Science is not a perfect institution

[Buddha1]

SCIENCE IS HARMFUL

It seems there are few things that science has given us that does not eventually leave us worse off than we earlier were. And to think that many of these scientific inventions are so meaningless, while they produce such extreme and everlasting harmful effects.

Consider this example from today's papers:

Aspartame, colour mix are harmful:

New researches on coomon food additives, including the controversial sweetener aspartame and food colourings, suggests they may interact to interfere with the development of the nervous system.

Researchers at the University of Liverpool examined the toxic effects on nerve cells in the laboratory of using a combination of four common food additives --- aspartame, MSG and the artificial colorings brilliant blue and quinoline yellow......

.......the results indicate that both combinations are potentially more toxic than might be predicted from the sum of their individual compounds," the researchers concluded.

(My comment: .....and science is totally incapable of accounting for all the combinations that people will be consuming, and the immense harm it may have caused to our generation.)

Additives are licensed for use one at a time, but the study's authors believe examining their effect in combinatirions gives a more accurate picture of how they are consumed in the modern diet.

 

[Buddha1]

That science is now starting to point out its own drawbacks --- as some ardent supporters of science may claim --- does not still absolve science of its drawbacks. What is happening now is that a few people like the researchers above and Bagemihl have started to use the scientific institution to point out its drawbacks from within the institution so that it cannot brush them aside.

But the fact is that such efforts are extremely few and far between. Plus by the time they are out, Science has already done immnse and irreversible harm --- that no amount of future science can bring back. See, science can destroy nature but it cannot create it! By the time science does prove that what it had called 'homosexuality' all the way is a common and essential part of living beings, there may not be much left of it to save.

And even when these studies come out, they don't change much. The forces that use the original scientific 'inventions' are just too strong, and things are forgotten after a while and continue to be as they are. Because no one has the time to check them..

And after all that effort, the scientific institution still brushes them aside.

 

[MetaKron]

If he was going to ignore me anyway, why did he finally decide to probe me on the above And leave as soon as I get the required information. What has transpired in the meantime! :bugeye:

I think you just got an anal probe.

 

[Buddha1]

I think you just got an anal probe.

.....

 

[Ophiolite]

i see discussions as not formerlized fart-arsed pretentious rhetoric---to of course they can be.....in essence i would like to see them full of passion, crosses out...you know like you were doing some kind of exploration yerself on paper and it wasuntidy yet full of life...kind of thang?

1. If you can't indulge in formalised fart-arsed pretentious rhetoric, what's the point in life?
2. I see no problem with exploring ideas through forums such as this. Indeed, I see a positive value in it. One can learn, and change one's position.
3. Duendy, I can make a list one mile long of what I consider to be your faults: see many of my post responses to you if you wish to construct such a list. But I have not accused you of insincerity. [If I have, I hereby retract it.] You believe in what you believe, and you state it - not very clearly, and with much poor typography, and even poorer logic - but you state it and you are consistent.
I do not find the same sincerity in Bhudda1's posts. That is fundamentally why I have walked away from this rather pointless discussion. I got tired of pointing out where I had challenged his evidence, only to be ignored.
I may come back at some point when I am truly bored and do a thorough dissection, but really, to what end? He has a farcical perception of reality and displays all the hallmarks of a woo-woo par excellence. Just not worth the bother.

 

[duendy]

m

1. If you can't indulge in formalised fart-arsed pretentious rhetoric, what's the point in life?

me)))))NOTdoing so

2. I see no problem with exploring ideas through forums such as this. Indeed, I see a positive value in it. One can learn, and change one's position.

me)))))yes, one's worldviews can be shaken

3. Duendy, I can make a list one mile long of what I consider to be your faults: see many of my post responses to you if you wish to construct such a list. But I have not accused you of insincerity. [If I have, I hereby retract it.] You believe in what you believe, and you state it - not very clearly, and with much poor typography, and even poorer logic - but you state it and you are consistent.
I do not find the same sincerity in Bhudda1's posts. That is fundamentally why I have walked away from this rather pointless discussion. I got tired of pointing out where I had challenged his evidence, only to be ignored.
I may come back at some point when I am truly bored and do a thorough dissection, but really, to what end? He has a farcical perception of reality and displays all the hallmarks of a woo-woo par excellence. Just not worth the bother.

But that is where i consider you a poor judger.

Buddha1's view Do make sense......Other fields of inquiry compliment it. For example the fact that the very term 'homosexuality'only came into prominence relatively early--1950s. This device being to 'other' a form of sexuality not being wanted to be understood by followers of another myth 'heterosexuality'. A 'black and white'ing


The whole PASSION of this thread---ie., where energy is expressed in various hostile froms from someposters including you, is not for nuthin. it MEANS something. same with other threads which touch hot topics.

it is touching your sense of yourself being a 'heterosexual man' as the culure you've grown up in --been indoctrinated in (ohhh yes you HAVE!) states you are. hence when someone explorees a more AMBIGUOUS understanding of sexuality, your reponse being as it is speaks volumes. it is really telling us something

You must admit someting is wrong with our culture right???

males dont generally want to express feelings do they? do you agree with my statement or what?

Some 'straight' men will flinch if another touches them,UNLESS it is a ritualized touching as in sports, being drunk etc. Bt generally they fear an intimate touch from another male

In the Carrabean, notably Jamiaca, the homophobic situation there is so bad that Gays have to seek refugee status so as to escape losing their lives!


So what Buddha1 etc is doing is bringing all about this into the arena of debate. ignoring it will not make 'it' go away will it?

 

[phlogistician]

the fact that the very term 'homosexuality'only came into prominence relatively early--1950s

First known use of the word 'homosexual' in publication was in 1869, and the practice was well know to the Greek and Roman empires.

Oscar Wilde was a notorious homosexual, and he died in 1900.

And in fact, in 1957, it was first proposed that homosexuality should no longer be a crime, so as a term it was on the statute book long before, in fact, male sexual acts were made a felony in the '1533 Buggery Act'. So homosexuality, is hardly something new. Homosexual, is just an updated word for an old practice, and has since been updated again, into 'gay'.

 

[Ophiolite]

Buddha1's view Do make sense

Not to me they don't.

The whole PASSION of this thread---ie., where energy is expressed in various hostile froms from someposters including you, is not for nuthin. it MEANS something. same with other threads which touch hot topics.

Where my passion is coming from on this thread, as on others, is a deep seated abhorence of stupidity and voluntary ignorance. There is something in the site rules, that we all signed up to, about respecting others and their views. I am sure I am in flagrant breach of that where those views involve the aforementioned stupidity and voluntary ignorance.

You must admit someting is wrong with our culture right???

Total agreement. Yes. Does Bhudda1 have some insight into what is wrong? Not a snowflakes chance 0.00000001 seconds after the big bang.

it is touching your sense of yourself being a 'heterosexual man' as the culure you've grown up in --been indoctrinated in (ohhh yes you HAVE!) states you are.

If my strong heterosexual leaning were the result of indoctrination then in the current climate of relative freedom [Elton John married his partner yesterday, except we shall pretend it isn't marriage, so as not to offend those who aren't in the catering, entertainment, or interior decorating industries.]I would be able to explore my 'hidden' proclivities. Well, they aren't there Duendy.
And they aren't there for the majority of men. For those who wish be homosexual, bisexual, asexual or autosexual, fine. I have no objections to any of these. But I am perfectly happy as a heterosexual; sex was originally conceived (deliberate pun) to facilitate procreation and evolution; that remains its primary purpose; it has important secondary purposes; as long as Bhudda1 trys to claim that these points are false, I shall continue to keep him on ignore. [It really is much more peaceful]

males dont generally want to express feelings do they? do you agree with my statement or what?

Stereotypical British males are not meant to. But that is yesterday's news. Did you watch the X-Factor. The males were blubbing all over the place. The only thing balancing it out for the female side was Sharon Osbourne's one girl Niagra impression. It is now OK in the UK, as it has been in many parts of the world for a long time, for a male to express emotion.

Some 'straight' men will flinch if another touches them,UNLESS it is a ritualized touching as in sports, being drunk etc. Bt generally they fear an intimate touch from another male

Let's say this is true. It has little or nothing to do with Bhudda1's thesis, nor does it support his contentions in any way.

In the Carrabean, notably Jamiaca, the homophobic situation there is so bad that Gays have to seek refugee status so as to escape losing their lives!

Unacceptable situation. Nothing to do with the price of tea.

So what Buddha1 etc is doing is bringing all about this into the arena of debate. ignoring it will not make 'it' go away will it?

He's corrupting a very serious issue - an example of which you have raised in your previous point - with a grossly distorted, ill thought out caricature of a hypothesis. It's as if I were to say "You know the problem is there are too many weapons in the world. We have to stop making steel."
Well, duh. Just because I agree with the former, doesn't make the latter in any way valid. And that's where I see Bhudda1's position.
He has been confused by his own confusion and is now attempting to impose his view on the rest of the planet. When the planet refuses to listen he uses that as evidence that he has hit the target, when in fact he has missed by a mile.

 

[Buddha1]

First known use of the word 'homosexual' in publication was in 1869, and the practice was well know to the Greek and Roman empires.

This is a perfect example of how half-truths can be used to obscure the truth completely.

There was no concept of 'homosexuality' in ancient Greece, nor were there any words for it. It's an absolute lie to claim that.

There was one word called catamite --- it referred to a transexual male (of today) who sought vaginal sex as an assertion of his femininity. We are told that the word was denigrated. We don't know really, because the records may have been manipulated with by the later Christians. But in any case, the denigration (by no means justified) was of femininity in males not of their sexual preference for men.

For sex with men otherwise was a common thing. Yes men were required to marry --- because they too needed to continue their civilisation. And because of that a number of pressures were build up on men, but the fact was that men had a lot of opportunity to sexually bond with men --- especially in their youth, something that was institutionalised and celebrated.

(I'm not saying that, the Discovery Channel says that)

In fact men in the Greek times believed that women would be quite redundant if only men could also procreate. It's an adage often found in societies that accept male sexual bonds as masculine.

 

[Buddha1]

So homosexuality, is hardly something new. Homosexual, is just an updated word for an old practice, and has since been updated again, into 'gay'.

Homosexuality is a perfectly modern phenomenon, brought in as male-male sexual bonds became gradually marginalised with growing heterosexualisation of the modern west. This included a social 'feminisation' of male-male bonds.

All ancient, medieval and contemporary-traditional societies accept that men have an integral sexual need for other men, and often allow for some kind of its expression (though in the latter two cases often in hidden forms) even when they make male-female marriage a must for apparent reasons.

When every man is doing it, there is no question of some people being ascribed as 'different' because of it --- the basic premise of the concept of 'homosexuality' or 'sexual orientation'.

 

[Buddha1]

There is no word for 'homosexuality' or a 'homosexual' anywhere in the world --- except the modern west.

The ancient terms (Like Berdache) often appropriated by 'gay' activists/ scholars often meant something else than what the word 'homosexual' is claimed to mean today.

All men were seen as capable and desirous of having sex with other men. It was the extremely feminine gendered male that merited a special category. And it was not about their erotic leanings.

E.g. the Berdache meant anyone who was both male and female. Such people could choose to have sex/ marriage with women/ men and were seen as capable of having or desiring sex with both sexes.

A very useful and scientific link:

http://www.laurenhasten.com/berdache.htm

It also talks about the problem and biases that scientists and missionaries have had dealing with sexuality and gender.

Isn't it funny that earlier scientists (at least historians) and missionaries used to be the same people.

 

[Buddha1]

I'd like to quote an example I used before and explain how 'homosexuality' did not exist before:

Modern science takes a wonder herb from the past --- say 'Turmeric' that is known to fight things like 'cancer', tries to isolate the singlemost compound that they believe does the work, isolate that compound (Curcumin in this case!) by making turmeric go through several processes --- let's say through several chemical/ heating etc. processes, Add preservatives, flavour and several other chemicals into it, and manufacture a drug (Let's say Curcumycin).

Now saying that the ancients had 'homosexuality' is somewhat akin to saying that the ancients had 'curcumycin' or that 'curcumycin' is natural.

To take another example Sugercane is put through a number of manmade processes and then after adding a number of chemicals including to bleach it, it is then converted into sugar.

In a way, the difference between the sugar cane and sugar is that of what the ancients practised by way of male-male sex and what we today know as 'homosexuality'.

 

[Buddha1]

I've edited this post so pl. read this again.

The whole idea of science to do 'research' on so-called 'homosexuality' is to --- like you put it --- other the same-sex behaviour/ bonds. So that they can continue to strengthen the heterosexual identity. It needs continuous support from powerful institutions like science because --- well, it is an artificial identity which the majority don't want if left on their own. It's an identity based on artificial man-made divisions.

The whole idea of research on 'homosexuality' (sic) is to 'prove' that men who like men are indeed way different than 'heterosexual' in every possible way. And that they are feminine or much closer to women. Science will try to prove that by hook and crook -- and the powerful players on both side of the homosexual-heterosexual divide will lap up the findings -- leaving no scope for a real discussion.

Proving 'homosexuals' (sic) to be 'different' serves an important part of the heterosexual identity --- it helps keep up the pressure on straight men, it helps to continue to marginalise and 'feminise' same-sex bonds (you have to see it in the light that femininity in men is already denigrated even more than same-sex bonds) and it helps to keep up the enlarged ego of a minority of men who are torch bearers of the heteroseuxal ideology and who are extremely dependent on/ addicted to the social power it brings.

Look at all such researches in the recent years. They spend millions of dollars/ pounds to find out what --- that 'homosexuals' (sic) have different brains which match those of women --- and of course different from those of men; that they react to pheromones differently than heterosexual (read real) men, that they have a rare gene, that they respond to loud noise differently (believe me there has been a study to that effect too!)......and so on!

And what useful purpose do these studies serve --- even if we were to believe that they are all true and honest? What useful insight do they give us about human sexuality or even the cause of the so-called disease (now politely called an anomaly) called 'homosexuality'? Well, nothing! It just helps some heterosexually identified people (even though they are not really devoid of sexual need for men) like Art of war, who feel 'powerful', 'proud' and 'superior' by flashing these researches as proof of their being real men.

Why else would a person who claims he has no sexual attraction for men, and who has no real interest in discussing the issue thread bare, (and his intentions are also clear from his recent posts) want to start a thread about the research on 'homosexuality and anterior hypothalamus'.

And the fact of the matter is that these studies are all an eyewash. They are professionally unethical and dishonest. Often they start with wrong assumptions (and no one questions them is a big help!) --- e.g., they assume that the socio-political 'gay' identity is a biological one. And they achieve their results with wrong sampling --- e.g. conducting research only on feminine gendered males --- just like they did in the past when they proved 'homosexuality' (sic) to be a mental disease by taking their samples from psychological clinics and asylums.

You will find what you seek. Science thou are great!
Here is a post I made on another thread but is relevant here too as it deals with the conspiracies of science:

The whole idea of science to do 'research' on so-called 'homosexuality' is to --- like you put it --- 'other' the 'homosexual' behaviour. So that they can continue to strengthen the heterosexual identity. It needs continuous support from powerful institutions like science because --- well, it is an artificial identity which the majority don't want if left on their own. It's an identity based on artificial man-made divisions.

The whole idea of research on 'homosexuality' (sic) is to 'prove' that men who like men are indeed way different than 'heterosexual' in every possible way. And that they are feminine or much closer to women. Science will try to prove that by hook and crook -- and the powerful players on both side of the homosexual-heterosexual divide will lap up the findings -- leaving no scope for a real discussion.

Proving 'homosexuals' (sic) to be 'different' serves an important part of the heterosexual identity --- it helps keep up the pressure on straight men, it helps to continue to marginalise and 'feminise' same-sex bonds (you have to see it in the light that femininity in men is already denigrated even more than same-sex bonds) and it helps to keep up the enlarged ego of a minority of men who are torch bearers of the heteroseuxal ideology and who are extremely dependent on/ addicted to the social power it brings.

Look at all such researches in the recent years. They spend millions of dollars/ pounds to find out what --- that 'homosexuals' (sic) have different brains which match those of women --- and of course different from those of men; that they react to pheromones differently than heterosexual (read real) men, that they have a rare gene, that they respond to loud noise differently (believe me there has been a study to that effect too!)......and so on!

And what useful purpose do these studies serve --- even if we were to believe that they are all true and honest? What useful insight do they give us about human sexuality or even the cause of the so-called disease (now politely called an anomaly) called 'homosexuality'? Well, nothing! It just helps some heterosexually identified people (even though they are not really devoid of sexual need for men) like Art of war, who feel 'powerful', 'proud' and 'superior' by flashing these researches as proof of their being real men.

Why else would a person who claims he has no sexual attraction for men, and who has no real interest in discussing the issue thread bare, (and his intentions are also clear from his recent posts) want to start a thread about the research on 'homosexuality and anterior hypothalamus'.

And the fact of the matter is that these studies are all an eyewash. They are professionally unethical and dishonest. Often they start with wrong assumptions (and no one questions them is a big help!) --- e.g., they assume that the socio-political 'gay' identity is a biological one. And they achieve their results with wrong sampling --- e.g. conducting research only on feminine gendered males --- just like they did in the past when they proved 'homosexuality' (sic) to be a mental disease by taking their samples from psychological clinics and asylums.

You will find what you seek. Science thou are great!

 

[Buddha1]

Here's an excerpt from a review article titled: The social construction of 'homosexuality':

John Thorp (Department of philosophy, University of Western Ontario, London, Onrario)

Foucault's idea that even the deepest-lying sexual categories are social constructs has surely been one of the most powerful developments on the intellectual horizon in recent decades. It gives a path of explanation for much that was inexplicable, it liberates us from some of our own most mysterious values; it allows us to see things in other societies and ages that were simply overlooked before. It is an idea that has generated a cascade of work in ancient social history in the last few years, most notably from David Halperin, Froma Zeitlin, and the late John J. Winkler. One of the most seductive claims to issue from this work is the claim that the very category "homosexual" is a social construct which is scarcely more than a hundred years old. This claim is made of course by Foucault himself, and is restated and defended with great clarity and vigour by David Halperin in his book "One Hundred years of homosexuality (above, not 1). This book has a number of essays on ancient erotic subjects, it would be pleasant to recount them and dilate on them here. But the book's most important and striking claim --- its recurrent underlying thesis --- is that homosexuality is not a natural but a social category.

(Is Ophiolite listening: does this comprise Peer-reviewed paper?)

 

[Ophiolite]

I stumbled in to this since inadvertently, since I had not logged on.

Here's an excerpt from a review article titled: The social construction of 'homosexuality'
The first paragraph is quoted.
(Is Ophiolite listening: does this comprise Peer-reviewed paper?)

The review article is not peer reviewed, but it is scholarly.
It might have been useful if you had read it in total and understood it. You quoted the first paragraph. I shall quote the last.

Of course, it may still be the case that homosexuality is a social construct: but if so it is striking that the Greeks and we have constructed it so similarly.

In short, the author rejects the notion that homosexuality and by extension heterosexuality are the result of social indoctrination. He rejects it completely.

Well done Bhudda1: one of the first solid pieces of material you come up with and the author disposes of your argument. I don't need to refute your nonsense. You are doing such a fine job of it yourself.

If you have something serious to say that merits my attention pm me. Don't count on a lfurther lucky chance that I'll stumble back into the forum without logging on. You remain on Ignore.

 

[Buddha1]

I stumbled in to this since inadvertently, since I had not logged on.

Ophiolite, you naughty thing......I knew you were reading my posts all along!

The review article is not peer reviewed, but it is scholarly.

Not that I care! If I can judge something using my own experience and logic, I don't need someone's degree to do it for me.

It might have been useful if you had read it in total and understood it. You quoted the first paragraph. I shall quote the last.

Of course, it may still be the case that homosexuality is a social construct: but if so it is striking that the Greeks and we have constructed it so similarly.

In short, the author rejects the notion that homosexuality and by extension heterosexuality are the result of social indoctrination. He rejects it completely.

Well done Bhudda1: one of the first solid pieces of material you come up with and the author disposes of your argument. I don't need to refute your nonsense. You are doing such a fine job of it yourself.

And now here is a surprise for you. Although I did not read the entire piece (I am off reading these days, so I could have easily made this mistake!) I did go through it briefly, and I knew what was going on. The man does not want to accept the fact put forward by Foucault. And he bases his deduction on a small thing --- his interpretation of parts of "Plato's symposium". But I can see how feeble his arguments are. And naturally he is no match for the great amount of work done by leaders in their field like Michael Foucault.

From his tone, John Thorpe seems to be a hardcore 'homosexual' (one pointer is his statement where talking about same-sex desires he says --- "the notion of Hermaphroditism of the soul would have made sense to the Greeks", thus equating the two). You know, people who relate with the 'homosexual' identity really do see the world like those who relate with the heterosexual identity. For them the world is ACTUALLY divided between homosexuals and heterosexuals and nothing will change that for them (I've mentioned several times how 'homosexuals' oppose me more fiercely than 'heterosexuals'). If he is a professor, his opinions will reflect that too --- notice that he is not rejecting the theory altogether. He is saying maybe, or maybe not.....There is a sea of evidence for it, and as he sees it --- one evidence against it. But that 'evidence' has already been accounted for by researchers like David Halperin.

If you have something serious to say that merits my attention pm me. Don't count on a lfurther lucky chance that I'll stumble back into the forum without logging on. You remain on Ignore.

I'd already responded to your pm. No reply yet

Now, how am I to know what is serious enough to merit your attention?

 

[Buddha1]

And now here is a surprise for you. Although I did not read the entire piece (I am off reading these days, so I could have easily made this mistake!) I did go through it briefly, and I knew what was going on. The man does not want to accept the fact put forward by Foucault. And he bases his deduction on a small thing --- his interpretation of parts of "Plato's symposium". But I can see how feeble his arguments are. And naturally he is no match for the great amount of work done by leaders in their field like Michael Foucault.

From his tone, John Thorpe seems to be a hardcore 'homosexual'. You know, people who relate with the 'homosexual' identity really do see the world like those who relate with the heterosexual identity. For them the world is ACTUALLY divided between homosexuals and heterosexuals and nothing will change that for them (I've mentioned several times how 'homosexuals' oppose me more fiercely than 'heterosexuals'). If he is a professor, his opinions will reflect that too --- notice that he is not rejecting the theory altogether. He is saying maybe, or maybe not.....There is a sea of evidence for it, and as he sees it --- one evidence against it. But that 'evidence' has already been accounted for by researchers like David Halperin.

The important thing here is not what some scholar says about whether 'homosexuality' is soically constructed or not.

The important thing here is that there is an entire stream of 'science' which has been claiming that --- and its been some time now......

And believe me I have known about the artificiality of 'homosexuality' through my own experience and work. For a long time I thought I was the only person who knew this or believed in it at a scholarly level (even the most illiterate man in my society knows this!) --- but then I realised that many men have tried to say much the same things as I'm saying but not quite in as many words. They had their boudations (one thing working for me is that I'm anonymous!) and probably the time for their idea had not come by then. Even Bagemihl has said this though in terms of animal sexuality. Others who said this in one way or the other included Kinsey and Freud.

I came to know about Michael Foucault only a couple of days ago, and I read about his views on this only today. And I'm really surprised that he has said pretty much the same thing -- and almost as outrightly as me. And this is important. That what I've been saying has been validated by no less than an eminent pscyhologist, and he said that way back......and that there is a whole school of thought which believes that.

That gives immense substance to what I am saying in terms of 'external' scientific evidence and support.

Which means that it becomes even more difficult for people who sought to dismiss my experiences and observations on the basis that they are not supported by 'science' (and hence rubbish) to oppose me on that count.

As for me, I'm deeply moved by seeing a powerful scientific lobby validating years of my work and personal experience. Really!

 

[Buddha1]

By the way Ophiolite, if you are cut up because of a post I made about 'real faggots' on the "feminisation of men" then you can cool off, because it wasn't meant for you at all.

If what has annoyed you is that I hinted that your 'heterosexual' identity may not be as strict or that you too may have sexual interest for men --- (actually even if the first one listed above is the case) then you should do an inner search.

And find out why it has bothered you so much. Perhaps then you can understand the pressures that men face to be heterosexual (if you somehow escaped the pressures in your pre-marriage days --- especially teens!)

If a grown up man can be rattled with this kind of thing (you have seen how artofwar reacted!) can you imagine how even the thought of it will unsettle a teenager who is too eager and insecure about establishing his manhood --- his place amongst the world of men.

 

[Buddha1]

I see in Ophiolite an extremely sincere person who has all along believed sincerely in the heterosexual identity, and everything it taught him about this world. He is extremely rattled by what I have been saying. And try just as he might (his strong words notwithstanding) he cannot dismiss me deep in his mind --- because he is sincere. He so much wants everything I'm saying to be a lie. But somehow he knows there may be truth in what I'm saying. And that really is troubling him. It's shattering his heterosexual world which he had so sincerely believed in.

 

[Xerxes]

He is extremely rattled by what I have been saying. And try just as he might (his strong words notwithstanding) he cannot dismiss me deep in his mind --- because he is sincere. He so much wants everything I'm saying to be a lie.

I think he is more rattled by your persistence in suggesting that he is gay (as if he exhudes gayness to the world). It's called self-consciousness.