Personal DNA
Blog Rodent did his pesonal DNA test, and I took it too. I disagree with the conclusion that I like to socialize rather than stay home, but what is also interesting are my high masculine and low feminine ratings. Now I can relax that I’m not gay ;). Here’s my results.
You are an Idealist
As an IDEALIST, you are distinctive for your integration of confidence, imagination, willingness to explore, and desire for competence over style.
You have a strong capacity to comprehend the inner workings of things, finding new ideas and innovative insights to feed your curious nature.
You are quite comfortable in the realm of abstract thought. You don’t need a practical solution to every one of life’s questions.
You are comfortable with the decisions you make in life. You don’t need to second-guess yourself, or seek a lot of opinions before you make up your mind.
You enjoy the routines that you have created in your life, and don’t feel the need to shake things up just for the sake of change.
You generally succeed at what you do, and others would describe you as successful.
It is important to you that products be efficient – looking good has to come second to working well.
You aren’t the kind of person who needs to collect stylish items in an attempt to create an attractive environment – you know that what matters most is function, not style.
Your independent streak allows you to make decisions efficiently and to trust your instincts
You prefer to have time to plan for things, feeling better with a schedule than with keeping plans up in the air until the last minute.
You do your own thing when it comes to clothing, guided more by practical concerns than by other people’s notions of style.
Generally, you believe that you control your life, and that external forces only play a limited role in determining what happens to you.
If you want to be different:
You take time to explore your own thoughts and ideas, but this experience would only be heightened if you opened yourself up even more to others’ ideas.
Your faith in yourself and your lifestyle is well-founded, but the occasional foray into the unknown might broaden your perspective and help you see things differently.
Aaron,
You can see why we rave about Seeker. He can't help but take disgusting swipes at gays. As far as he's concerned, gays simply aren't masculine. This is exactly the sort of thing that infuriates those of us who actually know, or spend time with, or don't totally disdain, gays. To say that gays are men wanting to be women is just plain dumb.
Aaron,
You can see why we rave about Sam. He can't help being humor deficient. As far as he's concerned, jokes about gays are just not allowed. This is exactly the sort of thing that infuriates those of us who actually know, or spend time with, or don't totally disdain, people with a sense of humor. To say that people with a sense of humor are really hateful people masquerading as caring individuals is just plain dumb.
And Sam, you're comment was gay.
Seeker,
You weren't joking. You've made it clear on multiple occaisons that you think that gay men are simply testosterone deficient. That has been cornerstone of numerous arguments of yours concerning gays. You can put every smiley you want after these comments, but the fact is that you genuinely believe that gay men are somehow lesser men.
As for this nonsense about a sense of humor – your comment isn't funny when it reflects your genuine disdain for gays. Or, to put it another way: What's the difference between Jesus Christ and an oil painting?
You only need a single nail to hold up an oil painting.
Guys, to "rave" about something means to extoll its virtues. I think y'all meant "rant" as it means "complain."
What did Jesus say on the cross?
"I can all Jerusalum from here."
You weren't joking. You've made it clear on multiple occaisons that you think that gay men are simply testosterone deficient.
You are confused by your persistent misreading of what I write. By now, I realize that it's not just that I need to communicate better, but that you hear everything through the confused filter of what you think "people like me" think.
By now you should realize that I believe homosexuality to be grounded primarily in poor identity formation, and secondarily, in biological factors. Some guys react by being fem, some butch, and some with no outward manifestation, but the problem is that inwardly, they all have a malformed sense of self as masculine that leads them to seek romanticized and sexualized relationships with men.
I once suggested that testosterone may have something to do with it, or with treating it. But that remains to be seen, and I made no certain claims. However, somehow, you read all of your extreme b.s. into it.
And it *was* a joke, did you miss the ;) ? You are free to think otherwise, and remain in your rose-colored world.
Seeker,
Homosexuality isn't some sort of "malformed" masculinity. That is positively ridiculous. I know of no gays who suffer from issues of masculinity – whereas I know plenty of gays who simply aren't traditionally masculine, but that doesn't make them any less of a man.
As for this ridiculous notion that I somehow distort what you write, I have no idea where you're getting this from. I read what you write – "I love gays, but I want them to change their sexual orientation to fit my needs as a Christian" – and extrapolate what's really going on, which is your extreme discomfort and dislike of gays. You can say a million times over that you like gays, but here you are, constantly suggesting that gays aren't man enough, that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry, that gays shouldn't be afforded legal recognition, that gays shouldn't be explained in public schools.
Meyer-Bahlburg’s studies are usually cited regarding adult levels. No worthwhile differences in testosterone levels were found between homosexual and heterosexual men. Testosterone therapy also appears to be ineffective historically. Various related treatments were attempted in the U.S. (and far more harshly by the Nazis) especially during the 50s and 60s if memory serves; I would have to check the library for a citation on those, though the info may be floating out in internet-land somewhere.
I am curious about why you believe chemical alteration would be effective if you consider homosexuality to be developmental. Nicotine patches are useful because of the brain’s chemistry, not because of a lack of masculinity/femininity. If the homosexuality is a psychological development that can be altered by correcting a person’s “masculinity” then hormone treatments would not be required.
1. your misquote about testosterone, and how it is somehow the "cornerstone" of my arguments
2. i believe that gays are "lesser men" – I've never used that phrase, that's your words
3. i never said gays are men who want to be women – they're men who want to be men but have a mental disorder which keeps them from being inwardly masculine
4. My "extreme discomfort and dislike of gays?" Again, you are projecting, or doing your strange extrapolation game based on what you think I *mean*. I am not uncomfortable with gays, nor do I dislike them. I am on record as having gay friends and family whome I like and love.
The fact that you confuse disagreement with discomfort and hate is typical liberal childish reasoning, as I have mentioned in What is Hate? I *do* dislike gay apologetics, since I think most of it is unscientific political maneuvering, not science, and most likely false.
And these misrepresentations are just from one short posting by you. If I mined you other comments, I could write a paper on spin.
I don't think it matters how gay people become gay. It is who they are. They are still people and should be respected like any other people should. They should have the same rights as other people. If they want to get married, for example, I don't see how that hurts anyone else. It seems to me to be a matter of mutual consent. If you think homosexuality does harm, please explain how in a non religious way. It's easier for me to understand that way.
It did seem to me that Seeker was only joking but I have only started visiting this blog a few days ago, so I don't know if he has a history of gay bashing or not as Sam believes.
"The fact that you confuse disagreement with discomfort and hate is typical liberal childish reasoning" -seeker
If you call me a liberal, I take it as a compliment. http://www.dictionary.com defines liberal as…
1. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
2. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
3. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
4. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.
This may sound trite, and to seeker liberal, but live and let live.
Just a note, that last line "live and let live" was referring to seekers sentiments about liberals, not gays. I haven't figured out how to edit my posts :)
I wouldn't call what Seeker does gay bashing per se. That suggests violence. Seeker just covers his "love" of gays up in terminology that suggests that he is somehow supportive of gays, which is patently untrue if you believe that there's nothing wrong with homosexuality (and of course, there isn't.). To Seeker's mind however, being gay is such a horrible problem – so much worse than any of the other actual problems plaguing our nation – that he loves gays by offering them reparative therapy (which isn't therapy so much as it is repression education), and telling them that if they just change who they are sexually, or, at least, if they're never sexual ever again, then they'll be okay. Woe to the person who suggests to Seeker that homosexuality is a rarely occuring, but natural, sexuality that ought not be feared or hated or "loved" or whatever.
When you argue with him, he'll say that all you're doing is spinning what he says, because he seems to genuinely believe that saying "gays should count their lucky stars that they aren't killed here, and shouldn't ask for anything more than that" is a Christian expression of love. Which is yet one more reason that Seeker's form of Christianity is something that I'll never have any interest. People can talk about being the "salt" or whatever, but you can forget about people like me ever having even a passing interest in Christianity if one of the first things I'm going to be asked to do is turn on my gay friends. But Cineaste, he's not a gay basher.
Well to get back to the topic of the post. Here is my personal DNA (let's see if the image shows up):
<script src="http://personaldna.com/h?k=lLWOsxiTfohPvWg-FD-AAAAE-645b&t=Independent+Visionary">
</script>
It doesn't show up! Oh well, I am a Independent Visionary. Here's my
report.
Here is mine, Considerate Artist
My Personal Dna Report
If you call me a liberal, I take it as a compliment.
I was referring to Sam, but if the label fits, wear it. I agree that in the traditional sense, liberalism was an admirable thing. However, in today's climate, liberalism is also associated with socialism, anti-religious sentiment, support for sexual freedoms beyond the pale, to the point of liscence, with tacit or explicit support for traditionally immoral behaviors such as infanticide/abortion, promiscuity, and homosexuality.
Modern liberalism may have an admirable heritage, but it's current practice is often anti-intellectual anti-common sense, and naive about the dangers in the real world. Liberalism like that of the French is what allowed them to be overrun by the Nazis – they were so open minded and anti-war (read anti-strength and resolve) that their brains fell out, and they were easy prey for attackers.
To Seeker's mind however, being gay is such a horrible problem – so much worse than any of the other actual problems plaguing our nation – that he loves gays by offering them reparative therapy (which isn't therapy so much as it is repression education), and telling them that if they just change who they are sexually, or, at least, if they're never sexual ever again, then they'll be okay.
Ok, so let me unspin this. I never use the word "horrible" – that's Sam's interpretation. He believes I find hx one of the worst problems facing our nation. I'm not sure how he came to that conclusion, but he may *assume* that the volume of my posts reflects my priorities. That would be incorrect.
But me thinks it is his oversensitivity on this subject. I once took a survey of my posts, and found that about 14% (if memory serves me) were on hx. I post much more on creationism, which I also don't think is "one of the biggest problems." You see, I post on what is *interesting* to me, for personal and intellectual reasons.
No, I show my respect for gays by treating them as humans in my personal relationships. However, in the political and ideological realm, I have the right to make my arguments. Disagreement is not hate.
Regarding your low opinion of reparative therapy, the jury is still out on how effective it is, hence the books and studies I mention. While some gays involved in such may be merely repressing rather than doing the hard work of healing, that may not be a problem with the therapy, but with ineffective therapists.
"gays should count their lucky stars that they aren't killed here, and shouldn't ask for anything more than that" is a Christian expression of love.
Of course, this is not what I said, and is out of context. "count their lucky stars" is again, Sam's interpretation, not my words. Also, this claim was not made in the context of "what is xian love." And love must be accompanied by the truth, hence the expression "telling the truth in love." And while my delivery may need some more kindness, you mistake truth telling for hate – you are like the child who thinks their parents are cruel for not letting them run in the street.
you can forget about people like me ever having even a passing interest in Christianity if one of the first things I'm going to be asked to do is turn on my gay friends.
You don't have to turn on your friends when you turn on sin. If one of your friends was comitting adultery, would it be turning on them to call them out on it? You could do it in a judgemental way, or you could do it out of concern. Would you be willing to risk losing a relationship if confronting their adultery meant they didn't like you anymore?
Jesus said that the truth often turns family members and friends against each other, and that if we loved our families more than God, that is, if we were too afraid to lose them by following the truth, then we might as well not pretend to follow the truth. You don't have to be arrogant or judgmental about it, but you have to accept that people may dislike you as much as they dislike hearing the truth, no matter how nicely you put it. That's what being "salt and light" is about. "They hated me," Jesus said, "and they will also hate you."
You can love people and disagree with them. You can believe their behavior immmoral and love them. You can even prevent them from legislating their immorality and not hate them as people.
Seeker,
As usual, you respond to me with what amounts to nonsense.
1. You're right about disagreement not being hate. But you don't just disagree with homosexuality; you seek to limit to gays legal protections, and gays access to legal freedoms. I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with you disliking, or "loving," or whatever, gays. I take serious issue with your patently unAmerican position that gays and their relationships are somehow less than yours, and as such, are worthy of fewer legal protections/opportunities. The fact of the matter is that you take disagreement well beyond disagreement – you advocate positions which are clearly anti-gay.
2. As for you saying I'm a child, that's predictable of you. As usual, the rules of our debates work like this: you get to say whatever you want, but God him/her-self forbid anybody criticize you. I simply argue that in a country as amazing and great as ours is, your positions are ruining what makes America great. We shouldn't treat our gay citizens unfairly; you clearly believe differently. I don't advocate positions that allow for the victimizaton of others, and since homosexuality hurts NOBODY, there is nothing wrong with it.
3. As opposed to adultery. As usual, you pretend as if sexuality is a choice, yet you cannot pinpoint the time that you chose heterosexuality, nor can any gay person that I've ever met pinpoint the time that they chose homosexuality. Choosing to cheat on your wife however? That's a choice.
But funny that you bring such a thing up. While you do advocate the disenfranchisement of gay relationships via Constitutional amendment, you cannot muster the energy to Constitutionally ban adultery. Why? It's in your stupid Ten Commandments (unlike sexuality), and it ought to the be top of the charts for you. But no. You're fixated on homosexuality, and advocating positions that denigrate gays.
4. Finally, you're right about loving the person and hating immoral behavior. But homosexuality isn't immoral, anymore than heterosexuality is immoral. Until you realize that – which, of course, you never will – then these debate will continue. The fact of the matter is that we ought to be the nation on the hill for all other nations to look at it, and instead we let hateful Christians demonize our citizens for sexuality that they simply cannot choose, regardless of its victimlessness. As I've stated before Seeker, my position is absolutely right, because it allows for the freedom of gays, and for the freedoms of you. Your position seeks only to protect your own freedom to "love" gays. You have no interest in extending freedoms to our fellow gay Americans. '
(Why don't you respond to this story, in which Christians find themselves legally begging to be allowed to that most Christian of ideals: intolerant. No doubt, you'll feel sympathy to the "victimized" Christians who aren't allowed to browbeat fellow gays, who aren't allowed to discriminate. Meanwhile, any decent human being will see your position for the unAmerican nonsense that it is.)
you advocate positions which are clearly anti-gay.
I consider my policies legislatively neutral – neither condoning nor condeming.
As for you saying I'm a child, that's predictable of you.
As predicted, you confuse my critique of your *logic* with a critique of you. This is precisely the childish type of position I am talking about. The distinction here may seem subtle to you, but I think it is important.
God him/her-self forbid anybody criticize you.
No, god-forbid anyone should make illegitimate, straw-man arguments as a foundation for poorly reasoned criticisms, as you do. I would be much more open to your criticisms if you worked on accurately portraying what I am saying rather than interpreting through your filter, then criticizing what you THINK I mean. Seek first to understand. You don't seem to do that.
As opposed to adultery. As usual, you pretend as if sexuality is a choice, yet you cannot pinpoint the time that you chose heterosexuality, nor can any gay person that I've ever met pinpoint the time that they chose homosexuality.
The whole choice issue is a red herring. As I have argued, while adulters or any other kind of sexual sinners may not have chosen their inner drives, since they may have been formed by earlier experience or even nature, the fact that they are unwilling to choose to address them is the issue. Abused children don't choose to abuse – they are acting out based on what was done to them. However, they DO have a choice in deciding to do the inner work to address their compulsions. And they ARE responsible for their current actions, regardless of what drives them.
Adulters, like gays, could easily argue that they were made that way – that their desire for multiple women is something that they can't control. The fact is, they may be right. I make an effort to control myself every time a hot chick in a bikini walks by. I don't tell my wife, "well, that's just the way I am, and I may need to sleep with her – it would be supression of my nature to do otherwise." No, it's called self-control, it's called character, and for some, it's called dealing with addictive behaviors.
While you do advocate the disenfranchisement of gay relationships via Constitutional amendment, you cannot muster the energy to Constitutionally ban adultery.
That's a good question, with a good answer. Adulters aren't pushing for official legalization. Well, they are, they're called polygamists. So they are next. But I am not pushing to ILLEGALIZE homosexuality, only define marriage, from a governmental position to exclude them. They can still get married, they can still have relationships. But like adulters and other types of sexual sinners, they can't push it as an officially sanctioned lifestyle becuase it is immoral, against nature, and unhealthy for society and individuals.
But homosexuality isn't immoral, anymore than heterosexuality is immoral. Until you realize that – which, of course, you never will – then these debate will continue.
Well, we agree on this.
we let hateful Christians demonize our citizens for sexuality that they simply cannot choose, regardless of its victimlessness.
There you go with your hate accusations. I doubt you will ever see it as anything else. And the choice thing is invalid – I do not say that anyone chooses their sexuality, but they can choose to change and heal their homosexuality. And in the off chance that I am wrong, I have graciously decided that we should not criminalize homosexuality. (sam – that was humor, maybe sarcasm – just wanted to let you know since you are often unable to recognize it).
As I've stated before Seeker, my position is absolutely right, because it allows for the freedom of gays, and for the freedoms of you. Your position seeks only to protect your own freedom to "love" gays. You have no interest in extending freedoms to our fellow gay Americans.
You are not asking for freedoms for gays (which they already have), you are asking for special treatment and official recognition of a morally questionable lifestyle.
You are taking the extreme, anti-virtue, and distinctly anti-American position that is so open minded it has abandoned moral discernment.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. As far as you're concerned, it offering "special treatment" to gays by acknowledging that their relationships are exactly the same as straight relationships. Of course, that's Christian nonsense. It isn't special to be treated equally Seeker. It's fair, it's right, and it's American.
As for your nonsense about moral discernment, I've made my moral position quite clear: if the behavior harms no one, then the behavior should be legal. Your moral position is something along the lines of, if I believe that I am in some way affected by someone else's behavior, then I should be allowed to legally restrict that behavior to the best of my ability…oh, and no one is allowed to do the same thing to me.
Finally, I am greatly interested in your threat to adulterers/polygamists: this comment that "So They Are Next." I find this interesting. Aren't you the same person that declared that there was no Christian agenda concerning sex? Yet here you are, threatening the sexual behavior of others. No surprise of course, but surprising that you'd so openly admit this sort of thing. What is part of the plan? Paratroopers into Southern Utah to break up the polygamist familes? Please do tell me about your planned assault on adultery?
Finally, are you done insulting me? When you regularly insult me, as you ALWAYS do, it makes your requests to stop insulting you seem slightly less serious. Again, as long as we're both willing to play by some rules Seeker, then there will be no problems. But if you're incapable of responding to my suggestions with anything more than insults toward my intelligence, I'm going to have to assume that you're simply incapable of refuting me with anything serious.
I would be interested in knowing how homosexuality is against nature, considering how often it occurs in nature among many species. Is nature engaged in a massive war against itself that we are unaware of? The only way that I can reconcile this statement with the world would be to use a religious belief that considers the introduction of homosexuality to be part of the fallen world and therefore against pre-Fall "perfect" nature as God created.
Regarding polygamists, no threat – just a promise to resist efforts to sanction their relationships as normative.
Aren't you the same person that declared that there was no Christian agenda concerning sex?
Well, not in the anti-sex pejorative manner that you mention. It's pro-marriage (pro meaning as nature intends, and as a healthy society requires), it's pro-life (not killing innocents), it's pro-chastity (i.e. virtue and self control). All of these involve sex, but not the prohibition or disdain for sex.
Yet here you are, threatening the sexual behavior of others. No surprise of course, but surprising that you'd so openly admit this sort of thing. What is part of the plan? Paratroopers into Southern Utah to break up the polygamist familes? Please do tell me about your planned assault on adultery?
You see, there you go again. Assuming the worst based on your twisted ideas about what xians believe. Idiotic.
Finally, are you done insulting me? When you regularly insult me, as you ALWAYS do, it makes your requests to stop insulting you seem slightly less serious.
No, I am not done. You have done well in not insulting me lately, but your annoying straw-men arguments and twisted interpretations continue.
Most of the time, I am being critical, if not derisive, of your illogic, not you – unlike you, who likes to accuse my motives. Rarely, I unsult you directly, but I think my jab about your sense of humor was in some sense appropriate since you did purposely fail to recognize my previous hyperboles as humor. Are there other jabs that I am missing?
I probably should insult you less. Point taken. But don't expect to get off scott free just because you expect me to be a milk toast xian. I do understand that I should follow my own advice, or be considered hypocritical.
As Martin Luther once said about the writings of Erasmus, "Your writings are vile dirt, and I am suprised that you would sully your good name with such writing – it is obvious you do not know what you are talking about."
Seeker,
Briefly, polygamy IS normative! It has been practiced practically worldwide for thousands of years. It is only recently that polygamy has fallen out of favor, although only in the Western world. But don't pretend that polygamy has always been some sort of perversion.
My issue with Utah is that the only place where polygamy has been given government sanction is in the socially conservative stronghold of Southern Utah. In other words Seeker, your people (or, at least, people who agree with your political beliefs) are the ones who are polygamous. None of mine are. I find that telling.
Well, I thought you were not in favor of polygamy?
The difficulty in looking at nature or history for what is normative is, as I have mentioned, nature alone is not a sure guide because nature is corrupted. Once totally good, now corrupted.
Just because murder and prostitution have been around since the beginning don't make them good. You must qualify your view of nature, that is, consider other information, when you are trying to discern what is "inteneded" and healthy.
I have not taken a firm stand on polygamy, but I use it to goad you because I think your anti-polygamy argument is weak. I am still thinking about and researching polygamy.
I don't think I've heard anything so stupid.
Then you haven't been listening to Howard Dean ;)
Uh,
Where is the PersonalDNA square that says "gay basher"? I must've missed that.
Rich
BlogRodent
You sound more like Cynthia McKinney to me. Just ask yourself this and be honest to God about it. If I had said…
"However, in today's climate, CHRISTIANITY is also associated with socialism, anti-religious sentiment, support for sexual freedoms beyond the pale, to the point of license, with tacit or explicit support for traditionally immoral behaviors such as infanticide/abortion, promiscuity, and homosexuality."
"Modern CHRISTIANITY may have an admirable heritage, but it's current practice is often anti-intellectual anti-common sense, and naive about the dangers in the real world."
…would you would be upset?
If not, I'll call you a liar.
Howard Dean is stupid, but what you said even tops Dean.
Gah, maybe liar is too strong. Sorry, I got angry.
Seeker,
Please understand that I don't care about polygamy really. If three people want to live together, fine. If a company wants to extend benefits to only one of those two spouses, fine. But to say that gay relationships are somehow unequal to straight relationships is offensive and stupid. That just isn't true.
And as for your comparrison of homosexuality to murder is classic. I guess two men who love one another is the same as somebody being killed. How do you interact with the gays in your life if you consider them to be, essentially, murderers?