Proof that Homosexuality Is Inherited?

[clarise]

Originally Posted by Empress Lainie

Jun 17, 2008 ... Research shows that gay men's brains resemble those of straight women.
www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1815538,00.html


Gay Brain Science: Homosexuality a Birth Defect?
Jun 19, 2008 ... Some people are right-brained. Others are left-brained. Apparently, some are gay -brained. What makes people gay? Biologists may never get ...
www.outsidethebeltway.com/gay-brain-science-homosexuality-a-birth-defect/


Gay Brains Are Wired Differently Say Scientists
Jun 17, 2008 ... Using scanning technology, researchers in Sweden found that the brains of gay men and women were wired differently to the brains of ...
www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/111663.php


Gay brains structured like those of the opposite sex - life - 16 June ...
Jun 16, 2008 ... Brain scans have provided the most compelling evidence yet that being gay or straight is a biologically fixed trait.
www.newscientist.com/article/dn14146-gay-brains-structured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex.html


BBC NEWS | Health | Scans see 'gay brain differences'
Jun 16, 2008 ... The brains of gay people look like those found in heterosexual people of the opposite sex, research suggests.
www.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7456588.stm


The 'Gay Brain' Explained - Louann Brizendine - YouTube

Apr 23, 2010 ... Complete video at: http://fora.tv/2010/03/31/ Dr_Louann_Brizendine_The_Male_Brain Dr. Louann Brizendine, author of The Male Brain, ...

With all respect, Empress, none of this serves the point.

The human brain develops from day 5 in utero all the way past adolescence and into the late teens, first through connection ("wiring up"), then through necrosis (programmed death of neurological redundancy), and then through optimization.

Of course gays' brains vary somewhat. It is to be expected. Similarly, lawyers should be expected to have different brains than dishwashers. (Personally I would adjudge the dishwashers' brains to be far superior. )

[clarise]

Originally Posted by tim929

I had to quote this one simply because it is an amazingly insightful oppinion presented by an inarticulate drunk. If an inarticulate drunk can show this level of insight I am forced to ask...what the fuck is wrong with the rest of the world?

As for homosexuality, I have no idea if it is genetic or environmental or both. Does it realy matter? Whos business is it what goes on between two consenting adults? If you want to ask the question "did nature intend this?" then you also have to ask if nature intended things like vibrators, dildos, nipple clamps, ball gags, KY jelly, breast implants, etc. We also have to ask about a million other things like diet soda, potato chips, monosodium glutamate, toasters, french manicures, dental braces, reality television, the color burnt orange, rocking chairs, Alvin and the Chipmunks, mullets, chocolate bars, thermonuclear weapons, food coloring, Kim Kardashian (or any other Kardashian for that matter.) The list is almost endless.

Homosexuals have the desires they have, and as long as they arent forcing it on anyone else I frankly dont give two hoots or a damn what they do. As for the religios implications, like everything else in peoples lives their actions are between them and God. Its not my job, or anyone elses job to condemn them just because we might think that what they are doing is wrong, as long as they arent doing it to anyone who isnt willing to participate. Frankly, the only reason people are so spun up about homosexualtiy is that they have nothing else to do, they need a reason to be pissed off at someone and they are afraid it might be contagious.

All good.

I, for one, am not condeming gays.

I also do not care one way or another about whether they are born with it.

They do, however. And they assert it, rabidly, if one so much as admits that it could be an open question.

[Distant Lover]

About homosexuality I feel the ambivalence I feel about a lot of things. I like ambivalence. It prevents fanaticism.

Overt expressions of sexual desire between men are distasteful to me. At the same time, homosexuals frequently have qualities I appreciate in men. They tend to be intelligent, sensitive, and cultivated.

I have had good friends who were gay. However, they did not flaunt what they were. At the same time they did deny it. One could say that they were in the closet, but the closet door was open.

Hostility for homosexuality made sense for the early Israelites. Israel was a small nation, surrounded by powerful enemies, and frequently at war. Israel needed a high birth rate to compensate for loses on the battlefields.

Nevertheless, what threatens us today is the growth of the human population. We do not need to pressure homosexuals to have children. Even in war, brains mean more than numbers. That is why Israel, with a population of about six million, has one of the most powerful military forces in the world.

[clarise]

Originally Posted by Baddog_WOOF

List of mammals displaying homosexual behavior--

• African Buffalo[21]
• African Elephant[22]
• Agile Wallaby[23]
• Amazon River Dolphin(Boto)[19]
• American Bison[21][24]
• Antelope[25]
• Asian Elephant[22]
• Asiatic Lion[26]
• Asiatic Mouflon[27]
• Atlantic Spotted Dolphin[19]
• Australian Sea Lion[28]
• Barasingha[29]
• Barbary Sheep[30]
• Beluga[19]
• Bharal[31]
• Bighorn Sheep[30]
• Black Bear[32]
• Blackbuck[33]
• Black-footed Rock Wallaby[23]
• Black-tailed Deer[29]
• Bonnet Macaque[14]
• Bonobo[34][35][36]
• Bottlenose Dolphin[19][37]
• Bowhead Whale[19]
• Brazilian Guinea Pig[38]
• Bridled Dolphin[19]
• Brown Bear[32]
• Brown Capuchin[39]
• Brown Long-eared Bat[40]
• Brown Rat[41]
• Buffalo[30]
• Caribou[42]
• Cat (domestic)[43]
• Cattle (domestic)[44]
• Cheetah[26]
• Collared Peccary[45]
• Commerson's Dolphin[19]
• Common Brushtail Possum[46]
• Common Chimpanzee[47]
• Common Dolphin[19]
• Common Marmoset[39]
• Common Pipistrelle[48]
• Common Raccoon[49]
• Common Tree Shrew[50]
• Cotton-top Tamarin[51]
• Crab-eating Macaque[14]
• Crested Black Macaque[14]
• Dall's Sheep[30]
• Daubenton's Bat[40]
• Dog (domestic)[52]
• Donkey
• Doria's Tree Kangaroo[23]
• Dugong[53]
• Dwarf Cavy[38]
• Dwarf Mongoose[54]
• Eastern Cottontail Rabbit[41]
• Eastern Grey Kangaroo[23]
• Elk[29]
• Euro (a subspecies of wallaroo)[23]
• European Bison[21]
• Fallow Deer[29]
• False Killer Whale[19]
• Fat-tailed Dunnart[55]
• Fin Whale[19]
• Fox[56]
• Gazelle[25]
• Gelada Baboon[57]
• Giraffe[25][4][58]
• Goat (Domestic)[30]
• Golden Monkey[59]
• Gorilla[60]

• Grant's Gazelle[25]
• Grey-headed Flying Fox[40]
• Grey Seal[28]
• Grey squirrel[61]
• Grey Whale[19][20]
• Grey Wolf[62]
• Grizzly Bear[32]
• Guinea Pig (Domestic)[38]
• Hamadryas Baboon[57]
• Hamster (Domestic)[38]
• Hanuman Langur[63]
• Harbor Porpoise[64]
• Harbor Seal[28]
• Himalayan Tahr[65]
• Hoary Marmot[66]
• Horse (domestic)[67]
• Human (see Human sexual behavior)
• Indian Fruit Bat[40]
• Indian Muntjac[68]
• Indian Rhinoceros[69]
• Japanese Macaque[14]
• Javelina[70]
• Kangaroo Rat[41]
• Killer Whale[19]
• Koala[71]
• Kob[15][72]
• Larga Seal[28]
• Least Chipmunk[61]
• Lechwe[72]
• Lesser Bushbaby[73]
• Lion[26][74][75][76][77][78]
• Lion-tailed Macaque[14]
• Lion Tamarin[39]
• Little Brown Bat[40]
• Livingstone's Fruit Bat[40]
• Long-eared Hedgehog[79]
• Long-footed Tree Shrew[50]
• Macaque[80]
• Markhor[81]
• Marten[49]
• Matschie's Tree Kangaroo[23]
• Moco[82]
• Mohol Galago[73]
• Moor Macaque[14]
• Moose[83]
• Mountain Goat[30]
• Mountain Tree Shrew[50]
• Mountain Zebra[84]
• Mouse (domestic)[85]
• Moustached Tamarin[51]
• Mule Deer[29]
• Musk-ox[86]
• Natterer's Bat[40]
• New Zealand Sea Lion[28]
• Nilgiri Langur[63]
• Noctule[48]
• North American Porcupine[87]
• Northern Elephant Seal[28]
• Northern Fur Seal[28]
• Northern Quoll[55]
• Olympic Marmot[88]
• Orangutan[89]
• Pacific Striped Dolphin[19]
• Patas Monkey[90]
• Pere David's Deer[29]
• Pig (Domestic)[91]
• Pig-tailed Macaque[14]
• Plains Zebra[92]

• Polar Bear[32]
• Pretty-faced Wallaby[23]
• Proboscis Monkey[59]
• Pronghorn[93]
• Przewalski's Horse[84]
• Puku[94]
• Quokka[95]
• Rabbit[96]
• Raccoon Dog[97]
• Red Deer[29]
• Red Fox[98]
• Red Kangaroo[23]
• Red-necked Wallaby[23]
• Red Squirrel[61]
• Reeves's Muntjac[68]
• Reindeer[42]
• Rhesus Macaque[14]
• Right Whale[19]
• Rock Cavy[38]
• Rodrigues Fruit Bat[40]
• Roe Deer[29]
• Rufous Bettong[99]
• Rufous-naped Tamarin[51]
• Rufous Rat Kangaroo[23]
• Saddle-back Tamarin[51]
• Savanna Baboon[57]
• Sea Otter[100]
• Serotine Bat[40]
• Sheep (Domestic)[30][101]
• Siamang[102]
• Sika Deer[29]
• Slender Tree Shrew[50]
• Sooty Mangabey[90]
• Sperm Whale[19]
• Spinifex Hopping Mouse[41]
• Spinner Dolphin[19]
• Spotted Hyena[16][18]
• Spotted Seal[28]
• Squirrel Monkey[103]
• Striped Dolphin[19]
• Stuart's Marsupial Mouse[104]
• Stumptail Macaque[14]
• Swamp Deer[29]
• Swamp Wallaby[23]
• Takhi[84]
• Talapoin[90]
• Tammar Wallaby[23]
• Tasmanian Devil[104]
• Tasmanian Rat Kangaroo[23]
• Thinhorn Sheep[30]
• Thomson's Gazelle[25]
• Tiger[105]
• Tonkean Macaque[14]
• Tucuxi[106]
• Urial[107]
• Vampire Bat[40]
• Verreaux's Sifaka[108]
• Vervet[90]
• Vicuna[109]
• Walrus[110][111]
• Wapiti[112]
• Warthog[113]
• Waterbuck[114]
• Water Buffalo[30]
• Weeper Capuchin[39]
• Western Grey Kangaroo[23]
• West Indian Manatee[115]
• Whiptail Wallaby[23]
• White-faced Capuchin[39]
• White-fronted Capuchin[39]
• White-handed Gibbon[116]
• White-lipped Peccary[117]
• White-tailed Deer[29]
• Wild Cavy[38]
• Wild Goat[30]
• Wisent[21]
• Yellow-footed Rock Wallaby[23]
• Yellow-toothed Cavy[38]

LOL!

I have enjoyed this list immensely.

And it doesn't mean a fucking thing. (f-word in jest. This is the topic, after all!)

Reminds me of a big story that The Boston Globe did, around the time that Judge Margie Marshall rammed gay marriage down the state's throat. They produced a full color pic of a pair of "lesbian swans" in the Public Garden's duck pond, and cited as their proof the fact that their eggs failed to produce hatchlings.

Most of the readers laughed at that story-- even many of the gay marriage supporters-- for its sheer lunacy.

"Proof" of homosexuality in the wild means absolutely nothing.

A friend of mine has a dog that humps its pillow to orgasm on a regular basis. The dog is not "attracted" to the pillow. It is an autonomic response, most likely due to olfactory error.

Same in the wild. Errors of coitus occur all the time. It does not mean that wildebeests are gay. It is autonomic errors of instinct, possibly olfactory.

Funny how, in the context of heterosexual relationships, no reasonable person would attempt to equate that most complex of human emotions, love, of which sexual attraction is just one component, with the autonomic coitus of instinctively driven field mice. We do not use such analogies to justify bestality (rife in the wild), infanticide (common in the wild), polygamy (common in the wild), incest (common in the wild), or pedophilia (common in the wild).

Yet the gay community always trots out this "list," and blithely equates itself with filthy animals spewing their seed at a pond edge. How lovely. How fucking charming.

[Distant Lover]

Originally Posted by clarise

Reminds me of a big story that The Boston Globe did, around the time that Judge Margie Marshall rammed gay marriage down the state's throat. They produced a full color pic of a pair of "lesbian swans" in the Public Garden's duck pond, and cited as their proof the fact that their eggs failed to produce hatchlings.

Once I read about two male penguins in a zoo who maintained a homosexual relationship. Unlike those lesbian swans, they could not produce an egg. Therefore they found a round stone that was the size, shape, and color of a penguin egg, and took care of it.

[deviousdave]

Originally Posted by Distant Lover

Overt expressions of sexual desire between men are distasteful to me. At the same time, homosexuals frequently have qualities I appreciate in men. They tend to be intelligent, sensitive, and cultivated.

I think what you are doing there is describing a stereotype. Gay communities have their fair share of nasty people too.

[clarise]

Originally Posted by Distant Lover

About homosexuality I feel the ambivalence I feel about a lot of things. I like ambivalence. It prevents fanaticism.

Overt expressions of sexual desire between men are distasteful to me. At the same time, homosexuals frequently have qualities I appreciate in men. They tend to be intelligent, sensitive, and cultivated.

I have had good friends who were gay. However, they did not flaunt what they were. At the same time they did deny it. One could say that they were in the closet, but the closet door was open.

Hostility for homosexuality made sense for the early Israelites. Israel was a small nation, surrounded by powerful enemies, and frequently at war. Israel needed a high birth rate to compensate for loses on the battlefields.

Nevertheless, what threatens us today is the growth of the human population. We do not need to pressure homosexuals to have children. Even in war, brains mean more than numbers. That is why Israel, with a population of about six million, has one of the most powerful military forces in the world.

I will attempt to be nice. I will also attempt to stay on topic.

Looks like I have created another "crank" thread, huh? Honestly I did not intend it. I had only intended to show that gays are free to marry partners of the opposite sex, and it touched off a firestorm.

Since I live in Massachusetts, some of my friends are gay married couples. They are wonderful people. A few of them even oppose gay marriage on the same principles as mine (i.e., opposition to marriages of convenience), yet they shrug and say, "It's legal; it's cheaper this way, so we did it."

That is what I oppose.

If married couples had tax and creditor obligations no different than single individuals, I would have no issue with marriage, whatsoever. I oppose the entitlements. Personally I think financial entitlements should be determined solely on the dependents, regardless of the familial composition. That would solve the whole problem, I think. Then, men could marry dogs and women could marry their fathers, for all I would care.

[clarise]

Originally Posted by Distant Lover

Once I read about two male penguins in a zoo who maintained a homosexual relationship. Unlike those lesbian swans, they could not produce an egg. Therefore they found a round stone that was the size, shape, and color of a penguin egg, and took care of it.

I heard about that one, too.

Yet in constrained environments a great many animals (especially many species of birds) share the nurturing role. The penguin story could simply demonstrate the strength of the nurturing instinct. I suppose one would have to ask the penguins.

[Heyesey]

Originally Posted by clarise

A few of them even oppose gay marriage on the same principles as mine (i.e., opposition to marriages of convenience)

That makes no sense. Gay couple do not want to get married because it's convenient. They want to get married because they love each other.


In any event .. if that's your only objection, why on earth did you invent all this garbage about genetics?

[Intern]

I cried when I read that Anderson Cooper admitted he is gay.

The good thing is, I am willing to share my dressing room with him now.

[clarise]

Originally Posted by Heyesey

That makes no sense. Gay couple do not want to get married because it's convenient. They want to get married because they love each other.


In any event .. if that's your only objection, why on earth did you invent all this garbage about genetics?

Know any gay couples? I do. Some are in love. Some married for love. Others didn't. Takes all kinds.

As to why I am doing this, I seem to recall that you and Shyguy (the Marine sniper) told me that my logic is faulty.

As I explained to DistantLover in a post above, I have no problem with the gay lifestyle and personally do not care one way or another, whether gays are born that way.

But gays do.

That is why this silly thread is on the top of the board.

[Distant Lover]

Originally Posted by clarise

If married couples had tax and creditor obligations no different than single individuals, I would have no issue with marriage, whatsoever. I oppose the entitlements. Personally I think financial entitlements should be determined solely on the dependents, regardless of the familial composition. That would solve the whole problem, I think. Then, men could marry dogs and women could marry their fathers, for all I would care.

My only concern about gay marriage is that I do not want the Democratic Party to get hurt by this. This is the kind of issue that has cost the Democrats votes since the 1960s.

To the best of my knowledge every single time gay marriage has been on a referendum it has lost. Meanwhile the referendum brought social conservatives to the polling places who would not otherwise have voted. Once there, they voted Republican.

[clarise]

Originally Posted by Distant Lover

My only concern about gay marriage is that I do not want the Democratic Party to get hurt by this. This is the kind of issue that has cost the Democrats votes since the 1960s.

To the best of my knowledge every single time gay marriage has been on a referendum it has lost. Meanwhile the referendum brought social conservatives to the polling places who would not otherwise have voted. Once there, they voted Republican.

Agreed, absolutely. And you are right about the state referenda. Thirty-two (32!) of them, and every single one has failed.

Why so many? Because poll data consistently misreports that gay marriage is accepted. These polls are evidently erroneous, but the gay community repeatedly uses them, oversteps, and gets trounced.

And it is definitely hurting the Democratic Party.

As to why the polls are so wrong, here is my theory. Just my opinion, and I could very well be wrong. I think that Americans are obligated to publicly express tolerance of gay marriage and the gay lifestyle generally. This is especially true in urban workplaces. People are afraid to publicly express any other view. There is the perception that dissent from tolerance is prohibited. However, when the curtain closes and they face the ballot, they push back forcefully against what amounts to repression.

[Heyesey]

Originally Posted by clarise

As to why I am doing this, I seem to recall that you and Shyguy (the Marine sniper) told me that my logic is faulty.

As I explained to DistantLover in a post above, I have no problem with the gay lifestyle and personally do not care one way or another, whether gays are born that way.

But gays do.

That is why this silly thread is on the top of the board.

You're a liar. This silly thread is on the board because you were dumb enough to start it. At least if you're now admitting it is silly, I suppose we're getting somewhere; maybe all we need to do know is figure out how to explain to a moron that an opposition to tax breaks for married couples is completely irrelevant to the question of which couples should be allowed to marry.

[Distant Lover]

Originally Posted by clarise

Agreed, absolutely. And you are right about the state referenda. Thirty-two (32!) of them, and every single one has failed.

Why so many? Because poll data consistently misreports that gay marriage is accepted. These polls are evidently erroneous, but the gay community repeatedly uses them, oversteps, and gets trounced.

And it is definitely hurting the Democratic Party.

As to why the polls are so wrong, here is my theory. Just my opinion, and I could very well be wrong. I think that Americans are obligated to publicly express tolerance of gay marriage and the gay lifestyle generally. This is especially true in urban workplaces. People are afraid to publicly express any other view. There is the perception that dissent from tolerance is prohibited. However, when the curtain closes and they face the ballot, they push back forcefully against what amounts to repression.

You make a good point, and I think maybe you are right. At the same time public opinion seems to be shifting pretty quickly on this.

http://www.pewforum.org/Politics-and...-Marriage.aspx

[clarise]

Originally Posted by Distant Lover

You make a good point, and I think maybe you are right. At the same time public opinion seems to be shifting pretty quickly on this.

http://www.pewforum.org/Politics-and...-Marriage.aspx

Maybe. A Wall St. Journal story on Chick Fil-A this morning made exactly the same claim.

Yet I wonder whether opinion is shifting, and if so, by how much, because the claim has been made repeatedly ever since Romney, as governor of Massachusetts, got scared into sitting on the issue until the state supreme court swiped it out from under him and upheld it by one vote (Marshall).

[clarise]

Originally Posted by Heyesey

You're a liar. This silly thread is on the board because you were dumb enough to start it. At least if you're now admitting it is silly, I suppose we're getting somewhere; maybe all we need to do know is figure out how to explain to a moron that an opposition to tax breaks for married couples is completely irrelevant to the question of which couples should be allowed to marry.

Well, I was a retard. I've just been promoted to moron, so that is something.


You pathetic, sorry ass.

YOU started it, with your vitriolic, semi-articulate protest.

My personal position on marriage is my own. You and Kimiko demanded that I explain myself, so I did. But marriage as an institution is not on the table. Only gay marriage is. So that is what I oppose.

If you don't understand it, light up some more weed until you do. Dweeb.

[AZRIEL]

Originally Posted by Rixer

Live and let live.

Have-It-Your-Way.jpg

[Suze3221]

'Pissing in the wind' springs to mind.

[clarise]

Originally Posted by Suze3221

'Pissing in the wind' springs to mind.

Ahh. A Quixotic sentiment. How true. I prefer "spitting into the tide." Somewhat less indecorous.

[clarise]

Originally Posted by AZRIEL

Attachment 1934180

I am trying... real hard... to celebrate diversity. But this makes it difficult. This is just wrong!

[ladygodiva123]

Originally Posted by Distant Lover

My only concern about gay marriage is that I do not want the Democratic Party to get hurt by this. This is the kind of issue that has cost the Democrats votes since the 1960s.

To the best of my knowledge every single time gay marriage has been on a referendum it has lost. Meanwhile the referendum brought social conservatives to the polling places who would not otherwise have voted. Once there, they voted Republican.

I understand your point, however, couldn't the same be said about Democrats supporting the civil rights movement in the 60's? On one hand they drove some of the dixiecrats to the GOP. On the other hand they gained some support from minorities who may not have been voting before.

The thing that saddens me is that now that Obama has come out in support of marriage equality, he's lost some minority support - the very same minorities that benefited from the civil rights movement. I really don't see gay rights as any different. Discrimination is discrimination. If the only reason someone has for denying gay couples the right to marry is that the Bible says it's wrong, then to me that violates the first amendment.

As for people pointing out homosexual behavior in animals, I think they do that just to show that it's common. Homophobes often argue that homosexuals are "unnatural". By noting that homosexual behavior is quite common in the animal kingdom, they're proving that it's anything but unnatural.

[ace's n 8's]

Originally Posted by Heyesey

That makes no sense. Gay couple do not want to get married because it's convenient. They want to get married because they love each other.

If that IS the case,,why wont a 'civil union' work,, why do they need to be ''legally married'' as one woman and man would enjoy a legal marriage, and financially benefit from a legal marriage,,I believe a civil union would be rather suffice for a gay couple.

Originally Posted by Heyesey

In any event .. if that's your only objection, why on earth did you invent all this garbage about genetics?

After all of this out of you,,I would have done it just to get you riled up....

[Distant Lover]

Originally Posted by ladygodiva123

I understand your point, however, couldn't the same be said about Democrats supporting the civil rights movement in the 60's? On one hand they drove some of the dixiecrats to the GOP. On the other hand they gained some support from minorities who may not have been voting before.

The thing that saddens me is that now that Obama has come out in support of marriage equality, he's lost some minority support - the very same minorities that benefited from the civil rights movement. I really don't see gay rights as any different. Discrimination is discrimination. If the only reason someone has for denying gay couples the right to marry is that the Bible says it's wrong, then to me that violates the first amendment.

As for people pointing out homosexual behavior in animals, I think they do that just to show that it's common. Homophobes often argue that homosexuals are "unnatural". By noting that homosexual behavior is quite common in the animal kingdom, they're proving that it's anything but unnatural.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the War on Poverty which began the same year were followed by five years of black ghetto rioting. In my opinion those riots contributed more than any other factor to turning the United States into a Republican country.

Also, the prison population declined from 1960 to 1970, but the crime rate doubled. That contributed to the Republican takeover also.

http://www.jacksonprogressive.com/is...punishment.pdf

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

[smcaaphd]

[NewtonInk]

So basically . . .

my predilection for lesbian porn is NOT my fault???

And my wish to suck myself is dependent on my DNA??

I'm so relieved . . .

as is my pastor.

[deviousdave]

Originally Posted by tim929

I had to quote this one simply because it is an amazingly insightful oppinion presented by an inarticulate drunk. If an inarticulate drunk can show this level of insight I am forced to ask...what the fuck is wrong with the rest of the world?

.

I'm glad someone was paying attention. It would solve all related problems.

[daddysgrl2600]

Hey everybody I'm a young teen looking for a daddy-Dom. I'm into being humiliated, exhibitionism, incest, schoolgirl RP, bdsm, and bondage.

Skype me at daddysgirl2600

I am mostly looking for older guys, 50+

Thanks, daddysgrl2600

[NewtonInk]

That's daddy'sgirl2600!!!!

in case you missed her first post . . .

daddy'sgirl2600!!!!!!!!

[clarise]

Still, BadDogWoof's "List" persists, and the claim is being made that it is being used to show that "homosexual behavior is natural."

Great. By this measure, arsenic is natural. Mercury is natural. Uranium is natural. Polygamy is natural. Fratricide, patricide, and infanticide are natural. Incest is natural.

What the homosexual community really seeks to show is that homosexual behavior is "normal."

Yet this is absurd. The "List" shows nothing of the sort.

Sex between animals happens in the wild, and sometimes couples mismatch. But this does not mean it is normal. Animals commit errors of coitus. These errors deviate and defeat the reproductive function.

Animals in the wild copulate for one reason, and one reason only. We have no way of gauging whether paired animals act purposefully in sexual congress. There is every reason to believe that animals act instinctively and are not even aware that they are "doing it." Can we at least agree on that much, or is someone going to try to argue that wildebeests "fall in love" and "make love?"

Homosexual acts between animals in the wild might be "natural," but those acts are "natural" errors. They are not "normal."

Human couples do not merely copulate instinctively. There is an emotional component. Humans choose to act purposefully for a great many reasons. Whether or not our regard toward a particular human behavior is discriminatory is a whole other question, but the wildebeests have nothing to do with that question. Wildebeests are not homos. The mere notion is ridiculous.

Put "The List" away, and leave the poor wildebeests alone.

[NewtonInk]

So my grampa handed it down with his 12-guage and his watch??

[clarise]

Originally Posted by NewtonInk

So my grampa handed it down with his 12-guage and his watch??

Naw. Your grandma. The gay gene is maternal, just like the genes for freckles and hair color.

[NewtonInk]

Holy Crap!!!

Thanks for the clarification.

[deviousdave]

If I'm brutally honest seeing two people kissing in public makes me cringe, but seeing two men kissing actually makes my skin crawl. People that are overtly camp annoy me to the point of having to move away from the general area and the thought of male homosexual sex revolts me to the point of almost being physically sick. I don't think I could come out and say that in public in fear of losing my job, or losing some of my friends.

BUT, I always treat gay people with the same level of respect as everyone else, I don't prejudge them, and I don't condemn their behaviour. I don't think of them as any less human, or normal, and I don't think their sexuality is wrong. I would also fight for equal rights for them.

The problem with marriage is defining what it means to be married. In the UK gay people can get civil partnerships which entitle them to exactly the same rights as married couples, they can have secular ceremonies and for all sense and purpose are married, even if it is called something different. What Gay people want is the same rights as straight couples with regard to religious marriage, be it a church wedding, or accepted in the eyes of their religion. But I'm sorry, if you want to believe in all that religious nonsense, you don't get to make the rules and decide what that religion has to accept.

As far as I'm concerned there should not be ANY legal entitlements or rights that married people get, gay or straight. There should be no tax benefits or tax breaks. It is unfair on those people that don't want to get married, or can't find a partner. Marriage should not mean anything in a legal sense, It should just be a personal commitment between you and your partner under any umbrella system of belief that you decide to adopt and accepts you in return.

[SecretSexyBlogger]

Originally Posted by clarise

By the way, this last paragraph is classic. One could advance this argument for any behavior if one wished.

Certainly the frequency with which belief in God is seen should tell you that there is something intrinsic in our genes that causes us to behave this way?

How does that sound? Reasonable?

Don't be a moron. Talking about a phenomenon within a species is not the same as a comparison between different species.

When you observe a common trait between closely genetically related species (let me know if this gets too science-y for you - I know it's not your forte) that suggests that the behaviour is homologous.

That was the argument I was making regarding the VERY long list of homosexual-tending animals and human beings and there being a genetic component.

If you're going to rebut my points, do it accurately.

[clarise]

Originally Posted by deviousdave

If I'm brutally honest...

This post really has two parts. In the second part, your reasons for opposing marriage pretty much mirror mine. In the U.S., a complex entitlement system has evolved around the institution. Marriage is politicized here, and it is unfair. Hence the debate over gay marriage. Gays want their "fair share" of a pie that no one should have.

The first part of your post speaks to the issue of normalcy:

Originally Posted by deviousdave

If I'm brutally honest... seeing two people kissing in public makes me cringe, but seeing two men kissing actually makes my skin crawl. People that are overtly camp annoy me to the point of having to move away from the general area and the thought of male homosexual sex revolts me to the point of almost being physically sick. I don't think I could come out and say that in public in fear of losing my job, or losing some of my friends.

BUT, I always treat gay people with the same level of respect as everyone else, I don't prejudge them, and I don't condemn their behaviour. I don't think of them as any less human, or normal, and I don't think their sexuality is wrong. I would also fight for equal rights for them.

Your revulsion of homosexual acts is not uncommon. People understand viscerally that it is wrong, insofar as it deviates from the norm. People are afraid to express this revulsion (which touches on the issue of repression that I mentioned above), and we are constantly being drilled with the counterintuitive message that this revulsion is "hate," "prejudice," or "homophobia."

Yet we are rightly repulsed by the idea of an adult man breeding with a woman who has severe mental retardation.

And we would be repulsed by a woman attempting to breed with a gorilla. (This could not "work," of course; too much divergence between species.)

Why is it homophobia to acknowledge this natural tendency toward revulsion?

More to the point, what is wrong with acknowledging the possibility that homosexuals are not born that way, and that there might be a cure?

Virtually every other form of deviance from cognitive normalcy is recognized as a syndrome, and most forms of deviance have both a Latin name and a treatment. Fear of heights. Fear of spiders. Attraction to children. Attention deficit disorder.

What is different about homosexuality? The lobby that advocates for it, and is allowed to do so, because it is "victimless." That, and nothing else.


Sexual attraction and sexual drive in humans are, to a large extent, cognitive faculties. The instinctive component is hormonal. We share that much with wildebeests. However, our big, bad PFC (the "new brain," or pre-frontal cortex) wires up to the "old brain" (the cerebellum, thalamus and brainstem) and adds all those rich, textured layers that enable us to drool over a porn video, while "lesser animals" like dogs and cats sit in the room with us and take a snooze, oblivious to all the inane crap on the boob tube.

The PFC's full functionality is not "congenital." That is, we are not "born with it." What we are born with is a work in progress.

There is a reason why kindergarteners cannot do multivariable calculus. Kindergarteners start with counting up, and counting down. Why? Because their PFCs are still growing.

Most twelve year olds still cannot do multivariable calculus. They need a few years of algebra, to whet the appetite. Why? Their PFCs are growing, too.

Even at sweet sixteen, your PFC was still growing, and this means that the "you that you regard as you" was still developing.

You are different person now than you were at twelve. In every sense of the word. Not only body size, but also your awareness of the world and your capacity to think.

At twelve you wanted a shiny new bike, and you wanted to grow up to be a nurse or a firefighter.

Now at twenty-two you want a piece of (insert gender) ass.

In discussions regarding almost any human endeavor and drive, the medical, psychological, and neurological scientific communities are working to better understand the development and function of the brain and its effect on who we are and how we perceive ourselves.

All but homosexual behavior.

Thanks to Harvey Milk and a seemingly endless litany of advocates, it is dogma that gays and lesbians are born that way. Homosexual desire, for some reason, is not the same as desire for a shiny toy firetruck, or a new bicycle, or a white picket fence, or a hot piece of ass, or the actor in a porn video, or man's daughter, or a mother's son. No. Homosexuals are born that way. And to whisper otherwise is discriminatory and prejudicial.

Even though there is no proof, whatsoever, that they are born that way, and even though there is a strong rational case for the idea that homosexual desires develop in the central nervous system with every other desire.

[SecretSexyBlogger]

Originally Posted by clarise

Still, BadDogWoof's "List" persists, and the claim is being made that it is being used to show that "homosexual behavior is natural."

Great. By this measure, arsenic is natural. Mercury is natural. Uranium is natural. Polygamy is natural. Fratricide, patricide, and infanticide are natural. Incest is natural.

What the homosexual community really seeks to show is that homosexual behavior is "normal."

Yet this is absurd. The "List" shows nothing of the sort.

Sex between animals happens in the wild, and sometimes couples mismatch. But this does not mean it is normal. Animals commit errors of coitus. These errors deviate and defeat the reproductive function.

Animals in the wild copulate for one reason, and one reason only. We have no way of gauging whether paired animals act purposefully in sexual congress. There is every reason to believe that animals act instinctively and are not even aware that they are "doing it." Can we at least agree on that much, or is someone going to try to argue that wildebeests "fall in love" and "make love?"

Homosexual acts between animals in the wild might be "natural," but those acts are "natural" errors. They are not "normal."

Human couples do not merely copulate instinctively. There is an emotional component. Humans choose to act purposefully for a great many reasons. Whether or not our regard toward a particular human behavior is discriminatory is a whole other question, but the wildebeests have nothing to do with that question. Wildebeests are not homos. The mere notion is ridiculous.

Put "The List" away, and leave the poor wildebeests alone.

Can you provide proof that homosexuality is an "error"? (FYI: Bible quotes are not proof)

Can you please define what an error of coitus is?

Emotions ARE biological. Instinct is part of attraction. We DO copulate instinctively. Instinct is defined as follows: an innate, typically fixed pattern of behavior in animals in response to certain stimuli. So dude... the INSTINCT to MATE is kind of important.

Animals ARE discriminating when it comes to their mates too. Peahens choose their partners based on their plumage, songbirds on their songs, lionesses mate with the powerful lions... that is the definition of being discriminating.

Your anti-gay agenda is so transparent and so hateful. You are totally misinformed, using nothing other than religious platitudes to validate a non-scientific, utterly biased hateful opinion. Uncool man.

[SecretSexyBlogger]

Originally Posted by clarise

Even though there is no proof, whatsoever, that they are born that way, and even though there is a strong rational case for the idea that homosexual desires develop in the central nervous system with every other desire.

Desires develop in the brain? Holy fucking shit. You must be a genius. That's the only accurate thing I think you said.

[clarise]

Originally Posted by SecretSexyBlogger

Don't be a moron. Talking about a phenomenon within a species is not the same as a comparison between different species.

When you observe a common trait between closely genetically related species (let me know if this gets too science-y for you - I know it's not your forte) that suggests that the behaviour is homologous.

That was the argument I was making regarding the VERY long list of homosexual-tending animals and human beings and there being a genetic component.

If you're going to rebut my points, do it accurately.

I see I am still a moron this morning. Well, it beats being a retard.

Oooh! A mathematician! Homology groups! Sweet! So, you are suggesting that humans and wildebeests are members of a behavioral congruence class? Are they homologous? Or just analogous?

Listen. I ripped the famous "list of homosexual beasts" to pieces about thirty posts ago. "The list" represents natural behavior, but not normal behavior. Go back, get up to speed, and then please do rejoin the debate and participate constructively.

Sheesh.

[SecretSexyBlogger]

Originally Posted by clarise

I see I am still a moron this morning. Well, it beats being a retard.

Oooh! A mathematician! Homology groups! Sweet! So, you are suggesting that humans and wildebeests are members of a behavioral congruence class? Are they homologous? Or just analogous?

Listen. I ripped the famous "list of homosexual beasts" to pieces about thirty posts ago. "The list" represents natural behavior, but not normal behavior. Go back, get up to speed, and then please do rejoin the debate and participate constructively.

Sheesh.

I said stuff all about maths.

No, not homology groups, and not "behavioural congruence class".

A CLADE (group of animals sharing a common evolutionary history) sharing a HOMOLOGOUS trait. If they were ANALOGOUS it wouldn't necessitate that they belong to the same clade.

YOU think you did, I think you're an idiot for thinking you did. It just demonstrates quite aptly that you have no understanding of biology.

[clarise]

Originally Posted by SecretSexyBlogger

Can you provide proof that homosexuality is an "error"? (FYI: Bible quotes are not proof)

Can you please define what an error of coitus is?

Emotions ARE biological. Instinct is part of attraction. We DO copulate instinctively. Instinct is defined as follows: an innate, typically fixed pattern of behavior in animals in response to certain stimuli. So dude... the INSTINCT to MATE is kind of important.

Animals ARE discriminating when it comes to their mates too. Peahens choose their partners based on their plumage, songbirds on their songs, lionesses mate with the powerful lions... that is the definition of being discriminating.

Your anti-gay agenda is so transparent and so hateful. You are totally misinformed, using nothing other than religious platitudes to validate a non-scientific, utterly biased hateful opinion. Uncool man.

Nice rant.

I am an atheist. And a humanist, incidently. And an objectivist. Not that it matters. Mere information. In the interest of transparency.

Definition of coitus, and errors thereof, dumbed down considerably:

Animals copulate for the purpose of reproduction. There are many points of failure, which result in errors. The first point of failure would be the error in which the male inserts its pene either into an incompatible partner, or the wrong hole of a compatible partner. This error occurs in the wild and could therefore be deemed "natural," but in any case it would have to be qualified as a "natural error."


You seem to be incredibly angry. Why? Because I have suggested that there might be a cure for your syndrome?

Above you concede that desires (drives) in humans are produced through cognition.

Yet you are furious that I would have the gall to suggest that you might not have been born with those desires. That you might have outgrown your affectation for American Girl Dolls, in the process of acquiring an obsessive-compulsive urge to scissor your partner on the receiving end of a twenty-four inch double-ender.

So, why the spitting hate? Why are you so infuriated by the notion that the miracles of modern science might have a dusty elixir bottle just for you?

[SecretSexyBlogger]

Originally Posted by clarise

Nice rant.

I am an atheist. And a humanist, incidently. And an objectivist. Not that it matters. Mere information. In the interest of transparency.

Definition of coitus, and errors thereof, dumbed down considerably:

Animals copulate for the purpose of reproduction. There are many points of failure, which result in errors. The first point of failure would be the error in which the male inserts its pene either into an incompatible partner, or the wrong hole of a compatible partner. This error occurs in the wild and could therefore be deemed "natural," but in any case it would have to be qualified as a "natural error."


You seem to be incredibly angry. Why? Because I have suggested that there might be a cure for your syndrome?

Above you concede that desires (drives) in humans are produced through cognition.

Yet you are furious that I would have the gall to suggest that you might not have been born with those desires. That you might have outgrown your affectation for American Girl Dolls, in the process of acquiring an obsessive-compulsive urge to scissor your partner on the receiving end of a twenty-four inch double-ender.

So, why the spitting hate? Why are you so infuriated by the notion that the miracles of modern science might have a dusty elixir bottle just for you?

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...

[Distant Lover]

Originally Posted by SecretSexyBlogger

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

What is there to cure about homosexuality? The are enough people on this planet. We do not need cured homosexuals giving birth to more.

[deviousdave]

Originally Posted by Distant Lover

We do not need cured homosexuals giving birth to more.

That's not how it works DL. Homosexuals don't come from gay parents. If that was the case homosexual behaviour would have disappeared by a process of natural selection long ago.

[Kimiko]

Originally Posted by clarise

I made it more precise for someone else who has clap on the brain: meiotically transmitted. There. Better?

Now stop diverting with your pithy bullshit and either put up or shut up.

I've also caught your remark that my cause for opposing gay marriage is idiotic. I can't help myself; I am honestly curious... arghhh, I'm going to ask it.... sheesh.... HOW SO, Miss K?

Because, as Heyesey pointed out, there's no difference between the cost to society of a gay marriage and the cost of any other marriage. Now, if you want to oppose ALL marriage, or if you just want to oppose the tax breaks afforded to married couples, maybe we can have a rational discussion about that. It is not, however, a reasonable argument against gay marriage, and to suggest it is is simply discriminatory.

[Distant Lover]

Originally Posted by deviousdave

That's not how it works DL. Homosexuals don't come from gay parents. If that was the case homosexual behaviour would have disappeared by a process of natural selection long ago.

I did not mean that we do not need homosexuals to give birth to more homosexuals. That would indicate a hostility to homosexuals I do not feel. I meant that we do not need to encourage people to have more children, period.

I do think homosexuality is largely genetic, so that if a lesbian and a male homosexual have children they are likely to be gay even if they are raised by heterosexual adoption parents. I do not know of a study to substantiate this, however.

[deviousdave]

Originally Posted by Distant Lover

I did not mean that we do not need homosexuals to give birth to more homosexuals. .

My apologies, I misread your previous post.

[deviousdave]

Originally Posted by Distant Lover

I do think homosexuality is largely genetic, so that if a lesbian and a male homosexual have children they are likely to be gay even if they are raised by heterosexual adoption parents. I do not know of a study to substantiate this, however.

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.

[clarise]

Originally Posted by Kimiko

Because, as Heyesey pointed out, there's no difference between the cost to society of a gay marriage and the cost of any other marriage. Now, if you want to oppose ALL marriage, or if you just want to oppose the tax breaks afforded to married couples, maybe we can have a rational discussion about that. It is not, however, a reasonable argument against gay marriage, and to suggest it is is simply discriminatory.

Now we are getting somewhere.

There is a purpose for the entitlement systems that have developed around the institution of marriage: to help foster the creation of hospitable environments for the nurturing of children.

Yes, not all hetero couples have children.
Yes, some hetero couples divorce.
Yes, some hetero couples abuse their children.
Yes, some homo couples adopt or use egg/sperm donors.
Yes, homo couples love their children.

All of which is beside the point of why marriages cost society money, and distract from the essential point that we have tolerated the cost of marriage not as a way of giving monogamous couples a bonus check for good behavior, but because their behavior has potential consequences that are beneficial to society, viz., the procreation of new cannonfodder.

The costs are the same for all marriages, but this was not an issue until judges began to redefine the term.

I oppose this entitlement system, and it is not discriminatory to resist the needless expansion of it.

Homosexual unions are the first new benefit class of the institution of marriage. Admitting this benefit class necessarily obligates us to at least entertain the notion of admitting any other:

Fathers who marry their daughters for the entitlement benefits.

Mothers who marry their sons for the entitlement benefits.

Same sex heterosexual couples who marry platonically for the entitlement benefits, or even worse, merely to claim immunity from prosecution for accessory in violent crimes, which is rumored to already be happening in states that allow gay marriage.

Polygamous unions, in which many working adults marry for the entitlement benefits.

Would it be discriminatory to expand the definition of "marriage" to suit the scenarios listed above? If not, why not? And if so, why is gay marriage any different?

[cirdellin]

Why do I have to hear so much about it?

If one's orientation becomes one's central defining characteristic perhaps ones is limiting their life a bit too much