Guest guest Posted February 16, 2007 Report Share Posted February 16, 2007 (I like that name, my middle name is ) Celibacy, a Roman Catholic doctrine, is not in Scripture. Yes, some men like have a gift in which they remain unmarried to accomplish what the Lord wanted him to do. was married. There are verses in the gospels where Jesus heals 's mother-in-law. But NO man is forbidden in Scripture to NOT marry. Thats false doctrine. Masterjohn <chrismasterjohn@...> wrote: On 2/16/07, jesusfirst369 <jesusfirst369@...> wrote: > Why are you so touchy and protective of homosexuality? Are you > protective of your own sexual orientation? But IT IS COMMON SENSE > that sex is meant between a man and a woman. If we all went " homo " , > our species would die off. It is abnormal because if we all did it we > COULDN'T REPRODUCE. One man, one woman, the perfect fit. Our species would die out if we all became celibate priests too. Didn't St. wish that all could be chaste, but allowed that marriage was good, to save them from burning with passion? Chris -- The Truth About Cholesterol Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You: http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com --------------------------------- Everyone is raving about the all-new beta. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 16, 2007 Report Share Posted February 16, 2007 and Gene, answer me one simple question, if you can without being offended or calling me a bigot, or using my faith against me.... if it is not abnormal or if it is not necessary to maintain the human species, then why are we all not the same sex? In other words. if it really doesn't matter...why are there females and males? What is the reason for the distinction between the two? Re: Homosexuality in Primitives > > , > Why are you so touchy and protective of homosexuality? Are you > protective of your own sexual orientation? As I mentioned in another post in this thread, yes, I am a gay man. > But IT IS COMMON SENSE that sex is meant between a man and a > woman. If we all went " homo " , our species would die off. It > is abnormal because if we all did it we COULDN'T REPRODUCE. > One man, one woman, the perfect fit. All you're doing there is extrapolating out to a ridiculous and unrealistic extreme and basing your judgment on that. One can just as easily condemn bus drivers because if everyone were a bus driver, there'd be no one to grow our food, and humanity would starve to death. It is therefore COMMON SENSE that bus drivers are evil! From a rational and realistic perspective, it is clear that survival of our species does not require that every individual human reproduce. That a few percent of humans, for whatever reason, do not reproduce has done absolutely nothing to hinder our success as a species. Additionally, homosexuality does not equate sterility. There are lots of homosexual men and women who have taken part in procreation, and not always via heterosexual coitus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 16, 2007 Report Share Posted February 16, 2007 , Sorry, I had no idea you were gay. I thought you had some friends that were gay or something but......anyways. I apologize. Since we're both biased, it will do no good to argue and argue over this. I don't want us to keep bickering at each other for no reason. Thanks for the discussion. God bless and I hope your safe in Christ. --------------------------------- Don't be flakey. Get for Mobile and always stay connected to friends. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 16, 2007 Report Share Posted February 16, 2007 You have a point. Sex is not EXACTLY a " mental choice " ; it's more " mental arousal " . But here's what I believe according to MY religious beliefs. Homosexuality is a CHOICE. There telling us nowadays that people are born with a desire for the same sex. Are people born with a desire to commit adultery or fornication? Yes, all men are. Therefore, all men have the capability, IF THEY GIVE IN TO THE FLESH, to commit adultery, fornication, sodomy(homosexuality), lasciviousness, etc. We are all sinners. NONE of us are perfect by any means. A homosexual or not, we are all equal in the eyes of God. The difference is whether one come's to Christ or not. Budda is in a tomb. Muhammed is in a tomb. Weston A. Price is dead. Every primitive that ate a " perfect " diet eventually died. But Christ rose from His tomb. Five hundred witnesses saw him alive with holes in His hands and feet. And now that He is alive, he is offering salvation to ALL who will believe. Much love. --------------------------------- Never miss an email again! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives. Check it out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 16, 2007 Report Share Posted February 16, 2007 Gene, I don't know what mail program you use. But I read this group on the web and your posts are unreadable because i can't distinguish your thoughts from others'. Just letting you know. Connie > >> > I think that you know what is meant, and you either think that > >> > intolerance of women, homosexuals, blacks, Martians, whomever, is a > >> > very bad thing or you don¹t. It appears that you don¹t. > > > > ³Gene, > > > > Actually, I'm tolerant of just about anything that doesn't cause harm > > to someone else. It's OK with me if someone wants to eat their own > > flesh or commit suicide. Maybe I'm too tolerant ² > > > > Well, I must confess that I¹m constantly tempted by the former, and not the > > latter...perhaps that¹s abnormal. > > > > I believe that intolerance of people because of who they are causes tremendous > > harm in this world. The dehumanization of people because of their race, their > > sex, their sexual orientation, their beliefs, etc, has caused tremendous harm > >  physical, cultural, psychological, and many multisyllabic words that I¹m too > > drunk to spell. > > > > I think that there is a fundamental difference between intolerance of this, > > and intolerance of this kind of intolerance. > > > > ³Just because I tolerate something doesn't mean I think it's right or > > that it's what I would choose to do. ³ > > > > Well, not that you would choose to do it, but if you think it¹s wrong, what > > good comes of tolerating it? What if you think that it¹s very wrong, and > > causes tremendous harm? What good comes of tolerating it? > > > > ³ Sexual preferences among > > consenting adults or even sexual abstinence certainly causes no harm. > > In fact, I see a benefit from more sex that does not result in > > procreation, because there's getting to be way too many of us on this > > planet to support a sustainable healthy lifestyle and environment for > > the masses. To avoid more pollution, pestilence, famine, murder, and > > war, we definitely need to find more civil ways to limit population. > > Reducing procreation is a big plus here.² > > > > Well, coincidentally, my desire to eat my own flesh is a half hearted attempt > > to limit the population. Not in the sense that it¹s suicidal, but since I¹m > > not married and procreating, and don¹t feel like suicide or murder, eating my > > own flesh is the best I can do. > > > > ³Tolerance helps to minimize the murder and war parts too!² > > > > Well, practically, being intolerant of bigotry doesn¹t do anything to increase > > murder and war if you are not inciting people to violence and war. So, I get > > to have my flesh and eat it too. > > > > ³As far as the original topic of diet and sexual preference, my own > > uneducated GUESS is that diet might at most have a minor influence. > > But I have no evidence. Perhaps some individuals might want to seek > > out a diet that enhances their sexual preference - if there is such a > > diet. I see no harm in trying to determine which type of dietary > > factors might favor which type of sexual preference, if this is even > > possible.² > > > > Well, this obviously falls into the general category of diet enhancing one¹s > > health, which is a good way to think of it. > > > > ³My preference is to find a diet that leads to optimal health.² > > > > ah  didn¹t I just say that? Well, I guess you hadn¹t read my reply yet... > > > > ³And I think just about everyone would agree that optimal health > > includes enhanced libido. Especially at my age > > > > Well, yes. I think that we generally know when we feel good.... > > > > I think that the original topic was that you essentially called me a hypocrite > > for calling someone who dehumanized homsexuals a bigot. I respect what you say > > in this post, but I don¹t see anything to really back up the previous post. > > > > Gene > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 16, 2007 Report Share Posted February 16, 2007 --------- Re: Homosexuality in Primitives > > > > > > > , > > Why are you so touchy and protective of homosexuality? Are you > > protective of your own sexual orientation? > > As I mentioned in another post in this thread, yes, I am a gay man. > > > But IT IS COMMON SENSE that sex is meant between a man and a > > woman. If we all went " homo " , our species would die off. It > > is abnormal because if we all did it we COULDN'T REPRODUCE. > > One man, one woman, the perfect fit. > > All you're doing there is extrapolating out to a ridiculous and > unrealistic extreme and basing your judgment on that. One can just as > easily condemn bus drivers because if everyone were a bus driver, > there'd be no one to grow our food, and humanity would starve to > death. It is therefore COMMON SENSE that bus drivers are evil! > > From a rational and realistic perspective, it is clear that survival > of our species does not require that every individual human reproduce. > That a few percent of humans, for whatever reason, do not reproduce > has done absolutely nothing to hinder our success as a species. > Additionally, homosexuality does not equate sterility. There are lots > of homosexual men and women who have taken part in procreation, and > not always via heterosexual coitus. > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 16, 2007 Report Share Posted February 16, 2007 > > and Gene, > answer me one simple question, if you can without being > offended or calling me a bigot, or using my faith against me.... > if it is not abnormal or if it is not necessary to maintain the > human species, then why are we all not the same sex? > In other words. if it really doesn't matter...why are there > females and males? What is the reason for the distinction > between the two? We're not all the same sex because our species does not reproduce asexually. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 16, 2007 Report Share Posted February 16, 2007 lol.....you blow my mind Gene...if there is no God...there can possibly be no satan...still waiting on your answer for my question Re: Re: Homosexuality in Primitives yeah, yeah, yeah. Hail Satan! -------------- Original message ---------------------- From: <jesusfirst369@...> > , > The Bible is the infallible, inerrant Word of the Living God. It says in > Romans 1:28, " And according as they did not like to retain God in their > knowledge(homosexuals), God gave them up to a reprobate mind. " Reprobate can be > defined as ' a mind void of moral discernment.' I'm not trying to be > controversial. Homosexuals are equal to fornicators, adulterers, ect. If someone > is doing that, they need to come to Christ. It's sexual sin. They need to come > to Christ. No matter how " intelligent " someone may be; they are not immune to > the flesh(sinful desires). I believe what Weston A. Price found was an > excellent discovery but I'm sure he didn't want his work to come between > people's spiritual needs. I know some of those missionaries in his day were > bringing processed foods to the primitives( and that was stupid) but I'm sure > those primitives will be thankful for all eternity for the prized Treasure that > the missionaries brought them, Christ. > > > > Stanley <j_alexander_stanley@...> wrote: > > > > > I don't believe homosexuals are physically malnourished but > > SPRITUALLY and MENTALLY malnourished. > > I can understand how your belief in primitive tribal superstition > would lead to the belief that homosexuals are spiritually > malnourished, but what evidence do you have that homosexuals are > mentally malnourished? After all, some of humankind's greatest > thinkers and creative giants have been homosexuals. > > > > > > > --------------------------------- > Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate > in the Answers Food & Drink Q & A. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 16, 2007 Report Share Posted February 16, 2007 -------------- Original message ---------------------- From: " cbrown2008 " <cbrown2008@...> > Gene, I don't know what mail program you use. > But I read this group on the web and your posts are unreadable > because i can't distinguish your thoughts from others'. > > Just letting you know. > > Connie Thanks - I often have the same difficulty, especially when drinking. Yeah - I don't know what the issue is - the posts often come in without this differentiation, and I put quote marks in...but apparently that doesn't do any good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 16, 2007 Report Share Posted February 16, 2007 , isn't an asexual person one who has no sex organs? Re: Homosexuality in Primitives > > and Gene, > answer me one simple question, if you can without being > offended or calling me a bigot, or using my faith against me.... > if it is not abnormal or if it is not necessary to maintain the > human species, then why are we all not the same sex? > In other words. if it really doesn't matter...why are there > females and males? What is the reason for the distinction > between the two? We're not all the same sex because our species does not reproduce asexually. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 16, 2007 Report Share Posted February 16, 2007 --------- Re: Re: Homosexuality in Primitives > > > > yeah, yeah, yeah. > > Hail Satan! > > -------------- Original message ---------------------- > From: <jesusfirst369@...> > > , > > The Bible is the infallible, inerrant Word of the Living God. It says in > > Romans 1:28, " And according as they did not like to retain God in their > > knowledge(homosexuals), God gave them up to a reprobate mind. " Reprobate can > be > > defined as ' a mind void of moral discernment.' I'm not trying to be > > controversial. Homosexuals are equal to fornicators, adulterers, ect. If > someone > > is doing that, they need to come to Christ. It's sexual sin. They need to > come > > to Christ. No matter how " intelligent " someone may be; they are not immune > to > > the flesh(sinful desires). I believe what Weston A. Price found was an > > excellent discovery but I'm sure he didn't want his work to come between > > people's spiritual needs. I know some of those missionaries in his day were > > bringing processed foods to the primitives( and that was stupid) but I'm > sure > > those primitives will be thankful for all eternity for the prized Treasure > that > > the missionaries brought them, Christ. > > > > > > > > Stanley <j_alexander_stanley@...> wrote: > > > > > > > > I don't believe homosexuals are physically malnourished but > > > SPRITUALLY and MENTALLY malnourished. > > > > I can understand how your belief in primitive tribal superstition > > would lead to the belief that homosexuals are spiritually > > malnourished, but what evidence do you have that homosexuals are > > mentally malnourished? After all, some of humankind's greatest > > thinkers and creative giants have been homosexuals. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------- > > Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate > > in the Answers Food & Drink Q & A. > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 16, 2007 Report Share Posted February 16, 2007 > > > > and Gene, > > answer me one simple question, if you can without being > > offended or calling me a bigot, or using my faith against me.... > > if it is not abnormal or if it is not necessary to maintain the > > human species, then why are we all not the same sex? > > In other words. if it really doesn't matter...why are there > > females and males? What is the reason for the distinction > > between the two? > > We're not all the same sex because our species does not reproduce > asexually. > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 16, 2007 Report Share Posted February 16, 2007 gotcha..and thanks Re: Homosexuality in Primitives > > > > and Gene, > > answer me one simple question, if you can without being > > offended or calling me a bigot, or using my faith against me.... > > if it is not abnormal or if it is not necessary to maintain the > > human species, then why are we all not the same sex? > > In other words. if it really doesn't matter...why are there > > females and males? What is the reason for the distinction > > between the two? > > We're not all the same sex because our species does not reproduce > asexually. > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 16, 2007 Report Share Posted February 16, 2007 , > answer me one simple question, if you can without being offended or calling > me a bigot, or using my faith against me.... > if it is not abnormal or if it is not necessary to maintain the human > species, then why are we all not the same sex? In other words. if it really > doesn't matter...why are there females and males? What is the reason for > the distinction between the two? From a strictly biological perspective, sexuality allows for a greater degree of genetic diversity within the population, which allows it to accomodate changes in the environment in a way that will ensure at least some of the members of the population survive those changes. The drawback to sexuality is that it is more resource-intensive (finding and attracting a mate for example) and tends to take longer than asexual reproduction. Because there are benefits and drawbacks, there are species that produce sexually and others that reproduce sexually. God meant us to live in communities, not as individuals, and evolution occurs at the population level, not the level of the individual or of the mating pair. From either perspective or from one that integrates both, there are niches within the community besides reproduction that further the survival of the species and community. Many of those are social. The most obvious physiological evidence that God designed it this way and evolution proved it adaptive is menopause -- humans and whales are the only two species to my knowledge that have a stage of life that involves purposeful reproductive incapacitation. This allows the grandmas to play a supportive and important role in the community that is different from the role mothers play. Societies, whether they encourage or discourage homosexuality or remain neutral to it, have always produced and always will produce certain professions for non-reproducing members that allow them to contribute to the good of the society and its success. Such roles include shamans, eunuchs and priests. In our society, we have a great diversity of roles that allows many people to contribute to the survival of the society regardless of reproduction. Rulers, technocrats, business people, doctors, scientists, artists and so on can be reproducers or non-reproducers. If they reproduce, they play an additional role but the role that they play in support of the survival and quality of the society is independent. If every single member of the society filled a non-reproducing role, the society would collapse. Likewise, if women were menopausal from birth, the society would collapse. However, we still benefit from having celibate priests and grandmothers because there is a natural balance that precludes the non-reproducing stages of life or community niches from becoming dominant over the reproducing niches. Chris -- The Truth About Cholesterol Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You: http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 16, 2007 Report Share Posted February 16, 2007 you have a way of explaining things that makes it very easy to understand. thank you Re: Re: Homosexuality in Primitives , > answer me one simple question, if you can without being offended or calling > me a bigot, or using my faith against me.... > if it is not abnormal or if it is not necessary to maintain the human > species, then why are we all not the same sex? In other words. if it really > doesn't matter...why are there females and males? What is the reason for > the distinction between the two? From a strictly biological perspective, sexuality allows for a greater degree of genetic diversity within the population, which allows it to accomodate changes in the environment in a way that will ensure at least some of the members of the population survive those changes. The drawback to sexuality is that it is more resource-intensive (finding and attracting a mate for example) and tends to take longer than asexual reproduction. Because there are benefits and drawbacks, there are species that produce sexually and others that reproduce sexually. God meant us to live in communities, not as individuals, and evolution occurs at the population level, not the level of the individual or of the mating pair. From either perspective or from one that integrates both, there are niches within the community besides reproduction that further the survival of the species and community. Many of those are social. The most obvious physiological evidence that God designed it this way and evolution proved it adaptive is menopause -- humans and whales are the only two species to my knowledge that have a stage of life that involves purposeful reproductive incapacitation. This allows the grandmas to play a supportive and important role in the community that is different from the role mothers play. Societies, whether they encourage or discourage homosexuality or remain neutral to it, have always produced and always will produce certain professions for non-reproducing members that allow them to contribute to the good of the society and its success. Such roles include shamans, eunuchs and priests. In our society, we have a great diversity of roles that allows many people to contribute to the survival of the society regardless of reproduction. Rulers, technocrats, business people, doctors, scientists, artists and so on can be reproducers or non-reproducers. If they reproduce, they play an additional role but the role that they play in support of the survival and quality of the society is independent. If every single member of the society filled a non-reproducing role, the society would collapse. Likewise, if women were menopausal from birth, the society would collapse. However, we still benefit from having celibate priests and grandmothers because there is a natural balance that precludes the non-reproducing stages of life or community niches from becoming dominant over the reproducing niches. Chris -- The Truth About Cholesterol Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You: http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 16, 2007 Report Share Posted February 16, 2007 > > > (who incidentally doubts that this post will ever make it through b/c > mine > > never do, but nonetheless knows quite a bit too much about women's > cycles, > > unfortunately) > > Well I got it. Mine always go through, I guess because I know so > little about women's cycles. :-) LOL! Perhaps! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 16, 2007 Report Share Posted February 16, 2007 > > Now if adding the hormone progesterone to our bodies could do that, I > would think any hormone off kilter could do something. I would take it > there have never been definative tests on homosexual's hormones to show a > correlation of too much of this or that causes a trend to one way or > another. Have they ever had a high testosterone gay guy? Not here, but hormones being off kilter certainly has an impact. You don't have to look any further than a farily common disorder in women - PCOS. If insulin's off than the rest of the hormones are many times off as well (estrogen, progesterone, DHEAS, and testosterone in this example). I'm not knowledgeable enough to know if you can carry that furhter down this line, but hormone imbalance certainly has an impact on health/well being. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 16, 2007 Report Share Posted February 16, 2007 " As for animals " - The oral behavior in animals is first their version of personal hygiene. After that, well they really don't care who they mount, male or female. And females will mount each other in heat. Oregon State University is currently doing research on changing " gay " (their term) sheep to mate with females by inserting hormones into their brains. The research is hard to get to and may even be stopped due to the outcry of gay activist who do not want the research to continue. The social stigma and lack of funding to this type of research may be why there is so few, if any, answers to what and how the hormones contribute to homosexuality. Jan > > > And as for animals, they're animals. They lick their butts and stuff that people wouldn't do. Cows will mount cows and they can't derive any pleasure out of that. I think it's more of a reaction in animals than an action. They feel the urge and whatever is close by will do. Such as a dog on a person's leg. I think in animal's it's nothing but a primative urge. I would think normal humans would be beyond that, otherwise people would be doing it out in public with anything, animal, vegetable or mineral whenever the urge arose. > >> Lorie > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 16, 2007 Report Share Posted February 16, 2007 Homosexuals would also assist in childrearing (being uncles & aunts, ie) in a primitive society and thus aid in the survival of the whole group (to an extent, in their small numbers, that would actually go beyond the beneficial effect on the group's survival if they instead chose to reproduce themselves). There's also the stress-relieving effect and the (documented) gender-bridging role that homosexuals perform in many primitive societies. > > , > > > answer me one simple question, if you can without being offended or calling > > me a bigot, or using my faith against me.... > > if it is not abnormal or if it is not necessary to maintain the human > > species, then why are we all not the same sex? In other words. if it really > > doesn't matter...why are there females and males? What is the reason for > > the distinction between the two? > > From a strictly biological perspective, sexuality allows for a greater > degree of genetic diversity within the population, which allows it to > accomodate changes in the environment in a way that will ensure at > least some of the members of the population survive those changes. > The drawback to sexuality is that it is more resource-intensive > (finding and attracting a mate for example) and tends to take longer > than asexual reproduction. Because there are benefits and drawbacks, > there are species that produce sexually and others that reproduce > sexually. > > God meant us to live in communities, not as individuals, and evolution > occurs at the population level, not the level of the individual or of > the mating pair. From either perspective or from one that integrates > both, there are niches within the community besides reproduction that > further the survival of the species and community. Many of those are > social. The most obvious physiological evidence that God designed it > this way and evolution proved it adaptive is menopause -- humans and > whales are the only two species to my knowledge that have a stage of > life that involves purposeful reproductive incapacitation. This > allows the grandmas to play a supportive and important role in the > community that is different from the role mothers play. Societies, > whether they encourage or discourage homosexuality or remain neutral > to it, have always produced and always will produce certain > professions for non-reproducing members that allow them to contribute > to the good of the society and its success. Such roles include > shamans, eunuchs and priests. In our society, we have a great > diversity of roles that allows many people to contribute to the > survival of the society regardless of reproduction. Rulers, > technocrats, business people, doctors, scientists, artists and so on > can be reproducers or non-reproducers. If they reproduce, they play > an additional role but the role that they play in support of the > survival and quality of the society is independent. > > If every single member of the society filled a non-reproducing role, > the society would collapse. Likewise, if women were menopausal from > birth, the society would collapse. However, we still benefit from > having celibate priests and grandmothers because there is a natural > balance that precludes the non-reproducing stages of life or community > niches from becoming dominant over the reproducing niches. > > Chris > -- > The Truth About Cholesterol > Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You: > http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 16, 2007 Report Share Posted February 16, 2007 so are you saying hormones only have an effect on impotence and not on attraction? Jan > > Jan, > > > Hormones are a large part of our sexuality, sexual behavior, and > > attraction (Do we need citations on this?). Of course one would > > suspect that hormones will have an impact on sexual behavior, > > heterosexual or homosexual. I would like to see just one study that > > concludes that hormones do NOT have any effect at all on sexual > > behavior. > > No one is disputing this. High estrogen and deficient testosterone > probably causes gynecomastia and impotence in gay men just like it > does in straight ones. > > Chris > -- > The Truth About Cholesterol > Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You: > http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 16, 2007 Report Share Posted February 16, 2007 > > Oregon State University is currently doing research on > changing " gay " (their term) sheep to mate with females by > inserting hormones into their brains. The research is hard > to get to and may even be stopped due to the outcry of gay > activist who do not want the research to continue. I don't really understand why all the fuss is being made by activists over that. From what I've read, that research is being conducted in the context of animal husbandry and isn't even applicable to human sexuality. I can certainly understand why a farmer would need to discourage that trait in animals that are needed for breeding. Isn't a stud ram that goes ewwwwwwwww! at a ewe just a worthless, money-losing feed-burner? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 16, 2007 Report Share Posted February 16, 2007 Being born of Semitic decent is not a choice, but practicing the Jewish religion is certainly both a choice and a behavior. Chris I took Jews meaning from Israel, not the religion. I know Sammy Jr. studied Jewish religion. And not being a Jew, I also have heard that some Jew's do not consider non blood Jew's, Jews and I don't know what that's all about. But I was thinking along the lines of the whole nutrition thing. No matter what nutrition you had if your mother and father were black, you couldn't choose to be white. Or vice versa. But sex, is a choice, a behaviour. We don't even have to have sex to live. If someone was stranded on a remote island and left with enough food and water for survival and were by themselves they wouldn't die because of not having sex. I think that sometimes the behavoiur of sex takes too much of a priority, even though it's such a small part of an otherwise meaningful life. But I have heard countless times from gays on tv saying they wouldn't choose to be gay. But yet if someone tries to come up with what might be a solution to thier problem, they get angry. This I don't understand. If someone came up with a diet pill that really worked, I'd be on it like white on rice. I would think if a scientist came up with a pill that could turn a gay man straight they would want to get on it ASAP, if they really were sincere on not really wanting to be gay. Both are behaviours that either don't want, one over eating the other the attraction to the same sex. Lorie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 16, 2007 Report Share Posted February 16, 2007 " A more logical interpretation would be that there is a brain chemistry component specifically related to the receptors and interpretors of pheremones. " But if your standard is straight males and straight females, and you have a gay male as the test subject, and the test subject's brain acts more like a female, and the female has a higher percentage of estrogen, that would be the way I'd logically interpret it. " What is your evidence that estrogen levels determine reactions to pheremones? Wouldn't it be much more direct evidence to show that gay men have higher estrogen levels? " Exactly. And if the norm (being a much larger population of the same species and sex doesn't have a higher estrogen level), then you'd need to find out why these certain males do. I wonder if they are less prone to depression than those who don't. " If they did, how would you interpret this vis-a-vis the hormonal cause of homosexuality? " That wouldn't determine the hormonal cause but it might help those who are suffering from the depression. And from there maybe science could extrapolate the hormonal imbalances and possible ways to treat the condition. Lorie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 16, 2007 Report Share Posted February 16, 2007 Jan, > so are you saying hormones only have an effect on impotence > and not on attraction? Not at all -- I'm sure gay men with high estrogen and low testosterone would have a decreased libido too. Testosterone is a major modulator of libido in both men and women. But in heterosexual men it increases desire for women and in heterosexual women it increases desire for men. For some reason you seem stuck on the " well, hormones obviously play a role in sexuality " bit and in the absolutely absurd notion that political correctness is stopping anyone from researching the connection between hormones and sexuality. As I've stated at least a half dozen times, the last time with all sorts of capital letters and asterisks to try to bring attention to it, there are several hundred studies on hormones and homosexuality. Why don't you look at a few of them, see if you find support for the idea that estrogen could induce homosexuality, and report back to us. Again, the question is not whether " hormones have to do with sexuality. " It is whether or not the balance of hormones influences the specific content of the sexuality -- e.g. the deisre for men versus the desire for women. That's the premise that underlies the question of whether soy, for example, could cause homosexuality, as has been suggested. Chris -- The Truth About Cholesterol Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You: http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 17, 2007 Report Share Posted February 17, 2007 Ok I did: " Why don't you look at a few of them, see if you find support for the idea that estrogen could induce homosexuality, and report back to us " . But MY position is not that estrogen could *induce* homosexuality, but that the level or balance of estrogen and other hormones *could* contribute to it – specifically in the pre-natal period. I specifically objected to your condescending way of talking to those who suggest that there is possibly a connection. And, after doing some research it appears you missed some, so with an open mind you may want to review the following research. BTW, these are the types of statements I am referring to: >Then will you please come up with some shred of evidence that > >increased estrogen or phytoestrogens is actually involved in > >homosexuality rather than exploiting the intuitive non-science-based > >association between estrogen, femininity and male homosexuality?>> > You mean " actually involved " in sexual *identification*? Are you > kidding? Hormones and sexuality connected. Absurd, of course! What is absurd is that there are over 350 studies on the relationship between hormones and sexuality indexed for PubMed and that rather than look into it and see if there is any established connection for a hormonal cause for homosexuality, those who advocate this position simply refuse to look for any of it and nevertheless continue to appeal to popular prejudice about hormones and popular prejudice about sexuality such as estrogen's association with women and therefore femininity, and male homosexuality's association with femininity. This is not science, but appeals to intuitive concepts that are in some ways not even correct. Estrogen is essential for bone-building in men and women, but no one thinks that homosexuality must be caused by estrogen because homosexuals have such strong bones. But it is very easy to allude to the common perception that estrogen is a woman's hormone and that women are feminine and that gay men are either feminine or woman-like. I think I've been extremely clear that I did a very, very quick and very random look at the three most recent results that came up, every single one of which refuted the high estrogen--> homosexuality theory. I'm very, very open to the possibility that there is evidence that supports this theory, but I would think that if there is, someone advocating the position should find some of it. The only thing that has been offered is the appeal to associations between estrogen, femininity, femaleness and male sexuality that demonstrate a fundamental physiological ignorance of hormones and a ridiculous equivocation between femaleness and male homosexuality. There are, however, several hundred studies indexed for medline on hormones and homosexuality. I'm not too interested in it so I haven't looked at most of them, although one of them is a recent review that concluded there was no good evidence for a consistent relationship between hormones and homosexuality (don't know if the conclusion was valid or not). And this is why: There are more than " just one shred of evidence " of the imbalance of hormones - both testosterone and Estradiol [(17β-estradiol) (also oestradiol) is a sex hormone. Labelled the " female " hormone but also present in males, it represents the major estrogen in humans. Estradiol has not only a critical impact on reproductive and sexual functioning, but also affects other organs including bone structure. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estradiol <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estradiol> ] affecting the sexual orientation of people. While you were putting people down for among other things; " appeal to popular prejudice about hormones " , you must have failed to actually read the studies. You stated " although one of them is a recent review that concluded there was no good evidence for a consistent relationship between hormones and homosexuality (don't know if the conclusion was valid or not). " But apparently you did not read the rest of the article (printed below) which states: " Since the 1970s, hormonal theories emerged which concentrated on differences in prenatal hormone levels (see Ellis & Ames, 1987). Many studies have shown that abnormal levels of some prenatal hormones can lead to an increased chance of homosexuality in an individual " You then said to me: " For some reason you seem stuck on the " well, hormones obviously play a role in sexuality " bit and in the absolutely absurd notion that political correctness is stopping anyone from researching the connection between hormones and sexuality. As I've stated at least a half dozen times, the last time with all sorts of capital letters and asterisks to try to bring attention to it, there are several hundred studies on hormones and homosexuality. Why don't you look at a few of them, see if you find support for the idea that estrogen could induce homosexuality, and report back to us. " Did you actually READ those articles? I know you are usually a good researcher, but this was really obvious. I found these in the first page of results. Maybe there was something wrong with your search engine? Here are some of those studies and it's very clear that there IS a definite possibility, if not probability, that the level of hormones and the balance between testosterone and estradiol during pre-natal development *COULD* have an effect on sexual orientation. No one is saying it CAUSES homosexuality, only that it could contribute to it. " Neurohormonal theories Early studies of hormonal influences on sexual orientation concentrated on levels of circulating sex hormones in adults. Different investigations reported conflicting results (see Ruse, 1988), and, in general, little evidence has been found for consistent differences in the levels of these hormones in homosexuals compared to heterosexuals. Since the 1970s, hormonal theories emerged which concentrated on differences in prenatal hormone levels (see Ellis & Ames, 1987). Many studies have shown that abnormal levels of some prenatal hormones can lead to an increased chance of homosexuality in an individual (e.g. Dörner et al. 1983, Money et al. 1984, Ehrhardt et al. 1985). Ellis and Ames (1987) have proposed a very comprehensive gestational neurohormonal theory of human sexual orientation, which deals with the genesis of heterosexuality as well as homosexuality. They propose that sexual orientation is primarily determined by the degree to which the nervous system is exposed to testosterone, estradiol, and to certain other sex hormones while neuro-organization is taking place, predominantly between the middle of the second and the end of the fifth month of gestation. According to this theory, " complex combinations of genetic, hormonal, neurological, and environmental factors operating prior to birth largely determine what an individual's (adult) sexual orientation will be. " This theory makes many testable predictions, e.g. that homosexuality should primarily be a male phenomenon, that homosexuals should have higher frequencies of other sexual inversions than heterosexuals, that relationships between parents and homosexual offspring may be strained and/or assume some cross-sex characteristics, and that homosexuality should reflect a significant degree of heritability (as hormone production and action is under significant genetic control). Such predictions seem to agree with previous research and general intuitions regarding homosexuality. In addition, as prenatal testosterone levels are of great importance according to the theory, and as, during the proposed critical period, intra-uterine testosterone is primarily of foetal, rather than maternal, origin, this theory could explain the observed differences in concordance rates for sexual orientation between monozygotic and dizygotic twins. According to such an explanation, the increased concordance in monozygotic twins is due to their greater similarity in prenatal hormone production (both in quantity and in timing) and hormone control; processes which are under significant genetic control. Support for the gestational neurohormonal theory includes a recent study (LeVay, 1991) which reported a difference in hypothalamic structure between heterosexual and homosexual men, although Ellis and Ames warn that several decades of intense, further research may be required to adequately test the theory. " http://www.tim-taylor.com/papers/twin_studies/theories.html <http://www.tim-taylor.com/papers/twin_studies/theories.html> " Research in Britain, America, and Germany has all confirmed that a prenatal exposure to deficiency of testosterone increases the likelihood of a man becoming homosexual. Men with an extra X chromosome and men exposed in the womb to female hormones are more likely to be gay or effeminate, and effeminate boys do indeed grow up to be gay more often than other boys. " Yalom et al. (1973) studied 20 16-year old boys of diabetic mothers, who had received estrogen or progesterone during pregnancy. These boys showed less heterosexuality and less masculinity than 20 control boys. Women exposed prenatally via their pregnant mothers to diethylstilbestrol (DES, a synthetic nonsteroidal estrogen with masculinizing effects in female mammals) received higher ratings of homosexual behavior (Ehrhardt et al., 1985) " http://www.neoteny.org/a/homosexuality.html <http://www.neoteny.org/a/homosexuality.html> " Indications are that sex orientation in humans depends critically upon the hormone balance prevailing during the third and fourth months of pregnancy, while secondary sex characteristics and sex-typical behaviour patterns are influenced more by hormones circulating during the fifth and sixth months of pregnancy. If the hormone balance changes from one phase of foetal development to the next, inconsistencies between sexual orientation and sex-role behaviour may be observed. Sex orientation is fixed relatively early in the old 'limbic' part of the brain, whereas sex-role behaviours are laid down later on in pregnancy in more diverse, 'newer' parts of the brain. " http://www.heretical.com/wilson/hbrain.html <http://www.heretical.com/wilson/hbrain.html> " Larkin's team also found that the hypothalamic region had a rich supply of the enzyme aromatase, which converts testosterone into oestrogen. It is in this form that the hormone interacts with the brain. This may help support one theory that sexual orientation, in part at least, may be related to the hormones present during fetal development, says Balthazart. " http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3008 <http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3008> " I believe there are many social and psychological, as well as biological, factors that make up sexual preference. " ... " Having said that, these data do suggest that there are some people in the world who are gay because of fetal androgen levels. " - Marc Breedlove, professor of psychology http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/03/000330094644.htm <http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/03/000330094644.htm> " The hormonal theory of sexuality holds that, just as exposure to certain hormones plays a role in fetal sex differentiation <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differentiation> , such exposure also influences the sexual orientation <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_orientation> that emerges later in the adult. Fetal hormones may be seen as the primary determiner of adult sexual orientation, or a co-factor with genes and/or environmental and social conditions. " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenatal_hormones_and_sexual_orientation <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenatal_hormones_and_sexual_orientation> Chris-think about these studies, and then please think about how you have responded to people who simply wanted to consider these possibilities. You've really hurt some feelings, on both boards and I think very un-necessarily in light of the research. ~Jan ------------------------------------------------------------------------\ --------------------------------- Jan, > so are you saying hormones only have an effect on impotence > and not on attraction? Not at all -- I'm sure gay men with high estrogen and low testosterone would have a decreased libido too. Testosterone is a major modulator of libido in both men and women. But in heterosexual men it increases desire for women and in heterosexual women it increases desire for men. For some reason you seem stuck on the " well, hormones obviously play a role in sexuality " bit and in the absolutely absurd notion that political correctness is stopping anyone from researching the connection between hormones and sexuality. As I've stated at least a half dozen times, the last time with all sorts of capital letters and asterisks to try to bring attention to it, there are several hundred studies on hormones and homosexuality. Why don't you look at a few of them, see if you find support for the idea that estrogen could induce homosexuality, and report back to us. Again, the question is not whether " hormones have to do with sexuality. " It is whether or not the balance of hormones influences the specific content of the sexuality -- e.g. the deisre for men versus the desire for women. That's the premise that underlies the question of whether soy, for example, could cause homosexuality, as has been suggested. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.