quote:

---

(QD) Researchers say they've pinned down a physical difference between male flies that are engineered to be gay and those that are not. Yes kids, they're genetically altering fruitflies to make them gay for science. Anyway, Japanese researchers found a difference in the brain and while fly mating behavior is very different from that of humans, as are our brains, they say the work helps to work out the complex genetic and environmental factors that influence mate choice. "This finding will provide insight for understanding how a sexual behavior is constructed in the circuitry of the brain through a function of single gene," said Ken-Ichi Kimura of Hokkaido University. Maybe so. In any case, even though these results cannot be extrapolated to people, it is one more tiny fruitfly brain sized piece of evidence that sexual orientation is genetic.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by byzantine:
First off, what exactly are the criteria for inferring that a fruit fly is gay?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by byzantine:

Now I recognize that it has been important in the struggle for equal rights to put forward this notion of predetermined sexuality, but it's just sad in my opinion that it has to be that way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by byzantine:
Second, how far are we willing to this idea that every little bit of our behaviour is genetically predetermined?

---

Science.

First, who says economics is a science?

Science is a human endeavour, so it does have socially constructed norms. However, some of those norms are dedicated to exposing error.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jrootham:

First, who says economics is a science?

---

[ 15 November 2005: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

[ 15 November 2005: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raos:
Whether economics is considered a science or not, it doesn't change the fact that if sexual preference is genetically determined, it isn't genetically determined because politics dictates it must be for equality, it's genetically determined because it is. Scientists didn't choose it to be that way, they just found it that way when they investigated it.

---

Yes dude, but why do they have to investigate in the first place?

[ 15 November 2005: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

quote:

---

Let's say we isolate the biological component of non het sexual orientation, what in the name of Jehovah would we do with that information? I have a feeling that the religious extremists in the United States would immediately advocate the destruction of the Gene/chemical/brain tissue that makes gays gay.

---

They're already advocating trying to eradicate everything that's in any way "gay", so how would this change anything?

quote:

---

Yes dude, but why do they have to investigate in the first place?

---

Far easier to oppress people who have 'brought this on themselves,' eh?

Far easier to justify re-education camps to brainwash younger people who have, surely mistakenly, 'chosen' to travel this unwise and deviant path.

Far easier to justify beating a little sense into the 'misguided' fairies.

[ 15 November 2005: Message edited by: Tape_342 ]

quote:

---

Yes dude, but why do they have to investigate in the first place?

---

Because they investigate EVERYTHING*. Gay is what makes the papers.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vigilante:
Magoo, all that really happened their was a change in our conception of reality that corresponded better to what society was constructing then. Similar myths that you mentioned can be found in such things as economics for example.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albireo:
True, but discrimination was probably more widespread back when homosexuality was widely viewed as a "defect" or a "mental disorder", neither of which are likely a "choice".

---

That may be a chicken-and-egg question: was it seen as a disorder because of prejudice, or were people prejudiced against it because of its being seen as a defect?

SG: "quote riginally posted by jrootham:

"First, who says economics is a science?

I do. Science is characterised by methodology, not subject matter."

quote:

---

Why do we have to break open the rattle of queer sexuality to see how it works? Can't we just enjoy the sound it makes?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tape_342:
And there's the obvious: It's far easier for anti-gay theology and ideology to gain leigitimacy when homosexuality can be presented as a 'choice,' or merely a 'sexual preference.'

Far easier to oppress people who have 'brought this on themselves,' eh?

Far easier to justify re-education camps to brainwash younger people who have, surely mistakenly, 'chosen' to travel this unwise and deviant path.

Far easier to justify beating a little sense into the 'misguided' fairies.

[ 15 November 2005: Message edited by: Tape_342 ]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by byzantine:
First off, what exactly are the criteria for inferring that a fruit fly is gay?

---

They show no interest in mating with female fruit flies and (I'm not making this up) will form long chains where they will lick each other's genitals. Genital licking, btw, is very unusual behavior for fruit flies.

My source for this was my psych textbook: Biological Foundations of Human Behavior by Josephine F. Wilson.

[ 16 November 2005: Message edited by: ShyViolet ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ShyViolet:
They show no interest in mating with female fruit flies and (I'm not making this up) will form long chains where they will lick each other's genitals.

---

quote:

---

* Maybe not everything, in the natural sciences you start with a theory and then try to prove it wrong. Theories of human behaviour are interesting, so they get investigated.

---

quote:

---

I do. Science is characterised by methodology, not subject matter.

---

Any ONE reductive model of science, all nice and tidy, is bound to leave out lots of things that most of us commonly accept as science. And anything that captures all of it is bound to be either vacuous or too messy to be useful. The challenge is in saying WHAT methodology makes something science. And in so doing, you'll find there are generally things you don't capture. The neatly bounded, stacked model of how science works that prevailed 50 years ago ("science is terrific and physics is best") hasn't stood up to much critical scrutiny. The best but not the only example of that kind of scrutiny, I think, is the nearly impeccable, brilliant work of Peter Galison on 20th century microphysics.

But at the risk of being overly broad, I'll agree with what Stephen is saying, I think, and that is that science in the long run is a self-correcting enterprise. But on that measure, economics, or some branches of it, is surely the most suspect of all the pretenders to the name? If it isn't using appeals to vacuous, circular notions of utility and rationality to rationalize elegant results, it's the efficient market theorists persistently ignoring the vast amounts of empirical data against their case. Some of economics and some economists seem to grapple with the real, observable world. And some of the economics that doesn't take observation seriously still has application within very restricted contexts (i.e. excluding all the times where the theory doesn't work). But vast tracts of it appear to the critical observer to be no more than arid formalism that holds people in thrall by its elegance and tidyness.

[edited to add:]

Some of what is sometimes called economics is more akin to math. For example, pure decision theory or game theory. These are interesting formal systems in their own right. They are part of the intellectual apparatus of economics. But are they economics per se, any more than statistics is? They are certainly not empirical at any rate. Yet from positive notions, notions that are posited to construct a model, economists persist in making empirical claims about the world. The circularity is irritating.

Tversky and Kahneman won a Nobel for economics, but they were experimental psychologists. Amartya Sen is an economist, but what is great about him is precisely his philosophical humanism and his grip on the details and texture of reality, and how he brings this to the theory rather than the other way around.

[ 16 November 2005: Message edited by: rasmus raven ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:
Science has proven that race does not exist. That hasn't stopped people from being racist.

---

Certainly not. But do you think that science is going to find that homosexuality doesn't exist?

I'm not saying that a scientific proof of a genetic cause of homosexuality will cure the bigotry of the small-minded. However, a great many of the further legal steps toward fuller equality have been predicated-- rightly or wrongly-- upon the answer to the question of whether or not homosexuality is an 'immutable characteristic.' To abandon the search for an answer to that quesiton would be to give up the effort toward real civil rights for gay people.

[ 16 November 2005: Message edited by: Tape_342 ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
We aren't going to play "first year philosophy dork" with this, are we?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasmus raven:
Yet from positive notions, notions that are posited to construct a model, economists persist in making empirical claims about the world. The circularity is irritating.

---

How so? We routinely test and compare the ability of competing models to explain the data.

Maybe it is time for another thread on economic methodology. If only to dispel some (apparently) widespread misconceptions.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vigilante:
If there is something somewhat fluid about sexuality(as many 3rd wave feminists like Butler have argued) then it really should not matter.

---

Ah, but it does, doesn't it? It certainly matters in a court room.

quote:

---

The fact is discourse on homo and heterosexuality has been civilized discourse. And when it comes to building civilization, there has naturally been a fetish by the builders for one over the other.

---

I'm not at all sure that I know what you mean by that.

[ 16 November 2005: Message edited by: Tape_342 ]

And the point about civilization in this regard is that simply there is a interest in having alot of kids in sustaining it. Is it suprising that homophobic propaganda would have sprung from this reality.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tape_342:
I'm not saying that a scientific proof of a genetic cause of homosexuality will cure the bigotry of the small-minded. However, a great many of the further legal steps toward fuller equality have been predicated-- rightly or wrongly-- upon the answer to the question of whether or not homosexuality is an 'immutable characteristic.' To abandon the search for an answer to that quesiton would be to give up the effort toward real civil rights for gay people.

---

I think your perspective is (naturally) an American one, and I feel it's skewed.

To those who wish to deny rights, the issue of genetics is utterly unimportant. The Catholic Church is living proof of this. They admit that sexual orientation is innate, at least in some people. And they DON'T CARE. God calls these people to celibacy.

To anti-gay bigots, it's ALL about behaviour. They don't care what you're fantasizing about, as long as you're in the right hole.

There's an example I hate to use, but I can't think of a better one. No one seriously claims that pedophiles choose to be pedophiles. And no one claims the fact that they had no choice in the matter and can't change their desires gives them ANY right to engage in sex with minors.

quote:

---

I think your perspective is (naturally) an American one, and I feel it's skewed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:
How does the gay yankee perspective differ from the gay canuck perspective?

---

quote:

---

That's how the bigots view homosexuality. Prove to them conclusively that it's 100% genetic and they won't care at all.

---

quote:

---

To some degree all of our behaviour is caused by the interaction between genetics and environment. But I think the idea here is that sexual orientation is deeper than mere "behaviour". Perhaps it is more analogous to being left-handed: it differs from the majority, it isn't any better or worse, it isn't just "behaviour" (although it manifests itself in behaviour), but handedness is certainly genetic in origin.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:

How does the gay yankee perspective differ from the gay canuck perspective?

---

I feel it's different because the legal situation and the opposition are so drastically different.

There's a strong history of legislation and jurisprudence in Canada stating that "choice" is not relevant. Our courts have not been stupid enough to pretend that sexual orientation is a choice but religion is not.

For example, the Ontario Human Right Commission's definiton of sexual orientation:

Sexual orientation is more than simply a "status" that an individual possesses; it is an immutable personal characteristic that forms part of an individual's core identity. Sexual orientation encompasses the range of human sexuality from gay and lesbian to bisexual and heterosexual orientations.

More importantly, at the Supreme Court level we have these decisions:

The historic disadvantage suffered by homosexual persons has been widely recognized and documented. Public harassment and verbal abuse of homosexual individuals is not uncommon. Homosexual women and men have been the victims of crimes of violence directed at them specifically because of their sexual orientation. They have been discriminated against in their employment and their access to services. They have been excluded from some aspects of public life solely because of their sexual orientation. The stigmatization of homosexual persons and the hatred which some members of the public have expressed towards them has forced many homosexuals to conceal their orientation. This imposes its own associated costs in the work place, the community and in private life.

-------------

The exclusion of same-sex partners from the benefits of section 29 of the FLA promotes the view that M., and individuals in same-sex relationships generally, are less worthy of recognition and protection. It implies that they are judged to be incapable of forming intimate relationships of economic interdependence as compared to opposite-sex couples, without regard to their actual circumstances.

quote:

---

Originally posted here by Andy (Andrew):

Genetic link

The following commentary is from ex gay watch:

quote:

------

A new UCLA study of chromosomes in 97 mothers of gay sons and 103 mothers without gay sons shows a difference in the occurrence rate of the way certain cells behave.

The cells in women each have two X-chromosomes, one of which is activated, and one of which is not. Usually, these activations are random so that on average half of her cells have one active chromosome and half have the other. In rare instances, all of the cells will have activated the same chromosome.

-------

quote:

------

Anti-gay activists have attacked the results of other studies that have indicated a genetic or biological basis to orientation. One of their methods has been to suggest that the causal relation between orientation and (for example) brain chemistry is the opposite of what has been presented, that homosexual activity caused a biological change rather than the other way around.

However, here that that argument is more difficult to make. The anti-gay activist is in the unenviable position of having to claim that sexual activity on the part of children changed the chromosome activation in their mothers.

---- end quote -----

If they ever do find a genetic reason for being gay that can be detected before birth we will see how quick those people are pro-choice.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boarsbreath:

Jesus! I thought I was sour...but you know, you're right. Like the female deficit in India.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
How so? We routinely test and compare the ability of competing models to explain the data.

Maybe it is time for another thread on economic methodology. If only to dispel some (apparently) widespread misconceptions.

[And even though I contributed to it myself, I marvel at how a thread on the sex life of fruitflies could generate drift on economic methodology.]

---

I'll just butt in and say that my experience with computational simulation of real-world events is hit-or-miss at the best of times.

Quantum mechanics may be a lot less fuzzy than economics (we're dealing with inanimate objects without self-determination), but even so I've seen computer simulations of the energy levels of nuclei that would make any self-respecting error analysis blush furiously.

(As long as the overall structure holds up, we really don't care that the energy of some high-energy state in the computer is 6 MeV while in real life it's 8 MeV. Ad-hoc hand-waving use of the models is quite common, and it's just a side effect of the fact that nuclear science as a whole is not based on a firm first-principles starting model, unlike quantum chemistry, which starts from a quantum version of a standard first-principles problem analytically solvable using Maxwell's equations in the classical world)

The relevance of this to your statement?

In the realm of your computer simulations, they may well be internally self-consistent, but the agreement with reality may at best be somewhat tenuous, and a great deal of fudging can occur in between the cool graph the computer spits out and the human being interpreting it in a journal article for all to see.

Economics has the same problem of the need to apply phenomenological approaches that are ad-hoc refinements to the extremely restrictive homo economicus model, which is "first principles" only in the sense that someone had to pick somewhere as a starting point.

Re: Gay Genes.

My big beef with the whole gay genes issue is that I don't think we gay people can win on this.

What's going to happen when genetic engineering becomes simple and easy? At that point, we're screwed, because then the anti-gay people will finally win, by doing a complete one-eighty and accepting that it's nature after all, and then immediately campaigning like hell, scaring parents into selecting for straight kids only.

[ 22 February 2006: Message edited by: DrConway ]

In short, we've had time, as a society, to get used to the idea that the throw of the genetic dice is what creates a male or female.

With the increasing ease and effectiveness of genetic engineering, it is clear to me on my more pessimistic days that we will try to short-circuit the process of acceptance, tolerance and understanding by giving in to fearmongering and other such stupidities (as well as the all-too-understandable human need to be the same as everyone else), and going for the make-the-kid-come-out-straight route, which will in the end vanquish an entirely different sexual and social aspect of humanity most of us are still trying to get a handle on, gays included.

quote:

---

Originally posted by DrConway:
What's going to happen when genetic engineering becomes simple and easy? At that point, we're screwed, because then the anti-gay people will finally win, by doing a complete one-eighty and accepting that it's nature after all, and then immediately campaigning like hell, scaring parents into selecting for straight kids only.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albireo:
It registers as really fruity on the fruit fly fruit-o-meter.

---

Interestingly enough, the genetic change that does this in the flies was called "fruity".

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raos:
So we should end all scientific enquiry that could provide opportunities for detrimental actions against portions of humanity? Meaning we should end any and all scientific progress until humanity is morally perfect. Right. Gotcha. That makes sense, now.

---

As a scientist myself, you should know better than to hang that one on me.

The problem is this: We are increasingly conditioned into desiring quick fixes for any 'problem', perceived or actual.

This comes at the same time as science and technology increasingly make it precisely possible for those 'quick fixes' to be implemented, without regard to the longer-term consequences. This, in turn, is a product of the short-term thinking that increasingly permeates our society.

An intersection of several, individually relatively harmless, but collectively toxic, trends in society as a whole means that certain technological advances that put a great deal of control over our own bodies and reproductive systems will inevitably be used for what may seem like perfectly reasonable goals, but which ultimately have a very detrimental impact.

In the name of ensuring that no child gets bullied for being gay, parents will succumb to the pressure to make their children 'perfect', and make them tall, blond, disease-free, and straight.

In the name of religious purity, religious, right-wing homophobes will make hypocritical common cause with genetic engineers who seek to tamper with "God's creation" in order to ensure their vision of a Manifest Destiny where every woman is a perfectly beautiful and docile baby factory, and every man is a virile heterosexual.

Each person so named above believes he or she has the best of intentions for a variety of reasons but they all boil down to this one thing: The use of a technology for the conscious purpose of 'expunging' an unwanted side effect of the random throw of the genetic dice is ultimately an unethical and thoughtless act.

I am one of the more strident supporters of the continuing use of science and technology to solve humanity's problems and have no truck with the kinds of people that insist on reverting to some airy-fairy notion of an idealized pastoral existence where we are all hewers of wood and drawers of water.

quote:

---

In the name of ensuring that no child gets bullied for being gay, parents will succumb to the pressure to make their children 'perfect', and make them tall, blond, disease-free, and straight.

---

Which is a perfect illustration of the idea. I think we've had more than enough time as a species to come to terms with natural variance in height and hair colour, but I do know perfectly well that parents who mean well would do exactly that. My biology teacher in high school told the class that he would abort a child if he knew it had red hair, because he had red hair, and he didn't want his child to have to deal with the skin problems it caused him.

There will always be dangers of such abuses of technology. Here, at least, with sexual orientation written into the constitution, I don't imagine it's going to be at any severe risk of being wiped out. It may turn out to be a problem in other places, but aborting babies based on sex is a problem elsewhere. Should we have held off on developing ultrasound, and still be waiting for the point when humanity as a whole is ready to recognize equality between sexes enough to prevent abuses of the technology to discriminate the unborn based on sex?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kinetix:
Has it occurred to anyone that the right wing Christian homophobes don't actually believe in genetics? They don't believe in evolution or carbon dating; I don't see why this would be any different.

---

Oh well. Here goes. I am a Catholic, not right wing, accept (with a layperson's limitations) the study of gentetics, agree that right wing fundamentalists often don't believe in evolutionary theory or gentetics, and here we go..from my reading on the subject including a great many claims that homosexual sexual orientation is genetic in origin and that persons so-oriented are "just born that way", but have never come across a single study or medical evidence that led to that conclusion.

I have read material that would (to my layperson's grasp,- even we can apply sound reasoning principles)indicate that genetic factors might cause a person to be more likely than another to become more so-oriented in company with psychological/social circumstances, but nothing indicating a genetic basis.

One does not have to be Catholic, ant-rational, fideiastic, theistic, bigotted, latently homosexual, homophobic, or fundamentalist to reject what is after all, but another claim in the realm of science.

quote:

---

Oh well. Here goes. I am a Catholic, not right wing, accept (with a layperson's limitations) the study of gentetics, agree that right wing fundamentalists often don't believe in evolutionary theory or gentetics, and here we go..from my reading on the subject including a great many claims that homosexual sexual orientation is genetic in origin and that persons so-oriented are "just born that way", but have never come across a single study or medical evidence that led to that conclusion.

---

In short... grow the hell up. When did YOU "choose" to be heterosexual? How do you know it's any more "natural" than non-heterosexual? If there is no claim to be made for a genetic basis for one type of sexuality, there is none to be made for ANY type.

And as for:

quote:

---

homosexual acts to be inherently illadvised in that we are not even remotely designed for them...

---

quote:

---

I find such philosophical premises of atheism to be really, really dumb, something the common sense of a ten-year-old knows is too silly for words, all sophistries aside.

---

[ 26 February 2006: Message edited by: Hephaestion ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hephaestion:

... but I would hasten to point out that I am not an atheist, but an agnostic. And besides, if you are going to start by pooh-poohing claims of a genetic basis for homosexuality because of a supposed lack of evidence, we can hardly allow you to make sweeping statements based on a supposed "designer" for which there is no evidence at all.

Paul, you have been registered at babble for 15 days, during which time you've made 44 posts, all in these threads:

More Secret Files of the Inquisition - 29 posts

Canadian scientists want out of Darwin's 'rut' - 12 posts

Have we lost more than we gained? - 1 post

Dawkins: Is religion the root of all evil? - 1 post

More evidence that sexual orientation is genetic - 1 post

There seems to be a clear indication of the areas you're interested in, eh? Well, despite your attempts to distance yourself from the type of people Kinetix was writing about, I've gotta tell you... from where I'm sitting the difference only appears to be one of degrees, not really substance.

[ 26 February 2006: Message edited by: Hephaestion ]

---

A pretty good summation of recent history, plus commentary. Good.

The greater part, if not all of my posts, and indeed I came across this site while googling aspects of "The Secret files tuff a short while ago, were occasionned by an actual invitation for a Catholic to defend how one could possibly be a catholic. I could imagine few things easier to do. So I did it.

So, what the hell. I think Roman Catholicism is the best thing since sliced otiose philosophies, and here I am. I write a very little, and do not in the least consider anything I defend as true and worthwhile to be regressive (how can it be if true?)but rather truth is critical to any idea of being a progressive.

In reading the posts, I found, to put it ever so mildly, very much thta was wanting in a board that would consider itself "progressive".

Some posts were too ridiculous for words.

I don't have to be a Catholic. I found Catholicism to be true as advertised and the most powerful force for good in the history of the world. Nothing comes remotely close, although Judaism is simply staggering in its contributions to mankind, including of course Christianity.

In that I do not consider myself to be either particularly ill-informed, bigotted, anti-rartional, homophobic undereducated, philosophically or religiously challenged, I think it more than fair that I engage legitimate issues in a legitimate manner.

It surprises me not in the least that a number of very sacred dogmatic cows are finding themselves being a little gored in the process. I anticipated and welcome responses and critical examination of my, dare I say, understanding of reality. Please disabuse me of false premises logical fallacies, bad science or epistemological faults. I don't claim to be either omniscient or perfect.

By all means, do not simply allow me to claim that I have FOUND NO EVIDENCE whatsoever in support of a genetic basis for homosexuality, and given the cultural dogma used to point out how bad people are (Catholics like me included of course) to question homosexual behaviours as the result of being "just born thta way" or in other words, genetic, I should think that any honest human being should be more than a little interested in the complete lack of evidence behind a major societal dogma. If in fact there were a third sex, a homosexual sex, or a clear genetic etyology, then it would indeed be appropriate to criticise critics. But that is not the case.

While I also have a strong antipathy to those who bash and deride or hate persons of homosexual orientation, and additionally detest seeing Christianity being hatefully used as a cudgel yet that is the dogmatic position of the culture that oddly takes exception to pointing at the naked emperor and his subjects.

By the way, I consider myself to be called to be a friend of yours, not your enemy, and incidentally, I regularly fail at practicing what I preach. I don't find Catholicism easy, just the opposite, it's always very challenging. We all fall short in one way or another.

If there is no evidence of a designer, then why are you an agnostic and not an atheist? I see no evidence in support of atheism though I do agree with the great difficulty of the suffering of so many innocent is a powerful problem for many people, even thought there is a rational defence. It doesn't ully satidfy the heart however.

Science an ordered body of knowledgean would be impossible, in a universe without order. While those who would hold like Dawkins that only the empirical approach can arrive at truth, manage to overlook the too obvious (hence the 10 year old comment) point that proof that the empirical method is the only source of truth, has no empirical foundation. The idea is that silly.

So, if as it seems you would like to cast me as some sort of malevolent, bigotted genetically untutored, cosmologically challenged entity, ehy not call my bluff.

You believe that anal sex is commensurate with a healthy sex life. I think about 90% of AIDS cases are the direct result of anal sex.

I believe that a woman's vagina is designed for sexual penetration, and that the human anus is not.

Wild unwarranted speculation on my part, or just too obvious, howsoever unfashionable.

I have a very real sympathy for a person who for whatever reason finds his or herself to be so oriented, and I don't at all think that it lends itself to simplistic resolutions.

There is clinically accepted evidence that at least for some, sexual orientation can be altered.

As you peruse the list of threads I contributed to, would it not be a little odd, for me
notto take exception. Further, a lot of it I consider to be quite destructive and naive nonsense that does no one any good.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul 2057:
In like manner, to view and understand homosexual acts to be inherently illadvised in that we are not even remotely designed for them, much like a lot of heterosexual activities incidentally, does not require the aforementionned shortlist of conditons and afflictions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul 2057:
In that I do not consider myself to be either particularly ill-informed, bigotted, anti-rartional, homophobic undereducated, philosophically or religiously challenged, I think it more than fair that I engage legitimate issues in a legitimate manner. ... By the way, I consider myself to be called to be a friend of yours

I think about 90% of AIDS cases are the direct result of anal sex. ... I believe that a woman's vagina is designed for sexual penetration, and that the human anus is not. .. There is clinically accepted evidence that at least for some, sexual orientation can be altered.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Reality. Bites.:
Message sent to mod.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Makwa:
Your assertions speak for themselves. You are indeed particularly ill-informed, bigotted, anti-rational, homophobic and undereducated. Your statements are small, unprofitable, base and unpleasant. Such ideas are less welcome to this board than an infestation of pubic lice. They are obnoxious, disagreeable and irksome. Both hurtful and repulsive, they befoul the abstract ether of the internet like a foul maisma. Such foolish idiocies shame the very eyes which turn from them with disgust and must weep with remorse having lost more than 1/16 of a second of functionality which could have beheld something with a touch of beauty and wisdom. My mind, having read such mutterings is now befouled, contaminated. I know not what will expunge the stench from my consciousness. I can only beg you, nay plead with you, to please spare my poor awareness from further pain, and simply go away.

---

Lovely expression.

Why do you have a problem with this?

Do you know of a genetic basis underscoring the claim?

Why must a statement of the obvious be portrayed as inimical to authentic and legitimate interests?

Has not Eward Stein, himself homosexually oriented, and professor of constitutional law in his book 'The Mismeasure of Desire" not stated the same concerning "science" like the start of this thread that seeks make a case without evidence?

Why do you have a problem with this?

Socrates observed that if one is human, one must be dogmatic. But dogma must be examined.

[ 26 February 2006: Message edited by: DrConway ]

One can debate the merits of a genetic basis for human sexuality without being a closed-minded bigot. Many gay theorists can accomplish it, and so can some straight ones. Too bad you can't.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Makwa:
Your assertions speak for themselves. You are indeed particularly ill-informed, bigotted, anti-rational, homophobic and undereducated. Your statements are small, unprofitable, base and unpleasant. Such ideas are less welcome to this board than an infestation of pubic lice. They are obnoxious, disagreeable and irksome. Both hurtful and repulsive, they befoul the abstract ether of the internet like a foul maisma. Such foolish idiocies shame the very eyes which turn from them with disgust and must weep with remorse having lost more than 1/16 of a second of functionality which could have beheld something with a touch of beauty and wisdom. My mind, having read such mutterings is now befouled, contaminated. I know not what will expunge the stench from my consciousness. I can only beg you, nay plead with you, to please spare my poor awareness from further pain, and simply go away.

---

The fact that you see me as the great enemy or whatever, does not magically tun me into the charicature you are most comfortable with. Men and women who indulge in anal sex are engaging in one of the highest risk behaviours possible. Would it not be wrong to ignore the facts?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hephaestion:
I've been gay all my life, Paul. I knew I was different from among my very earliest memories, but at first I thought I was the only one. I was not 'taught' to be gay, or 'recruited' , and I *certainly* didn't choose it.

One can debate the merits of a genetic basis for human sexuality without being a closed-minded bigot. Many gay theorists can accomplish it, and so can some straight ones. Too bad you can't.

B'bye....

---

You are adressing a charicature again. I do not believe that homosexually oriented persons (and I have family members and friends who I love quite bit who engage in homosexual behaviours) choose to be homosexually oriented. I don't think that one can choose one's orientation. Our cirvcumstances, behaviours and choices, as is the case with virtually all predispositions, impact, consciously or otherwise.

But neither do is there any reason to believe that it is a biological set piece as it were. For some, it evidently is not. That indicates that, inescapably, for some, and usually for people quite highly mkotivated, the change as attested by accepted orientation standards, can in fact be accomplished. And what's wrong with that?

I don't carry a nasty malevalent disposition towards persons like yourself, and for that matter, my excellent tennis doubles partner
who knows exactly what I think, why I think it, and in fact, he agrees with me completely.

I personally have had about enough in my culture of the steryotypical labelling e.g bigotted and homophobic that are part and parcel of dsicussing the issue in any context other than approval and laudatory acceptance. There's too much at stake.

To state earlier, and I thank you for stating and actual argument, that its occurence within nature indicates that it is natural is, and I mean no offence to you or my relative in this, circular.

It is precisely my point that while the behaviours of phenomena occur, I have read many claims but seen no evidence that it is in fact a natural (genetic etyology) occurance. Like Professor Stein, I do not think it would even be a good thing if it were shown to be gentetic, for reasons enunciated by others here.

A bigot prejudges people, not behaviours. I don't doubt for a minute that there aren't a miilion and more homosexually oriented people who aren't considerably better and finer human beings thatn I am. That's inevieable. I discuss a behaviour, though admittedly in response to some pretty cliche positions.

2. Homosexuality is not just a "behaviour" -- it is a fundamental part of who gay people ARE.

3. Why am I bothering to attempt to "debate" with someone who is arguing about a topic about which they clearly know nothing, from a position of mysticism and superstition (a.k.a. "faith")? Particularly one who would have the unmitigated gall to claim "I found Catholicism to be true as advertised and the most powerful force for good in the history of the world. Nothing comes remotely close..."

And to say that to a gay man no less!

Don't let the door hit your ass....

[ 26 February 2006: Message edited by: Hephaestion ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul 2057:

You believe that anal sex is commensurate with a healthy sex life. I think about 90% of AIDS cases are the direct result of anal sex.

---

And you would be wrong. A majority of AIDS cases in the world are the result of plain old heterosexual penis-in-vagina sex.

quote:

---

I believe that a woman's vagina is designed for sexual penetration, and that the human anus is not.

---

If that were true and the vagina were absolutely best to use for that on all occasions, no heterosexual couple would have oral or anal sex. You realize that it also has to function as a passage for delivering babies, which tends to make things looser than one might like ideally.
We do lots of things with our bodies that aren't strictly "natural". You may as well complain about ballet or neurosurgery.

quote:

---

There is clinically accepted evidence that at least for some, sexual orientation can be altered.

---

I sometimes feel a little impatient with Makwa, but then he skewers pretentious pomposity with a beautiful post like this:

quote:

---

Your assertions speak for themselves. You are indeed particularly ill-informed, bigotted, anti-rational, homophobic and undereducated. Your statements are small, unprofitable, base and unpleasant. Such ideas are less welcome to this board than an infestation of pubic lice. They are obnoxious, disagreeable and irksome. Both hurtful and repulsive, they befoul the abstract ether of the internet like a foul maisma. Such foolish idiocies shame the very eyes which turn from them with disgust and must weep with remorse having lost more than 1/16 of a second of functionality which could have beheld something with a touch of beauty and wisdom. My mind, having read such mutterings is now befouled, contaminated. I know not what will expunge the stench from my consciousness. I can only beg you, nay plead with you, to please spare my poor awareness from further pain, and simply go away.

---

[ 26 February 2006: Message edited by: Contrarian ]

You don't seem to know what you're talking about yourself. You can't choose your orientation, you said, but you can change it. Isn't this the same thing? Don't you find it funny that you accept the anecdotal claim that people have successfully changed their orientations without question, while dismissing Heph's assertion that he has always been gay, and could not be otherwise? Don't you have a double-standard here that requires more stringent evidence for the position you are uncomfortable with than for the one you are comfortable with?

And what's this nonsense about anal sex being one of the most high-risk activities there are? Really now. Moreso than sky-diving? Mountain climbing? Hunting with Dick Cheny? I don't have the statistics at hand, but I'll be willing to bet that driving is more risky than anal sex. Do you rail against these activities with equal fervour? Not likely. With a few elementary precautions (that ought to be standard for anyone who's sexually active) there is nothing risky at all about anal sex. That you insist, in so many words, it's on a level with sharing needles just belies the extreme predjudice of your position.

I'm sorry Paul. You may be a nice person in many ways, but I'm afraid you are a bigot. Acceptance is the first step to getting help. The anus might not have been "designed" for penile penetration, but sex isn't like assembling a barbeque. The right way is the way that satisfies you and your partner, and each of us "designs" that for ourselves. It's awfully arrogant of you to think you can second guess everyone in this regard, or that "so much is at stake" from people expressing their own sexuality freely. The only thing that's at stake is our sexual freedoms from people like you who think they know how everyone should live and love.

If you don't want to be addressed as a charicature, stop being one. Seek help. Homosexuals can't and shouldn't change, but bigots can and should.

[ 27 February 2006: Message edited by: Jacob Two-Two ]

quote:

---

You realize that it also has to function as a passage for delivering babies, which tends to make things looser than one might like ideally.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Loretta:
Doug:
Sorry for the thread drift but what a bizarre statement!

---

This has nothing (or very little and very infrequently) to do with a vagina that's too loose from childbearing and everything to do with having surgery to acheive perfection as the media portrays it.

There are all sorts of ways that I could respond that are less than kind but I'll just start a new thread in the same forum and let others in without taking away from this thread. Please, women, jump in there.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:

I do. Science is characterised by methodology, not subject matter.

---

quote:

---

Heph:
1. If you don't accept that homosexuality is genetically based, then neither is heterosexuality.

---