Proof that Homosexuality Is Inherited?

[clarise]

Originally Posted by SecretSexyBlogger

I made no remark about your religious beliefs, just that you were reciting religious platitudes. You can be a stupid atheist, the two aren't mutually exclusive

Animals do not just copulate for reproduction, they masturbate and engage in faux sexual behaviour.

I don't know what syndrome you think I have, besides being fucking bored of people pretending their opinions are valid, when they aren't really based on anything.

Your brain is the result of genetics and environment. I'm not saying that homosexuality ISN'T caused by environment, I'm saying that it's fucking ignorant to assume that he doesn't have any genetic component.

Just because you think homosexuality needs curing, doesn't mean everyone does.

I'd argue that desires ARE cognition. All that thinking about what you want and all...

Your aggressive stance and potty mouth are becoming tedious.

Nowhere have I denied the possibility of a genetic component. I am simply asking that it be shown.

Because I have not found one, and you can't show it to me.

Forget about my demand for chromosome numbers and codon groups, if that is too stringent.

Tell you what, biologist. Instead of calling me a retard and a moron, calm down and show us. Show us a compelling stochastic argument. Show us a persuasive case for maternal or paternal transmission. I will step back even more. Forget causation. Just show a compelling correlate.

[Rexxracerr]

hmmmmm!!!

this theory must be wrong.
how many gay people were born from a true homosexual?
Not many, it takes both sexes to make a baby.

[clarise]

Originally Posted by deviousdave

I don't think that is the case. If homosexuality were hereditary, I don't see how that gene would have survived through different species for millions of years. Even if being gay was a survival advantage, those that are homosexual are less likely to have offspring to pass the gene on.

The fact that nearly all gay people have straight parents seems to negate your hypothesis. I know it is possible to posses a gene, and just be a carrier, but I don't see homosexuality as being some kind of genetic flaw.

I think it is down to how the brain is shaped through the early part of ones life. People don't have any sexuality through the early part of ones childhood, that is not to say homosexuality is a choice, I don't think it something that can be 'cured' either.

I personally think there may be some kind of genetic factor, but I do also think it is largely environmental. I don't think the same environment will turn all people gay, or all people straight, I think it is down largely to an individuals interaction with the environment that leads to certain connections in the brain forming which leads homosexual desires.

Again this is only speculation from a non professional. I am just making assumptions and I make no claims that these ideas have evidence to back them up.

You seem to go farther than I do, here.

I am less resistant to the idea of some genetic component, because homosexuals have always bred with heterosexual partners. Therefore, there must exist at least the possibility of a genetic component.

Nevertheless, while it is possible, it is also extremely unlikely, due to the reason you have cited above: that such unions are, by definition, much less likely than unions between two heterosexual partners. Thus, a genetic component has a low likelihood of persisting in the human genome for millennia.

All I am saying is that it should be a valid question. One should not be denounced as "hateful" for raising this question. Not when the LGBT community vociferously insists that society take it on faith that homosexuals are born, and not raised. It is neither hateful nor prejudicial to ask that they justify this stance.

Something they certainly have not done here.

[Distant Lover]

Originally Posted by clarise

You seem to go farther than I do, here.

I am less resistant to the idea of some genetic component, because homosexuals have always bred with heterosexual partners. Therefore, there must exist at least the possibility of a genetic component.

Nevertheless, while it is possible, it is also extremely unlikely, due to the reason you have cited above: that such unions are, by definition, much less likely than unions between two heterosexual partners. Thus, a genetic component has a low likelihood of persisting in the human genome for millennia.

All I am saying is that it should be a valid question. One should not be denounced as "hateful" for raising this question. Not when the LGBT community vociferously insists that society take it on faith that homosexuals are born, and not raised. It is neither hateful nor prejudicial to ask that they justify this stance.

Something they certainly have not done here.

I think it should be clear that homosexuals do not choose to be that way. I do not think society has a compelling reason to suppress homosexual activity. Nevertheless, male homosexuals tend to be quite a bit more promiscuous than heterosexuals. They have an obligation to avoid the kind of behavior that spreads AIDS, since society pays for the treatment of AIDS victims.

In addition, the fact that some 85 percent of pedophile priests preyed on boys suggests to me that homosexuals are more likely to be child abusers than heterosexuals. A homosexual priest can be celibate. I believe most are. Nevertheless, I doubt that 85 percent of Roman Catholic priests are homosexuals.

[clarise]

Originally Posted by Distant Lover

I think it should be clear that homosexuals do not choose to be that way. I do not think society has a compelling reason to suppress homosexual activity. Nevertheless, male homosexuals tend to be quite a bit more promiscuous than heterosexuals. They have an obligation to avoid the kind of behavior that spreads AIDS, since society pays for the treatment of AIDS victims.

In addition, the fact that some 85 percent of pedophile priests preyed on boys suggests to me that homosexuals are more likely to be child abusers than heterosexuals. A homosexual priest can be celibate. I believe most are. Nevertheless, I doubt that 85 percent of Roman Catholic priests are homosexuals.

I would rather not speculate on your last paragraph. Grew up in Boston, and was raised Catholic, at the same time that Bernie Law presided in the mansion across from Boston College. Too close to home.

But I do need to clarisify one essential point: whether people choose to be gay is an entirely different question than whether they are born that way.

I do not believe people choose it.

In fact I have a gay friend (male) who has fought heroically against it, even to the point of marrying a woman and having children with her! (Yes, they are still married, more than ten years on! )

Nor do I believe there is an easy cure for it. (Marriage to a woman and fatherhood have not cured the aforementioned gay friend.)

And since I am not a Muslim, I do not advocate beating it out of them.

But let me throw this question out there:

If it could be shown that homosexuality is a developmental condition that could be treated with early chemical and/or therapeutic intervention, would it be hateful or prejudicial to investigate the feasibility of such a regimen, to develop it, and to offer it to parents who suspect that they could be raising a child who has homosexual propensities?

[Distant Lover]

Originally Posted by clarise

But let me throw this question out there:

If it could be shown that homosexuality is a developmental condition that could be treated with early chemical and/or therapeutic intervention, would it be hateful or prejudicial to investigate the feasibility of such a regimen, to develop it, and to offer it to parents who suspect that they could be raising a child who has homosexual propensities?

Because so called cures up to now have been ineffective and cruel, I would be skeptical of any presumed cure. I would leave the decision to undergo the cure you suggest to the child.

[deviousdave]

Originally Posted by clarise

If it could be shown that homosexuality is a developmental condition that could be treated with early chemical and/or therapeutic intervention, would it be hateful or prejudicial to investigate the feasibility of such a regimen, to develop it, and to offer it to parents who suspect that they could be raising a child who has homosexual propensities?

I don't know. As far as I'm aware, the suicide rate of those around puberty age is higher among those that are confused about their sexuality. I think treatment, leading them to believe their behaviour is wrong would be confusing, and hurtful. I would expect there would be more cases of depression and possibly more suicides. I don't think there are drugs that could change ones sexuality, particularly if it is environmental interactions that form the connections in the brain that leads one to be gay. Even is there was a perfect "cure" I don't think it should be a decision for the parents, it should be the choice of the individual.

[clarise]

Originally Posted by Distant Lover

Because so called cures up to now have been ineffective and cruel, I would be skeptical of any presumed cure. I would leave the decision to undergo the cure you suggest to the child.

Yes. "Cures" to this point have been medieval in their barbarity, and in many parts of the world persist to this day. In some Muslim countries, is the "cure" not still death by stoning?

[Distant Lover]

Originally Posted by clarise

Yes. "Cures" to this point have been medieval in their barbarity, and in many parts of the world persist to this day. In some Muslim countries, is the "cure" not still death by stoning?

I used to have a video of too teenage boys who were hanged in Iran for homosexuality. Unfortunately, the video has been withdrawn.

[clarise]

Originally Posted by deviousdave

I don't know. As far as I'm aware, the suicide rate of those around puberty age is higher among those that are confused about their sexuality. I think treatment, leading them to believe behaviour is wrong would be confusing, and hurtful. I would expect there would be more cases of depression and possibly more suicides. I don't think there are drugs that could change ones sexuality, particularly if it is environmental that forms the connections in the brain that leads one to be gay. Even is there was a perfect "cure" I don't think it should be a decision for the parents, it should be the choice of the individual.

I agree with all of this.

But what if the dysfunction is not connective? What if it is hormonal?

If the issue is not sexuality per se, but a misapplication of the brain's reward systems, not unlike the dysfunction leading to nicotine addiction, then treatment might be a possibility. The point is that we do not know, because it is considered injudicious to ask the question, let alone research it. Many forms of mental illness are treatable today. Schizophrenia, for instance, can be treated noninvasively and humanely in many cases. Many addictions are also treatable, though with spotty success. Addiction and the brain in general are still poorly understood.

What would be so wrong about improving the body of knowledge in this area, to at least ascertain whether the condition is treatable through early intervention? If a safe and effective form of intervention could be found, the humane response would be to offer it, no?

[clarise]

Originally Posted by Distant Lover

I used to have a video of too teenage boys who were hanged in Iran for homosexuality. Unfortunately, the video has been withdrawn.

I was just out on Google myself, but I have come up empty.

Recently I heard a story that in Afghanistan gays are sometimes executed at football halftime shows. Homosexuals are made to line up along a high wall made of boulders, and then the boulders are toppled from the other side by bulldozers.

I do not know whether or not it is just a sick rumor, but I heard it on a news radio show (no, not Michael Savage, some other moron), and I cannot corroborate it.

Still, there are many stories of death or disfigurement as a common form of punishment for homosexuality in Muslim countries. Very difficult to corroborate them.

[deviousdave]

The act of raising a question, a perfectly relevant one, that leads to people getting angry, reminded me of this sketch.
:D

[clarise]

Originally Posted by deviousdave

The act of raising a question, a perfectly relevant one, that leads to people getting angry, reminded me of this sketch.
:D

Now I am getting better with search terms, much to my detriment.

I have found a great many stills and videos of real stoning and disfigurement, much of it recent, throughout the Muslim world. I will not post any of it here. It is disgusting, and easy enough to find, if you are into the whole snuff thing.


Just sort of exemplifies the hypocrisy underlying the whole Chick Fil-A business. The gall of Rahm Immanuel, to pontificate about David Cathy and a company's Christian "anti-gay" values, while at the same time breaking bread with a Muslim like Louis Farrakhan. The sheer gall.

[Distant Lover]

Originally Posted by clarise

I was just out on Google myself, but I have come up empty.

Recently I heard a story that in Afghanistan gays are sometimes executed at football halftime shows. Homosexuals are made to line up along a high wall made of boulders, and then the boulders are toppled from the other side by bulldozers.

I do not know whether or not it is just a sick rumor, but I heard it on a news radio show (no, not Michael Savage, some other moron), and I cannot corroborate it.

Still, there are many stories of death or disfigurement as a common form of punishment for homosexuality in Muslim countries. Very difficult to corroborate them.

Christianity and Islam get their intolerance for homosexuals from a few passages in Leviticus that only made sense when ancient Israel needed a high birth rate to make up for losses on the battlefield.

I think it is likely that a certain amount of homophobia is innate. There is a certain amount of it in me. Nevertheless, Christianity and Islam nurture it to an unnatural degree.

The only New Testament writer who condemns homosexuals is St. Paul. He may have been a repressed homosexual.

In Romans 7:15, 18, 19,23 he wrote, "For that which I do, I allow not; for what I would, that I do not, but what I hate, that I do...For I know that in me (that is in my flesh) dwelleth no good thing, for to will is present with me, but how to perform that which is good I find not. For the good that I would not; but the evil which I would not, that I do...I see another law in my members, warning against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members."

[smcaaphd]

I did see a program on the television a while back about 'raping lesbians straight'!! That was in an African country, but can't remember which one.

I have known of many gay animals - dogs who would only ever hump other male dogs, male cats who wouldn't ever get it on with a queen!! I know that, while nature dictates we're usually attracted to others in our species that we can mate with, and that this attachment to one person is normally seen only in humans, with a few notable exceptions, if you look long and hard enough in the right place, you will find proof.

Unfortunately, I have no proof I can post of the gay animals I personally know about but as I have no reason to lie about it...*can't think of how to end the post, so

[richief]

Originally Posted by Distant Lover

Christianity and Islam get their intolerance for homosexuals from a few passages in Leviticus that only made sense when ancient Israel needed a high birth rate to make up for losses on the battlefield.

I think it is likely that a certain amount of homophobia is innate. There is a certain amount of it in me. Nevertheless, Christianity and Islam nurture it to an unnatural degree.

The only New Testament writer who condemns homosexuals is St. Paul. He may have been a repressed homosexual.

In Romans 7:15, 18, 19,23 he wrote, "For that which I do, I allow not; for what I would, that I do not, but what I hate, that I do...For I know that in me (that is in my flesh) dwelleth no good thing, for to will is present with me, but how to perform that which is good I find not. For the good that I would not; but the evil which I would not, that I do...I see another law in my members, warning against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members."

You do realise that to make up battlefield losses through normal birthrates will take around 14 - 18 years to fill the gaps in the phalanx.

[clarise]

Originally Posted by smcaaphd

I did see a program on the television a while back about 'raping lesbians straight'!! That was in an African country, but can't remember which one.

I have known of many gay animals - dogs who would only ever hump other male dogs, male cats who wouldn't ever get it on with a queen!! I know that, while nature dictates we're usually attracted to others in our species that we can mate with, and that this attachment to one person is normally seen only in humans, with a few notable exceptions, if you look long and hard enough in the right place, you will find proof.

Unfortunately, I have no proof I can post of the gay animals I personally know about but as I have no reason to lie about it...*can't think of how to end the post, so

You are certainly not wrong. I have seen it, too. Anyone who has been around animals has seen it.

Sexy-whatever, the biologist who is calling me a moron, has mentioned masturbation in animals. I won't contend against that one, either.

Way up top on this thread, I mentioned a dog I know, which masturbates into a favorite pillow. (The sick bastards who own the dog encourage it and bet on how long it will take.)

What I take issue with is when we see two animals of the same sex in congress, and we call it "homosexuality." I would argue that we are anthropomorphising when we do this. Human sexual drives are different from the drives of most beasts, due to our more complex emotive layers. Calling same-sex sheep in congress "homosexuals," to me, is as absurd as claiming that two opposite sheep in congress are "in love." Sheep cannot be in love, anymore than they can enjoy a movie, or appreciate art, or be saddened by the death of a sibling, or be terrorized by the prospect of their own death.

And in any event, even if sheep could be "homosexual," this would get us only so far as demonstrating that homosexuality is "natural." It would not allow us to make the leap and claim also that homosexuality is "normal."

Mind you, I am not judging. I do not care whether it is normal, and since it is victimless, I do not care that people do it.

All I am saying is that one cannot make that argument consistently.

Infanticide, patricide, fratricide, incest, polygamy, and pedophilia are much more common in the wild than homosexual congress, and we do not use the "natural argument" to justify those. Pedophilia is natural in the wild. It might even be normal in the wild, for all I know. But I will argue strenuously against anyone who would use that fact to justify pedophilia among humans. So, I do not appreciate having it trotted out against me, whenever I ask whether or not homosexuality should be regarded as a form of cognitive dysfunction.

[clarise]

Originally Posted by richief

You do realise that to make up battlefield losses through normal birthrates will take around 14 - 18 years to fill the gaps in the phalanx.

+1

If we ever get serious about war again, on the order of Normandy and Stalingrad, this whole debate will go right out the window.

[smcaaphd]

Originally Posted by clarise

You are certainly not wrong. I have seen it, too. Anyone who has been around animals has seen it.

Sexy-whatever, the biologist who is calling me a moron, has mentioned masturbation in animals. I won't contend against that one, either.

Way up top on this thread, I mentioned a dog I know, which masturbates into a favorite pillow. (The sick bastards who own the dog encourage it and bet on how long it will take.)

What I take issue with is when we see two animals of the same sex in congress, and we call it "homosexuality." I would argue that we are anthropomorphising when we do this. Human sexual drives are different from the drives of most beasts, due to our more complex emotive layers. Calling same-sex sheep in congress "homosexuals," to me, is as absurd as claiming that two opposite sheep in congress are "in love." Sheep cannot be in love, anymore than they can enjoy a movie, or appreciate art, or be saddened by the death of a sibling, or be terrorized by the prospect of their own death.

And in any event, even if sheep could be "homosexual," this would get us only so far as demonstrating that homosexuality is "natural." It would not allow us to make the leap and claim also that homosexuality is "normal."

Mind you, I am not judging. I do not care whether it is normal, and since it is victimless, I do not care that people do it.

All I am saying is that one cannot make that argument consistently.

Infanticide, patricide, fratricide, incest, polygamy, and pedophilia are much more common in the wild than homosexual congress, and we do not use the "natural argument" to justify those. Pedophilia is natural in the wild. It might even be normal in the wild, for all I know. But I will argue strenuously against anyone who would use that fact to justify pedophilia among humans. So, I do not appreciate having it trotted out against me, whenever I ask whether or not homosexuality should be regarded as a form of cognitive dysfunction.

Don't use your big words on me - I don't know what they mean so I'll just make something up

I'm not talking about animals who screw whatever stays still long enough, I'm talking about not screwing animals of the opposite gender -- ever!! Not even when that is the only ass available

I gleaned you were talking about that from the first three sentences of your post, before you started regurgitating pages of the dictionary at me like a scary rendition of Carrie

[clarise]

Originally Posted by smcaaphd

Don't use your big words on me - I don't know what they mean so I'll just make something up

I'm not talking about animals who screw whatever stays still long enough, I'm talking about not screwing animals of the opposite gender -- ever!! Not even when that is the only ass available

I gleaned you were talking about that from the first three sentences of your post, before you started regurgitating pages of the dictionary at me like a scary rendition of Carrie

The sequipedalia (big words) are all a ruse, you know. I am a moron and a retard. Probably a fucktard, too, though no one has laid the charge. (Not p.c.)

So you have seen animals (sheep, I presume) that shun the opposite sex and only putt in the rough? Okay. It is not necessarily homosexual attraction. But even if it is homosexual attraction, that makes it natural, but not normal. In fact, it might provide an avenue for research toward an effective corrective therapy.

Say... have you or your shepherd friends ever artificially inseminated such beasts, to see whether the trait is hereditary? That might be just the proof I am asking for in this thread!!!!

[smcaaphd]

Originally Posted by clarise

The sequipedalia (big words) are all a ruse, you know. I am a moron and a retard. Probably a fucktard, too, though no one has laid the charge. (Not p.c.)

So you have seen animals (sheep, I presume) that shun the opposite sex and only putt in the rough? Okay. It is not necessarily homosexual attraction. But even if it is homosexual attraction, that makes it natural, but not normal. In fact, it might provide an avenue for research toward an effective corrective therapy.

Say... have you or your shepherd friends ever artificially inseminated such beasts, to see whether the trait is hereditary? That might be just the proof I am asking for in this thread!!!!

Haha!! We're no scientists!!

But, if you're laying a claim as to something not being normal, firstly you need define, quite strictly, what you class as 'normal'. And for this, since I just know you're going to get wordy with me again, I would suggest you can't make a blanket statement that 'heterosexuality is normal', because there are umm lots of people (and animal behaviours), which would make that labelling a lie!!

^^^ this post is what is commonly called as 'upping the ante' - I'm bound to get lost and not understand your answer, but at least I took part in the *hunger* game

[AZRIEL]

speed gaying.jpg

[clarise]

Originally Posted by smcaaphd

Haha!! We're no scientists!!

But, if you're laying a claim as to something not being normal, firstly you need define, quite strictly, what you class as 'normal'. And for this, since I just know you're going to get wordy with me again, I would suggest you can't make a blanket statement that 'heterosexuality is normal', because there are umm lots of people (and animal behaviours), which would make that labelling a lie!!

^^^ this post is what is commonly called as 'upping the ante' - I'm bound to get lost and not understand your answer, but at least I took part in the *hunger* game

Hah!

Well, we are off the topic, now! All to the good. This sounds like fun.

Define "normal" sex. The act itself looks and feels ridiculous, right?

Okay. I'll give this a go.

The whole issue came up with BadDog's list of animals, which he posted to show that sodomy is natural. And I said, "just because it's natural doesn't mean it's normal." (Of course, just because mercury and arsenic are normal and natural, that doesn't mean I would sprinkle them on my salad, but let's try to keep this simple.)

Animals copulate to reproduce. That's the goal. Right? Otherwise they'd just kill and eat each other. Or the herbivores would sleep. Or maybe lick their fundaments and watch the birds go by. (And I don't buy that crap from sexy-biologist that the herbivores masturbate. Sheesh. They don't blow themselves. They WASH. Christ.)

Where was I?

Oh, yeah. Licking fundaments.

So, the beasts can either make baby beasts, or they can do the other things that animals do.

If they choose to make baby beasts, some behaviors work. Others don't.

The choice of mate is key, and roughly fifty percent of their options are wrong.

Heterosexual copulation improves the odds of success, right? So that behavior would be the norm. Because it works.

Sodomy does not work. Ever. So it is not the norm.

I guess I don't get what the difficulty is. This is not complicated. Sodomy is not only not normal, but it is also unhygenic and inimical to any species that practices it. Sorry. Big word. I'll try again. Sodomy, practiced regularly, reduces one's lifespan.

Normal behavior lengthens the lifespan of the species and perpetuates bloodlines. Homosexual behavior, at best, does not perpetuate bloodlines, and some homosexual practices reduce lifespan considerably. Thus, such practices are abnormal.

Of course, I am only talking about wildebeests and ocelots, here. Not people. People have entirely different motivations than beasts. I am simply saying that we should leave the poor wildebeests out of it, and let them be.

[Kimiko]

Originally Posted by Distant Lover

Christianity and Islam get their intolerance for homosexuals from a few passages in Leviticus that only made sense when ancient Israel needed a high birth rate to make up for losses on the battlefield.

I think it is likely that a certain amount of homophobia is innate. There is a certain amount of it in me. Nevertheless, Christianity and Islam nurture it to an unnatural degree.

The only New Testament writer who condemns homosexuals is St. Paul. He may have been a repressed homosexual.

In Romans 7:15, 18, 19,23 he wrote, "For that which I do, I allow not; for what I would, that I do not, but what I hate, that I do...For I know that in me (that is in my flesh) dwelleth no good thing, for to will is present with me, but how to perform that which is good I find not. For the good that I would not; but the evil which I would not, that I do...I see another law in my members, warning against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members."

You would think Christians would be inclined to pay attention to Jesus' position on the matter. But for some reason, as on so many other issues, they don't. They'd much rather cherry-pick some primitive superstition from Leviticus to justify their bigotry, just as they relied on the Old Testament to justify slavery. They're remarkably inconsistent, though...you never see them casting aspersions on shrimp-eaters.

[Distant Lover]

Originally Posted by Kimiko

You would think Christians would be inclined to pay attention to Jesus' position on the matter. But for some reason, as on so many other issues, they don't. They'd much rather cherry-pick some primitive superstition from Leviticus to justify their bigotry, just as they relied on the Old Testament to justify slavery. They're remarkably inconsistent, though...you never see them casting aspersions on shrimp-eaters.

Jesus never said anything about homosexuality. It is true that Pharisees criticized Jesus for spending time with "sinners and wine bibers."

The Bible has much more to say expressing concern for the poor and hostility for the rich than in condemnation of homosexuals.

Condemning homosexuals is the way a religious right preacher can make his congregation feel self righteous. If he condemned heterosexual fornication he would make some of them feel uncomfortable. They might leave his congregation.

I have attended church services in eight different Christian denominations, including the Baptist church. I have never heard homosexuals or homosexuality condemned in any of them.

Many homosexuals are attracted to high church Episcopalian services. These are similar to Roman Catholic services. I have attended several of these. There was nothing officially "gay" about them. They had marriages between men and women. They also had out reach efforts to help AIDS victims. At the coffee hour some of the men I talked to talked about losing friends to AIDS.

[SecretSexyBlogger]

Originally Posted by clarise

Hah!

Well, we are off the topic, now! All to the good. This sounds like fun.

Define "normal" sex. The act itself looks and feels ridiculous, right?

Okay. I'll give this a go.

The whole issue came up with BadDog's list of animals, which he posted to show that sodomy is natural. And I said, "just because it's natural doesn't mean it's normal." (Of course, just because mercury and arsenic are normal and natural, that doesn't mean I would sprinkle them on my salad, but let's try to keep this simple.)

Animals copulate to reproduce. That's the goal. Right? Otherwise they'd just kill and eat each other. Or the herbivores would sleep. Or maybe lick their fundaments and watch the birds go by. (And I don't buy that crap from sexy-biologist that the herbivores masturbate. Sheesh. They don't blow themselves. They WASH. Christ.)

Where was I?

Oh, yeah. Licking fundaments.

So, the beasts can either make baby beasts, or they can do the other things that animals do.

If they choose to make baby beasts, some behaviors work. Others don't.

The choice of mate is key, and roughly fifty percent of their options are wrong.

Heterosexual copulation improves the odds of success, right? So that behavior would be the norm. Because it works.

Sodomy does not work. Ever. So it is not the norm.

I guess I don't get what the difficulty is. This is not complicated. Sodomy is not only not normal, but it is also unhygenic and inimical to any species that practices it. Sorry. Big word. I'll try again. Sodomy, practiced regularly, reduces one's lifespan.

Normal behavior lengthens the lifespan of the species and perpetuates bloodlines. Homosexual behavior, at best, does not perpetuate bloodlines, and some homosexual practices reduce lifespan considerably. Thus, such practices are abnormal.

Of course, I am only talking about wildebeests and ocelots, here. Not people. People have entirely different motivations than beasts. I am simply saying that we should leave the poor wildebeests out of it, and let them be.

I'm sorry if my stance upsets your precious ears, or my course language offended you. I'm most offended when uneducated fuck-knuckles (like yourself) try to use biology to validate your own messed up world perspective.

Find me one scientific peer reviewed journal (yep, from a real scientist, not a chucklehead like you) that says the following things, THEN I'll concede that there is something in your hateful content worth acknowledging.

-Herbivores DON'T masturbate (proof is that horses do)
-That animals copulate to reproduce MAINLY (world wide love of condoms tells you this isn't true of humans)
-Normal behaviour lengthens lifespan
-Homosexual behaviours reduce lifespans "considerably"
-Anal sex reduces lifespan

To deal with the post where you replied to mine further up:

You said: "Show us a compelling stochastic argument. Show us a persuasive case for maternal or paternal transmission."

What the fuck are you talking about? Stochastic means randomly determined. Buy a dictionary.

Alright, would you concede that somewhere in your genetic code is the genes that determine that you have a spine? A heart? And do you suppose you got those genes from your mother or father? What about your height? Do you think that there is a specific gene that mothers have that determines precisely how tall you are? Sexuality is a spectrum. It isn't an "on/off" switch, it's what we real scientists who actually care about facts like to call a complex trait.

What this means is that there isn't just one gene within your genetic code that goes "Ok, you're going to turn out gay". Just like there isn't one that says you'll be a certain height. Something can be passed down genetically (like your heart and spine) without there being a "yes no" option. In addition to that, spectrum traits (eye colour, hair colour, skin colour, height, weight, length of your toes, fingers) are all influenced by genetics.

You asking scientists to present a specific location on the genome, or prove a specific mode of transmission is redundant, only shows that you don't remotely understand genetics.

Your opinions are all things you dreamed up, then you pose stupid questions about science in a hateful way. Which is why when I called you a fucking moron I was being nice. How about YOU substantiating some of the things you claim? Please, I'd LOVE to read your proof for your assertions. Hell, if you can even just find any moderately valid article that categorically states that herbivores do not masturbate, I'll carve "WELL FUCKING FANCY THAT" in my forehead.

[clarise]

Originally Posted by SecretSexyBlogger

I'm sorry if my stance upsets your precious ears, or my course language offended you. I'm most offended when uneducated fuck-knuckles (like yourself) try to use biology to validate your own messed up world perspective.

Find me one scientific peer reviewed journal (yep, from a real scientist, not a chucklehead like you) that says the following things, THEN I'll concede that there is something in your hateful content worth acknowledging.

-Herbivores DON'T masturbate (proof is that horses do)
-That animals copulate to reproduce MAINLY (world wide love of condoms tells you this isn't true of humans)
-Normal behaviour lengthens lifespan
-Homosexual behaviours reduce lifespans "considerably"
-Anal sex reduces lifespan

To deal with the post where you replied to mine further up:

You said: "Show us a compelling stochastic argument. Show us a persuasive case for maternal or paternal transmission."

What the fuck are you talking about? Stochastic means randomly determined. Buy a dictionary.

Alright, would you concede that somewhere in your genetic code is the genes that determine that you have a spine? A heart? And do you suppose you got those genes from your mother or father? What about your height? Do you think that there is a specific gene that mothers have that determines precisely how tall you are? Sexuality is a spectrum. It isn't an "on/off" switch, it's what we real scientists who actually care about facts like to call a complex trait.

What this means is that there isn't just one gene within your genetic code that goes "Ok, you're going to turn out gay". Just like there isn't one that says you'll be a certain height. Something can be passed down genetically (like your heart and spine) without there being a "yes no" option. In addition to that, spectrum traits (eye colour, hair colour, skin colour, height, weight, length of your toes, fingers) are all influenced by genetics.

You asking scientists to present a specific location on the genome, or prove a specific mode of transmission is redundant, only shows that you don't remotely understand genetics.

Your opinions are all things you dreamed up, then you pose stupid questions about science in a hateful way. Which is why when I called you a fucking moron I was being nice. How about YOU substantiating some of the things you claim? Please, I'd LOVE to read your proof for your assertions. Hell, if you can even just find any moderately valid article that categorically states that herbivores do not masturbate, I'll carve "WELL FUCKING FANCY THAT" in my forehead.

In mathematics and especially computer science (my field, by the way - apparently you are the biologist), stochastics are used to model incidences in which patterns can arise randomly, through perturbation. See, one assigns a population to an array, and then uses matrix operations and recursion to identify randomly arising attractors... ahh, forget it.

Look. I was trying to make it easy for you. I was opening a door, so that you could credibly claim that homosexuality can arise and persist in a population through purely random chance, in the absence of a causative agent.

But you went berserk, instead.

You can't do it, can you? You can't just answer the question. All you can do is whine like a pathetic little bitch.

[clarise]

Hold on-- I just caught one of the more hilarious lines in your spew: herbivores masturbate?

Horses masturbate?

No, no, no, dweeb. They do not masturbate. They wash themselves. The contact sometimes triggers an autonomic erogenous response, which proves my point that instinct drives the sexual function in beasts. Not desire. Animals do not beat off, and they do not purposefully woo their same-sex paramours in the hopes of scoring a quick assfuck!

Christ. If you're into horses, get the hell out of here and find a bestiality forum. Sheesh.

[johnjeni33]

Expressed, as when the gene that codes for it is dominant and we have inherited at least one such gene from each parent (brown eyes; brown is dominant); or as when the gene that codes for it is recessive and we have inherited the same gene from both parents (blue eyes; blue is recessive).

[clarise]

Originally Posted by johnjeni33

Expressed, as when the gene that codes for it is dominant and we have inherited at least one such gene from each parent (brown eyes; brown is dominant); or as when the gene that codes for it is recessive and we have inherited the same gene from both parents (blue eyes; blue is recessive).

Thanks, Linnaeus, for bringing us back on topic.

Yes. Gene expression. That is the topic. Enough of this bullshit about dogs blowing themselves and horses swatting flies with their penes. Sheesh.

Chromosome numbers and codons. Let's see 'em. Ante up.

[clarise]

Originally Posted by clarise

Thanks, Linnaeus, for bringing us back on topic.

Yes. Gene expression. That is the topic. Enough of this bullshit about dogs blowing themselves and horses swatting flies with their penes. Sheesh.

Chromosome numbers and codons. Let's see 'em. Ante up.

P.S. And if you want about a zillion pages of credible warnings about the perils of sodomy apart from the HIV risk, go to the Centers for Disease Control. Don't post it here. This is a porn site. Not a health newsletter. Sheesh.

[the fox]

wll know neather of my parents were homosexuals.

and thay were quite mad at me too

[origen01]

Originally Posted by clarise

Thanks, Linnaeus, for bringing us back on topic.

Yes. Gene expression. That is the topic. Enough of this bullshit about dogs blowing themselves and horses swatting flies with their penes. Sheesh.

Chromosome numbers and codons. Let's see 'em. Ante up.

Again, I reiterate my previous question.

Why does a condition have to be genetic in order for it to be biological. One's personality is an immutable biological manifestation but it is not genetic.

[deviousdave]

Originally Posted by clarise

In mathematics and especially computer science (my field, by the way - apparently you are the biologist), stochastics are used to model incidences in which patterns can arise randomly, through perturbation. See, one assigns a population to an array, and then uses matrix operations and recursion to identify randomly arising attractors... ahh, forget it.

Matlab for the win.

[SecretSexyBlogger]

Clarise, dare I suggest that the way you managed to assume that I was a biologist was based on the accurate information I posted?

Instinctively, horses and humans will self pleasure. Again, I can give you research that shows that this IS the case, can you find me a science article that rebuts this? Bored of asking you to substantiate your opinion. Give me a weblink?

I AM answering your question. I've explained to you about homologous traits within a clade, about the implications of this. I've explained to you that we don't need to know the specific gene that codes for something to know that it has a genetic component.

You refute science with nothing more than opinion. Unsubstantiated opinion. When asked for proof that anything you say is true, you cannot provide it.

I'm not berserk, I'm fed up. Ignorant assholes like you ask stupid questions about genes. Then when we try and tell you that you're oversimplifying and asking a stupid question, you say it's because we're wrong.

Just because you can grammatically construct a question doesn't mean it warrants an answer, or even can actually be answered.

Sexuality is a spectrum. Where you sit on that spectrum is a combination of genetics and environment. Just like virtually every other part of who you are.

By asking for stupid proof you don't disprove science, you prove your ignorance. Just because you cannot comprehend what you're being told, doesn't make it wrong. Why don't you try reading some science articles, really trying to make an effort to understand genetics, sexuality and mammalian evolution, then come back and ask a well considered question, instead of just trying to justify your belief system with ignorance.

[rowdy3128]

my step kids bi...I've like who he has dated....but this means that we have thought all along....his father GAY.....LOL now I under stand alot...

[steve_vme]

Originally Posted by clarise

Here is the post, from yours truly, which started it all off. (Followed by a reasonable objection from Heyesey and my response.)







Heysey's Objection:




And here is my response to his objection.


Ughhhhh.

Now I understand your protest. But that is how I used the word. To repeat #2:



Numbers #1 and #2, in the context of homosexuality still imply that #3 must be true.

Consider the "other" causes of congenital deformity. (Not meant pejoratively. Replace "deformity" with "condition" or "state" if you wish.) Homosexuality is not caused by physical abuse to the woman in utero. It is not caused by alcohol or nicotine in the mother's bloodstream.

Heysey, homosexuality has been passed down for hundreds of thousands of years, if dogma is correct (and homosexuality is somehow inherited). Homosexuality cuts across all regional, racial, ethnic, and economic divides.

We are not talking about mercury in the water, or trace arsenic contamination in foodstock.

If homosexuality is congenital, genetic transmission is the only plausible cause. Gays have been hogging lab time in universities for decades, in search of "proof." They have not found it.

All that aside, you are ignoring the point. I said in my post, assume it to be true. It still does not prevent gays from marrying. Nothing prevents gays from marrying, or ever has prevented them from marrying.

Don't forget about brainwashing it is alive and well around the world.

[olderman]

Where do you live ? i am glad you want me to be your friend . maybe you would like for us to meet ?

Daddy love's you

[Prurient Purveyer]

Originally Posted by clarise

Several people on the Chic-Fil-A thread claim that there exists incontrovertible proof that homosexuality is sexually transmitted.

I must have missed it, along with the incontrovertible truth of Intelligent Design and Global Warming.

Apparently I am a retard.

But I am willing and eager to learn.

Someone show me the chromosome number(s) and codon group(s) that determine homosexuality. I won't hold anyone to homo sapiens. Any mammal will do.

Show this retard incontrovertible proof of congenital homosexuality in a white lab mouse or a ferret, and I will post a public apology.

Until then, SIT DOWN AND EAT A CHICKEN SANDWICH.

I never thought there was any doubt about intelligent design; the debate is over who's intelligent design it is.

As for predetermination of Homosexual tendencies by inheritance of such from one's parents the jury I think must still be out.

The thing is; how much do we know about genetic inheritance?
Most of you likely know a hell of a lot more about it than me but I'm willing to bet there's a lot more to learn.

It could be argued that we inherit the ability to be hetero,bisexual or homosexual from our parents but the Kinsey Report if I recall correctly has most of us in the bi category anyway ( except Bad Dog and Joe of course) so that pretty much screws that argument.

You take it a stage further; of the options available prove that inherited tendencies (genes or whatever) cause us to be whatever we end up being.

At this stage I don't think they can but I also don't think we know everything on the subject either so I wouldn't take a stand one way or another.

[SecretSexyBlogger]

Originally Posted by Prurient Purveyer

I never thought there was any doubt about intelligent design; the debate is over who's intelligent design it is.

As for predetermination of Homosexual tendencies by inheritance of such from one's parents the jury I think must still be out.

The thing is; how much do we know about genetic inheritance?
Most of you likely know a hell of a lot more about it than me but I'm willing to bet there's a lot more to learn.

It could be argued that we inherit the ability to be hetero,bisexual or homosexual from our parents but the Kinsey Report if I recall correctly has most of us in the bi category anyway ( except Bad Dog and Joe of course) so that pretty much screws that argument.

You take it a stage further; of the options available prove that inherited tendencies (genes or whatever) cause us to be whatever we end up being.

At this stage I don't think they can but I also don't think we know everything on the subject either so I wouldn't take a stand one way or another.

Scientists aren't arguing about intelligent design. It's an irrelevant hypothesis. Scientists are only interested in testable hypotheses. This is not one. Religion and science are not in contest with one another. An Australian singer named Tim Minchin encapsulated why perfectly. "Science adjusts it's beliefs based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved." How could these opposite world views actually have a legitimate conversation?

The Kinsey Report reported observed statistics. Using a scale, he described peoples sexuality on a scale from 0-6. Where 0 denoted heterosexuality without exception ever in a persons sexual history, and 6 denoted homosexuality without exception ever in a persons sexual history, 46% of men told Kinsey that they fit between 1-5. Kinsey didn't describe these people as "bisexual", other people did. Next time, at least have a quick look on Wikipedia before you start attacking groundbreaking scientific research simply because it doesn't fit your preferred world view.

[Prurient Purveyer]

Originally Posted by SecretSexyBlogger

Scientists aren't arguing about intelligent design. It's an irrelevant hypothesis. Scientists are only interested in testable hypotheses. This is not one. Religion and science are not in contest with one another. An Australian singer named Tim Minchin encapsulated why perfectly. "Science adjusts it's beliefs based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved." How could these opposite world views actually have a legitimate conversation?

The Kinsey Report reported observed statistics. Using a scale, he described peoples sexuality on a scale from 0-6. Where 0 denoted heterosexuality without exception ever in a persons sexual history, and 6 denoted homosexuality without exception ever in a persons sexual history, 46% of men told Kinsey that they fit between 1-5. Kinsey didn't describe these people as "bisexual", other people did. Next time, at least have a quick look on Wikipedia before you start attacking groundbreaking scientific research simply because it doesn't fit your preferred world view.

And have you removed what ever it was that crawled up your ass and died yet.

What a nasty vindictive little nobody you are.

If scientists are only interested in testable hypotheses and they can't test this then maybe its too much for them.

You ignore the main point of my observation and pick up on what was a throw away line basing your attack on the apparent infallibility of the scientific community and end by pointing out that although this percentage of men told Kinsey they weren't really gay but weren't straight either somehow it wasn't his idea they were bi sexual.So someone else described them as bi sexual? So what? That means it doesn't count and they're really straight?

What do you think it means Mr Rocket Scientist? My money's on bi-sexual.

[SecretSexyBlogger]

Originally Posted by Prurient Purveyer

And have you removed what ever it was that crawled up your ass and died yet.

What a nasty vindictive little nobody you are.

If scientists are only interested in testable hypotheses and they can't test this then maybe its too much for them.

You ignore the main point of my observation and pick up on what was a throw away line basing your attack on the apparent infallibility of the scientific community and end by pointing out that although this percentage of men told Kinsey they weren't really gay but weren't straight either somehow it wasn't his idea they were bi sexual.So someone else described them as bi sexual? So what? That means it doesn't count and they're really straight?

What do you think it means Mr Rocket Scientist? My money's on bi-sexual.

I'm not nasty or vindictive, I'm just bullshit free.

*sighs*

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=kinsey+sexuality+scale

No one suggested the scientific community was infallible.

These men were asked about their sexual experiences then given a number based on behaviour.

Kinsey felt that the "straight" "gay" "bisexual" labels weren't indicative of the human spectrum of sexuality. Thus a scale.

[shootersa]

OY!
Pay attention.
What difference does it make, whether homosexuality is inherited, genetic, a virus, a disease, a blessing or a choice?
I discovered early on I like blondes with big boobs. My brother told me once he can only enjoy sex if he's on the bottom. My neighbor for 6 years (an Air Force Colonel) likes boys only and finds girls "disgusting".

The point is, sexual preference, whether a preference for big boobs, position, or gender, is what it is. Doesn't matter what the cause is, between consenting adults, there is no need for a cure; might as well try to cure me of liking big boobs.

That said, marriage is a RELIGIOUS institution, recognized by governments and given special status in many areas of law.

The common holding of religions is that homosexuality is wrong. I don't really get that, I mean, they might as well tell me I am a sinner because I like big boobs.

So here's my point;
1) Sexual orientation, regardless of cause, is what it is. As long as its between consenting adults, the rest of us ought to mind our own business.That means also, don't try to jam your preference between my sheets; I probably won't like it.
2) Religion and homosexuality do not mix well. Religion has a lot of trouble reconciling the LGBT community with it's beliefs. And vice versa.
3) The legal status given to those who are married can be extended to those who are not "one man and one woman". All of the special status and obligations conferred on straight married couples can be conferred on any other group. All it takes is a legislative act.
4) So, given that the traditional marriage institution has trouble dealing with the LGBT community, why, oh WHY don't they form their own institution? Why in the HELL would the LGBT community want to hop into bed with an unwilling partner? I mean, what's the point? That the LGBT community is right and everyone else is wrong?

The LGBT community IS different than the rest of the straight world. That ain't a bad thing, it is just what it is. Where their lifestyle doesn't fit well with the rest of us heathens, it's OK to have it separate.

Think of it like this if it helps; In public you got your mens room, and your women's room. Cause, you know, we're different. Not a bad thing, in fact it's a glorious thing if the women have big boobs, but at times you just gotta address the differences to keep the peace.

[deviousdave]

Originally Posted by Prurient Purveyer

I never thought there was any doubt about intelligent design; the debate is over who's intelligent design it is.

.

I think first we should see if the design is actually intelligent.




Then we can dismiss design afterwards. Natural selection gives the impression of good design, because all those with bad adaptations die off in the wild.

[steve_vme]

Originally Posted by SecretSexyBlogger

Scientists aren't arguing about intelligent design. It's an irrelevant hypothesis. Scientists are only interested in testable hypotheses. This is not one. Religion and science are not in contest with one another. An Australian singer named Tim Minchin encapsulated why perfectly. "Science adjusts it's beliefs based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved." How could these opposite world views actually have a legitimate conversation?

The Kinsey Report reported observed statistics. Using a scale, he described peoples sexuality on a scale from 0-6. Where 0 denoted heterosexuality without exception ever in a persons sexual history, and 6 denoted homosexuality without exception ever in a persons sexual history, 46% of men told Kinsey that they fit between 1-5. Kinsey didn't describe these people as "bisexual", other people did. Next time, at least have a quick look on Wikipedia before you start attacking groundbreaking scientific research simply because it doesn't fit your preferred world view.

Science means seeking knowledge and wisdom. The scientific method is the study of phenomona. How do you test a guess?

[reallywantapeging]

Originally Posted by clarise

Several people on the Chic-Fil-A thread claim that there exists incontrovertible proof that homosexuality is sexually transmitted.

I must have missed it, along with the incontrovertible truth of Intelligent Design and Global Warming.

Apparently I am a retard.

But I am willing and eager to learn.

Someone show me the chromosome number(s) and codon group(s) that determine homosexuality. I won't hold anyone to homo sapiens. Any mammal will do.

Show this retard incontrovertible proof of congenital homosexuality in a white lab mouse or a ferret, and I will post a public apology.

Until then, SIT DOWN AND EAT A CHICKEN SANDWICH.

Another asshole saying his peace.

[clarise]

Originally Posted by reallywantapeging

Another asshole saying his peace.

I had to go out on Google to find out what a "pegging" is, you twisted little piece of filth.

So.

Were you born wanting a foot long dildo rammed up your rectal tract?

Tell me, homo: was your born desire for ass-reamings genetically determined, or did Momma's bull dyke girlfriend ram her pregnant womb with a dildo in the third trimester? Huh, faggot? Is that what jumbled your brains before you were born? Blunt impact trauma from a monster plastic dick up Momma's sloppy hole? Eh, queer?

Or maybe drugs. Did Momma poison your brain with crack in utero, or was it Daddy's sperm, that made you the way you are?

Inquiring assholes want to know, faggot.

There.

NOW, I've said my peace.

Sheesh.

[AZRIEL]

partay.jpg

[SecretSexyBlogger]

Originally Posted by steve_vme

Science means seeking knowledge and wisdom. The scientific method is the study of phenomona. How do you test a guess?

You're right, the scientific method is the study of phenomena. You test guesses by formulating a hypothesis. So you pose your guess, then you identify ways that this could be proven untrue, and you search for evidence that corroborates your hypothesis.

If you pose a hypothesis that cannot be proven untrue (an example of this would be if I said that the entire universe, all your memories etc were created last Thursday. You cannot debate with this logic, simply because my reply would be "yes, it was also made last Thursday".) Whilst this is blatantly untrue, it is also not a useful scientific hypothesis as it cannot be tested or examined.

All scientific 'guesses' are tested repeatedly and examined before they can be considered theories. A theory is a highly tested statement or idea, where there hasn't been a discovery that disproves it.

[SecretSexyBlogger]

Originally Posted by clarise

I had to go out on Google to find out what a "pegging" is, you twisted little piece of filth.

So.

Were you born wanting a foot long dildo rammed up your rectal tract?

Tell me, homo: was your born desire for ass-reamings genetically determined, or did Momma's bull dyke girlfriend ram her pregnant womb with a dildo in the third trimester? Huh, faggot? Is that what jumbled your brains before you were born? Blunt impact trauma from a monster plastic dick up Momma's sloppy hole? Eh, queer?

Or maybe drugs. Did Momma poison your brain with crack in utero, or was it Daddy's sperm, that made you the way you are?

Inquiring assholes want to know, faggot.

There.

NOW, I've said my peace.

Sheesh.

Clarise that was TOTALLY uncalled for. What a horrible thing to say to somebody.

You look down on people who enjoy alternative sexual acts while spewing vitriolic filth like that. If you're offended by peoples sexuality, join a different forum.

Think long and hard about the kind of defective behaviour your abuse is, and ask yourself why you are the way you are. Since you're so good at faulting others, perhaps some self examination is required?