Re: Disturbing article

[Guest guest]

>

>

>Really we are still in the stone ages. Its like they think being gay is an

>act still?

>

I know my mother still does!!

Michele

_________________________________________________________________

Plan your next US getaway to one of the super destinations here.

http://special.msn.com/local/hotdestinations.armx

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/12/04 8:01:13 PM Eastern Standard Time, katja@...

writes:

> i hear you, mary, and it's logical. but you can't (bush notwithstanding)

> legislate " sin " . you can legislate genetic difference.

I'm not sure I follow. It's considered politically incorrect, vastly

immoral, and unconstitutional for the law to discriminate against those who are

genetically different (as whites are from blacks, and women are from men), but

it's

thoroughly normative to legislate against sin (murder, theft, prostitution).

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/12/04 9:02:09 PM Eastern Standard Time,

christiekeith@... writes:

> I'm sure the moms on this list will appreciate this, but it wasn't until I

> started breeding dogs that I actually grasped to what extent we're born being

> who we are, and how LITTLE our personalities are actually influenced by

> experiences. I can take a confident puppy and make him less confident, I can

make

> him aggressive, I can make him defiant and stubborn and unruly, but I cannot

> take a confident puppy and make him a timid dog. Nor can I take a shy puppy

> and make her a dominant, aggressive dog, though I can make her a fear biter,

> or I can make her a calm but retiring dog.

You can do a lot of things with dogs, though, that you can't do with humans.

I think there is a significant genetic component to personality, and a

serious dietary component. Yet humans have volition, and psychologies that are

less

instinct-driven.

> My upbringing might have made me more likely to be attracted to a certain

> kind of woman or a certain relationship dynamic, but I don't see how it

> influenced the actual gender of who I was instinctively attracted to.

Well, I can see how my upbringing and my culture has caused me to filter my

sexual feelings into something I interpret as heterosexuality. I suspect that

there is a spectrum, and on either end you have people who are clearly homo-

or hetersexual by strict nature, and in between you have lots of people who

either do go both ways or could go both ways with the right psychological and

cultural factors.

Since there are several societies we know of historically where homosexual

behavior has been the norm and expected of people, as, say, a right of passage,

it seems quite clear to me that most people have a capacity for bisexuality,

and that it is cultural and familial values that tend to polarize this

sexuality.

Chris

[Guest guest]

I saw a documentary when I was young as it has stuck in my mind forever.

What part of the world it was from I cannot remember all I know is it was a

small village in the middle of somewhere. It was one of those villages

however that was not part of our large societies today.

Though the point of the story is scientists were mystified as the occasional

young female upon reaching puberty would develop into a male with the organs

completely altering themselves. I remember the village had problems

producing male children.

_____

From: Heidi Schuppenhauer [mailto:heidis@...]

Sent: Friday, 13 February 2004 6:45 AM

Subject: Re: Disturbing article

>Actually, the theory of kin survival might support a certain proportion of

homosexual family members as increasing, not decreasing, population. In

social species, let's say wolves for example, only one female in the pack

reproduces. All the rest of the pack members contribute to the survival of

her offspring. In the same way, having non-reproducing members of a human

family or community could contribute to the survival of those children who

are born, by providing childcare, reducing birth rates which can INCREASE

survival of the children who are born even to the point of a net population

gain, and replacing reproducing family members if they die or are otherwise

unable to raise their offspring.

>

>Christie

THAT is a very good argument. Some species of frogs change their sex if too

many of the

same sex are around too.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

>How would they stop you from creating your own religion and getting married

>within?

Well, first, people take their religion very seriously, so it's hard

for, say, a Roman Catholic, to not be married in the Catholic

church because they are gay.

Second, the civil issue isn't the religious one: if you are not married,

for instance, you can't visit your partner in the hospital, or take

over their finances when they are injured. Or claim half the

house if they die. Or, more significant, get medical insurance

from a company where a spouse would (remember, most

medical insurance in this country is supplied by employers

at large companies, it is much harder to get for individuals).

That is why the court claimed that denying " marriage " was a

civil rights issue -- not being married IS a significant handicap

in our society on multiple levels, including financially.

Which, ironically, is what Bush argued shortly prior to

this decision ... that poor folks should be encouraged to

get married so they'd do better financially. But he only meant

poor straight folks.

-- Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

Aaaaaaah did not realise all that

Speaking of which ( and ALL my friends laugh at me when I say this )

That our politicians are all broken pushing a broken system in which they

themselves are denatured.

_____

From: Heidi Schuppenhauer [mailto:heidis@...]

Sent: Friday, 13 February 2004 8:28 AM

Subject: RE: Disturbing article

>How would they stop you from creating your own religion and getting married

>within?

Well, first, people take their religion very seriously, so it's hard

for, say, a Roman Catholic, to not be married in the Catholic

church because they are gay.

Second, the civil issue isn't the religious one: if you are not married,

for instance, you can't visit your partner in the hospital, or take

over their finances when they are injured. Or claim half the

house if they die. Or, more significant, get medical insurance

from a company where a spouse would (remember, most

medical insurance in this country is supplied by employers

at large companies, it is much harder to get for individuals).

That is why the court claimed that denying " marriage " was a

civil rights issue -- not being married IS a significant handicap

in our society on multiple levels, including financially.

Which, ironically, is what Bush argued shortly prior to

this decision ... that poor folks should be encouraged to

get married so they'd do better financially. But he only meant

poor straight folks.

-- Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

>Though the point of the story is scientists were mystified as the occasional

>young female upon reaching puberty would develop into a male with the organs

>completely altering themselves. I remember the village had problems

>producing male children.

That happens here more than you would imagine. There was an article

on it I read once ... a fair number of kids are born with one set of chromosomes

but the sexual equipment of the other sex. Or sexual equipment that

is hard to tell what they are -- i.e. they might have a p. and a v.

Currently the parents decide when the kid is little and they do

surgery so the kid has a clear gender ... but

there is a push to wait til puberty and let the kid decide for themselves.

It seems to be not too uncommon, but it's something that gets little publicity.

It's an interesting issue, and one that really calls into question the

whole " Adam and Eve " version of sexuality. (i.e. two obviously

clear and different sexes). And, in a more tolerant

society, maybe nothing needs to be " fixed " -- being " indistinct "

as it were might give an individual a lot of freedom (having both

sets of equipment might be pretty interesting ...).

-- Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

Heidi,

Just a statistic. DH is from a family of 7 children, 2 girls, 5 boys. 2nd

daughter lesbian, 2nd son gay. DH is youngest and likes most real manly, to

me anyway, things than the other 4. Is a caring man also, just like my

youngest brother who was last of Mom's 7 pregnancies, 4 survived.

> basically, the more BOYS a woman has, the more chance the

> later-born ones will be gay.>

Wanita

[Guest guest]

,

See another cart before the horse scenario with this cure and focus. This

country and the world as it stands now " still " does not accept everyone as

they were made. Laws saying it is so doesn't make it so. There was and still

is intolerance and injustice done everyday to all other different people.

Even those that don't fit into equal opportunity. Genetic science can't find

an intolerance gene.

> Also, there would be attempts at " cures " , as there

> have been for many years, but this time the stakes would be higher as it

> would be based on DNA.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

Ah I have heard of this and also saw a show on it. Because the parents had

this kid as a girl but mentally he was a male and it really screwed him up

and he was trying to get something done to be a male again

_____

From: Heidi Schuppenhauer [mailto:heidis@...]

Sent: Friday, 13 February 2004 8:50 AM

Subject: RE: Disturbing article

>Though the point of the story is scientists were mystified as the

occasional

>young female upon reaching puberty would develop into a male with the

organs

>completely altering themselves. I remember the village had problems

>producing male children.

That happens here more than you would imagine. There was an article

on it I read once ... a fair number of kids are born with one set of

chromosomes

but the sexual equipment of the other sex. Or sexual equipment that

is hard to tell what they are -- i.e. they might have a p. and a v.

Currently the parents decide when the kid is little and they do

surgery so the kid has a clear gender ... but

there is a push to wait til puberty and let the kid decide for themselves.

It seems to be not too uncommon, but it's something that gets little

publicity.

It's an interesting issue, and one that really calls into question the

whole " Adam and Eve " version of sexuality. (i.e. two obviously

clear and different sexes). And, in a more tolerant

society, maybe nothing needs to be " fixed " -- being " indistinct "

as it were might give an individual a lot of freedom (having both

sets of equipment might be pretty interesting ...).

-- Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

Puts new meaning to the words " self service " hehehe

_____

as it were might give an individual a lot of freedom (having both

sets of equipment might be pretty interesting ...).

-- Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

At 02:39 PM 2/12/2004, you wrote:

>As far as " mutant genetic disaster " , I have two words: population control.

>

>While a " cause " is by no means fully established, I think enough has been

>done to seriously support a biological factor, even if only a partial one.

> I'd much rather people focused on that than the standard

>religiously-based SIN!SIN!SIN! hysteria.

i hear you, mary, and it's logical. but you can't (bush notwithstanding)

legislate " sin " . you can legislate genetic difference.

or perhaps i've been watching too much x-men. acutally, bush *is*

withstanding and i can't believe i'm so worried about this. they're never

going to understand anyway, so i guess it doesn't really matter if they

think it's born-with or not.

[Guest guest]

Excellent, Christie!

My feelings exactly.

Judith Alta

-----Original Message-----

From: Christie [mailto:christiekeith@...]

[snip]

I can't see how it's EVER a " lifestyle choice. " My " lifestyle " and my

lesbianism are not related. When I lived in San Francisco and went to clubs

every night and drank and did drugs, that was a lifestyle. When I got older

and moved to the country and got clean and sober and became a fulltime

writer and started raising dogs, that was a lifestyle. My being a lesbian is

just part of who I am, it influences my lifestyle (such as my decision on

where to live), but it isn't synoymous with it!

I'm perfectly willing to believe that sexual orientation (gawd, I hate that

phrase!) is a function of genetics, development, nutrition, and all kinds of

biochemical and physical properties. Who cares? So is my hair color. It's

just part of you who you are. Saying this is the result of something going

" awry " is extremely insulting. Being gay is not a birth defect, for heaven's

sake! It's just a part of natural biological variation.

Christie

[Guest guest]

At 07:54 PM 2/12/04 -0500, you wrote:

>i hear you, mary, and it's logical. but you can't (bush notwithstanding)

>legislate " sin " . you can legislate genetic difference.

>or perhaps i've been watching too much x-men. acutally, bush *is*

>withstanding and i can't believe i'm so worried about this. they're never

>going to understand anyway, so i guess it doesn't really matter if they

>think it's born-with or not.

>

How can you legislate genetic difference? I'm not following. Only

reference I can think of is American slavery, and that was UN-legislated

quite some time ago (socio-political issues aside, please don't go there).

Give me an example of how that could happen now.

Wait. Maybe you don't need to. " Marriage Act " might be all the example

I need.

MFJ

Any moment in which you feel like dancing is a perfect moment.

[Guest guest]

>> Well, perhaps the word " awry " shouldn't be used then. How about

" something happens differently " ? <<

Sounds fine. Thanks.

>> I haven't the slightest idea where

choice ends and biology begins for these things (look at the obesity

issue for a confusing example). So when you say " being a lesbian

is part of who you are " do you mean it is more biological than

psychological or a choice? <<

Yes, I don't feel it's in any way pyschological or a choice. It's an intrinsic

part of my nature, not a learned or adopted trait.

I'm sure the moms on this list will appreciate this, but it wasn't until I

started breeding dogs that I actually grasped to what extent we're born being

who we are, and how LITTLE our personalities are actually influenced by

experiences. I can take a confident puppy and make him less confident, I can

make him aggressive, I can make him defiant and stubborn and unruly, but I

cannot take a confident puppy and make him a timid dog. Nor can I take a shy

puppy and make her a dominant, aggressive dog, though I can make her a fear

biter, or I can make her a calm but retiring dog.

My upbringing might have made me more likely to be attracted to a certain kind

of woman or a certain relationship dynamic, but I don't see how it influenced

the actual gender of who I was instinctively attracted to.

Christie

[Guest guest]

>

> >. Saying this is the result of something going " awry " is extremely

insulting. Being gay is not a birth defect, for heaven's sake! It's

just a part of natural biological variation.

> >

> >Christie

>

> Well, perhaps the word " awry " shouldn't be used then. How about

> " something happens differently " ? My use of " lifestyle choice " was

> quoting others who say that (judgmentally and otherwise)

> -- I haven't the slightest idea where

> choice ends and biology begins for these things (look at the obesity

> issue for a confusing example). So when you say " being a lesbian

> is part of who you are " do you mean it is more biological than

> psychological or a choice?

>

> In any event, your hair color could good be a good thing or a bad

> thing, depending on how you view it, but in any case you won't get

sent

> to jail for it and probably won't even face any discrimination

because of

> it, and the science of hair color is pretty well understood and you

> really can't choose your " natural hair color " .

>

> <><><><><><><>What is the science of hair color? I studied

embryology at the land grant institution one semester and the prof

didn't understand a lot of things about it. And all we looked at was

10 or 12 days development of the chick the entire semester. What they

knew was interesting but if I remember correctly the prof didn't know

what exactly caused the gubernaculum testis to drop. And just think,

God spoke man into existence using dirt as the raw material. Hope

that's not too disturbing! Dennis

I think the possibility there is a biological component is a BIG deal

to

> those folks whose religion is incompatible with their sexuality.

> They're being told they can change, and some of them feel they

> SHOULD change. If it's just " natural biological variation " but it

> IS provably biological, that helps end the debate.

>

> -- Heidi

[Guest guest]

>There was an article on it I read once ... a fair number of kids are born with

one set of chromosomes but the sexual equipment of the other sex. Or sexual

equipment that is hard to tell what they are -- i.e. they might have a p. and a

v.

Currently the parents decide when the kid is little and they do

surgery so the kid has a clear gender ... but

there is a push to wait til puberty and let the kid decide for themselves.

It seems to be not too uncommon, but it's something that gets little

publicity.

==========> You may be interested in this interview

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/8.30/helthrpt/stories/s750502.htm

interview with a person with both sets of equipment.

- Filippa

[Guest guest]

>> <><><><><><><>What is the science of hair color? I studied

>embryology at the land grant institution one semester and the prof

>didn't understand a lot of things about it. And all we looked at was

>10 or 12 days development of the chick the entire semester. What they

>knew was interesting but if I remember correctly the prof didn't know

>what exactly caused the gubernaculum testis to drop. And just think,

>God spoke man into existence using dirt as the raw material. Hope

>that's not too disturbing! Dennis

Aw come on Dennis, you are a farmer! If you breed two black chickens,

the babies will mostly be black chickens. If two blond adults of two

different sexes have a baby together, it will be blond, unless the gal

is having an affair. This happens regardless of their philosophy

on life. The genetics is pretty well understood, and it is science,

not philosophy.

As for the details at a cellular level ... ok, they don't know ALL the

details but they are getting a good idea (they'd love to come up

with a pill that keeps your hair from turning grey ...).

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

>

>

> From: Heidi Schuppenhauer <heidis@...>

> Reply-

> Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 09:40:23 -0800

>

> Subject: Re: Disturbing article

>

>

>

>> So...being gay or lesbian is a defect caused by improper nutrition?

>> Haven't we already tried, and one would hope, abandoned, eugenics?

>

> Sorry, but the mainstream scientists are tending to agree that

> male homosexuality, at any rate, is likely nutritional or hormonal,

> caused by something that goes awry in the mother's womb.

> The most convincing data to date is an epidemiological study that was

> in New Scientist a few months ago. It covered a lot of subjects,

> and basically, the more BOYS a woman has, the more chance the

> later-born ones will be gay. So in an Irish family with 14 kids, 7 boys,

> the chances are really good that the last kid will by gay. Firstborn

> sons rarely are.

>

I'm not sure I understand this, in the context of 'going awry'. Clearly, if

something has a biological cause, then, by definition, there are factors

that go into the result...almost goes without saying. But, as soon as we

start using terms like 'going awry', we seem to be presupposing that the

result is bad. Would we want to 'stamp out' homosexuality by finding the

particular biological, environmental factors that might cause it? Only if it

is considered somehow an inferior result. In my opinion it is a great thing

that human beings are so diverse, and the fact that some people prefer their

own sex is really a great thing.

I challenge your statement that there is some kind of consensus amongst

mainstream scientists about this.

> Which jibes with what Price was saying too ... don't have too many

> kids, don't space them too close together.

>

Or else something 'goes awry' and you might have a homosexual kid?

> No one is really sure why this happens. However, studies on rats

> (changing hormones in utero) show it's pretty easy to make them

> homosexual, reliably. Also brain scans of homosexual men show

> marked differences than straight men. So *something* physical

> is going on, this isn't always merely a " lifestyle choice " .

>

Well, yes, but I don't understand the emphasis on this somehow being a bad

thing. Or if not, how am I misinterpreting this?

> What is really, really ironic about this data is that a lot of the families

> who have a lot of kids like that do so for religious reasons, and

> often they are Catholic. So that last son ends up in the priesthood.

> So if there is good data that having too many kids causes homosexuality,

> and if homosexuality is unnatural and sinful, does that mean it is sinful

> to have too many kids?

>

> That isn't to say that some people (and animals) don't make fun (or sinful,

> depending on your take on things) sexual choices. In fact one article

> I read was about the differences between men who identify themselves

> as " gay " vs men who " like to have sex with men " but don't consider

> themselves gay.

>

> -- Heidi

>

>>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

>

> From: katja <katja@...>

> Reply-

> Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 14:23:54 -0500

>

> Subject: Re: Disturbing article

>

>

> At 12:40 PM 2/12/2004, you wrote:

>>

>>> So...being gay or lesbian is a defect caused by improper nutrition?

>>> Haven't we already tried, and one would hope, abandoned, eugenics?

>>

>> Sorry, but the mainstream scientists are tending to agree that

>> male homosexuality, at any rate, is likely nutritional or hormonal,

>> caused by something that goes awry in the mother's womb.

>> The most convincing data to date is an epidemiological study that was

>> in New Scientist a few months ago. It covered a lot of subjects,

>> and basically, the more BOYS a woman has, the more chance the

>> later-born ones will be gay. So in an Irish family with 14 kids, 7 boys,

>> the chances are really good that the last kid will by gay. Firstborn

>> sons rarely are.

>

> the real problem here, though, is that homosexuality becomes some kind of

> " mutant genetic disaster " which i think is just totally bogus. i don't know

> if i can buy the validity of any of these scientific arguments anyway,

> since homosexuality has been around (and well documented) since ancient

> times. (i guess that's two problems, isn't it?)

> -katja

>

>

Exactly - why are people SO concerned with it, as if it is a PROBLEM. It is

only a problem for people who are scared of it.

[Guest guest]

>Would we want to 'stamp out' homosexuality by finding the

>particular biological, environmental factors that might cause it? Only if it

>is considered somehow an inferior result. In my opinion it is a great thing

>that human beings are so diverse, and the fact that some people prefer their

>own sex is really a great thing.

I already backtracked on the " awry " -- which could be interpreted as

the viewers bias for a certain result.

>I challenge your statement that there is some kind of consensus amongst

>mainstream scientists about this.

I certainly haven't seen a poll of scientists, but in the mags I

read (Discover, New Scientist, Science News) most of the published

articles are of the same view ... that *something* biological is

happening with gay men (not too much about lesbian women). I'm

real sure that people in other areas feel very differently, but the

lab data seems pretty clear that there are physical differences, that

it isn't a simple psychological choice (for a lot of people, at least).

Now, that can be a factual thing. What people DO with that data

might be terrible or wonderful. It is a fact that some people

have blue eyes. Hitler saw that as a sign of superiority, which

is silly. Sure, some people might see a physical " cause " of homosexuality

as something to " stamp out " --- but shoot, it's already pretty clear that

the " cause " of masculinity is physical -- take away the testosterone, give

the guy some estrogen, and he becomes more female! So does that

mean " masculinity " is bad? I don't think so .. it just means that most

guys don't have much choice about how masculine they are.

>> No one is really sure why this happens. However, studies on rats

>> (changing hormones in utero) show it's pretty easy to make them

>> homosexual, reliably. Also brain scans of homosexual men show

>> marked differences than straight men. So *something* physical

>> is going on, this isn't always merely a " lifestyle choice " .

>>

>

>Well, yes, but I don't understand the emphasis on this somehow being a bad

>thing. Or if not, how am I misinterpreting this?

I don't think it is necessarily a bad thing OR a good thing -- the original post

was challenging

Sally's idea that poor nutrition might cause homosexuality, that the Mom's

diet isn't what causes it. However, if the reasons one boy becomes

homosexual and another doesn't have to do with hormones, then the

diet MIGHT be a factor. Again, this is a testable hypothesis that seems to

have some epidemiological base ... which has nothing to do with the

other issue ( " is homosexuality a good thing or not " ). Mom's diet (and the

tightness of men's undershorts) may well have to do with whether

or not the egg gets fertilized as an XX or XY too.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/15/04 11:05:38 AM Eastern Standard Time,

heidis@... writes:

> But I HAVE noticed the total LACK of " ick factor " when it comes to

> men and lesbians.

Oh, it goes well beyond " lack. "

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/15/04 9:16:07 AM Eastern Standard Time,

jaltak@... writes:

> Your comment points out very well what I said about Christians being the

> most judgmental and least tolerant of all people.

Isn't there some irony in your extrapolation of one person's or some people's

behavior to an entire group in a debate with someone about whether blanket

statements can be made about homosexuals?

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/15/04 10:01:06 AM Eastern Standard Time,

jaltak@... writes:

> There is more death and misery committed " in the name of GOD " (any god,

> Christian or otherwise) than for any other reason.

Judith,

This is quite certainly false. What about the tens of millions of religious

people imprisoned and/or killed in the name of atheism in the 20th century?

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/15/04 1:24:58 PM Eastern Standard Time,

mhysmith@... writes:

> But when you put your sexual activities in my face which has been going on

> this board for the last few days, you are making your problem mine.

I haven't noticed anyone put their sexual activities in anyone's face.

Moreover, you seem to have wrongly intuited the sexual activities of several

people, and had they been putting those activities in your face, you would not

have

made the false assumptions that you have.

Chris