Guest guest Posted February 19, 2007 Report Share Posted February 19, 2007 Gene,, again...I've made NO such references....to anything biblical. I don't blame you for not wanting to " play anymore " as you state...you are obviously confused and I would quit while I was ahead too. It amazes me how you can " skirt " around a question and not answer it. The only comment I made b iblical was the fact that I am a born again Christian. Understand the part " born again " , that simply means I've not always been a Christian. I've lived on both sides of the fence. I do have the education of both worlds. You are the one who kept slinging biblical references my way. Narrow minded? I think not...on my part that is. Re: Re: Homosexuality in Primitives -------------- Original message ---------------------- From: " " <bible770@...> > I'm sure they have no problem either...the only problem is that where they put > their frontward parts, is in the exit hole for the wastes that the body > produces. In response to your stating that I'm the greater abomination in His > eyes...if He existed........I haven't judged anyone...other than your > remarks...lol........your taking things out of context. In today's > world...going to church and believing in a living God is considered > abnormal....and abnormality I gloriously will acknowledge. It is so hilarious > that when one makes a statement about a person's sexual preference...if they are > in fact a homosexual....they are called homophobic. When it is within the realm > of facts....they are still called homophobic...or in your case.. " bigots " . If > you look at the reproduction system of our bodies...it takes a male phallus with > semen to enter into a woman who carries the eggs..to reproduce. Anything > outside of that....is abnormal...even down to in-vitro fertilization. Why do > people feel uncomfortable when someone makes a comment about it being abnormal? > As far as your comment about judging people by God's laws...I've mad no such > comment.....you have me confused with someone else. Would you say that such a > comment as that is considered " bigoted " ? > I'm not going to play any more. If you post something that is blatantly bigoted, I'll comment. If not, I won't. But I don't see you as having the slightest inclination to educate yourself outside of your narrow minded biblical reference point, so it's silly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 19, 2007 Report Share Posted February 19, 2007 > Regarding the anus not being designed for sex and the > arguments that there are erogenous zones there and getting > pleasure from the prostate. Well just because something > gives the receiver pleasure does that mean that's what the > anus is for? I think the specifically erogenous nature of the nerve endings implies design for sexual purposes. > Some people get pleasure from auto erotic aphixiation, S & M, > does that mean it is not abnormal or normal? I mean where do > you draw the line? I draw the line at consent between people who are capable of giving it. I have no problem with consenting adults who are into BDSM; those relationships are highly negotiated, with rigidly defined limits, often with safewords that can be spoken to immediately halt any activity. As for autoerotic asphyxiation, I think it's unbelievably stupid to knowingly take the body close to death in pursuit of an orgasm, and it is sad that people die every year from it. > Is it ok to have sex with animals if it gives you pleasure, > or how about with young children who are molested? Obviously, children can't consent. With bestiality, the argument is always made that animals can't consent to sexual activity, and that always leaves me pondering the fact that animals can't consent to being slaughtered and eaten, either. > They by no fault of their own may experience " pleasure " butis that > normal? Why all the focus on normal vs. abnormal? Those are merely value judgments based on relative prevalence in the population. It's not normal to be left-handed. It's not normal for 18 year olds to fall in love with and marry 75 year olds. It's not normal to be Christian in Saudi Arabia. In America, it's probably not normal to eat an NT diet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 19, 2007 Report Share Posted February 19, 2007 Jan, > I was refering to the same studies you were here: > >However, you do cite two studies indicating that exposure to hormone > >treatments can increase homosexuality rates. I'm not sure how much we > >can read into the diabetic study, and I have not read either of them > >myself. They may offer some substantiation for the prenatal estrogen > >theory, as small a start as it is. I'll try to look at them at some > >point. Ok, but you did not post these until the thread had gone through a hundred posts and the multiple threads we had discussed this on had probably gone through 200. So I think it was fair for me to note that the only thing that had been offered was popular prejudice -- or intuitive misconceptions if you prefer -- about hormones at the time I said it. > The problem I have with this is that there was 2 references for this > association that were included in the article that was posted from an > outside source to another board that started the posts on this subject > between us. They were: > > 1. Hines M. Hormonal and neural correlates of sex-typed behavioral > development in human beings. In Marc Haug, ed. The Development of Sex > Differences and Similarities in Behavior (Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic, > 1993). 131-147. This was a reference in the article, but no one offered it in support of a connection between homosexuality and estrogen during our discussion of the article. I can't find an abstract for it available, but even the author of the soy-->homosexuality article does not cite it in this context: " Estrogenized males of many species are more likely to suffer from ADD/ADHD and even to perform more like females on tests [26-28]. " The Hines reference is reference 26. From what I have read of sex differences in intelligence, there are not hard and fast differences but just tendencies, and the associations differ according to ethnic groups. I don't know how they determined what an " estrogenized " male is, but even if whatever marker they used is valid, it's quite a long-shot to draw a connection between an intelligence pattern and homosexuality. > 2. on PJ, Everall IP et al. Is homosexuality hardwired? Sexual > orientation and brain structure. Psych Med, 1994, 24, 811-16. This is an editorial that has nothing to do with estrogen. It describes some work showing a difference between the hypothalamic structure of homosexuals and heterosexuals and concludes: " In that light, it is almost certaintly too soon to say that LeVay has shown that homosexuality is strictly genetically 'hardwired,' although that may eventually prove to be the case. One distinguished practioner says of LeVay's work that it puts the nail in the coffin of freudian attempts to account for homosexuality in terms of early interactions between parents and children. But even that is not necessarily true. Plastic structures in the hypothalamus allowing the consequences of early sexual arousal to be made permanent might suit the freudians well. " > I was unable to get to these references and read them myself, so I > cannot attest to their strength or even if they support the author's > conclusion, but they *were given* as his back-up for statement " Right > now, no evidence indicates that soy during childhood or adulthood is > likely to change sexual preference. The danger zone is the first three > months of both pregnancy and infancy, when male physiology and brain > circuitry are still developing " , which I thought was worth discussing. That simply reflects poorly on his completely unsubstantiated theory. Regardless, in our discussion I repeatedly pointed out that there was no connection between homosexuality and estrogen substantiated and not once did anyone cite these references. > I suppose, looking back, that if I had found these earlier and posted > them, some of this could have been avoided. As far as I can tell from what these references are actually about, it would have put us in the exact same place as before -- people citing irrelevant research and me asking for relevant research. > I wasn't trying to avoid > your request for " documentation " , I think I just thought you had already > read the article and all the footnotes, and were ignoring them to make a > point at my expense. Sorry for the wrong assumption. I see now, you > hadn't seen them, and truly thought I was just assuming the association. I had pointed out literally dozens of times that there was no connection established between estrogen and homosexuality. You thought I knew that this research " existed " and was just being a pain? > Thanks for staying with the thread, I see where I too, could have > communicated better. I think we all learned a lot here, and continue > to, from everyone! As always :-) 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 19, 2007 Report Share Posted February 19, 2007 [i had written:] > > 2. on PJ, Everall IP et al. Is homosexuality hardwired? Sexual > > orientation and brain structure. Psych Med, 1994, 24, 811-16. > > This is an editorial that has nothing to do with estrogen. It > describes some work showing a difference between the hypothalamic > structure of homosexuals and heterosexuals and concludes: [snip] Sorry, Jan. This is from a different article of the same title. The one that Rutz cites in the soy article does not have an available abstract and their journal only starts carrying its articles online from 1997, four years after it was published. However, Rutz does not cite it as a study linking estrogen to homosexuality. He cites it in association with the following two statements: " Estrogenized males of many species are more likely to suffer from ADD/ADHD and even to perform more like females on tests [26-28]. " " . . . but it's not hard to believe that at some point during pregnancy babies are hardwired for sexual preference. (See the Psychological Medicine article in endnote 27 below.) " Rutz's soy article is the only web page indexed for Google that cites this reference. There is only one article indexed for Google Scholar that cites it, and it says only this in association with it: " The prediction regarding masculinization of women's brains has neither been supported nor refuted because no lesbians' brains have ever been examined. Widely publicized studies of 'gay brains' included only gay men and heterosexual people. (on, 1994). " Given the title I'm guessing that it refers to the hypothalamic variations in brain structure, and in that light, I think he was probably citing references 26-28 for the whole paragraph in snippets rather than putting his citations in association with the statements to which they belong: " It's not just the sex organs that are affected during the key developmental phases of pregnancy and infancy. The brain, too, can be irrevocably changed by excess estrogens, which suppress testosterone. That may contribute to altered sexual behavior and sexual preference. Estrogenized males of many species are more likely to suffer from ADD/ADHD and even to perform more like females on tests [26-28]. " I'm going to guess he's citing it for the second-to-last sentence, connecting that statement with the preceding sentence by speculation. It doesn't have hormone or estrogen in the title, and by looking at brain structure they're probably examining autopsies. Though it sounds like a review or an hypothesis paper so who knows. 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 19, 2007 Report Share Posted February 19, 2007 That is an interesting question. Honestly i do not think the anal cavity was designed for penetration, for the simple fact that it is not pleasurable to everyone and in fact can be quite painful. Second membranes inside are extremely delicate and very prone to tears and injury. Anal penetration can over time lead to hemorroids as well- The membranes and cell structure do not appear to be designed to withstand the brunt of repeated penetration and can be quite damaging to the sphincter, anus and colon. Third, anus probably not designed for penetration for the simple fact it is an exit used for defecation. It is just not sanitary at all. Fourth what could the purpose possibly be? Many people find being kissed on the neck arousing but does that mean that is what the neck was designed for? -Lovely ---------------------- Ok I have a question and I just want thoughts no attacks. I am not judging anyone but I just want to hear your thoughts no matter what they be. Regarding the anus not being designed for sex and the arguments that there are erogenous zones there and getting pleasure from the prostate. Well just because something gives the receiver pleasure does that mean that's what the anus is for? Some people get pleasure from auto erotic > aphixiation, S & M, does that mean it is not abnormal or normal? I mean > where do you draw the line? Is it ok to have sex with animals if it > gives you pleasure, or how about with young children who are molested? They by no fault of their own may experience " pleasure " butis that normal? > > > > > > > I'm sure they have no problem either...the only problem is that > where they put their frontward parts, is in the exit hole for the > wastes that the body produces. . Anything outside of that....is > abnormal...even down to in-vitro fertilization. Why do people feel > uncomfortable when someone makes a comment about it being > abnormal? .com > > Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 10:10 AM > > Subject: Re: Re: Homosexuality in Primitives > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 19, 2007 Report Share Posted February 19, 2007 > > > > > > ³That is an interesting question. > > Honestly i do not think the anal cavity was designed > for penetration, for the simple fact that it is not > pleasurable to everyone and in fact can be quite > painful.² > > ³You are seriously arguing the fact of whether god designed something for a > particular purpose based on this logic? How exactly would you decide the > question scientifically as to whether x was designed for y or not? You¹d need > to able to ask the designer, wouldn¹t you? This is why I think you are a bigot >  I personally don¹t care about issues like this, and think perhaps should > discuss them with others of your religious persuasion, whatever that might be. > > Second membranes inside are extremely delicate and > very prone to tears and injury. Anal penetration > can over time lead to hemorroids as well- > The membranes and cell structure do not > appear to be designed to withstand the brunt > of repeated penetration and can be quite damaging > to the sphincter, anus and colon. > > Third, anus probably not designed for penetration > for the simple fact it is an exit used for defecation. > It is just not sanitary at all. > > Fourth what could the purpose possibly be? Many > people find being kissed on the neck arousing but > does that mean that is what the neck was designed > for? > > -Lovely² > > People who love one another, or not, find pleasure in each other this way, and > it is really none of your business to judge them, which you are. You imagine > this all powerful being, who designed this part for one purpose, and this part > for one purpose, who apparently royally screwed up  because so many people > are able to lead fulfilling lives while performing these abominable acts. Do > you think that they are going to burn in hell? > ---------------------- > > Ok I have a question and I just want thoughts no attacks. I am not > judging anyone but I just want to hear your thoughts no matter what > they be. > Regarding the anus not being designed for sex and the arguments that > there are erogenous zones there and getting pleasure from the > prostate. > Well just because something gives the receiver pleasure does that > mean > that's what the anus is for? Some people get pleasure from auto > erotic >> > aphixiation, S & M, does that mean it is not abnormal or normal? I > mean >> > where do you draw the line? Is it ok to have sex with animals if it >> > gives you pleasure, or how about with young children who are > molested? > They by no fault of their own may experience " pleasure " butis that > normal? > >> > >> > >> > >>> > > >>> > > I'm sure they have no problem either...the only problem is that >> > where they put their frontward parts, is in the exit hole for the >> > wastes that the body produces. . Anything outside of that....is >> > abnormal...even down to in-vitro fertilization. Why do people feel >> > uncomfortable when someone makes a comment about it being >> > abnormal? .com >>> > > Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 10:10 AM >>> > > Subject: Re: Re: Homosexuality in Primitives >>> > > >>> > > >> > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 19, 2007 Report Share Posted February 19, 2007 >> " . . . but it's not hard to believe that at some point during pregnancy babies are hardwired for sexual preference. (See the Psychological Medicine article in endnote 27 below.) " >> " Hardwired " has become such an accepted temr in the scientific community and the media. Funny, no one is willing to back it with any specific defining terms. Sounds like " popular prejudice " or wishful thinking to me. It seem someone's trying awfully hard to massage the details to arrive at a completely unprovable " scientific " conclusion. If I could make bets, I'd say the hardwired thing has strong links to diet, as does every other purely physical condition. if not purely physical, then socially programmed or encouraged or fostered or, or , or.... In any case, you're back to *dis-ease* (since it's ultimately untenable for the species and Evolution will mate it out)) or it's a choice, perhaps conditioned response (which is likely). I don't think homosexuals are comfortable with either answer and I can see why. But if you insist on God being kicked out of the picture, you can hardly say that it's in the evolutionary interest of the species. Which leaves you with choice or conditioned response or both. Since homosexuals won't accept that model and can't argue the Evolutionary advantage model, that leaves them with the Creator's design. Im open to that one being discussed, but I dont think it will be or even should be here. If there is a gay gene, it is either an advantage to the species, at will point we shall all be gay and the species will end, or rather all but a few useful men will see their demise. Or the gene is a disadvantage for the species at which point the gay gene will end. I'm going with conditioned response, strongly supported by the general feminization of the culture by social means and dietary estrogen. Do you have any studies that refute that, clearly and outright? Jane, a slave to common sense, unphased by the increasingly self-perpetuating and political nature of Research. Their *accuracy* in fact has spawned this very site. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 19, 2007 Report Share Posted February 19, 2007 > > > > >>> >> " . . . but it's not hard to believe that at some point during > pregnancy babies are hardwired for sexual preference. (See the > Psychological Medicine article in endnote 27 below.) " >> > > ³ " Hardwired " has become such an accepted temr in the scientific community and > the media. Funny, no one is willing to back it with any specific defining > terms. > > Sounds like " popular prejudice " or wishful thinking to me. > > It seem someone's trying awfully hard to massage the details to arrive at a > completely unprovable " scientific " conclusion. > > If I could make bets, I'd say the hardwired thing has strong links to diet, as > does every other purely physical condition. if not purely physical, then > socially programmed or encouraged or fostered or, or , or.... In any case, > you're back to *dis-ease* (since it's ultimately untenable for the species and > Evolution will mate it out)) or it's a choice, perhaps conditioned response > (which is likely).² > > As we all know, if humans could just find the ideal diet, they would live > forever. Never mind the extreme eventual overpopulation, everyone would have > the fortitude to sleep standing up, given their perfect diet. The wishful > thinking here is that you are so determined to make homosexuality a deviant > condition, you look to diet, or some other natural remedy, to cure it, perhaps > before birth. After all, this IS a nutrition list. > > ³I don't think homosexuals are comfortable with either answer and I can see > why. But if you insist on God being kicked out of the picture, you can hardly > say that it's in the evolutionary interest of the species. Which leaves you > with choice or conditioned response or both.² > > I think that intelligent homosexuals, just like intelligent heterosexuals, are > interested in the truth. Generally finding it, depends on some command of > logic, and some hope that not all scientific research that contradicts one¹s > religious beliefs isn¹t corrupt. > > ³Since homosexuals won't accept that model and can't argue the Evolutionary > advantage model, that leaves them with the Creator's design. ³ > > Since bigots cannot reason without hatred, who the f... Cares what they think. > I guess I do, and I don¹t have the patience that people like has. I just > hope that you never have the power to hurt anyone because of your beliefs. > > ³Im open to that one being discussed, but I dont think it will be or even > should be here. > > If there is a gay gene, it is either an advantage to the species, at will > point we shall all be gay and the species will end, or rather all but a few > useful men will see their demise. Or the gene is a disadvantage for the > species at which point the gay gene will end.² > > Right.....hopefully, bigotry is a disadvantage to survival, and the bigots > will die out. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 19, 2007 Report Share Posted February 19, 2007 Many > people find being kissed on the neck arousing but > does that mean that is what the neck was designed > for? Lovely, Is it the neck being kissed or the skin of the neck? The skin of the body--wherever it is--was designed to be kissed, yes. further, as far as I have observed here on this list, I'd say the definition of degenerate, deviant and/or abnormal sex seems to be where/whenever the party involved stops feeling guilty about it. B. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 19, 2007 Report Share Posted February 19, 2007 > If I could make bets, I'd say the hardwired thing has strong > links to diet, as does every other purely physical condition. > if not purely physical, then socially programmed or encouraged > or fostered or, or , or.... In any case, you're back to > *dis-ease* (since it's ultimately untenable for the species and > Evolution will mate it out)) That a few percent of our species is homosexual is " ultimately untenable " ? What's the logic behind that? > Since homosexuals won't accept that model and can't argue the > Evolutionary advantage model The evolutionary advantage model has already been argued. Chris pointed out that non-procreative individuals enhance the quality of life of society as a whole. And, I think it was Tim who raised the issue of non-procreative aunts and uncles helping to ensure the survival of nieces and nephews, a definite evolutionary advantage. > If there is a gay gene, it is either an advantage to the species, > at will point we shall all be gay and the species will end, or > rather all but a few useful men will see their demise. Or the > gene is a disadvantage for the species at which point the gay > gene will end. That may not be a reality-based perspective on the mechanics of genetics and evolution. From what I've read, if there is a gay gene, it is a recessive trait that can be passed down to the next generation via heterosexuals and that will be expressed in only a small percentage of the population. Also, there are all sorts of debilitating hereditary diseases, that certainly don't appear to be an advantage to our species, that continue to show up, generation after generation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 19, 2007 Report Share Posted February 19, 2007 Jane, > >> " . . . but it's not hard to believe that at some point during > pregnancy babies are hardwired for sexual preference. (See the > Psychological Medicine article in endnote 27 below.) " >> > " Hardwired " has become such an accepted temr in the scientific community > and the media. Funny, no one is willing to back it with any specific > defining terms. > Sounds like " popular prejudice " or wishful thinking to me. Maybe you weren't paying close enough attention, but what you're quoting is a direct excerpt from the original article claiming soy causes homosexuality, which is what you conclude below. > If I could make bets, I'd say the hardwired thing has strong links to diet, > as does every other purely physical condition. Not every other purely physical condition has a link to diet. Whether one is male or female, for example, is basically entirely determined by whether or not one possessed the sex-determining Y region of the Y chromosome. > I don't think homosexuals are comfortable with either answer and I can see > why. But if you insist on God being kicked out of the picture, you can > hardly say that it's in the evolutionary interest of the species. Which > leaves you with choice or conditioned response or both. I don't insist on kicking God out of any picture and in fact invoked both God and design recently in my solicited explanation of the purpose of sexuality to . That said, one could quite easily posit an evolutionary advantage to the presence of homosexuality because, as pointed out earlier, human populations consistently develop niches for non-reproducers that benefit the community, and the management of human communities is complex enough to require specialized management. > Since homosexuals won't accept that model and can't argue the Evolutionary > advantage model, that leaves them with the Creator's design. I suppose that is all was left to, but Ishtar didn't buy it. ;-) > If there is a gay gene, it is either an advantage to the species, at will > point we shall all be gay and the species will end, or rather all but a few > useful men will see their demise. Or the gene is a disadvantage for the > species at which point the gay gene will end. Just like we all have one eye color? Multiple alleles for any trait usually exist and often are under little selective pressure and achieve relative stasis. Those that do undergo selective pressure generally don't get wiped out, as both the direction and magnitude of selective pressure is responsive to the environment and the allele frequency and can be vulnerable to feedback inhibition. Moreover, some mutations occur spontaneously and repeatedly. Something like one in a million lobsters is born blue, even though there is no population of blue lobsters maintaining the allele. There is no basis for the assumption of the scenario you posit whatsoever. > I'm going with conditioned response, strongly supported by the general > feminization of the culture by social means and dietary estrogen. > Do you have any studies that refute that, clearly and outright? LOL. Actually I think it is because the when the North Star falls in line with the hind leg of Polaris, the blue cheese in the core of the moon begins to ripen and the man in the moon sneezes. The barely visible star dust that falls on the earth then causes a vaginal condition that allows sperm carrying the gay gene to penetrate further than the other sperm, reversing the normal condition wherein these demasculinized sperm can't make it past the g spot. Do you have any studies that refute that, clearly and outrightly? 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 20, 2007 Report Share Posted February 20, 2007 I dont think skin was literally " designed " to be kissed although we find it pleasureable. -Lovely > > Many > > people find being kissed on the neck arousing but > > does that mean that is what the neck was designed > > for? > > Lovely, > > Is it the neck being kissed or the skin of the neck? The skin of the > body--wherever it is--was designed to be kissed, yes. > > further, as far as I have observed here on this list, I'd say the > definition of degenerate, deviant and/or abnormal sex seems to be > where/whenever the party involved stops feeling guilty about it. > B. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 20, 2007 Report Share Posted February 20, 2007 Skin is designed to be kissed. You can find evidence of this in the extensive research of Montague, specifically her book, Touching: the Human Signifcance of the Skin. When mammals lick their young shortly after birth, they stimulate the digestive and other autonomous nervous systems to regulate. Numerous scientific studies have confirmed that newborn mammals deprived of this ritual exhibit symptoms termed 'failure to thrive'. Human mammals do not tend to lick their young, but do touch their young in predictable ways after birth- studies are cited in the book. Desh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 20, 2007 Report Share Posted February 20, 2007 >>That may not be a reality-based perspective on the mechanics of genetics and evolution. From what I've read, if there is a gay gene, it is a recessive trait that can be passed down to the next generation via heterosexuals and that will be expressed in only a small percentage of the population. Also, there are all sorts of debilitating hereditary diseases, that certainly don't appear to be an advantage to our species, that continue to show up, generation after generation. >> Good points. Sounds like Evolution isn't doing its job. Maybe it doesn't always work. I guess the sudden surge (last 40 years) in the gay population is a result of Punctuated Equilibrium, or maybe its just become chic. Does fashion effect Evolution the way helpful aunts and uncles do? I know the reversal of urban blight in certain large cities is definitely an advantage to the society as a whole. Jane Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 20, 2007 Report Share Posted February 20, 2007 >>That a few percent of our species is homosexual is " ultimately untenable " ? What's the logic behind that?>> From an Evolutionary standpoint, that's pure logic. From a compassionate human one, there is no logic to it at all. >>That may not be a reality-based perspective on the mechanics of genetics and evolution. From what I've read, if there is a gay gene, it is a recessive trait that can be passed down to the next generation via heterosexuals and that will be expressed in only a small percentage of the population. Also, there are all sorts of debilitating hereditary diseases, that certainly don't appear to be an advantage to our species, that continue to show up, generation after generation. >> Good points. Sounds like Evolution isn't doing its job. Maybe it doesn't always work. I guess the apparent sudden surge in the gay population could be the result of Punctuated Equilibrium. It might just be that it's chic. Would fashion affect Evolution the way helpful aunts and uncles do, given enough time that is? I know the reversal of urban blight in certain large cities is definitely an advantage to the society as a whole. Jane Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 20, 2007 Report Share Posted February 20, 2007 >>Maybe you weren't paying close enough attention, but what you're quoting is a direct excerpt from the original article claiming soy >>causes homosexuality, which is what you conclude below.>> Oops, XYZ! Of course, you're right, I probably wasn't paying too close attention, but " strongly supported by " is not logically equivalent to " causes. " Not even close when we're talking about something as fundamental as sexual preference. >>Not every other purely physical condition has a link to diet. Whether one is male or female, for example, is basically entirely determined by whether or not one possessed the sex-determining Y region of the Y chromosome.>> I know not just a few transexuals who would smite with you with their Judith Lieber in opposition to that claim. >>I don't insist on kicking God out of any picture and in fact invoked both God and design recently in my solicited explanation of the purpose of sexuality to . That said, one could quite easily posit an evolutionary advantage to the presence of homosexuality because, as pointed out earlier, human populations consistently develop niches for non-reproducers that benefit the community, and the management of human communities is complex enough to require >>specialized management.>> So I'm RIGHT about the urban blight theory! I suspected as much. God's clever inner-city planning...an awesome God He is. >>Just like we all have one eye color? Multiple alleles for any trait usually exist and often are under little selective pressure and achieve relative stasis. Those that do undergo selective pressure generally don't get wiped out, as both the direction and magnitude of selective pressure is responsive to the environment and the allele frequency and can be vulnerable to feedback inhibition. Moreover, some mutations occur spontaneously and repeatedly. Something like one in a million lobsters is born blue, even though there is no population of blue lobsters maintaining the allele. There is no basis for the >>assumption of the scenario you posit whatsoever.>> Are you saying that homos are a freak of Nature?? So much for that social advantage idea. So gayness is a mutation, eh? As for eye color, I don't know about you, but Im totally hot for dudes with brown eyes and am most likely to procreate with them, (but probably not today). I suppose others are drawn to blue-eyed cuties, but Im pretty sure if those blue-eyed guys weren't getting any, like EVER, we'd begin to see a whole lot less of them around. >>LOL. Actually I think it is because the when the North Star falls in line with the hind leg of Polaris, the blue cheese in the core of the moon begins to ripen and the man in the moon sneezes. The barely visible star dust that falls on the earth then causes a vaginal condition that allows sperm carrying the gay gene to penetrate further than the other sperm, reversing the normal condition wherein these demasculinized sperm can't make it past the g spot. >>Do you have any studies that refute that, clearly and outrightly?>> Oh goodness, no. Though I think that you may be on to something. Your explanation above is far more plausible than the " homsexuality as a social advantage " theory. I support you in this all the way. Jane - ps. what color are your eyes? Just asking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 20, 2007 Report Share Posted February 20, 2007 > > >>That may not be a reality-based perspective on the mechanics of > genetics and evolution. From what I've read, if there is a gay gene, > it is a recessive trait that can be passed down to the next generation > via heterosexuals and that will be expressed in only a small > percentage of the population. Also, there are all sorts of > debilitating hereditary diseases, that certainly don't appear to be an > advantage to our species, that continue to show up, generation after > generation. >> > > Good points. Sounds like Evolution isn't doing its job. Maybe it > doesn't always work. I guess the sudden surge (last 40 years) in > the gay population is a result of Punctuated Equilibrium, or maybe > its just become chic. What has happened in the past 40 years is that homosexuals are less inclined to stay closeted, so there is merely the appearance of a surge in the homosexual population. It is very common that older gay men were once married and had raised families. Heck, I'm only 45, and even I absorbed enough cultural conditioning to stay in the closet and get married. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 20, 2007 Report Share Posted February 20, 2007 > > What has happened in the past 40 years is that homosexuals are less > inclined to stay closeted, so there is merely the appearance of a > surge in the homosexual population. It is very common that older gay > men were once married and had raised families. Heck, I'm only 45, and > even I absorbed enough cultural conditioning to stay in the closet and > get married. Now that makes perfect sense. Thank you Stanley jane Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 20, 2007 Report Share Posted February 20, 2007 Jane, > Good points. Sounds like Evolution isn't doing its job. Maybe it doesn't > always work. I guess the sudden surge (last 40 years) in the gay population > is a result of Punctuated Equilibrium, or maybe its just become chic. Does > fashion effect Evolution the way helpful aunts and uncles do? I know the > reversal of urban blight in certain large cities is definitely an advantage > to the society as a whole. This perceived surge is the most absolutely ridiculous thing anyone could posit, and I do not see how anyone could maintain that this has happened unless they have a complete and absolute disregard for objectivity. Obviously, changing cultural attitudes that affect the openness of the practice make it impossible to determine whether there has been an increase, a decrease, or no change in the rate of homosexuality. 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 20, 2007 Report Share Posted February 20, 2007 Jane, > >>Maybe you weren't paying close enough attention, but what you're > quoting is a direct excerpt from the original article claiming soy > >>causes homosexuality, which is what you conclude below.>> > Oops, XYZ! Of course, you're right, I probably wasn't paying too close > attention, but " strongly supported by " is not logically equivalent to > " causes. " Not even close when we're talking about something as fundamental > as sexual preference. I'm not sure what use of the phrase " strongly supported by " you are referring to. > >>Not every other purely physical condition has a link to diet. Whether > one is male or female, for example, is basically entirely determined > by whether or not one possessed the sex-determining Y region of the Y > chromosome.>> > I know not just a few transexuals who would smite with you with their Judith > Lieber in opposition to that claim. I said sex, not gender, and obviously the surgical change of one's sex does not negate the determining effect of one's genes. > >>I don't insist on kicking God out of any picture and in fact invoked > both God and design recently in my solicited explanation of the > purpose of sexuality to . That said, one could quite easily > posit an evolutionary advantage to the presence of homosexuality > because, as pointed out earlier, human populations consistently > develop niches for non-reproducers that benefit the community, and the > management of human communities is complex enough to require > >>specialized management.>> > So I'm RIGHT about the urban blight theory! I suspected as much. God's > clever inner-city planning...an awesome God He is. I have no idea what the " urban blight theory " is or what on earth you're talking about. > >>Just like we all have one eye color? Multiple alleles for any trait > usually exist and often are under little selective pressure and > achieve relative stasis. Those that do undergo selective pressure > generally don't get wiped out, as both the direction and magnitude of > selective pressure is responsive to the environment and the allele > frequency and can be vulnerable to feedback inhibition. Moreover, > some mutations occur spontaneously and repeatedly. Something like one > in a million lobsters is born blue, even though there is no population > of blue lobsters maintaining the allele. There is no basis for the > >>assumption of the scenario you posit whatsoever.>> > Are you saying that homos are a freak of Nature?? So much for that social > advantage idea. So gayness is a mutation, eh? Again, no idea what you're talking about. > As for eye color, I don't know about you, but Im totally hot for dudes with > brown eyes and am most likely to procreate with them, (but probably not > today). I suppose others are drawn to blue-eyed cuties, but Im pretty sure > if those blue-eyed guys weren't getting any, like EVER, we'd begin to see a > whole lot less of them around. We would see fewer, perhaps, but they would never come close to ceasing, because anyone possessing one blue eye allele has brown eyes, not blue. So, if there were a " gay gene, " and I'm not saying there is, but if there were one, we would expect to see fewer homosexuals than we would see if they were procreating, but we would never expect to see homosexuality fade out from existence or even necessarily come anywhere close to it. > >>Do you have any studies that refute that, clearly and outrightly?>> > Oh goodness, no. Though I think that you may be on to something. Your > explanation above is far more plausible than the " homsexuality as a social > advantage " theory. I support you in this all the way. I don't have any " social advantage theory. " I merely refuted your false statement that there could be no evolutionary advantage. Evolution occurs at the population level, not the individual level -- basic bio 101. Moreover, I should also have pointed out that an allele does not need to provide an advantage to survive in a population; it merely need be not selected against sufficiently to eliminate it. Natural selection is one of many forces that affect the frequency of alleles within populations. > Jane - ps. what color are your eyes? Just asking. Blue, but not a typical blue. More like turqoise. Sorry we wouldn't work out. :-) 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 20, 2007 Report Share Posted February 20, 2007 > > Jane, > > > Good points. Sounds like Evolution isn't doing its job. Maybe it doesn't > > always work. I guess the sudden surge (last 40 years) in the gay population > > is a result of Punctuated Equilibrium, or maybe its just become chic. Does > > fashion effect Evolution the way helpful aunts and uncles do? I know the > > reversal of urban blight in certain large cities is definitely an advantage > > to the society as a whole. > > This perceived surge is the most absolutely ridiculous thing anyone > could posit, and I do not see how anyone could maintain that this has > happened unless they have a complete and absolute disregard for > objectivity. > > Obviously, changing cultural attitudes that affect the openness of the > practice make it impossible to determine whether there has been an > increase, a decrease, or no change in the rate of homosexuality. > > > Chris you insist on poor reading skills. Perhaps you should go more slowly or use a thesaurus - one doesn't " posit " a perceived notion. One merely perceives it, knowi9ng it to be subjective and then subjects it to questions and testing. That's quite the point isn't it? Still, it appears your fight is with the " ridiculous " and purely subjective aims of the Human Rights Campaign who posit the same ridiculous notion and apparently thus have no interest in objectivity. Take it up with them. ...... " Recently, the Human Rights Campaign, an alliance working for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender equal rights, released reports claiming that Census Bureau data from the 2000 Census shows a dramatic increase in the number of households consisting of homosexual couples. Some reporters and editorialists have had a field day proclaiming hundreds of percentage points of increase in the number of homosexual couples in some states. Homosexual advocates have declared that the increase in homosexual households reflected more tolerant attitudes toward homosexuality. The Human Rights Campaign cited these alleged increases as evidence of " incredible progress. " Other than their posted campaign, I can't imagine *where* I would have gotten such an idea. Silly me. But Im content to accept that social acceptance has fostered more outings. That makes sense, but then again, your social utility theory goes down the tube. Unless you say that the new social acceptance will create a hospitable environment so as to cause a surge in the gay population. But that goes against your...oh never mind. Keep trying though! Jane Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 20, 2007 Report Share Posted February 20, 2007 > > Jane, > > > >>Maybe you weren't paying close enough attention, but what you're > > quoting is a direct excerpt from the original article claiming soy > > >>causes homosexuality, which is what you conclude below.>> > > > Oops, XYZ! Of course, you're right, I probably wasn't paying too close > > attention, but " strongly supported by " is not logically equivalent to > > " causes. " Not even close when we're talking about something as fundamental > > as sexual preference. > > I'm not sure what use of the phrase " strongly supported by " you are > referring to. > > > >>Not every other purely physical condition has a link to diet. Whether > > one is male or female, for example, is basically entirely determined > > by whether or not one possessed the sex-determining Y region of the Y > > chromosome.>> > > > I know not just a few transexuals who would smite with you with their Judith > > Lieber in opposition to that claim. > > I said sex, not gender, and obviously the surgical change of one's sex > does not negate the determining effect of one's genes. > > > >>I don't insist on kicking God out of any picture and in fact invoked > > both God and design recently in my solicited explanation of the > > purpose of sexuality to . That said, one could quite easily > > posit an evolutionary advantage to the presence of homosexuality > > because, as pointed out earlier, human populations consistently > > develop niches for non-reproducers that benefit the community, and the > > management of human communities is complex enough to require > > >>specialized management.>> > > > So I'm RIGHT about the urban blight theory! I suspected as much. God's > > clever inner-city planning...an awesome God He is. > > I have no idea what the " urban blight theory " is or what on earth > you're talking about. > > > >>Just like we all have one eye color? Multiple alleles for any trait > > usually exist and often are under little selective pressure and > > achieve relative stasis. Those that do undergo selective pressure > > generally don't get wiped out, as both the direction and magnitude of > > selective pressure is responsive to the environment and the allele > > frequency and can be vulnerable to feedback inhibition. Moreover, > > some mutations occur spontaneously and repeatedly. Something like one > > in a million lobsters is born blue, even though there is no population > > of blue lobsters maintaining the allele. There is no basis for the > > >>assumption of the scenario you posit whatsoever.>> > > > Are you saying that homos are a freak of Nature?? So much for that social > > advantage idea. So gayness is a mutation, eh? > > Again, no idea what you're talking about.> I have no idea what the " urban blight theory " is or what on earth > you're talking about. > > > As for eye color, I don't know about you, but Im totally hot for dudes with > > brown eyes and am most likely to procreate with them, (but probably not > > today). I suppose others are drawn to blue-eyed cuties, but Im pretty sure > > if those blue-eyed guys weren't getting any, like EVER, we'd begin to see a > > whole lot less of them around. > > We would see fewer, perhaps, but they would never come close to > ceasing, because anyone possessing one blue eye allele has brown eyes, > not blue. So, if there were a " gay gene, " and I'm not saying there > is, but if there were one, we would expect to see fewer homosexuals > than we would see if they were procreating, but we would never expect > to see homosexuality fade out from existence or even necessarily come > anywhere close to it. > > > >>Do you have any studies that refute that, clearly and outrightly?>> > > > Oh goodness, no. Though I think that you may be on to something. Your > > explanation above is far more plausible than the " homsexuality as a social > > advantage " theory. I support you in this all the way. > > I don't have any " social advantage theory. " I merely refuted your > false statement that there could be no evolutionary advantage. > Evolution occurs at the population level, not the individual level -- > basic bio 101. Moreover, I should also have pointed out that an > allele does not need to provide an advantage to survive in a > population; it merely need be not selected against sufficiently to > eliminate it. Natural selection is one of many forces that affect the > frequency of alleles within populations. > > > Jane - ps. what color are your eyes? Just asking. > > > Again, no idea what you're talking about.> I have no idea what the " urban blight theory " is or what on earth > you're talking about.Blue, but not a typical blue. More like turqoise. Sorry we wouldn't > work out. :-) > > 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 20, 2007 Report Share Posted February 20, 2007 Opps. I have no idea how that happened! Sorry about the last non-post post. I was reading and KABAM, off it flew into the Webosphere and landed here. Forgive me my many technical faux pas. Jane Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 20, 2007 Report Share Posted February 20, 2007 Jane, > > > I guess the sudden surge (last 40 years) in the gay population s a result of > > > Punctuated Equilibrium, or maybe its just become chic. > > This perceived surge is the most absolutely ridiculous thing anyone > > could posit, > you insist on poor reading skills. Perhaps you should go > more slowly or use a thesaurus - one doesn't " posit " a perceived > notion. One merely perceives it, knowi9ng it to be subjective and > then subjects it to questions and testing. That's quite the point > isn't it? I'm not sure that this semantic point is important as my meaning was pretty clear. Nevertheless, posit means: ========= http://www.answers.com/posit & r=67 To assume the existence of; postulate. ========= You clearly " assume the existence of " the increase in the homosexuality rate in your above statement. It is also clear from your statements this time and the last time we discussed this that your insistence that this rise has occurred is based on your perception of how common it is around you. I believe you are correct that perceptions should be subject to questions and testing, but the fact that you " assume the existence " of the increase rather than applying questions and testing to your perception is not my fault. > Still, it appears your fight is with the " ridiculous " and purely > subjective aims of the Human Rights Campaign who posit the same > ridiculous notion and apparently thus have no interest in > objectivity. Take it up with them. If that's actually what they meant, I would say that their interpretation of the evidence was equally ridiculous, but that isn't what they are saying: > Homosexual > advocates have declared that the increase in homosexual households > reflected more tolerant attitudes toward homosexuality. The Human > Rights Campaign cited these alleged increases as evidence > of " incredible progress. " I don't think it is even reasonable to suggest that they mean that tolerance of homosexuality causes homosexuality. I don't think that is irrefutably false, but I think it is very clear that *they* don't mean it, and that they mean that more people are being open about their homosexuality because they are being tolerated and accepted more. > Other than their posted campaign, I can't imagine *where* I would > have gotten such an idea. Silly me. Indeed. > But Im content to accept that social acceptance has fostered more > outings. As if that were not exactly what the Human Rights Camapaign were saying. > That makes sense, but then again, your social utility > theory goes down the tube. Unless you say that the new social > acceptance will create a hospitable environment so as to cause a > surge in the gay population. But that goes against your...oh never > mind. I don't have a " social utility theory, " as if I didn't state that explicitly in my last post. The only point here is that there is no evidence that could be reasonably interpreted to indicate an increase, decrease, or no change in the homosexuality rate. That is why I do not have any confident opinion about which of those three has occurred, and why your assumption of an increase was invalid. 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 20, 2007 Report Share Posted February 20, 2007 Uh, gene if i was religious why would i have specifically asked people to keep their religious and political opinions off this discussion? Fyi, i do not follow any specific religion. But thanks for assuming that. -Lovely > > Honestly i do not think the anal cavity was designed > > for penetration, for the simple fact that it is not > > pleasurable to everyone and in fact can be quite > > painful.² > > > > ³You are seriously arguing the fact of whether god designed something for a > > particular purpose based on this logic? How exactly would you decide the > > question scientifically as to whether x was designed for y or not? You¹d need > > to able to ask the designer, wouldn¹t you? This is why I think you are a bigot > >  I personally don¹t care about issues like this, and think perhaps should > > discuss them with others of your religious persuasion, whatever that might be. > > > > Second membranes inside are extremely delicate and > > very prone to tears and injury. Anal penetration > > can over time lead to hemorroids as well- > > The membranes and cell structure do not > > appear to be designed to withstand the brunt > > of repeated penetration and can be quite damaging > > to the sphincter, anus and colon. > > > > Third, anus probably not designed for penetration > > for the simple fact it is an exit used for defecation. > > It is just not sanitary at all. > > > > Fourth what could the purpose possibly be? Many > > people find being kissed on the neck arousing but > > does that mean that is what the neck was designed > > for? > > > > -Lovely² > > > > People who love one another, or not, find pleasure in each other this way, and > > it is really none of your business to judge them, which you are. You imagine > > this all powerful being, who designed this part for one purpose, and this part > > for one purpose, who apparently royally screwed up  because so many people > > are able to lead fulfilling lives while performing these abominable acts. Do > > you think that they are going to burn in hell? > > ---------------------- > > > > Ok I have a question and I just want thoughts no attacks. I am not > > judging anyone but I just want to hear your thoughts no matter what > > they be. > > Regarding the anus not being designed for sex and the arguments that > > there are erogenous zones there and getting pleasure from the > > prostate. > > Well just because something gives the receiver pleasure does that > > mean > > that's what the anus is for? Some people get pleasure from auto > > erotic > >> > aphixiation, S & M, does that mean it is not abnormal or normal? I > > mean > >> > where do you draw the line? Is it ok to have sex with animals if it > >> > gives you pleasure, or how about with young children who are > > molested? > > They by no fault of their own may experience " pleasure " butis that > > normal? > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >>> > > > >>> > > I'm sure they have no problem either...the only problem is that > >> > where they put their frontward parts, is in the exit hole for the > >> > wastes that the body produces. . Anything outside of that....is > >> > abnormal...even down to in-vitro fertilization. Why do people feel > >> > uncomfortable when someone makes a comment about it being > >> > abnormal? .com > >>> > > Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 10:10 AM > >>> > > Subject: Re: Re: Homosexuality in Primitives > >>> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > 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.