tube to be reinserted, and President Bush signed it an hour later.
So, who, exactly, is defying God? Congress? The President? The conservative Christian community? These people deserve to be revealed for what they are.
Power mongers.
I believe in God, but not in their God.
Bill Allin
Turning It Around
www.billallin.com
However, both now consider it their right to either play god or defy God, depending on how you want to think of their actions.
Terri Schiavo, a Florida resident, has been a body without a soul for 15 years. As a result of an unfortunate health attack in 1990, her heart stopped pumping blood long enough that her brain virtually ceased to function. Her autonomic systems work, but she has no other brain function at all.
Hospital physicians refer to her condition as a persistent vegetative state.
The US government and administration are controlled by conservative Christian power groups. Like dictators, these groups need to exercise their powers once in a while or those who have nominal control of the positions of power will forget who is in charge behind the scenes.
Congress, dominated by Republicans, passed legislation that overturned a ruling by a Florida judge saying that the feeding tube that has been keeping the body of Terri Schiavo
alive could be removed. President Bush signed it into law. Without sustenance, the body one inhabited by her will not longer pump blood or breath within two weeks.
But what, exactly, is being kept alive in that hospital bed? Is this woman being starved to death, as we are asked to believe?
Republicans who claim to believe in God, the human soul and an afterlife want to force a body that their God decided 15 years ago had lived its full term to continue to exist strictly on life-support technology. What is really being kept alive are the billions of bacteria and other microscopic life that live in symbiosis with the body of the former Terri Schiavo. Her body cells have not died because they have not contracted a fatal disease in 15 years.
We need to understand that this microscopic life will continue to exist or will moderate its form only slightly if the body of Terri Schiavo ceases to exist. Only the shell of Terri will break down over time. There has been no Terri Schiavo, as such, for 15 years. Elvis has left the building.
Scientists can create life in a test tube, in a laboratory. This can be kept "alive" using life support technology. No one claims that this life should continue to exist indefinitely, until it contracts a disease from other microscopic life and ceases to function. Conservative Christians claim that it should never have been created in the first place, that scientists are playing god.
Yet that is exactly what they are doing themselves by keeping a non-functioning entity "alive." For whatever reason, their God decided that Terri Schiavo should die on February 25, 1990. As they believe they know better than their God, they have decided that they will do whatever they must to see that the lifeless body of this woman (the bacteria have life, but the woman does not) remains in existence.
Congress passed into law a bill that would force the feeding tube to be reinserted, and President Bush signed it an hour later.
So, who, exactly, is defying God? Congress? The President? The conservative Christian community? These people deserve to be revealed for what they are.
Power mongers.
I believe in God, but not in their God.
Bill Allin
Turning It Around
www.billallin.com
Sunday, March 20, 2005
Freedom
Freedom does not consist of granting government more control, but in educating citizens how to control themselves. An ignorant public is ripe for government manipulation and control.
- Bill Allin
www.billallin.com
- Bill Allin
www.billallin.com
Tuesday, March 15, 2005
Study: Aggressiveness determined before birth
Medical science has known for a century about the differences in comparative lengths between men's fingers and women's fingers. The thinking seems to be that the differences in finger lengths is a side-effect of the determination of sex of the unborn fetus (foetus).
Medical researchers at the University of Alberta, in Canada, have discovered that the difference between the length of the index finger of a man and the length of his ring finger (the one next to the baby finger) can tell how aggressive that person is, or at least his potential for aggression as an adult.
The shorter the index finger relative to the ring finger, the higher the amount of testosterone a fetus is exposed to in the womb and the more likely he will be physically aggressive throughout life, according to study author Dr. Peter Hurd.
"I think the findings reinforce and underline that a large part of our personalities and our traits are determined while we're still in the womb," he said.The report appeared in Biological Psychology.
I note that my index finger and ring finger of my right hand are almost identical in length, whereas my index finger is slightly longer than the ring finger on my left hand. I am more right-handed than left-handed, though I am left-dominated for some activities and sports.
I suspect that researchers are attempting to find an easy way to determine, perhaps even in the womb, if a child will grow to become an aggressive person (maybe even violent) or not. This harkens back to the nature versus nurture argument, with the Alberta study favouring nature.
I believe it would be unwise to discount environment and teaching by parents in the matter of aggressiveness.There is nothing simple about this subject. If aggressiveness were a simple matter of nature, then genetic manipulation of the fetus or even of the embryo should be able to correct a potential problem before birth.
If only as much money and effort were put into teaching young adults the needs of children and the ways of good parenting as is put into researching the lengths of fingers, the world would be a better place. But measuring the lengths of fingers is easier to quantify, isn't it? The ability to quantify something determines its testability, which means that sponsorship is easier to get for the studies whose results can be "proven," whether practical or not.
Bill Allin
Turning It Around
www.billallin.com
Medical researchers at the University of Alberta, in Canada, have discovered that the difference between the length of the index finger of a man and the length of his ring finger (the one next to the baby finger) can tell how aggressive that person is, or at least his potential for aggression as an adult.
The shorter the index finger relative to the ring finger, the higher the amount of testosterone a fetus is exposed to in the womb and the more likely he will be physically aggressive throughout life, according to study author Dr. Peter Hurd.
"I think the findings reinforce and underline that a large part of our personalities and our traits are determined while we're still in the womb," he said.The report appeared in Biological Psychology.
I note that my index finger and ring finger of my right hand are almost identical in length, whereas my index finger is slightly longer than the ring finger on my left hand. I am more right-handed than left-handed, though I am left-dominated for some activities and sports.
I suspect that researchers are attempting to find an easy way to determine, perhaps even in the womb, if a child will grow to become an aggressive person (maybe even violent) or not. This harkens back to the nature versus nurture argument, with the Alberta study favouring nature.
I believe it would be unwise to discount environment and teaching by parents in the matter of aggressiveness.There is nothing simple about this subject. If aggressiveness were a simple matter of nature, then genetic manipulation of the fetus or even of the embryo should be able to correct a potential problem before birth.
If only as much money and effort were put into teaching young adults the needs of children and the ways of good parenting as is put into researching the lengths of fingers, the world would be a better place. But measuring the lengths of fingers is easier to quantify, isn't it? The ability to quantify something determines its testability, which means that sponsorship is easier to get for the studies whose results can be "proven," whether practical or not.
Bill Allin
Turning It Around
www.billallin.com
Monday, March 14, 2005
Desiderata (with hoax explained)
Everyone needs to read this once in a while.
Some of you, as I was, will have been taken in by the hoax, which is explained after the poem.
In the late 1960s, we had a framed copy of Desiderata on our wall. Not only did it calm some of the craziness of the '60s, it also provided a framework for building a life in a confusing world.
It's a philosophy of life, packaged into a few paragraphs.
Desiderata
Go placidly amid the noise and the haste, and remember what peace there may be in silence. As far as possible without surrender be on good terms with all persons. Speak your truth quietly and clearly; and listen to others, even to the dull and the ignorant; they too have their story. Avoid loud and aggressive persons, they are vexatious to the spirit.
If you compare yourself with others, you may become vain or bitter; for always there will be greater and lesser persons than yourself. Enjoy your achievements as well as your plans. Keep interested in your own career, however humble; it is a real possession in the changing fortunes of time.
Exercise caution in your business affairs; for the world is full of trickery. But let not this blind you to what virtue there is; many persons strive for high ideals; and everywhere life is full of heroism. Be yourself. Especially, do not feign affection. Neither be cynical about love; for in the face of all aridity and disenchantment it is as perennial as the grass. Take kindly the counsel of the years, gracefully surrendering the things of youth.
Nurture strength of spirit to shield you in sudden misfortune. But do not distress yourself with dark imaginings. Many fears are born of fatigue and loneliness. Beyond a wholesome discipline, be gentle with yourself. You are a child of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars; you have a right to be here. And whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should. Therefore be at peace with God, whatever you conceive Him to be. And whatever your labors and aspirations, in the noisy confusion of life keep peace in your soul. With all its sham, drudgery and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be cheerful.
Strive to be happy.
- Max Ehrmann (September 26, 1872 - September 9, 1945), an attorney from Indiana, was best known for writing the Desiderata (Latin: something desired as essential) in 1927.
The Baltimore hoax
In about 1965 copies of the poem were circulated to various publications with the fraudulent (or perhaps simply mistaken) attribution "Found in Old Saint Paul's Church, Baltimore; Dated 1692", and it was widely reprinted on the assumption that it was in the public domain. Even Analog Science Fact / Science Fiction was taken in. On close analysis some of the concepts expressed in the poem seem too sophisticated for the 17th century, yet even today many people still believe the hoax. (courtesy of Wikipedia)
Bill Allin
Turning It Around
www.billallin.com
Some of you, as I was, will have been taken in by the hoax, which is explained after the poem.
In the late 1960s, we had a framed copy of Desiderata on our wall. Not only did it calm some of the craziness of the '60s, it also provided a framework for building a life in a confusing world.
It's a philosophy of life, packaged into a few paragraphs.
Desiderata
Go placidly amid the noise and the haste, and remember what peace there may be in silence. As far as possible without surrender be on good terms with all persons. Speak your truth quietly and clearly; and listen to others, even to the dull and the ignorant; they too have their story. Avoid loud and aggressive persons, they are vexatious to the spirit.
If you compare yourself with others, you may become vain or bitter; for always there will be greater and lesser persons than yourself. Enjoy your achievements as well as your plans. Keep interested in your own career, however humble; it is a real possession in the changing fortunes of time.
Exercise caution in your business affairs; for the world is full of trickery. But let not this blind you to what virtue there is; many persons strive for high ideals; and everywhere life is full of heroism. Be yourself. Especially, do not feign affection. Neither be cynical about love; for in the face of all aridity and disenchantment it is as perennial as the grass. Take kindly the counsel of the years, gracefully surrendering the things of youth.
Nurture strength of spirit to shield you in sudden misfortune. But do not distress yourself with dark imaginings. Many fears are born of fatigue and loneliness. Beyond a wholesome discipline, be gentle with yourself. You are a child of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars; you have a right to be here. And whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should. Therefore be at peace with God, whatever you conceive Him to be. And whatever your labors and aspirations, in the noisy confusion of life keep peace in your soul. With all its sham, drudgery and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be cheerful.
Strive to be happy.
- Max Ehrmann (September 26, 1872 - September 9, 1945), an attorney from Indiana, was best known for writing the Desiderata (Latin: something desired as essential) in 1927.
The Baltimore hoax
In about 1965 copies of the poem were circulated to various publications with the fraudulent (or perhaps simply mistaken) attribution "Found in Old Saint Paul's Church, Baltimore; Dated 1692", and it was widely reprinted on the assumption that it was in the public domain. Even Analog Science Fact / Science Fiction was taken in. On close analysis some of the concepts expressed in the poem seem too sophisticated for the 17th century, yet even today many people still believe the hoax. (courtesy of Wikipedia)
Bill Allin
Turning It Around
www.billallin.com
Tuesday, March 08, 2005
Origins of same sex marriage debate
The following is reaction to the message I posted about same sex marriage, and my replies to them.
Shirley wrote:
> You speak of the early days of our species and the importance of
procreation for the purpose of that species surviving. Was it the
custom then to be married, or was there just the basic pairing off
of man and woman for sex in order to produce offspring?
Of course there was no marriage in the sense we have it now. Marriage, in today's sense, is a promise, a certificate for which is committed to writing, with the signatures of both parties to seal the deal. My personal opinion is that God would find the claim by some people that a marriage ceremony conducted by a cleric as being "blessed by God" to be humourous. God, I believe, doesn't care much about what we promise to each other.
(Do I believe that God has a sense of humour? Yes, as we humans have one and there is little reason otherwise for us to have a sense of humour.)
As for a "basic pairing off of man and woman for sex in order to produce offspring," I believe there is enough paleological evidence to suggest that the sex habits of our earliest ancestors would be something like that of today's orangutans. They looked after (protected, tended and fed) their own. But they would not hesitate to "spread their seed" or to "gather a better seed", in secret, when the opportunity arose. These would be in the days of small bands of people.
By the time our ancestors gathered into tribes, tribal rule prevailed and a man's ownership rights to a woman (sometimes to more than one woman) were more protected by tribal law.
Humans are not monogamous by nature. We are only monogamous by law. Laws, being nothing more than agreements among people, may be broken.
> I read your article and I was not sure if you addressed the importance of the actual 'marriage' in those early days, or just the issue of procreation. This is why homosexual behaviour would have been considered wrong and unnecessary since it did not create babies.
That was the whole point of the article, Shirley. Perhaps I took too long to get to the point.
> That issue would have liitle bearing on the Institute or Sanctity of Marriage that the politicians are arguing about saving (or not saving), depending on the individual views.
That is an emotional boondoggle, propagated by politicians who want to deflect attention from other scandalous news. Only people with extreme religious views care about same sex marriage. Their case is totally emotional, as homosexuals present no verifiable risk to society (except in the imaginations of supercilious fundamentalists who want to control the lives of everyone anyway).
There is no such thing as the "sanctity of marriage." It is totally a construct of religious fundamentalists who want others to follow what they say (despite the fact that they seldom follow their own rules in private).
> I did find your article quite interesting as I had not thought about that way of looking at the issue.
I may be totally wrong. If so, I gave you something to think about.
Bob wrote:
> In my reading, I have come across the fact that in some tribes
a homosexual was treated with much reverence. I have seen this enough times to have some credence.
Homosexuality, in itself, is not a crime, even within religions. The Bible, for example, does not condemn a person for being homosexual. It's the practice of anal sex that disturbs people (for that, the Bible says that a person should be stoned to death, I believe).
We humans have such an aversion to thinking or talking about anything relating to body wastes or the body systems that control them that we believe anything that violates that one-way (outbound) system must be against the laws of God and man.
That harkens back to our early days too, when our ancestors discovered that people got very sick or died when they did not clean themselves after defecating or having anything to do with body wastes, including burying them. In those days, people believed that anthing (including evil spirits) could enter the body through any orifice. So messing around the anus was asking for trouble, as a penis has an orifice through which poisons in an anus could possibly travel.
Remember, even today some say "Bless you!" after someone else sneezes because in times past our ancestors believed that evil spirits entered the body through the nose.
The homosexuals that Bob mentioned were believed to have a special connection with both men and women, such that they were able to understand both sexes, whereas hetrosexuals had enough trouble understanding their own sex. When you consider the enormous role that homosexuals play in cosmetics, fashion and theatre today, it's obvious that the tradition continues, though in slightly different ways.
> the very fact that the sexual act is a pleasurable one advances it beyond the bare necessity of acting for propagation. Rather the propagation is a product of the pleasure involved.
Religious fundamentalists (remember there is no "fun" in fundamentalism) claim that sex is totally and solely for the purpose of propagation of the species.
Sex is pleasurable for other mammals who only mate once or twice a year, Bob. The pleasure is what drives them to mate. The pleasure is the chemistry that makes mating happen.
Humans and bonobo monkeys are among the few species who have sex or are capapble of having sex at any time of any day of the year. To say that this extraordinary characteristic elevates sex itself beyond the level of propagation (Bob did not make this point) may not be supportable.
In those species that are in estrus only once or twice a year, all females are fertile during those same times. Human females may be fertile on any day of the year--even they may not be certain on which day their menstrual cycle will begin, and this determines when the next fertile period will be. So human males are "always ready" to accommodate the great variations in the fertile periods of human females. (Of course, we males get blamed for that, not God, because women are afraid to accuse God of making another mistake.)
> I have also read with interest about a dig where the ancient remains of a cripple were unearthed. What is interesting about this particular case is that the cripple was much older than the normal life span for other specimens of the dig.
This is true and it happens today in some aboriginal tribes. There are two possible reasons for this. First, humans are among a precious few species that look after its sick and its disabled. In most species, those individuals who can't survive on their own are left to die or be eaten.
(Apparently, this practice does not apply to the genocide of tens of thousands (at least) in Somalia or Rwanda or the rape or beating of tens of thousands of women and young girls in Congo. Don't get me started on that.)
Second, those with disabilities sometimes develop extraordinary abilities with the faculties they do have. That makes them "special." They may be tended and treated as shamans, for example. Holy men and women traditionally receive special treatment.
Bill Allin
Turning It Around
www.billallin.com
Shirley wrote:
> You speak of the early days of our species and the importance of
procreation for the purpose of that species surviving. Was it the
custom then to be married, or was there just the basic pairing off
of man and woman for sex in order to produce offspring?
Of course there was no marriage in the sense we have it now. Marriage, in today's sense, is a promise, a certificate for which is committed to writing, with the signatures of both parties to seal the deal. My personal opinion is that God would find the claim by some people that a marriage ceremony conducted by a cleric as being "blessed by God" to be humourous. God, I believe, doesn't care much about what we promise to each other.
(Do I believe that God has a sense of humour? Yes, as we humans have one and there is little reason otherwise for us to have a sense of humour.)
As for a "basic pairing off of man and woman for sex in order to produce offspring," I believe there is enough paleological evidence to suggest that the sex habits of our earliest ancestors would be something like that of today's orangutans. They looked after (protected, tended and fed) their own. But they would not hesitate to "spread their seed" or to "gather a better seed", in secret, when the opportunity arose. These would be in the days of small bands of people.
By the time our ancestors gathered into tribes, tribal rule prevailed and a man's ownership rights to a woman (sometimes to more than one woman) were more protected by tribal law.
Humans are not monogamous by nature. We are only monogamous by law. Laws, being nothing more than agreements among people, may be broken.
> I read your article and I was not sure if you addressed the importance of the actual 'marriage' in those early days, or just the issue of procreation. This is why homosexual behaviour would have been considered wrong and unnecessary since it did not create babies.
That was the whole point of the article, Shirley. Perhaps I took too long to get to the point.
> That issue would have liitle bearing on the Institute or Sanctity of Marriage that the politicians are arguing about saving (or not saving), depending on the individual views.
That is an emotional boondoggle, propagated by politicians who want to deflect attention from other scandalous news. Only people with extreme religious views care about same sex marriage. Their case is totally emotional, as homosexuals present no verifiable risk to society (except in the imaginations of supercilious fundamentalists who want to control the lives of everyone anyway).
There is no such thing as the "sanctity of marriage." It is totally a construct of religious fundamentalists who want others to follow what they say (despite the fact that they seldom follow their own rules in private).
> I did find your article quite interesting as I had not thought about that way of looking at the issue.
I may be totally wrong. If so, I gave you something to think about.
Bob wrote:
> In my reading, I have come across the fact that in some tribes
a homosexual was treated with much reverence. I have seen this enough times to have some credence.
Homosexuality, in itself, is not a crime, even within religions. The Bible, for example, does not condemn a person for being homosexual. It's the practice of anal sex that disturbs people (for that, the Bible says that a person should be stoned to death, I believe).
We humans have such an aversion to thinking or talking about anything relating to body wastes or the body systems that control them that we believe anything that violates that one-way (outbound) system must be against the laws of God and man.
That harkens back to our early days too, when our ancestors discovered that people got very sick or died when they did not clean themselves after defecating or having anything to do with body wastes, including burying them. In those days, people believed that anthing (including evil spirits) could enter the body through any orifice. So messing around the anus was asking for trouble, as a penis has an orifice through which poisons in an anus could possibly travel.
Remember, even today some say "Bless you!" after someone else sneezes because in times past our ancestors believed that evil spirits entered the body through the nose.
The homosexuals that Bob mentioned were believed to have a special connection with both men and women, such that they were able to understand both sexes, whereas hetrosexuals had enough trouble understanding their own sex. When you consider the enormous role that homosexuals play in cosmetics, fashion and theatre today, it's obvious that the tradition continues, though in slightly different ways.
> the very fact that the sexual act is a pleasurable one advances it beyond the bare necessity of acting for propagation. Rather the propagation is a product of the pleasure involved.
Religious fundamentalists (remember there is no "fun" in fundamentalism) claim that sex is totally and solely for the purpose of propagation of the species.
Sex is pleasurable for other mammals who only mate once or twice a year, Bob. The pleasure is what drives them to mate. The pleasure is the chemistry that makes mating happen.
Humans and bonobo monkeys are among the few species who have sex or are capapble of having sex at any time of any day of the year. To say that this extraordinary characteristic elevates sex itself beyond the level of propagation (Bob did not make this point) may not be supportable.
In those species that are in estrus only once or twice a year, all females are fertile during those same times. Human females may be fertile on any day of the year--even they may not be certain on which day their menstrual cycle will begin, and this determines when the next fertile period will be. So human males are "always ready" to accommodate the great variations in the fertile periods of human females. (Of course, we males get blamed for that, not God, because women are afraid to accuse God of making another mistake.)
> I have also read with interest about a dig where the ancient remains of a cripple were unearthed. What is interesting about this particular case is that the cripple was much older than the normal life span for other specimens of the dig.
This is true and it happens today in some aboriginal tribes. There are two possible reasons for this. First, humans are among a precious few species that look after its sick and its disabled. In most species, those individuals who can't survive on their own are left to die or be eaten.
(Apparently, this practice does not apply to the genocide of tens of thousands (at least) in Somalia or Rwanda or the rape or beating of tens of thousands of women and young girls in Congo. Don't get me started on that.)
Second, those with disabilities sometimes develop extraordinary abilities with the faculties they do have. That makes them "special." They may be tended and treated as shamans, for example. Holy men and women traditionally receive special treatment.
Bill Allin
Turning It Around
www.billallin.com
Monday, March 07, 2005
Flavours of Sexuality
Flavours of Sexuality
To understand modern opinions of sexuality, especially as it applies to the marriage of same sex individuals, we must look back to the early days of our species, well before language developed. Even before tribes gathered for the common good of those with some characteristics in common.
In those days of bands of a few people, often from four to 20 in number, the welfare of the group depended to a great extent on the ability of the group to increase its number. Sometimes that happens by acquiring individuals from other groups, but more often it meant by having babies. As death at birth and in childhood was so common, it became an accepted rule that anything that stood in the way of reproduction of as many babies as possible was wrong.
Males and females of reproductive age, those capable of making babies and growing them to adulthood, held great status in early social groups. Survival is the one instinct that all living things have in common. So those who can increase the numbers and those who could protect the clan were the leaders who called the shots about almost everything.
As these people knew nothing about physiology, hormones and proteins, and little more than the basics of sex as the means of beginning procreation, any sexual act that was not directed toward reproduction was considered to be wrong. They may have been taboo, as they would sap the sexual energy of those who had the genitalia of men and women, who would be assumed capable of reproduction.
For the majority of the clan who would have been heterosexual, any non-heterosexual sex act would have appeared to be a matter of choice. It would require punishment, even banishment or death, by the clan, to teach the offender and others socially acceptable behaviour.
Fast forward a few million years to the beginnings of recorded human history. In ancient Greece, for example, soldiers (whether married or not) would be away from their home cities for months or even years at a time. The practice of homosexual sex became common among the lower ranks of the military when no other way to release sexual needs presented itself. Rape was common when one army invaded an enemy city, overtook it and occupied it. But the majority of time that soldiers or sailors were away from home, they were together, with no heterosexual pleasures available to them.
Homosexual sex was forbidden by military leaders, as it was deemed to be "unnatural," referring to the old and accepted meaning that it was not directed toward reproduction (of more soldiers for the future).
Even today, in any setting where people all of one sex are together for long periods of time without any resort to release of sexual needs with someone of the opposite sex, acts of homosexuality are common. Prisons are prime examples of such situations, and many examples can be shown from prison records and anecdotes, but homosexuality is more common than many realize among other groups where people of one sex live together exclusively.
As a result of recent medical research, we now know that homosexual tendencies in the general population result more from genetic makeup than from circumstance or choice. However, since single-sex groupings produce homosexual activities and these tend to be well covered by the media, many still believe that homosexuality is a matter of choice.
As a result, they act as if all homosexuality is a matter of choice. They do not understand the concept of hormonal balances being different in a minority of people than it is in the general population. This concept has not been well publicized by the media or within social groupings such as religions, so they stick with the old idea that homosexuality is a matter of choice. A bad and wrong choice. A choice that must be eliminated, and the "offenders" punished.
This brings us to homosexual marriage and the controversial situation of a homosexual person or a homosexual couple raising a child who is naturally heterosexual.
Will a child who grows up in a homosexual environment (with homosexual adoptive parents), despite being naturally heterosexual, necessarily or even optionally grow up to accept a homosexual lifestyle for themselves? This question secretly maintains strength because of our ancient instinct toward survival—children must be taught to be heterosexual for the survival of the species, the tribe, the clan, the family, the culture.
An abundance of evidence, both anecdotal and from studies, shows that children grow to naturally have feelings of being masculine or feminine. Most who have feelings of being male want to have mates who are female, and vice versa, despite the environment they grew up in. And despite what kind of genitalia they may have been born with.
Recent research has shown that one in 4000 babies born in the UK is what is called "intersex." An intersex person may have genitalia, reproductive and other sex-related organs (such as protruding breasts) of either sex, or even of both sexes. Yet these characteristics do not determine whether the child enjoys boy or girl kinds of activities as children or whether they will be interested in men or women as adults. The subject of intersex individuals is so poorly understood and confusing that some people call such persons the "third sex".
Intersex individuals are the best evidence that what we call homosexuality may be mostly a matter over which they have no control, that is their preference for mating.
Is it possible that some self-proclaimed homosexuals have this preference by choice? Consider the possibility that a person who has experienced confused sexuality or poor relations with those of the opposite sex because of social underdevelopment or lack of physical beauty may find solace with another person of the same sex. That person may readily accept a new definition of their sexuality because they have found a soulmate with whom they can share their lives comfortably.
That is choice. But it may not have been the first choice of these people as they were growing up. It may instead have been a refuge from a cruel world with someone who shares some of the same experiences. A woman may prefer the comforting maternal instincts of another woman, whereas a man may find personal peace with another man who can at least understand the trouble he has had finding a mate of the opposite sex.
But will these people necessarily teach their children that mating with someone of the same sex is good and right? If medical studies are correct, such teaching, if it ever exists, would be overcome by the drive of the individual child of such a family to mate with someone of the opposite sex.
With seven billion people in the world today, and that number expected to rise to 9.5 billion by mid-century, there is little risk that homosexual unions of any kind will present a risk to survival of the human species.
Arguments against union of same-sex couples are based mostly on emotion. Those that derive from teaching within religions are based on countless generations of misinformation dutifully passed along as if it were truth given by God. Any human belief that is passed along to enough successive generations comes to be thought of as having come from God. That, sadly, is also human nature.
But what of marriage of same sex couples? First of all, "marriage" is a word, nothing more. The human race derives no reproductive benefit from couples who marry with the intent of never having children. Yet we do not deny these couples the right to buy a marriage certificate and be treated publicly as a legitimate couple.
If married heterosexual couples who have no intention of having children receive recognition, by the state and by religions, as being married in every sense of the word, there is no logical (or unemotional) reason for denying the right to marry to homosexual couples.
Marriage, by its original intent, was supposed to give the approval of God and state to couples to mate for the purpose of having children. Mating of married heterosexual couples who do not intend to have children (and have the means to prevent this from happening) defies the original purpose of marriage.
Homosexual couples deserve the same rights.
However, if the problem of "same-sex unions" is strictly one of semantics, specifically the definition of the word "marriage", then that word could be abandoned or broken down in such a way that it has hyphenated meanings. That is, there could be "marriage-for-the-purpose-of-having-children," "marriage-with-the-intent-of not-having children," and so on. If a distinction must be made to accommodate homosexual couples (likely a violation of human rights in some countries), then the word marriage or its replacement could be defined in more specific terms.
Definitions could be specific enough that no one could dispute them. If necessary marriage certificates could be made up accordingly for each category.
The furor over same sex couples accomplishes little, except to make many people upset unnecessarily, but it does tend to make homosexual unions a more attractive possibility for those inclined toward it. Those people who are so inclined will see that a sizable minority of society agrees with their preferences for mates. If the situation were not raised publicly, they would not be aware that anyone else feels the same way as they do. They would remain, as they always have, in the dark alleys of society.
Bill Allin
Turning It Around
www.billallin.com
To understand modern opinions of sexuality, especially as it applies to the marriage of same sex individuals, we must look back to the early days of our species, well before language developed. Even before tribes gathered for the common good of those with some characteristics in common.
In those days of bands of a few people, often from four to 20 in number, the welfare of the group depended to a great extent on the ability of the group to increase its number. Sometimes that happens by acquiring individuals from other groups, but more often it meant by having babies. As death at birth and in childhood was so common, it became an accepted rule that anything that stood in the way of reproduction of as many babies as possible was wrong.
Males and females of reproductive age, those capable of making babies and growing them to adulthood, held great status in early social groups. Survival is the one instinct that all living things have in common. So those who can increase the numbers and those who could protect the clan were the leaders who called the shots about almost everything.
As these people knew nothing about physiology, hormones and proteins, and little more than the basics of sex as the means of beginning procreation, any sexual act that was not directed toward reproduction was considered to be wrong. They may have been taboo, as they would sap the sexual energy of those who had the genitalia of men and women, who would be assumed capable of reproduction.
For the majority of the clan who would have been heterosexual, any non-heterosexual sex act would have appeared to be a matter of choice. It would require punishment, even banishment or death, by the clan, to teach the offender and others socially acceptable behaviour.
Fast forward a few million years to the beginnings of recorded human history. In ancient Greece, for example, soldiers (whether married or not) would be away from their home cities for months or even years at a time. The practice of homosexual sex became common among the lower ranks of the military when no other way to release sexual needs presented itself. Rape was common when one army invaded an enemy city, overtook it and occupied it. But the majority of time that soldiers or sailors were away from home, they were together, with no heterosexual pleasures available to them.
Homosexual sex was forbidden by military leaders, as it was deemed to be "unnatural," referring to the old and accepted meaning that it was not directed toward reproduction (of more soldiers for the future).
Even today, in any setting where people all of one sex are together for long periods of time without any resort to release of sexual needs with someone of the opposite sex, acts of homosexuality are common. Prisons are prime examples of such situations, and many examples can be shown from prison records and anecdotes, but homosexuality is more common than many realize among other groups where people of one sex live together exclusively.
As a result of recent medical research, we now know that homosexual tendencies in the general population result more from genetic makeup than from circumstance or choice. However, since single-sex groupings produce homosexual activities and these tend to be well covered by the media, many still believe that homosexuality is a matter of choice.
As a result, they act as if all homosexuality is a matter of choice. They do not understand the concept of hormonal balances being different in a minority of people than it is in the general population. This concept has not been well publicized by the media or within social groupings such as religions, so they stick with the old idea that homosexuality is a matter of choice. A bad and wrong choice. A choice that must be eliminated, and the "offenders" punished.
This brings us to homosexual marriage and the controversial situation of a homosexual person or a homosexual couple raising a child who is naturally heterosexual.
Will a child who grows up in a homosexual environment (with homosexual adoptive parents), despite being naturally heterosexual, necessarily or even optionally grow up to accept a homosexual lifestyle for themselves? This question secretly maintains strength because of our ancient instinct toward survival—children must be taught to be heterosexual for the survival of the species, the tribe, the clan, the family, the culture.
An abundance of evidence, both anecdotal and from studies, shows that children grow to naturally have feelings of being masculine or feminine. Most who have feelings of being male want to have mates who are female, and vice versa, despite the environment they grew up in. And despite what kind of genitalia they may have been born with.
Recent research has shown that one in 4000 babies born in the UK is what is called "intersex." An intersex person may have genitalia, reproductive and other sex-related organs (such as protruding breasts) of either sex, or even of both sexes. Yet these characteristics do not determine whether the child enjoys boy or girl kinds of activities as children or whether they will be interested in men or women as adults. The subject of intersex individuals is so poorly understood and confusing that some people call such persons the "third sex".
Intersex individuals are the best evidence that what we call homosexuality may be mostly a matter over which they have no control, that is their preference for mating.
Is it possible that some self-proclaimed homosexuals have this preference by choice? Consider the possibility that a person who has experienced confused sexuality or poor relations with those of the opposite sex because of social underdevelopment or lack of physical beauty may find solace with another person of the same sex. That person may readily accept a new definition of their sexuality because they have found a soulmate with whom they can share their lives comfortably.
That is choice. But it may not have been the first choice of these people as they were growing up. It may instead have been a refuge from a cruel world with someone who shares some of the same experiences. A woman may prefer the comforting maternal instincts of another woman, whereas a man may find personal peace with another man who can at least understand the trouble he has had finding a mate of the opposite sex.
But will these people necessarily teach their children that mating with someone of the same sex is good and right? If medical studies are correct, such teaching, if it ever exists, would be overcome by the drive of the individual child of such a family to mate with someone of the opposite sex.
With seven billion people in the world today, and that number expected to rise to 9.5 billion by mid-century, there is little risk that homosexual unions of any kind will present a risk to survival of the human species.
Arguments against union of same-sex couples are based mostly on emotion. Those that derive from teaching within religions are based on countless generations of misinformation dutifully passed along as if it were truth given by God. Any human belief that is passed along to enough successive generations comes to be thought of as having come from God. That, sadly, is also human nature.
But what of marriage of same sex couples? First of all, "marriage" is a word, nothing more. The human race derives no reproductive benefit from couples who marry with the intent of never having children. Yet we do not deny these couples the right to buy a marriage certificate and be treated publicly as a legitimate couple.
If married heterosexual couples who have no intention of having children receive recognition, by the state and by religions, as being married in every sense of the word, there is no logical (or unemotional) reason for denying the right to marry to homosexual couples.
Marriage, by its original intent, was supposed to give the approval of God and state to couples to mate for the purpose of having children. Mating of married heterosexual couples who do not intend to have children (and have the means to prevent this from happening) defies the original purpose of marriage.
Homosexual couples deserve the same rights.
However, if the problem of "same-sex unions" is strictly one of semantics, specifically the definition of the word "marriage", then that word could be abandoned or broken down in such a way that it has hyphenated meanings. That is, there could be "marriage-for-the-purpose-of-having-children," "marriage-with-the-intent-of not-having children," and so on. If a distinction must be made to accommodate homosexual couples (likely a violation of human rights in some countries), then the word marriage or its replacement could be defined in more specific terms.
Definitions could be specific enough that no one could dispute them. If necessary marriage certificates could be made up accordingly for each category.
The furor over same sex couples accomplishes little, except to make many people upset unnecessarily, but it does tend to make homosexual unions a more attractive possibility for those inclined toward it. Those people who are so inclined will see that a sizable minority of society agrees with their preferences for mates. If the situation were not raised publicly, they would not be aware that anyone else feels the same way as they do. They would remain, as they always have, in the dark alleys of society.
Bill Allin
Turning It Around
www.billallin.com
Wednesday, March 02, 2005
Alternatives to war
He who claims that war is the only possible course of action short of annihilation either has not looked for alternatives or has left looking for them until it was too late. These are signs either of weak leadership or of bad leadership. Weak leaders delay too long, whereas bad leaders don't want to find alternatives to war.
The United Nations is fundamentally opposed to the assassination of leaders of rogue nations, yet it is prepared to sanction war against their countries under certain circumstances. When we compare how many people die in each of these scenarios, a case could be made to claim that the UN approves of genocide of the people of certain countries, as citizens die in war more often than leaders.
Advertising agencies and terrorist networks very successfuly use the principles of socialisation of people whose minds they want to secure, but political leaders only use war and threat of war as tools of persuasion of rogue leaders. Embargoes and economic sanctions serve to harm the very citizens that they are intended to help.
Political leaders who want to involve their countries in war hire experts in sociological principles to run their propaganda campaigns. Why do leaders or potential leaders who want peace not do the same?
A country with a TIA (Turning It Around--see URL below) plan in place would not consider war as an alternative because it would not have left options until it was too late to act in any other way.
People do not care about the leadership of their country because they are taught not to care. The few who have their own agendas to put forward teach everyone else that taking an interest in the governing of one's country is both wrong and boring. Yet those few who wrest control find government exciting, stimulating, sometimes even thrilling.
We listen too much to the wrong people because the wrong people tell us what we want to hear. Then we elect them or the people they represent. They have successfully used the principles of sociology.
We have successfully allowed ourselves to become dumber.
Read more about TIA at www.billallin.com
Bill Allin
Turning It Around
www.billallin.com
The United Nations is fundamentally opposed to the assassination of leaders of rogue nations, yet it is prepared to sanction war against their countries under certain circumstances. When we compare how many people die in each of these scenarios, a case could be made to claim that the UN approves of genocide of the people of certain countries, as citizens die in war more often than leaders.
Advertising agencies and terrorist networks very successfuly use the principles of socialisation of people whose minds they want to secure, but political leaders only use war and threat of war as tools of persuasion of rogue leaders. Embargoes and economic sanctions serve to harm the very citizens that they are intended to help.
Political leaders who want to involve their countries in war hire experts in sociological principles to run their propaganda campaigns. Why do leaders or potential leaders who want peace not do the same?
A country with a TIA (Turning It Around--see URL below) plan in place would not consider war as an alternative because it would not have left options until it was too late to act in any other way.
People do not care about the leadership of their country because they are taught not to care. The few who have their own agendas to put forward teach everyone else that taking an interest in the governing of one's country is both wrong and boring. Yet those few who wrest control find government exciting, stimulating, sometimes even thrilling.
We listen too much to the wrong people because the wrong people tell us what we want to hear. Then we elect them or the people they represent. They have successfully used the principles of sociology.
We have successfully allowed ourselves to become dumber.
Read more about TIA at www.billallin.com
Bill Allin
Turning It Around
www.billallin.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
