Might this discussion be gay? (NO TRP WHATSOEVER)

[Jude Bloom]

i'm a little skeptical about after-the-fact practical explanations of
religious rites... like the jews were kosher cause of trichinosis or
whatever... or that the revulsion directed toward homosexuality was
cause folks needed kids... it seems deeper, more freudian than that.
sex is too intense, emotionally and physically, to escape superstition
and taboo in the human mind.  hot gay sex never seemed to slow the
greeks down.

j

On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 2:07 PM, Joe Allonby <joeallonby at gmail.com> wrote:
> Our society is still influenced by practical ideas for survival that
> somehow got turned into religion and perpetuated long after they
> ceased to be practical. The ban on homosexuality, like most of
> Leviticus, makes perfect sense if you have an underpopulation problem
> and need to produce male children to grow into warriors to fight the
> enemies that surround you.
>
> A good friend suggested that the first half of the Bible should be
> retitled "How to Live in a Middle-Eastern Desert 3,000 Years Ago".
>
> The second half should be "How to Live Under Roman Occupation".
>
> Since neither of those conditions currently exist...
>
> On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 2:47 PM, Jude Bloom <jude.bloom at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Anyone else think the whole gay/straight thing is superstition left
>> over from the bronze age and in 50 years we'll look back on the
>> division of humankind into 1)gay 2)straight as primitive, kinda like
>> we look back on folks who divided humakind into jew and gentile, or
>> man and woman for that matter.  gender and sex, i think, are about to
>> explode into the spectrum things we know they are.  there won't be one
>> or the other before too long.  there'll be a whole lotta stuff
>> inbetween.  you can kind of see it now with the gay community taking
>> transgendered folks under their wing in their fight for civil rights.
>> think of michael jackson.  no talent whatsoever that i could see as a
>> musician or entertainer -- please, i know what you're going to say,
>> but hopping around in shiny clothes to synthesizers just doesn't do
>> much for me -- but perhaps his talent will be looked back on as one of
>> the first transsexual transrace type folks coming up.  or not.
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 10:57 AM, Emma Wrigley <ecwrigley at excite.co.uk> wrote:
>>> I mean those who aren't actually gay.
>>>
>>> <-----Original Message----->
>>>>From: Joe Allonby [joeallonby at gmail.com]
>>>>Sent: 17/6/2010 4:43:52 PM
>>>>To: john.carvill at sap.com;john.carvill at sap.com
>>>>Cc: keithsz at mac.com;pynchon-l at waste.org
>>>>Subject: Re: Might this discussion be gay?
>>>>
>>>>Do I detect an agenda?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 4:42 AM, Carvill, John wrote:
>>>>>> Not that there's anything wrong with that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Just go along, Joe. Go along...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>.
>>>>
>>
>