I've always attributed that to our culture's unwritten social standards that men should be tough, masculine and "strong". Homosexuality is a "direct threat" to that belief.

Huh?  I could have sworn our dear Rambo kitty said it was men who wanted monogamy, as otherwise those men without power aren't going to get any, more or less.  And women would rather split a rich man than marry a poor one, on average.

Homophobia really isn't an issue in more diverse environments.

 As for your comment about males, that is only generally in christian subcultures, usually in rather regressive areas.

In Japan for example, male homosexuality is more accepted and embraced than female. But in more diverse areas usually just about anything is accepted, because people are not groupthinking as often and can't really be defensive against everyone that has a different viewpoint.

Uh.

Books?

The Internet?

Since gay men aren't prospects or partners for women whether or not they come out it has a net effect of zero on the chance for a straight man to get laid.

Women can have no effect on discouraging homosexual men to increase their odds of getting a partner. Homosexuality doesn't work that way. They have no real interest in being with women.

I don't recall ever losing out to a gay man in my pursuit of sex with women, though perhaps your experience is different. Are you saying women would rather be with a gay man than with those who you know that you surveyed?

All of my guy friends seem to want polygamy not monogamy as do many of my female friends though it could be a biased survey.

The internet is just a few more people. Books are popularizations for an intended audience.

If you wish to discuss sociological surveys in professional publications then there is a modest chance of having data independent of personal knowledge. I say modest chance in that sociology is one of the softest of the soft sciences.

 For the life of me I can't understand why anyone would condemn the private practices of consenting adults...and why anyone would be either offended, or consider gays a threat to anything... other than being self-righteous, indignatious, bigots, and having a burning desire to impose their will on others. Perhaps...just as science has discovered genological traits for homosexuality and promiscuity...they will one day discover the DNA strand that contains the propensity towards becoming mypoic self indulgent assholes.

They want to preserve the sancitiy of marriage?...could their be a more ridiculous assertion considering the state of heterosexual (allegedly) monogamous marriage in this country?...Yeah, those sanctimonious Vanillas are sure ding a bang-up job preserving family values...a divorce rate of over 50%, infedelity run amok and rampant out of wedlock childbirth...good job, you pious jizzbags...

This appears to me that this is just another cause that hate filled, easily led, bigoted simpletons can use the bible for to make themselves feel like their miserable little lives are not the living nightmares that they are.

Fags rule...To my recolection I can't think of one instance where a group of out of control sissy mary's went berserk and acted out in violence... all these people do is contribute to society...not to mention how they have contributed to the awesomness of my wardobe...

(I shouldn't post before my second pot of coffee)

 I've never seen more bizarre and unrelated rubbish used to reach a marginally true conclusion.  Wow.

If we are working out the male and female mating strategies from the ground up, it is true that women are more genetically motivated to prefer monogamy than men in species where parental investment is high.

You don't need anything about gays or lesbians to work this out.  Occam suggests we should ignore everything you proposed.  I agree with Occam.

Well, when someone presents a case and then attempts to back it up... often they will present evidence such as statistics or scientific evidence.

If you're just expressing a passing opinion then that's cool. You had just presented your viewpoint as if it had some validity other than your own 2am ramblings. If it doesn't, all good.

My observation is that it's no so much monogamy that women want, but rather dependable and responsible behavior in men. They may view a commitment monogamy as a means to this end, but I think women can get just as bored as men with a relationship with the same person.

Women file for divorce more than men do. Also, look at the number of women in LTRs that read romance novels and fantasize for something more exciting than the life of a housewife.

The mistake I see a lot of women make is marriage to a man who they think will be monogamous instead of a man that is responsible. A reason why Christianity appeals more to women is because they think it means their husband will be faithful no matter what. It's better if they just accept the findings of science and look for men that are responsible about work and raising children, rather than men loaded up with the fear of hell if they commit adultery.

While I agree with your sentiment - and hate to bust your bubble but... ever heard of Alexander the Great? In fact, homosexual relationships were common  thoughout ancient cultures in Europe and Arabia. Having said that, I don't think I would be inclined to call someone like Alexander a "sissy Mary"

They are not all at 2am.

The difference in mating behavior between men and women may be crude but in the basic sense I use it it is quite well established. I do not see any cause to support it. And if there are any questions about it googling should answer any questions from sources eminently more quoteable than I.

As to statistics again there is the problem that US studies do not consider the bisexual category these days. The last time I saw it considered was in the late 90s in an AIDS study where the 12:1 transmission difference of men to women vice woment to men was established -- which is likely what has kept it from becoming a major epidemic. In that study exclusively gay or lesbian relationships were found a minority.

Common behavior is order of frequency is hetero only, bi, gay, lesbian.

I know of no way to have a discussion on this subject by pretending bi does not exist when it is the second largest.

It is essentially impossible to do that as the usage of the word Jew is impossibly confounded. I recently posted on this in soc.history.ancient to address the explict and implict confounding of the word.

JTEM wrote:
> Matt Giwer <[email protected]> wrote:
>> The OT is total bullshit. The idea of a jewish "people" was
>> invented about a century ago as it does not appear before
>> then any place in history. Jews are only those who follow
>> Judaism which is a primitive genital mutilating religion.
> It's vastly more complicated than that.
I address a specific issue. Taking away the magic and god parts does not
leave you with a secular history. That is what the Zionists try to claim
because it supports their invention of a "jewish people," an idea which does
not appear in history until they invent it.
As you will see in the following the "complicated" parts are due to
translations guided by what the translator "knows" had to be true even if
the plain words say otherwise. I have pointed this out many times on the
issue of a presumed monotheism when there clearly was no such thing. Here I
go into the confusion of a Judea and Judeans as an administrative district
and the natives of it respectively and the use of Jew and Judaism today
which have no geographic DEnotation. Thus Judeans is translated Jews which
implies they were all worshipers of Yahweh and only Yahweh. There were no
such concepts in ancient times.
> On the one hand, recalling learning about Petra and the
> Nabateans, some Nanateans were Jews. So, yes, one
> could be "Jewish" in ancient times and not claim
> membership to a specific ethnicity.
All we know at the moment is the common translation used today.
> On the other hand,
> Herod the Great certainly felt it politically necessary to
> convert to Judaism.
There is almost no way to get an understanding of any ancient source on this
subject without examining the original. The free use of Jew to translate
Judean implies a member of the Yahweh cult. I do not see a problem with a
Nabatean from Judea. Nor do I see a problem with better half the Judeans
worshiping the goddess Ashara. Nor do I have a problem with Judeans
worshiping other gods. The religious police would only have a problem with
those who inherited the worship of Yahweh worshiping another male deity.
Why would anyone have a problem? Why would anyone assume such things were
not the case? The obvious answer is today we make an assumption of
monotheism and that they were all one "people" because of the OT conquest
story. And if we strip out the gods and the magic we are left with a tale of
civil conquest. But we know from real history and real archaeology that even
the stripped down version of the OT cannot be force fit into the region.
If that is the extent of your objection you have no need to read further.
If however you are basing this upon the description of the kingdom by
Josephus it is rather hopeless as the existence of any kind of kingdom of
that shape was not viable. As a hereditary group of clans with a loose
amalgamation several small kingdoms are possible. But he does put the south
end of their "kingdom" at the Dead Sea and starting at the Euphrates. If
that region was also called Judea again we have no problem.
Problem with Josephus is the earliest mention of them has their kingdom from
Yemen to the north end of the Dead Sea. This gives more territory to overlap
Judea. And of course the Jordan was not the eastern boundary but a river
that ran through Judea.
So whomever you prefer there is no conflict with a Judean also being a
Nabatean. Considering Josephus wrote to many strange things I'll go with
Diodorus. I am unaware of any description of exactly what Trajan conquered
from which the extent or nature of this kingdom can be derived.
Now if you want to run with Petra we find their chief god was a mountain
god. Then we have the Samarians with their own mountain for Sinai and a
Yahweh worshiped on it. We also have the Jerusalem Yahweh cult whose
mountain in Sinai far away and a god who lived on it. This god was
associated generally with Zeus and specifically with Dionysus and the
worship ceremony in Maccabes is very like a worship ceremony for Dionysus.
You don't get any further with their goddess which is associated with
Aphrodite and thus Astarte, Ashara and Ishtar.
No matter how we look at the Nabateans we don't find them that much
different from the Samarians, Judeans and Galileans. If a clan of the
Judeans were part of a league called the Nabateans we would need a scorecard
to tell them apart. It may also address who Josephus got it so wrong but
that would be stretching things in his favor and he deserves no slack.
> Wait. That's wrong.
> Herod the Great not only felt it necessary to convert to
> Judaism, but he actively promoted the idea that he was
> a Jew, when he wasn't. Don't some sources even state
> that he wasn't circumcised until much later in life?
So what did this "conversion" mean? That he became a legal resident of
Judea? It is unclear how one could become a Judean or a legal resident in
those days of if the concept even existed. The only way I can see it from
what I know of those times is to be adopted by a real Judean or if there
were some analogous body to the Roman senate which could declare a person a
Judean citizen. I have not heard even a hint of the latter however imitating
the Romans is far from unlikely.
Or does it mean he joined the Yahweh cult? If he was circumcised late in
life then he joined the cult which we commonly call Judaism and its members
Jews. Was anything beyond circumcision required for conversion at that time?
In fact what was the meaning of conversion in those days when there were no
religions and no membership requirements? Convert from what? This leads me
to ask what was the original word translated as convert?
Did his wife or wives join the Ashara cult and did they become Judeans by
marriage? Ever notice the OT god is referred to as the "god of your fathers"
not the god of your mothers or of your parents? Anyway it is not the
translation but the original words used that have to be considered.
What were the original words? Is there a convention for translation of Judea
and Judean? Do all translators follow that convention? I expect there is no
convention and translators use the usage of Jew common at the time of their
translation. From most all I have read there appears to be almost a
deliberate effort to confound the meaning of Yahwist and Judean with a
single word Jew. The only basis for that convention is the OT and it fables
with or without the magic. As even the secular parts are imaginary there is
no point in making that assumption.
There are several places in the gospels where Judean is conspicuous by its
absence. We find places where Jesus is specifically described as a Galilean
where it should be expressed as being different from a Judean. He was a
Galilean not a Judean but was a Yahwist or so the story goes. There is no
sense to it if it says he was a Galilean Judean. Both parts of the bible are
a record of only one "religion" and describes it as being the only one for
everyone in the region.
Which leaves us with the Samaritans to explain even though the OT claims all
of Samaria for the Yahweh cult. It is wise for Zionists to completely ignore
the NT when they claim the West Bank as being Judea and Samaria. For us the
NT reports a disliked people without a reason given. If they were like the
Samaritans today they had a minor variation on the Yahweh cult with its own
Sinai, temple and priest system but not the grandiose history invented by
the Judeans. A bit like the Latin/Greek split in Catholicism.
The NT also gives us the most obvious incorrect translations, the accusation
of claiming to be King of the Jews. That makes absolutely no sense in terms
of king of a religion but it makes perfect sense in terms of King of the
Judeans. (Cue the singing Herod.)
The OT does not present these confusions but they are often muddled with NT
confusions. The OT shows the name changes from Hebrews to Israelites to the
splitting off of the Judeans and some other names. As it is only about the
rich and powerful the "people" barely get a mention so the opportunities for
religiously "guided" translations are not as numerous when it comes to
confusing worship with other things.
> Anyhow, you're allowing your overt anti-semitism to
> color your perception of reality. What may have been
> true 2,300 years ago certainly wasn't true before the
> 1st century.
Excuse me but I am talking about real history here. I believe I have
established beyond question that whatever the Judeans were like back then
and whatever the Yahweh cult was like there was no monotheism in and of it.
Therefore there is really no connection between whatever was going on back
then and what we think of Jews and Judaism today. Our idea of Jews is
completely divorced from the administrative district from which the name
Jews derives whereas back then it was describing a geographic area.
And of course there was the popular use of the term which did not
distinguish between a Judean and Yahwist in the same way we popularly
speaking of Romans when the people may or may not have been actual citizens
of Rome. We also muddle the name when the people may or may not be residents
of the city of Rome. Thus we find mention of Judeans in Alexandria when
there is no reason that only Judeans and not Galileans were there.
No matter how we look at it there had to have been distinct names for
denoting geographic origin and for their cult membership.
It is also clear the use of the Iodumea or whatever could only mean people
from that district as there were no "religions" in any sense we have today
at that time. Back then there were worship practices, rituals and taboos.
That was it. There was no concept of a required belief which is today
essential to our idea of a religion. Clearly there was nothing like our idea
of Judaism unless one wants to consider modern Judaism to be no more than a
set of rituals and taboos which is about all it is for the real Orthodox.
Also consider us readers are part of the problem in imposing our assumptions
upon the translator and even doing the biblical thing by pulling short
passages out of context. Even in modern times these people are colloquially
called Jews but until recently were formally referred to as people of the
Mosaic confession and at times the children of Abraham even though that
would include those through Ishmael. For obvious reasons the use of children
of Abraham is deprecated by the Zionists.
Feel free to put this all together in a different way if you find the time.
I am certain you can find one or two things which are clearly in error so go
for correcting and re-explaining all of it in light of the corrections.
--
Anti-semitic acts in Europe are no where near the anti-goyim
acts in Israel and are not government inspired.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4126
http://www.giwersworld.org/holo/nizgas3.html a4
Sat May 2 00:14:55 EDT 2009
 

And Christians are always getting dragged into discussions about Christianity. Seems like there is no way to avoid it.

It appears you are referring to a comment of mine as an answer to why there would be a public interest in what people do in the privacy of their own homes.

I assume the proper response would be to suggest another origin for it. One could always ask where this abhorrence of gays came from. One answer would be the Christians but that only leads to where they got it from. Again the answer is the jews.

As the majority here are from western countries and the largest religion in these countries is Christianity. There are many things which originated in Christianity and which can not be traced back any farther than Christianity. There are also many things in Christianity which can be traced back to the Roman governmental system but no further.

It is not inappropriate to cite the proper origins of Christian things even if it does come from the Jews.