 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Nutrition / February 2007Yep, They're Gay (but should we be killing them for the purpose of research)
Yep, They're Gay By JOHN CLOUD Friday, Jan. 26, 2007 Zoologists have known for many years that homosexuality isn't uncommon among animals. (My own cat has raised suspicions ever since he tried to mount a cowering male dachshund.) But I was surprised to learn recently that male sheep exhibit homosexuality at least as often as humans: roughly 8% of rams turn out to have sex exclusively with other rams. This little piece of faunal ephemera might otherwise have gone unnoticed outside the rarely intersecting subcultures of gays and shepherds. But a few months ago, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals launched a p.r. campaign on behalf of gay sheep. PETA claims that researchers in Oregon are killing gay sheep and cutting open their brains in order to learn how to turn gay rams straight. A few weeks ago, London's Sunday Times picked up the story in an unnerving article that states the research "raises the prospect that pregnant women could one day be offered a treatment to reduce or eliminate the chance that their offspring will be homosexual." The story has pinged around quite a few blogs since, and Rush Limbaugh and Martina Navratilova have taken their predicted positions. (Limbaugh: gay activists finally have a reason to oppose abortion. Navratilova: homophobes are murdering gay sheep.) It's a pity that a story with so much potential for moral indignation and bad sheep puns (ewegenics!) turns out to be wrong. To be sure, a group of researchers led by physiologist Charles Roselli of Oregon Health & Science University has killed about 55 sheep, homosexual and heterosexual, in order to study the neurological basis of sexual attraction. They have confirmed that test sheep are gay by allowing them to pick among males and females that have been restrained in stanchions to await sexual intercourse. But Roselli says he and his colleagues never had any intention of creating a drug that will turn people straight. And while they have examined whether sheep sexuality can be altered with various treatments, that's not the sole point of their work. Instead, like many other scientists over the past two decades, they are conducting basic research into the nature of sexuality by manipulating hormones in animals. (Such experiments were done on zebra finches--to see if females would pair with other females--as long ago as 1988.) A colleague of Roselli's, Fredrick Stormshak of Oregon State, says a means of identifying gay sheep would be useful to breeders who need to ensure that males will reproduce, but the team hasn't had much success. In its most recent experiments, the group used drugs to block the action of a hormone thought to play a role in making most sheep straight (in other words, this test was designed to produce more homosexual sex, not less). But the results were inconclusive. The Oregon group's work has shown, however, that gay rams have different brain structures from heterosexual ones, news that should cheer those who see homosexuality and heterosexuality as mere biological variations. (Another small but fascinating finding: all gay rams are butch--none present themselves sexually the way ewes do.) As Roselli acknowledges in his papers, sexuality in humans is far more complex than in sheep. The whole notion that researchers studying farm animals could develop a "cure" for human homosexuality is a fantasy of the far left and the far right, which both value a gay-sheep "scandal" more than the messy reality that is Roselli's work. But one could have a good argument about whether adorable little sheep should be killed for sex research. As a gay man, I tend to believe the more we know about the complex interplay of biology and environment that shapes sexuality, the less time we will spend nourishing Old Testament anachronisms about sex. The more pressing question for me is, What would happen if research like Roselli's did lead to, as the Sunday Times imagined, "a 'straightening' procedure [such as] a hormone supplement for mothers- to-be, worn like a nicotine patch"? I hope scientists have better things to do, but would a Hetero Patch be so awful? It would allow bigoted women to get what they want--straight kids--and ensure that gay kids grow up with moms who, at the very least, didn't try to prevent their existence. Gay people seem to fear we would die out if such a device existed. But the elaborate combination of genes, hormones and psychology that produces same-sex attraction has persisted, against all odds, through the millenniums. Gays have survived Darwinian selection, Nazis, the dulling effects of Will & Grace. I don't think a little patch would ever keep some rams from wanting other rams. Copyright © 2007 Time Inc. All rights reserved It's probably a little more complicated for Humans. But our sexual orientation is likely neither genetic nor enviromental - more likely prenatal. If so, then a "straightening fix" for concerned, pregnant moms is as inevitable as human cloning. If couples aren't legally allowed to determine their offsprings orientation, then it begs the question as to why they're allowed to outright terminate those deemed too ill-timed, financially inconvenient, energy draining, career distracting, socially ebarrassing or (in some countries) simply because "it's not a boy." Why should just one predicted outcome be legally protected? It can be a 2-way street. Presumably, most straight parents will want straight kids, if only for having grandkids (of any orientation?) to enjoy later. But maybe lesbians w/ petri dishes or turkey basters may help even up the team. The Amish, and other traditionalist communities, may become a center for natural, gay populations. And a few vanguarde, hetero parents may decide they already have too many lawnmower repairmen and truck drivers in their lineage, and so will want to up the odds for a budding, little interior designer or choreographer. :-) Whatever. Welcome to the Brave New World... > It's probably a little more complicated for Humans. But our sexual > orientation is likely neither genetic nor enviromental - more likely > prenatal. What a stupid (uneducated statement) Humans are sexual. Narrowing to a single sex (same or other) is trained or environmental. Like it or not. Yes there are very remote and rare exceptions to all generalities. It also takes a LOT of training to not have at least a slight preference for the opposite sex. I suppose you think males are oriented to right hand masturbation or left hand masturbation in the womb. ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. BTW, opposite of what your mommy and all the GREAT wisdom as a result of mommies, it is more healthy to wash your hands BEFORE you touch your p p than after. (It's cleaner than your hands.) > <c...@my-deja.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > mommies, it is more healthy to wash your hands BEFORE you touch your p p > than after. (It's cleaner than your hands.) Well researchers know that genetics play a part. There have been a lot of studies showing this. Look at the twin studies. And the environmental influences that they speak of are usually refering to some type of trigger in the womb.....probably something hormonal. So yes, it is becoming more and more clear that orientation is determined in the womb. But regardless, it is not a choice and cannot be changed. And to think that some people considere it to be an "abomination" because of a few incoherent verses in the Old Testament is bizarre beyond belief. Those people were kidnapping and raping little girls and stoning people to death and who knows what else? Sheese! >> <c...@my-deja.com> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > beyond belief. Those people were kidnapping and raping little girls > and stoning people to death and who knows what else? Sheese! You have no clue what you are talking about. People write books off the top of their head. ALL HUMANS ARE SEXUAL All humans will readily take what they want from someone else until they are TAUGHT otherwise or consider the consequences. YOUR rational as that of others with your misguided education is the ROOT of all racism. Humans are humans. Society has rules and punishments. (Control mechanisms to further the society) snip >Humans are humans. >Society has rules and punishments. (Control mechanisms to further the >society) Indeed. Little societies like the KKK said it was just fine to lynch a black man for little cause but the mere thrill of it. Brown shirts and SS followed the rules assiduously and rounded up folks just because they happened to be a Jew or Black or gay. Taliban or other strict and perverted adherents to Sharia law decide women are so revolting they can only be seen in public drifting ghostlike in a burkha and music is evil. Yes. Humans are humans. Work sets you free! Duty is duty! Thank god I'm a queer agnostic. George M. Carter > snip >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Brown shirts and SS followed the rules assiduously and rounded up > folks just because they happened to be a Jew or Black or gay. The ORIGINAL Brown shirts were ALL homosexuals. It was a requirement. Interesting, huh? > Taliban or other strict and perverted adherents to Sharia law decide > women are so revolting they can only be seen in public drifting [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > George M. Carter Over your head, yep. The latest studies show the so called gene variation in homosexuals is the same gene variation found in pedophiles. Did you also know they have found a gene variation (a different one) in obsessive thieves. "EVERYBODY" knows that statistics prove that black have a genetic disposition to robbery and murder. But neither gene is dominant in blacks. Just something to confuse you. You, according to your statement don't really want to get into any scientific discussion. > > snip > [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > You, according to your statement don't really want to get into any > scientific discussion. Wow. I think you need some serious help. No amount of truth, logic, or rational thought has any effect whatsever on your bigotry and hatred. You appear to be a very sick man. >> > snip >> [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > rational thought has any effect whatsever on your bigotry and hatred. > You appear to be a very sick man. No, just stating nonsense RESEARCH and fact. You DID know that the Brown Shirts were originally al gay???? Sure you did. You DID know that some of Hitler's early supporters were Jewish.????? Get an education from other than movies and newspapers. On second thought go get some newspapers from the late twenties and early thirties. snip >The latest studies show the so called gene variation in homosexuals is the >same gene variation found in pedophiles. LOL...you just make sh.t up, doncha? Most pedophiles do it with children of the opposite sex. Anyway, having sex with children isn't about sexual orientation. But keep it up, Vernie...you're a good case study in abnormal but common psychology. George M. Carter > snip >>The latest studies show the so called gene variation in homosexuals is the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > George M. Carter They are published studies that suck the idiots in. People are selective as to which study (very loose term, study) they use in any diatribe. Are you a paying member of NAMBLA? >> snip >>>The latest studies show the so called gene variation in homosexuals is the [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >They are published studies that suck the idiots in. You're the one that claimed there was some study and provide no evidence. >People are selective as to which study (very loose term, study) they use in >any diatribe. Diatribe? Debate is generally the preferred form when discussing controversial issues that lack incontrovertible evidence. >Are you a paying member of NAMBLA? No. Are you a wannabe cocksucker? George M. Carter *** Adams HE; Wright LW Jr; Lohr BA. Is homophobia associated with homosexual arousal? J Abnorm Psychol 1996 Aug;105(3):440-445. Department of Psychology, University of Georgia, Athens 30602-3013, USA. The authors investigated the role of homosexual arousal in exclusively heterosexual men who admitted negative affect toward homosexual individuals. Participants consisted of a group of homophobic men (n = 35) and a group of nonhomophobic men (n = 29); they were assigned to groups on the basis of their scores on the Index of Homophobia (W. W. Hudson & W. A. Ricketts, 1980). The men were exposed to sexually explicit erotic stimuli consisting of heterosexual, male homosexual, and lesbian videotapes, and changes in penile circumference were monitored. They also completed an Aggression Questionnaire (A. H. Buss & M. Perry, 1992). Both groups exhibited increases in penile circumference to the heterosexual and female homosexual videos. Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli. The groups did not differ in aggression. Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies. >>> snip >>>>The latest studies show the so called gene variation in homosexuals is [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Diatribe? Debate is generally the preferred form when discussing > controversial issues that lack incontrovertible evidence. Incontrovertable. The gene variation exists. The debate, sooo? I pointed out some wild assersions based on incontrovertible evidence. It was just to illustrate how "studies" and published assumptions are mostly sources of money grubbing or excuses for their own problem. FYI, although your statement is basically true, pedopheliacs tend also to be self described or clinically, homosexuals. Logical? Only if one boils it down to humans are sexual and some push the "acceptable" envelope. >>Are you a paying member of NAMBLA? > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the > homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies. > Adams HE; Wright LW Jr; Lohr BA. Is homophobia associated with > homosexual arousal? J Abnorm Psychol 1996 Aug;105(3):440-445. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the > homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies. 1. A paper by a University. 2. Numbers are low. 3. No real evidence of original classification 4. The conclusion is that humans are sexual and are "taught" various responses. Of course there are those who the article identifies as being taught one thing and feeling repelled by their own feelings. Sort of like the gambler who dares not enter a Casino or establishes some campaign. If you are trying to justify your homosexual feelings, forget it. You do what you do and don't expect everyone else to give you a Hurray. BTW, that study was done many times and is old hat. I'll leave it up to you to figure out the REAL findings. Clue, association and identification. Their conclusions were totally preconceived and amateurish. snip >If you are trying to justify your homosexual feelings, forget it. LOL...I don't need to justify my feelings. What disturbs me is why so many in the world hate me simply because I'm gay. >You do what you do and don't expect everyone else to give you a Hurray. I don't--but hurray has never been my worry. It's conflicted individuals so full of hate--and this study goes a long way to explaining it. Most homophobes are just closet cases. Your "analysis" is very weak. George M. Carter > snip >>If you are trying to justify your homosexual feelings, forget it. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > individuals so full of hate--and this study goes a long way to > explaining it. It is old and has long ago been shown to be too narrow. > Most homophobes are just closet cases. You are the only one making excuses > Your "analysis" is very weak. No, I just read succeeding studies. > George M. Carter I have nothing against people who engage in homosexual activity. You seem to be phobic. snip >I have nothing against people who engage in homosexual activity. Well! That's marvelous. > snip >>If you are trying to justify your homosexual feelings, forget it. > > LOL...I don't need to justify my feelings. What disturbs me is why so > many in the world hate me simply because I'm gay. I don't hate you or gays. Don't let those who do get under your skin, it's not worth it. My nephew is gay and he has the same problems. UM MOM Susan >>You do what you do and don't expect everyone else to give you a Hurray. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > George M. Carter >>> snip >>>>The latest studies show the so called gene variation in homosexuals is the [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >You're the one that claimed there was some study and provide no >evidence. As best I can recall, vernon has a 100% record of never providing any citations to back up his claims. -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "If George Bush were my dad, I'd be drunk in public so often that James Baker would have me killed." -- Bill Maher on the Bush twins >>>> snip >>>>>The latest studies show the so called gene variation in homosexuals is the [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >As best I can recall, vernon has a 100% record of never providing any >citations to back up his claims. And here he goes again. I suspect he has never done any kind of work as he claims to have done as well. George M. Carter >>>>> snip >>>>>>The latest studies show the so called gene variation in homosexuals is the [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >I suspect he has never done any kind of work as he claims to have done >as well. You're not alone in that suspicion -- especially when you see the wide variety of things he claims to have done. -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "If George Bush were my dad, I'd be drunk in public so often that James Baker would have me killed." -- Bill Maher on the Bush twins >>>>> snip >>>>>>The latest studies show the so called gene variation in homosexuals is [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > George M. Carter Hey Uneducated person, Did you see the study that showed EXACTLY the same result when men were shown Chimps with erections? Of course not. Give us you analysis. snip >Hey Uneducated person, Did you see the study that showed EXACTLY the same >result when men were shown Chimps with erections? No, oh great wise one. >Of course not. LOL... perhaps because it doesn't exist except in the fervid activity of your overactive mind. But if it does, by all means. Share the abstract or citation! George M. Carter > snip >>Hey Uneducated person, Did you see the study that showed EXACTLY the same >>result when men were shown Chimps with erections? > > No, oh great wise one. Of course not. You wouldn't even know the significance. Did you ever wonder ( of course not) why people get scared in a movie where they are really in no danger? Of COURSE people who cry when Bambi loses, must be closet deer. Get an education. >> snip >>>Hey Uneducated person, Did you see the study that showed EXACTLY the same [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >Get an education. Phew. I am always learning...but clearly you ain't. And wow. Specific request for evidence to support your claim--and what? Nada. Eh. >>> snip >>>>Hey Uneducated person, Did you see the study that showed EXACTLY the [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > And wow. Specific request for evidence to support your claim--and > what? Nada. Psychology 210 at almost any university. Look up associative responses, preferably generic. It's basic. snip >> And wow. Specific request for evidence to support your claim--and >> what? Nada. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >It's basic. I see. You have nothing. At least admit that fact. > snip >>> And wow. Specific request for evidence to support your claim--and [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > At least admit that fact. Look up associative responses, preferably generic. It's basic. Did you want a dissertation on whether the earth is spherical? Basics are basics. >> snip >>>> And wow. Specific request for evidence to support your claim--and [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >Did you want a dissertation on whether the earth is spherical? >Basics are basics. Now you're simply lying. You claimed: >>>>>>The latest studies show the so called gene variation in homosexuals is >>>>>>the same gene variation found in pedophiles. You also claimed: >>FYI, although your statement is basically true, pedopheliacs tend also to be >>self described or clinically, homosexuals. I asked if there was a study to back this and other such claims. You provided none. These are specific claims, not relevant to a general discussion of associative responses. That's what ya call a dodge. George M. Carter >>> snip >>>>> And wow. Specific request for evidence to support your claim--and [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > George M. Carter Do a search on pedophilia gene (which you would have already done if you weren't a disingenuous troll and puke.) The BASICS are that it is non-science junk science and tom foolery. There is NO GENE except POSSIBLY a gene variation which SOMEHOW (MIGHT) cause anti social behavior. You have ZERO desire for information or truth. You have ZERO education in the general subject. So, go back in the toilet where you came from. Amazon.com: Stop Child Molestation Book: Books: Gene G. Abel,Nora ... Gene Abel starts with a laudable goal: to drastically reduce the occurrence of ... Abel blames pedophilia among boys on testosterone, accidental pairings of ... www.amazon.com/Stop-Child-Molestation-Book-Gene/dp... [Found on Google, Yahoo! Search] 2. Your Lying Eyes: August 2006 But whether it's a pedophilia gene or germ (apologies to Greg Cochran), this sure seems like something worth investigating with some serious intent to find ... lyingeyes.blogspot.com/2006_08_01_archive.html [Found on Google] 3. injusticebusters 2003 > > Tools of the new witch hunters "So the question becomes, if you have an abnormal, pedophile gene, are you therefore not responsible?" asks Dr. John Bradford, head of forensic psychiatry ... injusticebusters.com/2003/brain_fingerprinting.htm [Found on Google] 4. Pedophilia Information on Healthline Pedophilia is a paraphilia that involves an abnormal interest in children. ... no researchers have claimed to have discovered or mapped a gene for pedophilia. ... www.healthline.com/galecontent/pedophilia [Found on Yahoo! Search] 5. FuturePundit: Comment on Kin DNA Analysis Could Catch More Criminals Imagine if we start deploying the Pedophilia Gene Profile. How many similar non-criminals would such a net drag in? Posted by Robert Silvetz at May 14, ... www.futurepundit.com/mt/mt-altcomments.cgi?entry_i... [Found on Google] 6. Gay gene poor basis for acceptance - Minnesota Daily I usually have a hard time relating to people who commit suicide. ... For instance, what if scientists discovered a "pedophilia gene? ... www.mndaily.com/articles/1998/11/10/8784 [Found on Yahoo! Search] 7. American Renaissance News: That Wild Streak? Maybe It Runs in the ... While the left accepts a ?gay gene? they violently refuse a ?pedophilia gene? or ?murder gene?, because they (want to) believe in rehabilitation, ... www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2006/06/that_wild_st... [Found on Google] 8. SEX THERAPY AND DISORDERS (Gene Abel, M.D. and Candice A. Osborn, M.A. in Treatment of Psychiatric ... Pedophilia is the most common paraphiliac act involving the touching of a victim ... www.csun.edu/~sr2022/soc456/pedophilia.htm [Found on Yahoo! Search] 9. Discussion 2 [Archive] - Atari Forums Let's face it, there isn't an incest gene or a polygamist gene or a pedophile gene. Is there? Why do we say that there is this homosexual gene that is ... www.ataricommunity.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-... [Found on Google] 10. Pedophilia Pedophilia. Pedophilia ... Pedophilia, according to DSM-IV, ... Scientists identify gene that may indicate predisposition to schizophrenia - Full Story ... www.health.am/psy/more/pedophilia/ [Found on Yahoo! Search] 11. Why homosexuality is not genetic They have some really good information out there. Sometimes I wonder if, for example, NAMBLA will swear up and down there's a pedophilia gene. ... www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread183071/pg1 [Found on Google] 12. Pedophilia - Definition, Description, Causes and symptoms, Demographics, Diagnosis... Pedophilia is also a psychosexual disorder in which the fantasy or ... no researchers have claimed to have discovered or mapped a gene for pedophilia. ... www.minddisorders.com/Ob-Ps/Pedophilia.html [Found on Yahoo! Search] 13. Ace of Spades HQ Let's say that we can test for the religiosity gene in our unborn child. ... sexual attractions (i.e., bestiality gene, necrophilia gene, pedophilia gene). ... ace.mu.nu/archives/071844.php [Found on Google] 14. Pedophilia - Mental Health on Yahoo! Health New genes point to diabetes risk. High-risk pregnancies rising in U.S. ... Gene may protect some women against breast cancer " More News ... health.yahoo.com/centers/sexual_health/96409442 [Found on Yahoo! Search] 15. LA Times Claim About Pedophiles Wrong. The Importance of...: The LA Times is standing by its story (Star Trek and Pedophilia Claim Followup). ... into Gene Roddenberry's fantasy land - but there is no cause or effect; ... importance.corante.com/archives/2005/04/28/la_time... [Found on Google] 16. LA Times Claim About Pedophiles Wrong. The Importance of...: www.corante.com/importance/archives/2005/04/28/la_... [Found on Yahoo! Search] 17. pedophilia ... is widening to the normalization of pedophilia and the sexual abuse of the least ... As Gene Edward Veith pointed out in a WORLD magazine article, statutory rape ... www.harvestusa.org/articles/pedophilia.htm [Found on Yahoo! Search] 18. Screening Tests for Pedophilia -- ABEL et al. 21 (1): 115 ... Screening Tests for Pedophilia. GENE G. ABEL. Behavioral Medicine Institute of Atlanta and Morehouse School of Medicine. SUZANN S. LAWRY ... cjb.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/21/1/115 [Found on Google] 19. pedophilia | The News is NowPublic.com RSS Feed for pedophilia - stories: just-in. Favorites. top favorites. my favorites. Why Gene Patents are Bad. Attacking Darwin Doesn't Actually Accomplish Squat ... www.nowpublic.com/tag/pedophilia [Found on Yahoo! Search] 20. News and Commentary: Gay Marriage, Gay Rights, and Homophobia Should same-sex marriage be legal? Should gays and lesbians have the same civil and social rights as everyone else? Should religiious groups continue to discriminate against homosexual? The... atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/phil/blphil_eth_gay... [Found on About] snip >> These are specific claims, not relevant to a general discussion of >> associative responses. That's what ya call a dodge. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Do a search on pedophilia gene (which you would have already done if you >weren't a disingenuous troll and puke.) Ah--generally, someone makes a claim, they provide the data that supports the claim. You failed to do so. If this was a one-time lapse, it would be fine--but apparently this is the way you behave. Your credibility is zilch. George M. Carter > snip > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > George M. Carter George, there are no reputable studies to support those claims. And there are no reputable health organizations that promote this type of filth either. But there are many who have stated publicly that homosexuality is not a disorder and that there is no reason to try an change one's orientation: The American Academy of Pediatrics, American Counseling Association, American Association of School Administrators, American Federation of Teachers, American Psychological Association, American School Health Association, National Association of School Psychologists, National Association of Social Workers, and National Education Association, American Medical Association, American Psychiatric Association, National Association of School Psychologists, National Association of Secondary School Principals, National Education Association >> snip >> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > National Association of School Psychologists, National Association of > Secondary School Principals, National Education Association All money makers. snip >George, there are no reputable studies to support those claims. And >there are no reputable health organizations that promote this type of >filth either. But there are many who have stated publicly that >homosexuality is not a disorder and that there is no reason to try an >change one's orientation: As a queer fellow, I'm pretty well aware of that--and thanks for the further information. I just wanted to see if this vernon wasn't just another troll talking out his a.s. Indeed, if anything, people should realize that heterosexuality on an overpopulated is a psychosocial disorder! But hey--some of my best friends are straight--and if they're happy witht that perverse lifestyle... George M. Carter >The American Academy of Pediatrics, American Counseling Association, >American Association of School Administrators, American Federation of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >National Association of School Psychologists, National Association of >Secondary School Principals, National Education Association > snip >>> And wow. Specific request for evidence to support your claim--and [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > At least admit that fact. Get an education. Oh, well, I'm certain that you think people cry in movies because there is this secret gas released, even from a T.V. >> <c...@my-deja.com> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >> mommies, it is more healthy to wash your hands BEFORE you touch your p p >> than after. (It's cleaner than your hands.) Guess again. That *might* be true if you went naked at all times. If you don't, and especially if you wear underwear (and most people do), you're going to get bacteria from your digestive tract on your genitals. And *that* is the main reason to wash your hands afterwards. -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "If George Bush were my dad, I'd be drunk in public so often that James Baker would have me killed." -- Bill Maher on the Bush twins Zoologists have known for many years that homosexuality isn't uncommon among animals. (Homosexual activity) Obviously written as a political and self serving article rather than any attempt at reality. > Zoologists have known for many years that homosexuality isn't uncommon > among animals. > (Homosexual activity) > > Obviously written as a political and self serving article rather than any > attempt at reality. I don't get your drift, Vernon. I posted this partly because I thought it was amazing that 8% of rams were homosexual (I would have guessed maybe 1%), and mainly because I don't feel we should be sacrificing these animals to study their brains. What is curious to me about the various responses to the thread is that everyone immediatly shifted their focus to human sexuality, rather than the topic of the article, underscoring a cultural-based fixation on human sexual behaviour. I also take something different away from the lessons of nature, in that "training" cannot reasonably account for the degree of homosexuality in these animals. Even if that isn't true, it still underscores the fact that nature uses this feature of sexual development for its own purposes, possibly as a form of natural birth control. What would the human population on earth be today if 100% of humans procreated? PeterB >> Zoologists have known for many years that homosexuality isn't uncommon >> among animals. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >birth control. What would the human population on earth be today if >100% of humans procreated? Would it really be that much larger? The majority of humans do procreate, and with many of those who don't, it's not because they're homosexuals. Furthermore, there are plenty of homosexuals who at some point in their lives, do procreate. Just ask Melissa Etheridge. -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "If George Bush were my dad, I'd be drunk in public so often that James Baker would have me killed." -- Bill Maher on the Bush twins > In article <1171209097.270637.118...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Yes there are tons and tons of homosexuals that procreate. They get married and try to live the type of life that they feel that they have to live, for fear of persecution. >> In article <1171209097.270637.118...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>, >> [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > married and try to live the type of life that they feel that they have > to live, for fear of persecution. Baloney Men are sexual. > In article <1171209097.270637.118...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > homosexuals. Furthermore, there are plenty of homosexuals who at some > point in their lives, do procreate. Just ask Melissa Etheridge. Sure, but from an evolutionary point of view, that isn't the question. The critical nature of survival in prehistoric times was about availability of resources, and any flattening out of the population growth curve would have made survival of a species more likely. Evolution doesn't know how to look forward, so what people are doing today doesn't matter (except perhaps for future generations.) PeterB > > "PeterB" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > PeterB That is interesting that you mentioned Nature's birth control. When I was a teen, my mother went back to college and she told me about a study that was done with mice. When they became over populated, a certain portion of them became homosexual. >> > "PeterB" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > study that was done with mice. When they became over populated, a > certain portion of them became homosexual. Gee, statistics and opportunity in action. Will wonders never cease. > > > "PeterB" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > study that was done with mice. When they became over populated, a > certain portion of them became homosexual. That would imply spontaneous genetic adaptation in response to a stimuli, but population growth is not a direct stimulus. What is more likely is that a certain percentage would be homosexual regardless of population growth. In any event, it's a completely natural phenomenon. This article might be of interest... http:// www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/articles/2005/08/14/ what_makes_people_gay/ >> Zoologists have known for many years that homosexuality isn't uncommon >> among animals. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > PeterB They had a point or theorem to prove. Leave a hundred RAMS alone for a year or two (no Ewes) and 8% would be very low. In a standard sheep society, the heavy duty Rams keep at "least" 8% from fraternizing. > Zoologists have known for many years that homosexuality isn't uncommon > among animals. > (Homosexual activity) > > Obviously written as a political and self serving article rather than any > attempt at reality. It obviously bothers your beliefs but homosexuality is found all over the natural world. Biological Exuberance: Homosexuality and Animal Diversity is a scholarly work written by biologists on precisely that subject. Deal with this in a mature fashion. Or not. But it is still correct. >> Zoologists have known for many years that homosexuality isn't uncommon >> among animals. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > It obviously bothers your beliefs but homosexuality is found all over > the natural world. Actually, I said the opposite. But you are too narrow to see that. Quit trying to defend yourself. > Zoologists have known for many years that homosexuality isn't uncommon > among animals. > (Homosexual activity) I've been surprised how many well educated people don't know this, however. > Obviously written as a political and self serving article rather than any > attempt at reality. It's a very reductionist approach to the study of sexual response, but I don't see it as "political." While I would be surprised to see a brain structure anomaly, the idea that environment is the only trigger seems farfetched. If it were true, every gay child would have no heterosexual siblings, or at least the ratios would be far more skewed than they are. PeterB > > "PeterB" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > PeterB Correction: I should have said that a brain structure anomaly, like the one discovered by LeVay, may well point to a biological trigger, but it isn't explanatory all by itself. >> > "PeterB" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > the one discovered by LeVay, may well point to a biological trigger, > but it isn't explanatory all by itself. They just finished a huge survey of homosexual men. They found that a great majority of them have a penis. They finally have found the common denominator and it has been proven to be genetic. Their brothers also have a penis. >> Zoologists have known for many years that homosexuality isn't uncommon >> among animals. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > PeterB What is unreal is the lack of publication of ALL the papers stating that there basically is no such thing as a "homosexual". There are people who have homosexual sex. Most of it is a stupid carryover of Puritan mores. OOOOOHHH sex is bad. They have to apologize for heterosexual behavior. Humans (and all animals) are sexual by their very nature. The ONLY, ONE AND ONLY consideration should be whether it is consensual. Age would also enter into the ability to make consensual decisions. > >> "PeterB" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > there basically is no such thing as a "homosexual". There are people who > have homosexual sex. That would be consistent with the view that everyone is fundamentally bisexual. In terms of orientation potential it is empirically true, but that doesn't mean biological factors can't be predisposing. Since we don't see more equal representation of sexual behaviour (at least in very open societies), the premise that behaviour alone defines orientation is just too simple. > Most of it is a stupid carryover of Puritan mores. OOOOOHHH sex is bad. > They have to apologize for heterosexual behavior. That's a fascinating point. Do people *prefer* to think that gay people are born because it makes them feel better about themselves? Does the fact that most of the Religious Right take the opposing view mean their ideas are more consistent with the evidence? Trends in sociology might describe the conclusions we draw, but it rarely says *why* we draw them. Though not true in every area of life, I still think the best guide for exploring the Life sciences is the physical evidence. > Humans (and all animals) are sexual by their very nature. > > The ONLY, ONE AND ONLY consideration should be whether it is consensual. A ***whole*** other subject! Beyond me today.... > Age would also enter into the ability to make consensual decisions.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - >> >> "PeterB" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] >> >> - Show quoted text - >> >> "PeterB" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > That would be consistent with the view that everyone is fundamentally > bisexual. Fundamentally sexual. Fundamentally in need of acceptance (love) >In terms of orientation potential it is empirically true, > but that doesn't mean biological factors can't be predisposing. Physically "predisposed" to be heterosexual but NOT heterosexual, just sexual otherwise masturbation would be nearly non-existant. >Since > we don't see more equal representation of sexual behaviour (at least > in very open societies), the premise that behaviour alone defines > orientation is just too simple. Forget "orientation" >> Most of it is a stupid carryover of Puritan mores. OOOOOHHH sex is bad. >> They have to apologize for heterosexual behavior. > > That's a fascinating point. Do people *prefer* to think that gay > people are born because it makes them feel better about themselves? No corelation to sex or no sex. To the Puritan ANY sex was a "necessary" evil. Heterosexual behavious was for procreation. Non heterosexual behaviour was a major "sin". > Does the fact that most of the Religious Right take the opposing view > mean their ideas are more consistent with the evidence? Religious right is an ignorant phrase. >Trends in > sociology might describe the conclusions we draw, but it rarely says [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > A ***whole*** other subject! Beyond me today.... O.K. I understand. As long as you want it, that's all that counts.:>) :>) >> Age would also enter into the ability to make consensual decisions.- Hide >> quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > >> "PeterB" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > > Religious right is an ignorant phrase. Granted. I should have simply said "the majority of religious followers." > >Trends in > > sociology might describe the conclusions we draw, but it rarely says [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > O.K. I understand. As long as you want it, that's all that counts.:>) :>) Just thankful I'm in a virtual environment. ;o) > >> Age would also enter into the ability to make consensual decisions.- Hide > >> quoted text - [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > - Show quoted text - >> >> "PeterB" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 73 lines] > Granted. I should have simply said "the majority of religious > followers." Actually not as much as one might believe by what gets published. Also the "right" mainly means individual freedom. The "left" (Socialism) is EVERYBODY is alike and we will pass a law to that effect. >> >Trends in >> > sociology might describe the conclusions we draw, but it rarely says [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Just thankful I'm in a virtual environment. ;o) Clever, clever, clever >> >> Age would also enter into the ability to make consensual decisions.- >> >> Hide [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> >> - Show quoted text - > > "PeterB" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] > > > Does the fact that most of the Religious Right take the opposing view > > > mean their ideas are more consistent with the evidence? That "Religious Right" or "Fundamentalist" category are shrinking into oblivion fast, and do not have a monopoly on main stream Christianity anymore. The Fundamentalist Lunatic Fringe notions about reality are soon to disappear....in a puff of logic, I think that it is way past time for them to grow up and join the human race and quit bugging people. But untill then, there is no helping them. >That "Religious Right" or "Fundamentalist" category are shrinking into >oblivion fast, and do not have a monopoly on main stream Christianity >anymore. The Fundamentalist Lunatic Fringe notions about reality are >soon to disappear....in a puff of logic, I think that it is way past >time for them to grow up and join the human race and quit bugging >people. But untill then, there is no helping them. My impression is that as education standards go down in the West, the fundamentalist, superstitious loonies are on the rise. I'm seriously worried! We should have evolved past religion decades ago, but the controlling class has such powerful weapons to perpetuate this disease, that I see little hope of escape in the near to medium future. When the leader of the most powerful nation on Earth takes his lead from his wife's reading the stars, what hope have we? And look at the born-again flake in the cockpit now! jack > Religious right is an ignorant phrase. Yes it is. Maybe it should be "Religious Wrong",,,,Or just, the "Bozos" for short. >> Zoologists have known for many years that homosexuality isn't uncommon >> among animals. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > heterosexual siblings, or at least the ratios would be far more skewed > than they are. Hey, Petey, we agree on the points you made. Personally, I do not think that environment plays a significant part. Of course, I base this on personal knowledge of several brothers where one is gay. >>> Zoologists have known for many years that homosexuality isn't uncommon >>> among animals. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > that environment plays a significant part. Of course, I base this on > personal knowledge of several brothers where one is gay. The difficulty in "going back" is the base that most personality is formed by 3 years old and definitely by 5 years old. Adults can't identify with that age and thus misread almost everything. This isn't to disagree with your statement just a little relative perspective. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.