PDA

View Full Version : HOMOSEXUALITY, A thesis.




Icymudpuppy
04-19-2009, 03:13 PM
There will be some who question my low post count. That is because I am new to this forum, though I am a veteran of many other forums such as Biodiesel Infopop forum, Lewis County Washington community forum, Binder Bulletin Classic International Harvester Forum, National Wildlife Control Operator's forum, and many others. I have been a Ron Paul Supporter since February 2007, a C4L member since it's inception, and I went to the Washington State Republican Convention and cast my support for Paul.

There seems to be some real vitriole against homosexuality among many on this forum.

I'd like to come at this subject from a purely logical angle and post my observations about homosexuality from the standpoint of my profession as a self employed wildlife biologist. For those of us who are fans of Ayn Rand's work, we know that she was equally scathing in her assessment of both socialism, and religion. Calling one the mystic of muscle, and the other the mystic of spirit, and both regarding the mind as something to be tightly controlled. So, for the benefit of this exercise, free your mind from the chains of indoctrination from both big government, and big religion. If you believe the Bible is the infallible work of God and not an imperfect history and summation of the laws, moral standards, legends, and struggles of a middle-eastern civilization, then stop reading now.

First, let us make one thing very clear. All mammal species, most vertebrate species, and even a few invertebrates exhibit homosexuality among segments of their population. It is much more common (expressed as a percentage of population) among predatory social mammals such as wolves, lions, chimps, jackals, baboons, and the like than non-social species or herbivorous species.

Let's consider lower animals and how homosexuality might affect them. Most of you are probably familiar with the frogs who are capable of completely changing their sexual organs from male to female and back as needed to encourage population growth if there is an abundance of one sex and too few of another that is inhibiting reproduction. This change can be induced in the laboratory by exposing the animal to the skin excretions of a multitude of same sexed individuals. Did you know that you can also get some of these frogs to change permanently to male by exposing them to an extreme number of skin secretions from both sexes, and that the majority of these permanent males will cease to breed altogether? The obvious purpose of this permanent change is to restrict population growth in an environment where there are too many individuals for the natural carrying capacity of the habitat.

Most animals are not capable of actually changing their genital equipment, but the brain is a much more pliable organ, and the same natural population control measure that is present in frogs, could easily affect the sexual preference habits of humans such that overexposure to pheremones in a crowded environment could make females have male sexual preferences despite their equipment, and males would be more interested in the attentions of other males than breeding with females. This could also explain why homosexuality is more prevalent in urban environments where people are packed together in excess of what the carrying capacity of the habitat would be without the benefit of agriculture and freight. Even ancient cities were known for a higher rate of homosexuality, whether Rome, Sparta, Thebes, or (apparently) Sodom and Gomorrah.

Getting back to the prevalence of homosexuality among social predators, Humans are a predatory social mammal, so it would stand to reason that homosexuality would be fairly common among their populations.

We have to try and understand why it is more common among those species even in low population settings which cannot be explained purely by the population control mechanism of pheremone triggers described above.

To help you understand this next concept, I'm going to explore some other kinds of genetic phenotypes, and how they provide both benefits and problems to the populations which carry them.

Let's talk about Alpha Thallesemia, and Sickle Cell Anemia. These are both recessive inherited traits which are fatal if you carry a double recessive, but which provide protection against Malaria if you are only a carrier. A double dominant provides a clean bloodline without any danger of miscarriage or infant fatality from Anemic symptoms, but also gives no protection against Malaria. Thus, in tropical and subtropical climates, there is a significant advantage to carriers of these ailments in terms of Malaria resistance which more than makes up for the significant disadvantage in terms of infant mortality for populations not effected by Malaria in Temperate and Arctic areas.

Now, you may be wondering how Homosexuality could be a positive genetic trait.

Consider the behavioral patterns of social hunters. As individuals, they are outmatched by their preferred prey, but when hunting as a group, they can better maximize the nutritional benefits of their hunt to provide for themselves and their group.

Also, the young of these species are altricial (helpless) at birth, and require significant care and training in order to become positive contributors to the success of their social group.

Regardless of whether the species has litters or single offspring, both groups burden their parents with more than one helpless offspring at a time. The litter bearers by multiple offspring at one gestation, and the single bearers by having additional young before the previous one is fully matured.

If one parent with such offspring is hunting with the group, the other must stay behind and care for the offspring. While caring for offspring, it is difficult to also train them on the skills they need to hunt as a group. It is therefore in the best interests of the social group to have extra adults to perform one of the adult roles of provider, trainor, or caregiver so that one biological parent is not overburdened with providing two roles. Mom's who homeschool know how much tougher their job is providing both care and instruction. So, where do those extra adults unburdened with raising their own biological children come from?

Among primitive societies, or lower species, the short life expectancy severely limits the percentage of adults who live past child-bearing age, so the elderly are not available to provide the additional role necessary to maximize the productive education of the offspring.

However, there is another source of non-breeding adults. Homosexuals. These individuals can fill or share one of the three roles of Caregiver, Provider, or Teacher and shift the burden from the breeding adults. The extra individuals allow for more proficient and healthier new young hunters thereby helping the social group become more effective at providing food and therefore be better at competing for food sources against other predator species, and other groups among their own species.

Now, once humans shifted from hunter-gatherer societies to agricultural societies, the pressure of hunting was greatly reduced, food became more reliable, and extensive training in tactics, tracking, weapon use and construction, etc was no longer necessary. Instead, a simpler training of agricultural production made the extra adults no longer that great an advantage. Also, the extended life expectancy provided more elderly adults to fill the role of caregiver or trainer. This shift made a society with non-breeding adults less competitive reproductively, and they would be quickly outnumbered by groups with a lower likelyhood of homosexuality.

Today, with another shift in society from agricultural to industrial where highly specialized individuals with extensive training are once again necessary for a society to be competitive, those societies able to provide some extra non-breeding adults to help provide that specialized training will again select for that trait. Couple that selective genetics with an increase in population triggered pheremone based homosexuality, and it makes sense that homosexuality would be on the rise world-wide.

For those of us who have a homosexual aunt or uncle whom we accept, we know how beneficial their financial, instructional, and caring contribution can be.

For those of you who cannot separate the difference between a homosexual and a rapist, you have to understand that rape is less about sex than it is about power, control, and sociopathy. To quote from the "Shawshank Redemption"... when the lead character is faced with prison rape.
Andy: "Would it help if I told them I'm not homosexual?"
Red: "Neither are they, they'd have to be human first."

So, how does this relate to Liberty?

We believe that all individuals should be treated equally, and that what a person does is not the business of anyone else unless you are harming someone else's life, liberty, or property. A homosexual engaging in a consensual relationship is not harming anyone else. Placing a ban on their methods of enjoying that relationship is counter to the principles of liberty, and is a gross overextension of government into the private lives of individuals.

Indeed, since marriage is not properly a government function at all, placing a ban on what is a religious institution is a clear violation of the 1st amendment's guarantee of the free exercise of religion. Thus, it is just as bad to ban the Unitarians, Universalists, Wiccans, etc from Homosexual marriage, as it is to ban the Muslims, Mormons, and Orthodox Jews from Polygamist marriage, or the Catholic and Protestant majority from monogamous heterosexual marriage.

I welcome all comments and arguments made with reason and logic, and adhering to the principles of liberty.

MRoCkEd
04-19-2009, 03:29 PM
That was interesting. Thanks for posting

Xenophage
04-19-2009, 03:37 PM
I've heard this argument before: Homosexuality is genetic, and a good means of population control, and benefits a species.

Its fallacious for this reason: Your genetics are not the result of evolutions that took place to benefit your species. You exist because, and only because, your genes successfully reproduced. All genes are inherently selfish as Richard Dawkins said. It would make no biological or evolutionary sense for homosexuality to develop as a positive benefit. In fact, such a proposition would violate all of the laws of evolutionary theory anyway: Natural selection immediately destroys the homosexual genetics (assuming homosexuality is genetic) because they fail to reproduce.

Besides, in cases where homosexuals DO reproduce, their kids are not more prone to homosexuality than other people. This would seem to cast doubt on the evolutionary/genetic theory.

I'll follow up by saying I believe all human beings are capable of all types of sexuality, including sexuality toward animals and inanimate objects. Sexuality is in a large part psychological. It would seem far less of a stretch to develop sexuality toward another human of the same gender.

This doesn't mean that some genetic perversion might not be responsible for some cases of homosexuality, but I do believe that such a genetic perversion is unnecessary for it to happen.

I do not find the same moral quandaries with homosexuality that Rand did. I think lesbians are hot and gay dudes make good mochas.

Original_Intent
04-19-2009, 03:42 PM
Very well presented.

Icymudpuppy
04-19-2009, 03:44 PM
Its fallacious for this reason: Your genetics are not the result of evolutions that took place to benefit your species. You exist because, and only because, your genes successfully reproduced. All genes are inherently selfish as Richard Dawkins said. It would make no biological or evolutionary sense for homosexuality to develop as a positive benefit. In fact, such a proposition would violate all of the laws of evolutionary theory anyway: Natural selection immediately destroys the homosexual genetics (assuming homosexuality is genetic) because they fail to reproduce..

I would argue that while the homosexual individual is not selected for, the heterosexual CARRIER of the recessive homosexual gene would be selected over the double dominant in a social predator group in the same way that the carrier of sickle cell anemia is selected for in a malarial environment because that carrier wants to maximize their genetic success by getting extra help providing for their offspring.

By your argument, sickle cell anemia would also be destroyed because a person demonstrating the full phenotype always dies before reproducing. Your argument would only hold true if Homosexuality were a dominant trait, which it obviously is not.

zach
04-19-2009, 04:12 PM
Very interesting.. provides another piece to the puzzle.

I think there is more to it than just __ or __.

There is everything that surrounds a person, within and without, that makes us who we are-
sexuality or not.

Our theories are just pieces of a massive puzzle.

heavenlyboy34
04-19-2009, 04:27 PM
thanks for the well-thought out post, OP. I enjoyed it. :)

Revolution0918
04-19-2009, 05:34 PM
I am, what i like to think, a pretty good catholic just putting that out there. If your gay thats your own thing and i dont care to be honest your not effecting me. I dont care about Vermont voting for gay marriage, bcuz the state actually did it. As long as its the people that decide then thats fine by me. My personal opinion im not for it, but if the people decide the people decide. Good post tho

Rael
04-19-2009, 07:15 PM
This thread is gay

Original_Intent
04-19-2009, 07:59 PM
:D
This thread is gay:D

Theocrat
04-19-2009, 08:45 PM
"Homosexuality, Heredity, & Biological Determinism" by Gregory Koukl (http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5299)

Icymudpuppy
04-19-2009, 09:14 PM
That's a good article.

He's right. Whether Homosexuality is hereditary or not is completely irrelevant to it's constitutionality. My own personal observations suggest that it must have some genetic triggers. However, hatred for a group because they choose to accept a natural inclination or engage in an unnatural behavior that doesn't hurt anybody is definitely a moral failing on the part of the hater, and clearly a violation of the principles of liberty which we propose to support on this forum. Therefore, anyone on this forum who lambasts a group because of their harmless sexual preference is to me a hypocrit on the principles of liberty.

Theocrat
04-19-2009, 09:30 PM
That's a good article.

He's right. Whether Homosexuality is hereditary or not is completely irrelevant to it's constitutionality. My own personal observations suggest that it must have some genetic triggers. However, hatred for a group because they choose to accept a natural inclination or engage in an unnatural behavior that doesn't hurt anybody is definitely a moral failing on the part of the hater, and clearly a violation of the principles of liberty which we propose to support on this forum. Therefore, anyone on this forum who lambasts a group because of their harmless sexual preference is to me a hypocrit on the principles of liberty.

Unfortunately, you have the same problem that many other members on this forum have when discussing the issue of homosexuality. You're limited to only thinking one-dimensionally about the effects of such behavior. Indeed, homosexuality does affect other people, principally, God. He considers it abomination. Since He is the Creator of the universe, eternal moral Lawgiver, and Bestower of human rights, we must start with understanding this issue from His perspective. Now, you may say that you don't believe in God, but that's irrelevant. After all, our Founders believed in God, and they believed it to be paramount that the success of any society and republic is to be based on religion and morality. They never would have approved of allowing gay couples as equal unions to God-ordained marriage between a man and a woman. That is how far we have fallen morally in our current society. You can't have liberty in an immoral society, and history has proven that over and over again. No sincere Christian hates homosexuals. However, we do hate it when the State is used to silence our beliefs so we can no longer speak out against the immorality of homosexuality. That, to me, is a breach of freedom, and the hypocrisy lies deep with those who would also impose their beliefs upon Christians to silence them from not being critical against homosexuality.

Cowlesy
04-19-2009, 09:38 PM
There seems to be some real vitriole against homosexuality among many on this forum.

Please provide evidence, as I have missed it and would like to look into it.

Thanks.

zach
04-19-2009, 09:55 PM
Unfortunately, you have the same problem that many other members on this forum have when discussing the issue of homosexuality. You're limited to only thinking one-dimensionally about the effects of such behavior.

...

You can't have liberty in an immoral society, and history has proven that over and over again.

See, this is where we disagree. Stating that others are thinking one-dimensionally about the effects while you are doing the same thing in my eyes isn't really thinking outside the box, IMO. We all are looking through one dimension because of our subjective reasoning. However, I could be wrong in my understanding of your statement.

To my knowledge, liberty is allowing one to be "immoral" (in whose eyes, though?) as long as it doesn't personally impact another's life in a negative fashion. And in the eyes of God.. we are but a speck of dust in our universe; I would think a Supreme Creator would want to see everyone cooperate together even with disagreements rather than fighting for voices because one group wants to silence or force the other group to accept something it may not like. Though I dare not take words out of the Creator's mouth.. that's just my interpretation of what I have interpreted thus far.




There seems to be some real vitriole against homosexuality among many on this forum.



Actually, I'm pretty open here, and I haven't experienced much vitriol here at all, regardless of whatever views that someone has displayed..

..except being cautioned to stick with "buggering a goat."

Jace
04-19-2009, 09:57 PM
...

zach
04-19-2009, 10:05 PM
Homosexuals are attempting to force us to accept their lifestyle using the power of the state. They make a mockery of Christian marriage and then get all huffy when the Christians push back. They will come to your home and harass you, or try to get you fired from your job if you oppose them publicly.

I'm sorry. If someone is trying to sell this lifestyle to my kids, I get defensive.

Well, I guess I'm one of the "good" ones then.. :confused:

I don't force anything on anyone.. other than wanting to persuade that I'm a human just like you. There's not much to sell.. other than its reality. Moral or not, it's there.. that's as much teaching as I would want if I was in a straight, parental position.

It gets foggy when you're fired from your job.. that's when communication and understanding comes into play with the reasoning behind the firing.

Theocrat
04-19-2009, 10:07 PM
See, this is where we disagree. Stating that others are thinking one-dimensionally about the effects while you are doing the same thing in my eyes isn't really thinking outside the box, IMO. We all are looking through one dimension because of our subjective reasoning. However, I could be wrong in my understanding of your statement.

To my knowledge, liberty is allowing one to be "immoral" (in whose eyes, though?) as long as it doesn't personally impact another's life in a negative fashion. And in the eyes of God.. we are but a speck of dust in our universe; I would think a Supreme Creator would want to see everyone cooperate together even with disagreements rather than fighting for voices because one group wants to silence or force the other group to accept something it may not like. Though I dare not take words out of the Creator's mouth.. that's just my interpretation of what I have interpreted thus far.

Thanks for your reply, zach. When I said members weren't thinking one-dimensionally, I meant it as opposed to thinking two-dimensionally, consisting of vertical considerations from God's perspective as well as horizontal considerations from humans' perspective. Most members honor the latter dimension while ignoring the former dimension when discussing this issue. There is actually a third dimension of consideration, which I classify as the internal-to-external (and vice versa) perspective. But I haven't gotten to that one yet in these discussions.

haaaylee
04-19-2009, 10:13 PM
Unfortunately, you have the same problem that many other members on this forum have when discussing the issue of homosexuality. You're limited to only thinking one-dimensionally about the effects of such behavior. Indeed, homosexuality does affect other people, principally, God. He considers it abomination. Since He is the Creator of the universe, eternal moral Lawgiver, and Bestower of human rights, we must start with understanding this issue from His perspective. Now, you may say that you don't believe in God, but that's irrelevant. After all, our Founders believed in God, and they believed it to be paramount that the success of any society and republic is to be based on religion and morality. They never would have approved of allowing gay couples as equal unions to God-ordained marriage between a man and a woman. That is how far we have fallen morally in our current society. You can't have liberty in an immoral society, and history has proven that over and over again. No sincere Christian hates homosexuals. However, we do hate it when the State is used to silence our beliefs so we can no longer speak out against the immorality of homosexuality. That, to me, is a breach of freedom, and the hypocrisy lies deep with those who would also impose their beliefs upon Christians to silence them from not being critical against homosexuality.


But Religious liberty and freedom also exists. Not everyone believes in your God (such as i) and therefore would prefer not to be held to laws that would have me believe in such a way, or be punished for acting differently. I believe you have seen plenty of freedom in your right to express your opinion on this. I hear it far more than i would like to. We are all people, humans. Under God or not. We all deserve liberty and freedom so long as we hurt no one else or deprive them of either. You may pass judgment if you so wish, but do not steal someone's freedoms based on your religious beliefs ....



PS. i wouldn't speak for all of our founders in regards to their opinions on this matter. i have seen very little quote-wise on this. as i recall we had quite a homosexual problem during wars amongst our revolutionary citizens ....

RedStripe
04-19-2009, 10:17 PM
How do we know that God is against homosexuality more than tyrannical government (or any form of government whatsoever)? Why not leave the regulation of sexuality up to, you know, the most supposedly powerful force in the universe?

TER
04-19-2009, 10:26 PM
First, let us make one thing very clear. All mammal species, most vertebrate species, and even a few invertebrates exhibit homosexuality among segments of their population.

The Christian understanding is that ALL of creation has been affected since the Fall of man. Demonstrating unnatural activity in animals does not somehow justify it as being natural behavior, at least not in the theological sense.

The Christian understanding is that sin is an illness of the soul which is actually unnatural to how God created us. Through disobedience and pride, sin and death entered into the world and the fruits of our estrangement from God has allowed the passions to strengthen and overcome us and all of creation (genetics included). The physical act of sex between two men is unnatural and against the order of creation as it was intended by God.

Likewise, bearing false witness is unnatural and against the order of creation as it was intended by God, and I did exactly that today when I lied to a friend of mine for an insignificant reason (Lord have mercy). The same goes for the many other sins I have committed today.

I am a sinner as we ALL are and am just as much in need for repentance and mercy from God as anyone else. In fact, the orthodox Christian understanding is that I am the greatest of sinners and more so in need of mercy than anyone else.

This is how we approach our fellow humans who have fallen into sin- not by casting them into judgment, but by offering them our hearts to help heal them in this journey called life. It has been said that we as Christians hate the sin, not the sinner. This is partly true. We mustn't only not hate the sinner- we must love them greater than ourselves.

zach
04-20-2009, 07:55 AM
it has been said that we as christians hate the sin, not the sinner. This is partly true. We mustn't only not hate the sinner- we must love them greater than ourselves.

+1000

mczerone
04-20-2009, 08:15 AM
I appreciate that you left open polygamy just as homosexuality: ANY voluntary association between peoples should be allowed, and it isn't up to the state or any other agent of 'society' to second guess the chances of success, the 'moral' character, or the benefits derived from the familial arrangement.

Colbert recently had a reverend or pastor on saying that we should allow homosexual unions, and that we need to get the State out of endorsing these personal contracts. Towards the end of the interview, however, he said that there is "historical precedent" for not allowing polygamy - a marriage union would only be recognized among couples in his vision.

But isn't that the same exact reasoning for not allowing homosexual marriage in the first place? That the "populous" has chosen not to allow those arrangements?

In all, he had a point that the State shouldn't be able to interfere with voluntary associations, but then he contradicted this statement and said that the State still shouldn't recognize voluntary associations that he doesn't morally approve of. So his message was that we need to get the State out of those specific things that he agrees with, but leave the State to regulate and outlaw those things he disagrees with.

He's about halfway to where we need to get people.

Ozwest
04-20-2009, 08:33 AM
Gay and Lesbian people fall in love and settle down. They commit their lives to each other. They raise children. They try to be citizens.

Aren't there more important things?

zach
04-20-2009, 08:35 AM
Gay and Lesbian people fall in love and settle down. They commit their lives to each other. They raise children. They try to be citizens.

Aren't there more important things?

+1

There are.

Brian4Liberty
04-20-2009, 12:11 PM
Interesting post. Makes some logical sense.


Couple that selective genetics with an increase in population triggered pheremone based homosexuality, and it makes sense that homosexuality would be on the rise world-wide.


Is it really on the rise though? Is there a study that shows that? It would be very hard to accurately study given the prejudices and stigma involved.

Higher visibility doesn't necessarily mean higher incidence.

torchbearer
04-20-2009, 12:13 PM
You know the recent research that shows plastic bottle release an estrogen like chemical that's coming out now?
What do people use to feed their babies?
What would happen if you gave estrogen to a male baby?

Vessol
04-20-2009, 12:14 PM
Regardless of any personal beliefs or opinions. As libertarians and liberty lovers I could not see anyone of you condemning the rights of homosexuals or any other minority group.

Ozwest
04-20-2009, 12:16 PM
You know the recent research that shows plastic bottle release an estrogen like chemical that's coming out now?
What do people use to feed their babies?
What would happen if you gave estrogen to a male baby?

I was breast fed.

I guess breast fed babies are heterosexual...

torchbearer
04-20-2009, 12:20 PM
I was breast fed.

I guess breast fed babies are heterosexual...

Check this out:

http://www.india-server.com/news/chemical-in-plastic-harmful-for-human-311.html


A recent health-related study states that plastic contains an estrogen-like chemical, which can be detrimental for the development of children's brains and reproductive organs. The National Toxicology Program, which happens to be a part of the National Institutes of Health, has substantiated this report saying there is some apprehension about fetuses, babies and children being in danger because of bisphenol A or BPA. An ingredient of polycarbonate plastic, BPA is a popular synthetic chemical employed in the industry in present times. This harmful chemical can seep from plastic beverage containers like baby bottles containing food and formula.

Few scientists think that exposure to this harmful chemical at an early stage in life upsets hormones and alters genes. Thereby, it programmes the fetus or a child to get breast or prostate cancer, premature female puberty, attention deficit disorders and other reproductive or neurological disorders. In its latest report, the National Toxicology Program that has reviewed around 500 laboratory animal tests has said there is ‘some concern’ that fetuses, babies and children were at risk from BPA. It, however, rated as negligible the concern for adult


There are hundreds of articles on it on the net, but people are still using plastic bottles to feed their babies.

Ozwest
04-20-2009, 12:21 PM
Whatever gives you a rise out of life.

Gays are some of the most interesting creative people I've ever met.

I'm not interested in anyones bedroom activities, other than the person I'm with.

Brian4Liberty
04-20-2009, 12:24 PM
I'll follow up by saying I believe all human beings are capable of all types of sexuality, including sexuality toward animals and inanimate objects. Sexuality is in a large part psychological. It would seem far less of a stretch to develop sexuality toward another human of the same gender.

This doesn't mean that some genetic perversion might not be responsible for some cases of homosexuality, but I do believe that such a genetic perversion is unnecessary for it to happen.


I agree. I believe it is both genetic and learned. Being born and raised in the SF area has resulted in meeting a variety of people. There are gay people who were obviously born that way. They have no choice. The genetic cause. Then there are the people who go both ways, and it's a trendy or situational thing. I have know several lesbian couples where when they break up, the more feminine partner goes back to men, and the more masculine partner stays with women. And how do we explain prison, where straight men decide that they must make do with alternatives?

It's definitely a complex issue, with no single black and white cause.

Ozwest
04-20-2009, 12:28 PM
torchbearer,

I am a semi-veggie interested in nutrition.

I just can't help to want to snuggle between mammary glands.

It's my Moms fault.

Icymudpuppy
04-20-2009, 12:31 PM
Is it really on the rise though? Is there a study that shows that? It would be very hard to accurately study given the prejudices and stigma involved.

Higher visibility doesn't necessarily mean higher incidence.

Good point. I based my entire thesis on my own personal observations. Other than the reference to the frogs, and the known data on Alpha Thalessemia and Sickle cell anemia, a scientific statistically significant compilation of the data in support of my hypothesis has not been done. This thesis may become the basis for an involved study. Anyone want to fund the research?

Ozwest
04-20-2009, 12:34 PM
Good point. I based my entire thesis on my own personal observations. Other than the reference to the frogs, and the known data on Alpha Thalessemia and Sickle cell anemia, a scientific statistically significant compilation of the data in support of my hypothesis has not been done. This thesis may become the basis for an involved study. Anyone want to fund the research?

Are you having a lend?

torchbearer
04-20-2009, 12:36 PM
torchbearer,

I am a semi-veggie interested in nutrition.

I just can't help to want to snuggle between mammary glands.

It's my Moms fault.

Blame it on the mammary glands. :D

Ozwest
04-20-2009, 12:37 PM
Blame it on the mammary glands. :D

It's a personal affliction.

No telling where it will take me...

Icymudpuppy
04-20-2009, 12:38 PM
What's a lend? If you want to know if I want a loan to fund the research, I haven't come up with a good capitilistic revenue base for this knowledge. It is a quest for knowledge just for the sake of learning, but perhaps some organization like a designer baby firm, or a homosexual rights group would find the research useful.

Ozwest
04-20-2009, 12:42 PM
What's a lend? If you want to know if I want a loan to fund the research, I haven't come up with a good capitilistic revenue base for this knowledge. It is a quest for knowledge just for the sake of learning, but perhaps some organization like a designer baby firm, or a homosexual rights group would find the research useful.

A lend? It's Australian for "fair dinkum."

dannno
04-20-2009, 12:43 PM
I've heard this argument before: Homosexuality is genetic, and a good means of population control, and benefits a species.

Its fallacious for this reason: Your genetics are not the result of evolutions that took place to benefit your species. You exist because, and only because, your genes successfully reproduced.

Dude, at least read the OP first :rolleyes:

Icymudpuppy
04-20-2009, 12:44 PM
A lend? It's Australian for "fair dinkum."

Umm, lost me again. What's a "fair dinkum".

I'm totally lost on the latest urban slang.

Ozwest
04-20-2009, 12:46 PM
Google it.

Time to be multicultural.

Icymudpuppy
04-20-2009, 12:59 PM
Okay, I googled it, but am still just as lost. Fair Dinkum is used as a verb meaning "to declare surprise", and it is used as a Noun/adjective to mean the Truth, or something truthful.

How can I have a truth?

Then I looked up "lend" on urbandictionary.com, and that is a person you don't particularly hate.

Once again, how can I have a person I don't particularly hate?

Forgive my density. I still don't understand the context. I'm completely clueless. A classic ivory tower nerd/scientist type.

Ozwest
04-20-2009, 01:10 PM
Good on you for looking it up.

The translation is lost.

I guess "stuffing me around" comes to mind.

But these phrases are a part of Aussie venacular used in everyday speech, not meant in an intimidating way.

LATruth
04-20-2009, 01:51 PM
Homosexuality, as with demeanor and behavior, is a byproduct of environment and external stimuli during developmental years/stages.

Icymudpuppy
04-20-2009, 02:07 PM
Homosexuality, as with demeanor and behavior, is a byproduct of environment and external stimuli during developmental years/stages.

What evidence do you have to support that hypothesis?

My pheremonal example supports your environmental external stimuli, but does not exclude a genetic basis. Are you refuting any genetic causes? If so, on what grounds? Do you have additional stimuli that you think may effect sexuality other than pheremones? What are they, and how might that occur?

So far, we have proposed 4 types of conditions that may cause homosexuality in humans.

1. Pheremonal external stimuli to restrict population growth in crowded habitats.
2. A recessive genetic trait that gives a reproductive benefit to carriers of that trait in hunter/gatherer societies.
3. A learned or encouraged practice for exploring social interaction such as that practiced by Spartan warriors.
4. An act of sexual desperation among populations with too many of one sex such as in a prison.

Am I missing anything?

torchbearer
04-20-2009, 02:10 PM
What evidence do you have to support that hypothesis?

My pheremonal example supports your environmental external stimuli, but does not exclude a genetic basis. Are you refuting any genetic causes? If so, on what grounds? Do you have additional stimuli that you think may effect sexuality other than pheremones? What are they, and how might that occur?

So far, we have proposed 4 types of conditions that may cause homosexuality in humans.

1. Pheremonal external stimuli to restrict population growth in crowded habitats.
2. A recessive genetic trait that gives a reproductive benefit to carriers of that trait in hunter/gatherer societies.
3. A learned or encouraged practice for exploring social interaction such as that practiced by Spartan warriors.
4. An act of sexual desperation among populations with too many of one sex such as in a prison.

Am I missing anything?

Like I said earlier, there are hundred of articles and many researchers looking at this issue.
What happens when you give a baby male a bunch of estrogen from birth to 4 years old?
What is present in the plastic bottles people are using to feed these babies?
What does the research shows happens in other developing animals when exposed to these chemicals?
Why are people ignoring this very straight forward information?

http://www.india-server.com/news/chemical-in-plastic-harmful-for-human-311.html


A recent health-related study states that plastic contains an estrogen-like chemical, which can be detrimental for the development of children's brains and reproductive organs. The National Toxicology Program, which happens to be a part of the National Institutes of Health, has substantiated this report saying there is some apprehension about fetuses, babies and children being in danger because of bisphenol A or BPA. An ingredient of polycarbonate plastic, BPA is a popular synthetic chemical employed in the industry in present times. This harmful chemical can seep from plastic beverage containers like baby bottles containing food and formula.

Few scientists think that exposure to this harmful chemical at an early stage in life upsets hormones and alters genes. Thereby, it programmes the fetus or a child to get breast or prostate cancer, premature female puberty, attention deficit disorders and other reproductive or neurological disorders. In its latest report, the National Toxicology Program that has reviewed around 500 laboratory animal tests has said there is ‘some concern’ that fetuses, babies and children were at risk from BPA. It, however, rated as negligible the concern for adult

LATruth
04-20-2009, 02:14 PM
Lack of a father figure/masculine upbringing, low self worth/esteem which may bring on a get in where you fit in mentality. I too have read the reports on the "gay gene", it's a theory still, not fact.
I believe its a very primal instinct that controls sexuality, based solely off of your fight or flight tendencies. Sexual arousal can cause very similar reactions as a danger scenario, this causes many to react in many different ways. You're either all in, or you're scared shitless.

Vessol
04-20-2009, 02:15 PM
Regardless of the reason whether it be environmental or genetic, does not mean they should not be afforded rights given to the rest of us.

Ozwest
04-20-2009, 02:18 PM
No matter the reason.

What is the big deal?

Live, and let live.

torchbearer
04-20-2009, 02:19 PM
Lack of a father figure/masculine upbringing, low self worth/esteem which may bring on a get in where you fit in mentality. I too have read the reports on the "gay gene", it's a theory still, not fact.

My informal research in sociology showed a common theme amongst all the gay friends I have. Their first sexual experience was at an early age with a man and 80% of them admitted that is wasn't by their choice.
Also- your sexuality is determined by hormones in the womb and at early ages (which is why I showed the info on estrogen like chemicals in plastic baby bottles).
Chemical and environmental factors played huge roles in these people's lives.

My best friend "who was gay" is now happily married to a woman. I haven't quite figured that out yet. I think he always liked women, but felt more comfortable 'talking' to men. He often shared horror stories of his youth with girls publically rejected him in elementary school.

torchbearer
04-20-2009, 02:21 PM
Regardless of the reason whether it be environmental or genetic, does not mean they should not be afforded rights given to the rest of us.

Oh- please don't take my info as some excuse to deny a human the equal rights of others, but being that I have close connections with the gay communities in louisiana, and have an inquiring mind... I have made many interesting observations.

LibertiORDeth
04-20-2009, 02:26 PM
Is it just me or are 90% of the posters on this thread missing one important aspect of liberty:
MARRIAGE OR SIMILAR UNIONS SHOULD NOT BE ENDORSED OR RECOGNIZED BY THE GOVERNMENT.
Problems solved, right?

LATruth
04-20-2009, 02:27 PM
My informal research in sociology showed a common theme amongst all the gay friends I have. Their first sexual experience was at an early age with a man and 80% of them admitted that is wasn't by their choice.
Also- your sexuality is determined by hormones in the womb and at early ages (which is why I showed the info on estrogen like chemicals in plastic baby bottles).
Chemical and environmental factors played huge roles in these people's lives.


Agreed. Over exposure to estrogen via BPA can be a factor in effeminate behavior which is uncontrollable, but still external stimuli. Yes you are born with it, but it's not genetic. Agreed, and your observation on those male's 1st sexual encounter being "not wanted" reinforces my theory.

Icymudpuppy
04-20-2009, 02:32 PM
Okay, so resummarizing.

1. Pheremonal external stimuli to restrict population growth in crowded habitats.
2. A recessive genetic trait that gives a reproductive benefit to carriers of that trait in hunter/gatherer societies.
3. A learned or encouraged practice for exploring social interaction such as that practiced by Spartan warriors.
4. An act of sexual desperation among populations with too many of one sex such as in a prison.
5. Chemical hormone consumption among developing youth.
6. A social response to low self esteem, or parental failure.

I have met a few homosexuals who were breast fed, came from normal families, and grew up in conservative rural communities. While I think some of the environmental factors you bring up may contribute, I don't think they tell the whole story.

All of these are theories. Gravity is a theory. All science is subject to change upon more complete data. With the data I have available to me at this time, I have proposed a working theory that can explain some causes of homosexuality. Should some hard evidence come along that refutes my theory, I may have to rework it, or completely discard it in favor of a better theory.

Here is a possible amendment to my theory.

Perhaps Homosexuality is affected my multiple genes. Some of which are hardwired, and some of which are only triggered by environmental stimuli.

If you don't have any of the genes, no matter what, you could never be homosexual. But if you have some of the genes, you would need to experience certain environmental conditions at specific times during your mental or physical development to trigger the change. Some of the genes, while recessive, are always on, and if you get a full dose of recessive homosexuality genes with no dominant heterosexual countergenes, you will be born homosexual regardless of environmental factors.

Ozwest
04-20-2009, 02:34 PM
Oh- please don't take my info as some excuse to deny a human the equal rights of others, but being that I have close connections with the gay communities in louisiana, and have an inquiring mind... I have made many interesting observations.

I'm considering doing business with a firm in Shreveport (Silver Trading Company), owned by Larry LaBorde.

Heard of them?

LATruth
04-20-2009, 02:36 PM
based on the XY chromosomal theory, maybe one had just enough Y to become male in the reproductive portion of dna, but cognitively was primarily X...

torchbearer
04-20-2009, 02:40 PM
I'm considering doing business with a firm in Shreveport (Silver Trading Company), owned by Larry LaBorde.

Heard of them?

I do not know Larry, but my family is close friends with the Labordes of Alexandria.
A quick google search shows he talks the talk, but that is as far as I can help you.
I know Donnie and Kenny Laborde in Alexandria. Donnie is a chiropractor and Kenny is a pharmaceutical rep. Their family here is honorable and trustworthy, but I'm not sure if this family tradition extends to larry's family in shreveport.

Icymudpuppy
04-20-2009, 02:41 PM
That is another possibility. There are known oddities within the XY chromosomal genetics. If you get a triple gene such as XXY, you will become a hermaphrodite having both male and female parts. If you get XYY, you will have exaggerated male anatomy, and if XXX you will have exaggerated female anatomy.

Ozwest
04-20-2009, 02:45 PM
I do not know Larry, but my family is close friends with the Labordes of Alexandria.
A quick google search shows he talks the talk, but that is as far as I can help you.
I know Donnie and Kenny Laborde in Alexandria. Donnie is a chiropractor and Kenny is a pharmaceutical rep. There family here is honorable and trustworthy, but I'm not sure if this family tradition extends to larry's family in shreveport.

Thanks Mate.

Was innapropriate for me to ask you that.

I saw Louisianna and jumped the gun.

Xenophage
04-21-2009, 10:48 AM
Why is God so worried about butt fuckers? Doesn't he have supernovae to consider?

God: The ultimate tyrant.

Xenophage
04-21-2009, 10:56 AM
I would argue that while the homosexual individual is not selected for, the heterosexual CARRIER of the recessive homosexual gene would be selected over the double dominant in a social predator group in the same way that the carrier of sickle cell anemia is selected for in a malarial environment because that carrier wants to maximize their genetic success by getting extra help providing for their offspring.

By your argument, sickle cell anemia would also be destroyed because a person demonstrating the full phenotype always dies before reproducing. Your argument would only hold true if Homosexuality were a dominant trait, which it obviously is not.

That's completely wrong. Sickle cell anemia increases the chances of reproductive success in malaria stricken regions by providing extra genetic resistance to malaria. People with sickle cell anemia live well past adolescence. Life expectancy may be shortened, but human life expectancy sans modern technology is pretty damn short anyway! We only need about 12 years to become sexually active.

Help caring for your young? If you don't have any kids, what good is that?

Icymudpuppy
04-21-2009, 11:27 AM
You're confused between a carrier and the full phenotype. If you have sicklecell anemia, you will die in infancy from lack of Iron.

If you are a carrier of sickle cell, you will not have the disease, but you will be resistant to malaria, but if you mate with another carrier, 25% of your young will either miscarry or die in infancy.

Likewise, in my hypothesis, if I am a carrier, I will not have homosexuality, but I will have extra help raising my offspring from full phenotypes. If I mate with another carrier, 25% of my young will be homosexual, 75% will be hetero. 50% will be carriers of the homosexual gene.

Expressed as a Punnet square. If both parents are carriers, such that if "A" is the dominant Heterosexual Gene, and "a" is the recessive Homosexual gene, thus there are four possible combinations of genes.

http://anthro.palomar.edu/mendel/images/Punnett5.gif

If both parents are carriers of the recessive
allele for a disorder, all of their children will
face the following odds of inheriting it:
25% chance of having both alleles be the gene for the recessive disorder Homosexuality
50% chance of being a healthy carrier meaning that they have the Phenotype of heterosexuals, but may pass the homosexual gene from one allele to their children.
25% chance of expressing the heterosexual phenotype and not have
the recessive allele at all

Have you never taken a biology course that expressed this function.

For Sickle cell, AA is normal, but has no resistance to malaria. Aa is normal but is a carrier and thus has resistance to malaria, aa has sickle cell, and is dead in infancy.

TheEvilDetector
04-21-2009, 12:03 PM
Indeed, homosexuality does affect other people, principally, God. He considers it abomination. Since He is the Creator of the universe, eternal moral Lawgiver, and Bestower of human rights, we must start with understanding this issue from His perspective.

I had a conversation with my preferred deity (the purple teapot orbiting saturn) and he told me that God was just joking. You may want to ask God again.

Also, just between us, teapot was assisting God in the creation of the universe, the teapot provided the energy, while God was writing up the rules.

God is a little arrogant to claim he did everything, but then we know he is, just by reading the bible.

If you don't believe me ask my deity the teapot for answers. He responds if you pray to him, the purple teapot that is.

Remember.

Purple Teapot.

Orbiting Saturn.

Too small to be detected by any devices humans have or will ever invent.

How do I know this to be true?

Because it is true.

Yes, the purple teapot exists because it exists.

If you don't believe that, then you have sinned.

torchbearer
04-21-2009, 12:06 PM
I had a conversation with my preferred deity (the purple teapot orbiting saturn) and he told me that God was just joking. You may want to ask God again.

Also, just between us, teapot was assisting God in the creation of the universe, the teapot provided the energy, while God was writing up the rules.

God is a little arrogant to claim he did everything, but then we know he is, just by reading the bible.

If you don't believe me ask my deity the teapot for answers. He responds if you pray to him, the purple teapot that is.

Remember.

Purple Teapot.


Saturn is an oversized phonograph. Listen to the sounds of its rings: YouTube - the Sound of Saturn's Rings (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38pJhxCzR-I)

zach
04-21-2009, 12:14 PM
See this post:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2087888&postcount=22

It's a huge deal!

TheEvilDetector
04-21-2009, 12:16 PM
See this post:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2087888&postcount=22

It's a huge deal!

That's why God needed help.

It's a lot of work.

By the way I wonder what God's Creator is up to. The God of the God.

zach
04-21-2009, 12:20 PM
That's why God needed help.

It's a lot of work.

By the way I wonder what God's Creator is up to. The God of the God.

Chillin.. probably smoking some.. going "WTF are they arguing about?" :p

*runs away*

Theocrat
04-21-2009, 04:42 PM
You're confused between a carrier and the full phenotype. If you have sicklecell anemia, you will die in infancy from lack of Iron.

If you are a carrier of sickle cell, you will not have the disease, but you will be resistant to malaria, but if you mate with another carrier, 25% of your young will either miscarry or die in infancy.

Likewise, in my hypothesis, if I am a carrier, I will not have homosexuality, but I will have extra help raising my offspring from full phenotypes. If I mate with another carrier, 25% of my young will be homosexual, 75% will be hetero. 50% will be carriers of the homosexual gene.

Expressed as a Punnet square. If both parents are carriers, such that if "A" is the dominant Heterosexual Gene, and "a" is the recessive Homosexual gene, thus there are four possible combinations of genes.

http://anthro.palomar.edu/mendel/images/Punnett5.gif

If both parents are carriers of the recessive
allele for a disorder, all of their children will
face the following odds of inheriting it:
25% chance of having both alleles be the gene for the recessive disorder Homosexuality
50% chance of being a healthy carrier meaning that they have the Phenotype of heterosexuals, but may pass the homosexual gene from one allele to their children.
25% chance of expressing the heterosexual phenotype and not have
the recessive allele at all

Have you never taken a biology course that expressed this function.

For Sickle cell, AA is normal, but has no resistance to malaria. Aa is normal but is a carrier and thus has resistance to malaria, aa has sickle cell, and is dead in infancy.

"The Health Risks of Gay Sex" by John R. Diggs, Jr., M.D. (http://catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/healthrisksSSA.pdf)

Dianne
04-21-2009, 05:57 PM
I have a gay nephew, and I will promise you now that he was born gay... x, y, chromosones... etc. From the time he was two years old, he was a female in all his communication, thought processes, etc.

The Federal Mafia should have no control on who marries who, and what marries what. Let them worry about cleaning up their own act... They can't even balance their check book and we want them to decide who marries who? As long as the insurance companies, who support our esteemed mafia congress... want to charge triple for gay's to insure their life partners.... rest assured... being gay will always be a crime worth handing over some money for. After all, that is how our Congress is paid.... by mafia and drug cartels.

dr. hfn
04-21-2009, 06:13 PM
i HEART gay people

dr. hfn
04-21-2009, 06:14 PM
why is god so worried about butt fuckers? Doesn't he have supernovae to consider?

rofl lmao!

asimplegirl
04-21-2009, 06:19 PM
I don't think God is worried about gays....

That is why he gave us free will...so he wouldn't have to worry...he mourns the loss of us, but other than that, it is on us....furthermore, I DO NOT think that it is impossible for a homosexual to go to heaven...in fact, I know that there are some who are more deserving of entry than Christians.

That's my two cents.

BTW, xeno, that was funny.

TER
04-21-2009, 06:31 PM
Why is God so worried about butt fuckers? Doesn't he have supernovae to consider?

God: The ultimate tyrant.

All people are His children and are counted much more worthy to Him than are supernovae (which are ridiculously less complex than the average human).

And you insult God at your own peril, though you will laugh this comment away and respond with some *cute* reply. Laugh it up now, while you still can.

zach
04-21-2009, 06:49 PM
love - the ultimate aphrodisiac - the ultimate expression.

deny this, and you deny a person of their life's purpose.

let it be.

asimplegirl
04-21-2009, 06:58 PM
love - the ultimate aphrodisiac - the ultimate expression.

deny this, and you deny a person of their life's purpose.

let it be.

What wise words.

Theocrat
04-21-2009, 07:21 PM
love - the ultimate aphrodisiac - the ultimate expression.

deny this, and you deny a person of their life's purpose.

let it be.

Love is neither arbitrary, nor is it promiscuous. ;)

asimplegirl
04-21-2009, 07:32 PM
Arbitrary:

1. Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle

Sometimes, it may be....ever heard of love at first sight?

2. Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference

Nope..it sure isn't...not even mine or yours. The heart wants what the heart wants.

Who ever said that you had to be promiscuous to be gay?

There are many monogamous homosexual relationships.

I think zach's words are the best response to anything in this arena.

Theocrat
04-21-2009, 08:10 PM
Arbitrary:

1. Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle

Sometimes, it may be....ever heard of love at first sight?

2. Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference

Nope..it sure isn't...not even mine or yours. The heart wants what the heart wants.

Who ever said that you had to be promiscuous to be gay?

There are many monogamous homosexual relationships.

I think zach's words are the best response to anything in this arena.

Love travels in a stream motion, not a spray motion.

asimplegirl
04-21-2009, 08:15 PM
That was sorta gross, and didn't make any sense, Theo.

Gay people love just like straight people...they are able to love one person at a time. Sure ther are some that don't...but are there not whores in the straight community? If I am not mistaken, there are LOTS of illegitimate children out there, who's mom can't figure out who the dad is.

I personally do not agree with homosexuality as a choice, but I don't fault anyone for following their heart, and you shouldn't either, as it is between them and their maker..not for us to decide if it is the right thing for them to do.

Theocrat
04-21-2009, 08:34 PM
That was sorta gross, and didn't make any sense, Theo.

Gay people love just like straight people...they are able to love one person at a time. Sure ther are some that don't...but are there not whores in the straight community? If I am not mistaken, there are LOTS of illegitimate children out there, who's mom can't figure out who the dad is.

I personally do not agree with homosexuality as a choice, but I don't fault anyone for following their heart, and you shouldn't either, as it is between them and their maker..not for us to decide if it is the right thing for them to do.

:rolleyes:

Met Income
04-21-2009, 08:44 PM
:rolleyes:

What? Who cares, really? It's not as if people are either qualitatively gay or straight, we're all on a scale of 1 to 100.

Xenophage
04-23-2009, 02:19 PM
All people are His children and are counted much more worthy to Him than are supernovae (which are ridiculously less complex than the average human).

And you insult God at your own peril, though you will laugh this comment away and respond with some *cute* reply. Laugh it up now, while you still can.

That's why he sends butt fuckers to hell? Because they're so important to him, who has an entire Universe to consider?

Your capacity for self delusion is unreal!

How come Santa Claus doesn't give presents to muslims?

All these questions are real easy to answer. There are no contradictions. Watch: Santa Claus doesn't give presents to muslims because he's imaginary. God doesn't send butt fuckers to hell because he's imaginary.

I can one up you though: If God is omniscient and omnipotent then the relative complexity of supernovae to humans is immaterial. It costs him no more consideration or effort to consider one or the other, because God has infinite consideration and power. So, simultaneously enforcing the rules of physics that dictate supernovae expansion and enforcing the rules of morality that dictate human conduct presents no challenge. There is no prioritization taking place.