Homosexuality

[1veedo]

Reticule? i don't mean to be obtuse but what do you mean?

Bad spelling, on wordperfects part. I guess it was red and I just chose the first word.

 

I meant ridicule.

 

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=ridicule&x=0&y=0

[Ophiolite]

You said it yourself; politicians follow popular opinion most of the time.

If the gay issue were to be proved without the shadow of a doubt that would pretty much make it a part of popular opinion (not to mention a proven fact which weights a lot more) as opposing views will have absolutely nothing to stand on. No matter what personal interest you have you simply can't argue that the earth is flat. See where I am going with this?

Changes in the law will be imminent.

Yes' date=' I see where you are going - down a blind alley. Politicians are not swayed by fact, neither is public opinion. Public opinion would happily argue the Earth was flat if it felt like it. Check out the percentage of people in the US who believe aliens are abducting people. Check out the percentage who do not believe in evolution. Check out the percentage who think the bible is literally true.

 

Tell me what the public opinion is on a topic and I shall feel fairly secure that the reverse position will be closer to the truth.

 

You use the phrase [i']proved beyond a shadow of a doubt.[/i] The shadows are cast by ignorance and adherence to dogma. What will convince a scientist will not overwrite predjudice in the average member of the public.

 

Public opinion is a swear word in my vocabulary. (OK it's two words)

[WaR]

Sorry buddy but I am not going to go off topic simply to calm your hunger of debate. If you feel obligated to post anything just for the sake of arguing something and try to look 'cool' then be my guest. I rather read and learn then read and think that I know it all. I will save my energies for something a little more interesting then your thoughts on political behavior.

Anyway, it bothers me when people just post for the hell of it. Or maybe to increase post counts, who knows...

 

Edit: And you can quote and debate whatever you want with this post. My gift to you.

[Ophiolite]

Anyway' date=' it bothers me when people just post for the hell of it. Or maybe to increase post counts, who knows...

[/quote']Sorry you feel that way. You made some interesting comments. I responded with my view on them, you with counter arguments. I thought that's what the forum was about.

I dare say you have ample opportunity to interact face to face with others on a daily basis. Since I am currently confined to bed convalescing, this form of interaction is all I have, so yes, I probably have quite a high posting rate.

[muad'dib]

I didn't read the entire thread, but from what I did read I got the impression that the question is whether homosexuality is nature or nurture. In part of what I did read someone mentioned that roughly ten percent of the human population is homosexual, depending on the source. What nobody seemed to have mentioned though is that not only does ten percent of the human population have homosexual tendencies but ten percent of all animal populations also exhibit homosexual tendencies; the most prominent is probably bonobos. I would think that this would show that nuture plays a very small role in determining homosexual orientation (there are most likely cases in the human population that arose due to nuture but probably not many).

 

There doesn't necessarily have to be a "gay gene" in order for the origin of homosexuality to be developmental. It's been found that the size of areas in the brain that control sexaul arousal vary between the sexes and that in gay men these areas are the same size as in females (see, "Sex and the Brain" by David Nimmons, Discover Vol 15 No. 3 March 1994). It doesn't necessarily mean that the cause is genetic, but it is possible.

[Sayonara]

What nobody seemed to have mentioned though is that not only does ten percent of the human population have homosexual tendencies but ten percent of all animal populations also exhibit homosexual tendencies; the most prominent is probably bonobos.

Not only was it mentioned, it's been key to some arguments.

 

I don't blame you for not wanting to read through 150+ posts, but it helps

[muad'dib]

ok; how about the second part that I mentioned?

[sepultallica]

I appreciate the humor of what you're saying' date=' Sepultallica. I see it only a little bit differently than you do: the unappealing appearance of the folks you saw in that audience isn't indicative of gay people in general, it's indicative of Ellen Degeneres' fan base.

 

Doesn't matter if they're lesbian, gay males, or sympathetic straights: they don't look like the fashion and photo models we're accustomed to thinking of as "beautiful gay men" or "wholesome-looking dykes in sensible shoes".

 

But then, those stereotypical images of gay people refute your theory that gay people are gay because they've been traumatized. What about the (commonly accepted standards of) beautiful-looking people who comprise such a visible part of gay culture in the U.S.? What about the (seemingly) happy, well-adjusted folks who comprise such a well-known part of gay culture in the U.S.? They probably don't fit into the same crowd that you noticed at Ellen's show.

 

Or maybe they do...

 

I remember during the gay rights protests of the late 1960s, one of the slogans we chanted was, "We are everywhere!" It's really true: hell, some of us are even in the least likely situation you can imagine: committed, mixed-sex marriages. This idea of "being everywhere" couldn't be more clearly exemplified than by the existance of the Log Cabin Republicans and (horrors!) the Abe Lincoln Log Cabin Republicans. (http://www.lcr.org and whatever the other URL is).

 

Anyway, I laughed appreciatively at your observation about the studio full of ugly fans at Ellen's show, but felt like weighing in on why it's not a comprehensive view of gay people, and therefore can't account for their gayness.

 

Thanks!

Beau[/quote']

 

thanks for your reply. i hadnt looked at this post in a while but as im looking through it i came across your post and realized that my original post was a bit wrong. i apologize if i offended anyone or added to the stereotypical.......

[sepultallica]

Being an employer myself I must say you shouldnt worry. After seeing your spelling/views and general ness of you, they wouldnt be surprised at anything you did on yr computer.

 

i have bad spelling?

 

nothing worst than having a bunch of lewd pop ups at the inopportune time.

 

and feel free to embelish on the generalness of me.

[boxhead]

Homosexuality Is Genetic You Believe It Or Not And ... Havnt You Heard Bout Infantile Sexuality ??? Go Thru The Work Of Freud And You Will Find His Letters Who Discusses How Sexuality Duriing Adulthood Is Related With The Childhood Sexual Experience. And Homosexuality Is Not Also The Thing As You Think Is Due To Some Troma Or Shock, But It Can Be A "in Thing" In The Culture.

 

As Far As Science Is Concerned It Is Genetic And Some How It Is Related With The Nature .... Coz Even Dogs Have Homosexual Tendencies And I Dont Think That There Is Anything Like "shock Value" Is Somehow Related With The Dogs... And Way Wait And Watch Till Further Results ....

[JaKiri]

Never use Freud to be the basis of any argument; he was crazy.

[ydoaPs]

if homosexuality was genetic, then why are there still homosexuals? wouldn't they have died off?(not being able to reproduce)

[atinymonkey]

Yes, the last one died off in 1976 after catching a bout of smallpox in West Sussex. His name was Gregory, and never had enough money to buy a surname.

[fuhrerkeebs]

if homosexuality was genetic, then why are there still homosexuals? wouldn't they have died off?(not being able to reproduce)

 

Because it can be carried and passed down without making the carrier homosexual.

[Mokele]

There's also another option:

 

We still have lethal genetic diseases. Why haven't they died off? Mutation. While selection removes the genes from the population, mutation creates them again.

 

However, most mutation-selection balances result in very low gene frequencies, much lower than the rate of homosexuality in the world, so I don't think it's a good explanation in this case. But it does go to show that genes which reduce fitness can stick around.

 

Mokele

[1veedo]

That is just one of a number of factors leading toward one developing homosexuality. The geneticist (also responsible for the “god gean”) found certain DNA strands that were more likely to be found in somebody that was gay then somebody that wasn’t. All this says is that certain geans may make people more prone to be homosexual (same case with spirituality).

[Sayonara]

if homosexuality was genetic, then why are there still homosexuals? wouldn't they have died off?(not being able to reproduce)

For the last ****ing time, homosexuals can and do reproduce.