Is homosexuality unnatural?

[Cedars]

bias? has nothing to do with bias, sweet aromatic tree, it is about facts. Should have known? it was the unnatural that caught my eye

As I said, skimming the article and ignoring punctuation.

 

normal is subjective

typical merely follows a pattern with probabilities

usual depends on the observer

regular is subjective

conforming is something i never do, despite your assessment of me and again the norm is subjective

Rolls eyes.

So, your subjective interpretation is not an object to be questioned, but my subjective opinion is.

 

Have they narrowed down whether homosexuality is genetic? Not that I am aware of.

 

snipped bs

really cedars, you do me a great injustice here, by assuming that i simply follow group thought.I do not.i follow facts and evidence and make my own assessments based upon them

 

considering that your posts are well thought out cedars, you chose that word carefully.Now since i cannot read your mind, i wonder if you knew the outcome might be similar to what has been said

You didnt have to read my mind. That was obvious by the well planned period separating the statements. I pointed that out and yet you cling to your (ill-founded) attack on my grammar. And now allege I conspired to mislead you. Wow.

false. Reason does not ridicule, he questions.

And yet if you look back to Reasons post, he quotes the multiple sentences accurately, and proceeds to combine them into one sentence and still you deny the fact. It was (and remains) obvious to me it was simply an attempt to ridicule my post. Without combining the two sentences, his point would have been moot. Therefore, his response was with intent to distort.

 

Definitions of ridicule on the Web:

 

* language or behavior intended to mock or humiliate

[pamela]

As I said, skimming the article and ignoring punctuation.

i read what you posted, i did not skim

 

Rolls eyes.

:(

So, your subjective interpretation is not an object to be questioned, but my subjective opinion is.

 

Have they narrowed down whether homosexuality is genetic? Not that I am aware of.

subjective? i simply responded to your definition with the added bonus of interjecting me at the end

 

 

 

 

You didnt have to read my mind. That was obvious by the well planned period separating the statements. I pointed that out and yet you cling to your (ill-founded) attack on my grammar. And now allege I conspired to mislead you. Wow.

attack? conspire? yikes, cedars, the world is not out to get, i am just asking for clarification

And yet if you look back to Reasons post, he quotes the multiple sentences accurately, and proceeds to combine them into one sentence and still you deny the fact. It was (and remains) obvious to me it was simply an attempt to ridicule my post. Without combining the two sentences, his point would have been moot. Therefore, his response was with intent to distort.

you made a point to use the word naturally cedars, i stand on what i previously stated.Reason was questioning you, why does that translate into an attack in your mind? reason is reasonable, he is not malicious

 

Definitions of ridicule on the Web:

 

* language or behavior intended to mock or humiliate

he was not mocking you, nor was i

snipped bs? cherry picking? do you have numbers? has there been enough observation? granted you might not like my humour, but address the questions

[Cedars]

i read what you posted, i did not skim

 

:(

Pam, I am going to end this here. There was punctuation that you and others glossed over which changed your interpretation of the sentences. That was clarified in my followup and still you choose to cling to your position of its my fault. I pointed out Reason had to edit my two sentences into one in his reply and still you will not acknowledge his editing changed the statements.

 

Lets be fair?

 

You want information about two headed snakes, google it. Thats how I found the picture and you acknowledged I did not alter the picture. I have a feeling you are aware of two headed snakes occurring naturally, but know full well it is an unnatural condition.

[Moontanman]

Cedars, any particular reason you ignored my answers to your posts?

[pamela]

Pam, I am going to end this here. There was punctuation that you and others glossed over which changed your interpretation of the sentences. That was clarified in my followup and still you choose to cling to your position of its my fault. I pointed out Reason had to edit my two sentences into one in his reply and still you will not acknowledge his editing changed the statements.

 

Lets be fair?

 

You want information about two headed snakes, google it. Thats how I found the picture and you acknowledged I did not alter the picture. I have a feeling you are aware of two headed snakes occurring naturally, but know full well it is an unnatural condition.

 

there is nothing to end, cedars, I am not arguing with you.We apparently differ here and i respect that difference and my polite posts to you have displayed that.

[REASON]

Pam, I am going to end this here. There was punctuation that you and others glossed over which changed your interpretation of the sentences. That was clarified in my follow-up and still you choose to cling to your position of its my fault. I pointed out Reason had to edit my two sentences into one in his reply and still you will not acknowledge his editing changed the statements.

 

Good grief, Cedars, I feel that you are being overly defensive about my interpretation of your comments. Despite the period separating your two statements, they still reference a single thought. I admit that I synopsized them into one simplified statement, which upon further review, still applies as I see it.

 

First of all, separating a sentence into two statements using a period doesn't clarify that your use of the word "naturally" is intended colloquially as "of course," particularly in the context of this thread. One could say, "Naturally some people are born albino," with naturally meaning "in nature" and not "of course." So adding a period doesn't do anything to clarify your usage.

 

Secondly, I still think my synopsis applies because essentially you are saying that people are born with unnatural conditions. It seems to me that if you're born with it, it must be natural. I realize that you have now clarified that your use of "unnatural" is intended to mean "uncommon," but weather you realize it or not, that's not how it comes across. It sounds to me like you are saying that there's something wrong with being albino, for instance, by referring to it as being unnatural, when all you're trying to convey is that it's unusual. I would be less likely to take offense to someone referring to me as unusual or uncommon as opposed to abnormal or unnatural. This type of clarification is all my previous post was trying to point out.

 

I will admit that I am biased with this issue. I have two step brothers that are gay. They exhibited the tendency before they were even ten years old. They were not abused. They grew up in loving environments that were dominated by masculinity. They lead perfectly normal lives despite their sexual orientation. But I take offense to any characterization of them as being unnatural when everything about them seems completely natural to who they are as individuals, despite what anyone attempts to determine to be the "norm." From their point of view, their sexuality is completely normal.

 

I also admit to having an agenda. My agenda is to challenge any form of dogmatic thinking that attempts to portray homosexuality as illegitimate or wrong, particularly that which emanates from religious ideology. It doesn't make sense to me to ostracize a particular segment of the population, who's behavior can be generally seen as harmless and consentual, for no other reason then because they are different and in the minority. Why should a group who exists in a manner that is less common be deemed wrong? Why is it necessary to judge it as unacceptable, sinful, or abnormal when there is no discernable harm being done? What does it say about people who choose to focus their energy in such a negative way, and what benefit does it really serve toward the success of society?

 

The fact of the matter as I see it is that most of the people who choose to take that position of judgement don't even have the courage to admit their own bigotry. Instead they hide behind religious scripture as justification for their derision. Others will simply use the excuse that there's no way that something like homosexuality can exist in nature so that they can take the position that it's nothing but a behavioral disorder, which is easier to ridicule then some inherent condition. These methods are a way to avoid the guilt that is associated with treating people poorly when they don't deserve it. I don't expect everyone to like it, but I don't see the purpose or benefit in being discriminatory, particularly from a legal standpoint.

 

I take it, from the explanations you've given for your statements, that you don't fall in the category of people I just described. And yet I think you've presented some pretty compelling arguments against some of the characterizations presented of what constitutes homosexuality in the animal kingdom. But I just didn't agree with your use of the term "unnatural" as a way to describe a condition that you simply see as atypical. I think it portrays an appearance of judgement or bias that you may not intend. That's what I was trying to point out in my previous post to you.

 

My apologies if I came across as condescending.

[lemit]

Reason,

 

Please don't apologize for accurately copying Cedars' post.

 

One of the following is from the original. The other is from your response. Which is which?

 

Naturally some people are born trans-gender. But it is an unnatural condition.

Naturally some people are born epileptics. But it is an unnatural condition.

Naturally some people are born albino. But this is an unnatural condition.

 

Naturally some people are born trans-gender. But it is an unnatural condition.

Naturally some people are born epileptics. But it is an unnatural condition.

Naturally some people are born albino. But this is an unnatural condition.

 

What did you change? What is the problem wth punctuation? I spent several years as a professional proofreader, and I'd send the new copy along as an accurate version of the old copy. What am I missing?

 

Sometimes I feel like a real idiot here, following arguments over seemingly invisible differences. This is one of those occasions. I almost feel like I should ask for a PM from somebody to explain what this punctuation argument is about.

 

As for the argument about "Naturally" and "unnatural," anyone who can separate those two beyond the prefix and suffix needs a good dictionary. Here's a link to the OED entry for "natural." I hope it helps.

 

http://0-dictionary.oed.com.catalog.library.colostate.edu/cgi/entry/00321538?query_type=word&queryword=natural&first=1&max_to_show=10&sort_type=alpha&result_place=1&search_id=1epn-9LeixC-1393&hilite=00321538

 

I hope I don't need to get into the problems with cavalierly substituting "normal" for "natural" after the fact.

 

--lemit

[lemit]

Oh, by the way, here are some articles on the genetic and hormonal links to sexual preference, from Web of Science. I hope this small sample shows that there's some research out there showing a genetic involvemet. Sorry for the cumbersome format. I didn't want to leave anything out.

 

AU Pillard, RC

Bailey, JM

TI Human sexual orientation has a heritable component

SO HUMAN BIOLOGY

LA English

DT Article

ID GENDER IDENTITY DISORDER; MALE HOMOSEXUALITY; UNITED-STATES; PHYSICAL

ATTRACTIVENESS; TYPED BEHAVIOR; TWINS; MEN; PREFERENCE; FEMALES;

FAMILIALITY

AB We present an overview of behavioral genetics research on homosexual

and heterosexual orientation. Family, twin, and adoptee studies

indicate that homosexuality and thus heterosexuality run in families.

Sibling, twin, and adoptee concordance rates are compatible with the

hypothesis that genes account for at least half of the variance in

sexual orientation, We note observations of homosexual behavior in

animal species, but the analogy to human sexual orientation is unclear.

We discuss the reproductive disadvantage of a homosexual orientation

and present possible mechanisms that could maintain a balanced

polymorphism in human populations.

C1 Boston Univ, Sch Med, Dept Psychiat, Boston, MA 02118 USA.

Northwestern Univ, Dept Psychol, Evanston, IL 60208 USA.

RP Pillard, RC, Boston Univ, Sch Med, Dept Psychiat, 85 E Newton St,

Boston, MA 02118 USA.

NR 83

TC 23

PU WAYNE STATE UNIV PRESS

PI DETROIT

PA 4809 WOODWARD AVE, DETROIT, MI 48201-1309 USA

SN 0018-7143

J9 HUM BIOL

JI Hum. Biol.

PD APR

PY 1998

VL 70

IS 2

BP 347

EP 365

PG 19

SC Biology; Genetics & Heredity

GA ZC989

UT ISI:000072639600011

 

AU Gabard, DL

TI Homosexuality and the human genome project: Private and public choices

SO JOURNAL OF HOMOSEXUALITY

LA English

DT Article

DE homosexuality; genome; ethics

ID MALE SEXUAL ORIENTATION; FAMILY-PRACTICE; UNITED-STATES; HOMOPHOBIA;

MEDICINE; GENETICS; BIOLOGY; GENES; AIDS; MEN

AB Recent scientific research which offers evidence of genetic and

biologic influence in homosexuality has created serious concerns. The

intent of this article is to offer suggestions based in principles of

bioethics in which perceived negative outcomes may be diminished and

the positive qualities of the research enhanced. For a portion of the

general population the concerns expressed in this article could be

alleviated through public discussion and exposure to the findings and

theories of the academic and scientific communities. For another

portion of the population, however, additional safeguards against

misuse of screening tests and somatic cell interventions may be

advisable through efforts initiated by researchers themselves, general

public policies, and additional medical policies. While these efforts

are recommended as short term goals for the separate scientific and

social paradigms of homosexuality, it is proposed that an equally

important and related debate involves the subjects of disease,

normality and the value of diversity. It is suggested that while it is

imperative that the behavioral and biological sciences recognize the

limitations of their separate approaches, the reductionist approach

itself limits our understanding of what essentially are questions of

attraction and relationships. In conclusion, homosexuality should be

understood from the perspective of autonomy as every person's right to

experience a full and meaningful life.

C1 Chapman Univ, Div Phys Therapy, Orange, CA 92666 USA.

RP Gabard, DL, Chapman Univ, Div Phys Therapy, 333 N Glassell St, Orange,

CA 92666 USA.

NR 89

TC 1

PU HAWORTH PRESS INC

PI BINGHAMTON

PA 10 ALICE ST, BINGHAMTON, NY 13904-1580 USA

SN 0091-8369

J9 J HOMOSEXUAL

JI J. Homosex.

PY 1999

VL 37

IS 1

BP 25

EP 51

PG 27

SC Psychology, Multidisciplinary; Social Sciences, Interdisciplinary

GA 175UE

UT ISI:000079113200003

 

AU Hershberger, SL

Segal, NL

TI The cognitive, behavioral, and personality profiles of a male

monozygotic triplet set discordant for sexual orientation

SO ARCHIVES OF SEXUAL BEHAVIOR

LA English

DT Article

DE sexual orientation; cognitive ability; behavioral genetics; triplets

ID HETEROSEXUAL MEN; SPATIAL ABILITY; HOMOSEXUAL MEN; ROLE INVENTORY;

META-ANALYSIS; GENDER; SPEECH; WOMEN; TWINS; IDENTIFICATION

AB The neurohormonal theory of sexual orientation proposes that homosexual

men and homosexual women are exposed prenatally to a hormonal

environment that is similar to that of the other sex. Prenatal exposure

to an opposite-sex hormonal environment may lead the nervous system to

develop in a manner consistent with the opposite sex. If this cross-sex

exposure occurs, one prediction would be that the cognitive ability

profile of homosexual men would be similar to that of heterosexual

women. This study examined a set of male monozygotic triplets, aged 21

years, discordant for sexual orientation: 2 of the triplets were

heterosexual, 1 was homosexual. The triplets were administered measures

of 23 domains of cognitive ability, as well as measures of sexual

orientation and masculinity/femininity. On the measures of cognitive

ability, the triplets performed similarly, yet consistent differences

were found between the 2 heterosexual triplets and the 1 homosexual

cotriplet. Differences having the same pattern were found for the

number of Schafer homosexuality signs on the Rorschach, and on a

homosexuality scale derived from items on the Minnesota Multiphasic

Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2). Responses from the homosexual triplet

were in a more feminine direction than responses from his 2

heterosexual cotriplets on measures of masculinity-femininity, which

included measures derived from Rorschach responses, the MMPI-2

Masculinity-Femininity scale, the Bem Sex Role Inventory, and the

Boyhood Gender Conformity Scale. Responses to the 16 Personality Factor

Questionnaire also distinguished the 1 homosexual triplet from the 2

heterosexual cotriplets. These findings support the view that the

prenatal hormonal environment may have enduring effects on selected

behavioral traits.

C1 Calif State Univ Long Beach, Dept Psychol, Long Beach, CA 90840 USA.

Calif State Univ Fullerton, Dept Psychol, Fullerton, CA 92634 USA.

RP Hershberger, SL, Calif State Univ Long Beach, Dept Psychol, 1250

Bellflower Blvd, Long Beach, CA 90840 USA.

EM [email protected]

NR 90

TC 3

PU KLUWER ACADEMIC/PLENUM PUBL

PI NEW YORK

PA 233 SPRING ST, NEW YORK, NY 10013 USA

SN 0004-0002

J9 ARCH SEX BEHAV

JI Arch. Sex. Behav.

PD OCT

PY 2004

VL 33

IS 5

BP 497

EP 514

PG 18

SC Psychology, Clinical

GA 844ZL

UT ISI:000223205300008

 

AU Rahman, Q

TI The neurodevelopment of human sexual orientation

SO NEUROSCIENCE AND BIOBEHAVIORAL REVIEWS

LA English

DT Review

DE sexual orientation; homosexuality; heterosexuality; genetics; prenatal

androgens; fraternal birth order; developmental instability; proxy

markers; maternal immunity; hypothalamus; developmental neurobiology;

learning

ID NATIONAL PROBABILITY SAMPLE; FINGER-LENGTH RATIOS; 4TH DIGIT LENGTH;

CONGENITAL ADRENAL-HYPERPLASIA; ANDROGEN RECEPTOR GENE; FRATERNAL

BIRTH-ORDER; MALE HOMOSEXUALITY; OLDER BROTHERS; OTOACOUSTIC EMISSIONS;

AUDITORY SYSTEMS

AB One of the most enduring and controversial questions in the

neuroscience of sexual behaviour surrounds the mechanisms which produce

sexual attraction to either males or females. Here, evidence is

reviewed which supports the proposal that sexual orientation in humans

may be laid down in neural circuitry during early foetal development.

Behaviour genetic investigations provide strong evidence for a

heritable component to male and female sexual orientation. Linkage

studies are partly suggestive of X-linked loci although candidate gene

studies have produced null findings. Further evidence demonstrates a

role for prenatal sex hormones which may influence the development of a

putative network of sexual-orientation-related neural substrates.

However, hormonal effects are often inconsistent and investigations

rely heavily on 'proxy markers'. A consistent fraternal birth order

effect in male sexual orientation also provides support for a model of

maternal immunization processes affecting prenatal sexual

differentiation. The notion that non-heterosexual preferences may

reflect generalized neurodevelopmental perturbations is not supported

by available data. These current theories have left little room for

learning models of sexual orientation. Future investigations, across

the neurosciences, should focus to elucidate the fundamental neural

architecture underlying the target-specific direction of human sexual

orientation, and their antecedents in developmental neurobiology. ©

2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

C1 Univ E London, Sch Psychol, London E15 4LZ, England.

RP Rahman, Q, Univ E London, Sch Psychol, The Green, London E15 4LZ,

England.

EM [email protected]

NR 95

TC 18

PU PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD

PI OXFORD

PA THE BOULEVARD, LANGFORD LANE, KIDLINGTON, OXFORD OX5 1GB, ENGLAND

SN 0149-7634

J9 NEUROSCI BIOBEHAV REV

JI Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev.

PY 2005

VL 29

IS 7

BP 1057

EP 1066

DI 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2005.03.002

PG 10

SC Behavioral Sciences; Neurosciences

GA 968UF

UT ISI:000232187300003

 

AU Gavrilets, S

Rice, WR

AF Gavrilets, Sergey

Rice, William R.

TI Genetic models of homosexuality: generating testable predictions

SO PROCEEDINGS OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY B-BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES

LA English

DT Article

DE homosexuality; genetics; maintenance; evolution; mathematical models;

testable predictions

ID MALE SEXUAL ORIENTATION; OLDER BROTHERS; MEN; SELECTION; EVOLUTION;

CONFLICT; LINKAGE; FAMILY; CHROMOSOME; BEHAVIOR

AB Homosexuality is a common occurrence in humans and other species, yet

its genetic and evolutionary basis is poorly understood. Here, we

formulate and study a series of simple mathematical models for the

purpose of predicting empirical patterns that can be used to determine

the form of selection that leads to polymorphism of genes influencing

homosexuality. Specifically, we develop theory to make contrasting

predictions about the genetic characteristics of genes influencing

homosexuality including: (i) chromosomal location, (ii) dominance among

segregating alleles and (iii) effect sizes that distinguish between the

two major models for their polymorphism: the overdominance and sexual

antagonism models. We conclude that the measurement of the genetic

characteristics of quantitative trait loci (QTLs) found in genomic

screens for genes influencing homosexuality can be highly informative

in resolving the form of natural selection maintaining their

polymorphism.

C1 Univ Tennessee, Dept Ecol & Evolut Biol, Knoxville, TN 37996 USA.

Univ Tennessee, Dept Math, Knoxville, TN 37996 USA.

Univ Calif Santa Barbara, Dept Ecol Evolut & Marine Biol, Santa Barbara, CA 93106 USA.

RP Gavrilets, S, Univ Tennessee, Dept Ecol & Evolut Biol, Knoxville, TN

37996 USA.

EM [email protected]

NR 43

TC 13

PU ROYAL SOCIETY

PI LONDON

PA 6-9 CARLTON HOUSE TERRACE, LONDON SW1Y 5AG, ENGLAND

SN 0962-8452

J9 PROC R SOC B

JI Proc. R. Soc. B-Biol. Sci.

PD DEC 22

PY 2006

VL 273

IS 1605

BP 3031

EP 3038

DI 10.1098/rspb.2006.3684

PG 8

SC Biology

GA 114SB

UT ISI:000242684800003

 

AU Ellis, L

Ficek, C

Burke, D

Das, S

AF Ellis, Lee

Ficek, Christopher

Burke, Donald

Das, Shyamal

TI Eye color, hair color, blood type, and the rhesus factor: Exploring

possible genetic links to sexual orientation

SO ARCHIVES OF SEXUAL BEHAVIOR

LA English

DT Proceedings Paper

DE sexual orientation; blood type; rhesus factor; hair color; eye color;

genetics

ID MANIC-DEPRESSIVE PATIENTS; ABO; CHROMOSOME; MARKERS; HOMOSEXUALITY;

CONSERVATION; EVOLUTION; ILLNESS; XQ28

AB The present study sought to expand the limited evidence that sexual

orientation is influenced by genetic factors. This was accomplished by

seeking statistical differences between heterosexuals and homosexuals

for four traits that are known to be genetically determined: eye color,

natural hair color, blood type, and the Rhesus factor. Using a sample

of over 7,000 U.S. and Canadian college students supplemented with

additional homosexual subjects obtained through internet contacts, we

found no significant differences between heterosexuals and homosexuals

regarding eye color or hair color. In the case of blood type and the Rh

factor, however, interesting patterns emerged. Heterosexual males and

females exhibited statistically identical frequencies of the A blood

type, while gay men exhibited a relatively low incidence and lesbians

had a relatively high incidence (p < .05). In the case of the Rh

factor, unusually high proportions of homosexuals of both sexes were

Rh- when compared to heterosexuals (p < .06). The findings suggest that

a connection may exist between sexual orientation and genes both on

chromosome 9 (where blood type is determined) and on chromosome 1

(where the Rh factor is regulated).

C1 [Ellis, Lee; Ficek, Christopher; Das, Shyamal] Minot State Univ, Dept Sociol, Minot, ND 58707 USA.

[burke, Donald] Minot State Univ, Dept Addict Studies Psychol & Social Work, Minot, ND USA.

RP Ellis, L, Minot State Univ, Dept Sociol, Minot, ND 58707 USA.

EM [email protected]

NR 32

TC 2

PU SPRINGER/PLENUM PUBLISHERS

PI NEW YORK

PA 233 SPRING ST, NEW YORK, NY 10013 USA

SN 0004-0002

J9 ARCH SEX BEHAV

JI Arch. Sex. Behav.

PD FEB

PY 2008

VL 37

IS 1

BP 145

EP 149

DI 10.1007/s10508-007-9274-0

PG 5

SC Psychology, Clinical

GA 254CC

UT ISI:000252563000015

 

AU Santtila, P

Sandnabba, NK

Harlaar, N

Varjonen, M

Alanko, K

von der Pahlen, B

AF Santtila, Pekka

Sandnabba, N. Kenneth

Harlaar, Nicole

Varjonen, Markus

Alanko, Katarina

von der Pahlen, Bettina

TI Potential for homosexual response is prevalent and genetic

SO BIOLOGICAL PSYCHOLOGY

LA English

DT Article

DE sexual orientation; homosexuality; behavior genetics; genes; twins

ID SEXUAL ORIENTATION; ZYGOSITY

AB We investigated the potential to engage in homosexual behavior in 6001

female and 3152 male twins and their siblings finding that 32.8% of the

men and 65.4% of the women reported such potential (p < 0.001). 91.5%

of these men and 98.3% of these women reported no overt homosexual

behavior during the preceding 12 months. The potential to engage in

homosexual behavior was influenced by genetic effects for both men

(37.4%) and women (46.4%) and these overlapped only partly with those

for overt homosexual behavior. © 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights

reserved.

C1 [santtila, Pekka; Sandnabba, N. Kenneth; Harlaar, Nicole; Varjonen, Markus; Alanko, Katarina; von der Pahlen, Bettina] Abo Akad Univ, Dept Psychol, Ctr Excellence Behav Genet, SF-20500 Turku, Finland.

RP Santtila, P, Abo Akad Univ, Dept Psychol, Ctr Excellence Behav Genet,

SF-20500 Turku, Finland.

EM [email protected]

NR 15

TC 1

PU ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV

PI AMSTERDAM

PA PO BOX 211, 1000 AE AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS

SN 0301-0511

J9 BIOL PSYCHOL

JI Biol. Psychol.

PD JAN

PY 2008

VL 77

IS 1

BP 102

EP 105

DI 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2007.08.006

PG 4

SC Psychology, Biological; Behavioral Sciences; Psychology; Psychology,

Experimental

GA 256YS

UT ISI:000252766400016

 

I hope that helps. I really don't want to aid any agenda. I just want to go where the evidence, as revealed by the research, leads.

 

--lemit

[REASON]

Reason,

 

Please don't apologize for accurately copying Cedars' post.

 

One of the following is from the original. The other is from your response. Which is which?

 

What did you change? What is the problem wth punctuation? I spent several years as a professional proofreader, and I'd send the new copy along as an accurate version of the old copy. What am I missing?

 

I did properly quote Cedars' words, but then transposed them into a singular statement that I then stated was a "contradiction" in this post. Cedars took exception to that transposition, not to what I had quoted.

[Cedars]

I feel that you are being overly defensive about my interpretation of your comments.First of all, separating a sentence into two statements using a period doesn't clarify that your use of the word "naturally" is intended colloquially as "of course," particularly in the context of this thread.

 

Secondly, ... I realize that you have now clarified that your use of "unnatural" is intended to mean "uncommon," but weather you realize it or not, that's not how it comes across.

And your not being overly emotional about the same thing? Your not being overly sensitive about the SAME thing?

 

It doesnt matter when someone clarifies, those who have their interpretation insist that everyone else should accommodate their internal thesaurs, rather than the 'offended' party adding a new meaning to their list of definitions. Let alone admitting the use is legitimate...

 

So the complaint isn’t about the actual use of the word. Its about your [agenda crowd] negative interpretation. Someone MIGHT mean it a different way so we need to quash any reference to unnatural/natural that someone might use to malign regardless of whether that was the reality of the usage.

 

During thanksgiving/xmas holidays we used to go to relatives in Minneapolis. After dinner us kids would be dropped off at the movies. A black kid, my age (7 – 8) was sitting next to me and we got into a conversation about being black. I cannot remember how it came up. Probably something to do with civil rights and all that stuff going on at that time. He liked to be called colored. He didn’t like the term black, he didn’t like the color black and colored reminded him of all the different colors in his crayon box.

 

So I saw him again xmas. I sat by him, I had looked for him. He was uncomfortable and explained why. When he got home he told his mom about our conversation and his mom got mad insisting he call himself black or African American. Colored is racist. He was so mad. He hated African American cuz it took too long to say. He hated the color black, it was boring. He liked to think of himself as colored, not black.

 

I never saw him again. Wasn’t me who word associated colored is racist in a 7-8 year old mind. I thought his point about crayons in a box was really cool. I still flash back to the encounter, 40 years later, when I hear the word “colored” and I think of crayons in a box. I wonder if he flashes back to his mom and “racist” when he hears the word “colored”.

 

I will admit that I am biased with this issue. They exhibited the tendency before they were even ten years old.

So you noticed something 'different'?

 

They were not abused. They grew up in loving environments that were dominated by masculinity. They lead perfectly normal lives despite their sexual orientation.

Now if I would have posted this, the agenda crowd would have jumped all over it. WHAT does ABUSE have to do with it!!?? What does masculinity have to do with it, blah blah blah. Despite their orientation?? You are making it sound like its a bad thing!!

 

There is blatent gramarical discrimination throughout these kinds of threads. But it justifies group ridicule. 24 hours later…

Crickets chirping.

 

But I take offense to any characterization of them as being unnatural when everything about them seems completely natural to who they are as individuals, despite what anyone attempts to determine to be the "norm." From their point of view, their sexuality is completely normal.

You take offense and my position is 'so what'. Fact is everything didnt seem completely natural to you or you wouldnt have noticed "they exhibted the tendency". And like it or not there is a "norm". Thats the reality. Of people, of nature, of animals, of geology, etc. And calling that which is outside the natural/norm, unnatural/abnormal is within the realm of legitimate language usage.

 

I am not being overly defensive about the grammar issues so much as I am sick of the lame attempts to ridicule trivial matters and ignoring of the relevant parts of the post. You cant argue the homosexual animal issue so lets be pissy about terms used. You cant argue the genetics are speculative, so lets ***** about Jimmy Carter/Joe Wilson isnt the topic, directed at a responder to the post rather than directed at the origin of the comment.

 

My agenda is to challenge any form of dogmatic thinking that attempts to portray homosexuality as illegitimate or wrong, particularly that which emanates from religious ideology. It doesn't make sense to me to ostracize a particular segment of the population, who's behavior can be generally seen as harmless and consentual, for no other reason then because they are different and in the minority. Why should a group who exist in a manner that is less common be deemed wrong? Why is it necessary to judge it as unacceptable, sinful, or abnormal when there is no discernable harm being done? What does it say about people who choose to focus their energy in such a negative way, and what benefit does it really serve toward the success of society?

This isnt entirely true. It may be your goal, but because of your bias towards this subject, you cant help but display typical human group/pack behavior. You didn’t challenge dogmatic thinking in any of your responses to me. I didnt say it (homosexuality) was wrong. I didnt say [it] was sinful, unacceptable, abnormal (though technically, it is abnormal). Before I get admonished again:

 

abnormal - definition of abnormal by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Abnormal Definition | Definition of Abnormal at Dictionary.com

 

Now to point out some of the bias, just from this thread.

 

From post #45

"After formal ceremonies end, the bachelors make erotic advances to the boys and homosexual activity takes place outside on the darkened dance ground. "Not all initiates will participate in this ceremonial homosexual activity, but in about five days later several will have perform fellatio several times."

 

I followed this link from the above post:

Intro to Cultural Anthropology: The Sambia

 

These are boys. Ages 7-10.

 

crickets chirping.

 

Not one admonishment to the content of this post.

 

I know of NO homosexual who would want this behavior associated with homosexuality.

 

Yet no one bothered to say "this is not homosexuality and has no bearing on this thread".

 

Example: Lemit and his Carter/Wilson posts.

 

It was fine with the social agenda position, after all, lemit has a gay relative and therefore couldnt be against the [group] position. But you took the time to address my exactly the same response (with different people saying terrible things about Jimmy Carter). Your not a republican are you? Makes it easier to let unsubstantiated innuendo remain unquestioned.

 

So I posted a better link from a better source per your post.

 

Crickets chirping.

 

Two weeks later, you finally note that some of the things I said about animal homosexuality may be compelling. Nothing good to say until now? Every post to me in this thread (by you) was critical, until now? 2 weeks later. Is your agenda getting in the way of your better judgement?

 

Gotta win at all costs. Ignore the legitimate points and focus on the trivial. Regardless of whether is was legitmate. Support/ignore unsubstantiated claims of “homosexual animals are common” Because you have an agenda.

 

The fact of the matter as I see it is that most of the people who choose to take that position of judgement don't even have the courage to admit their own bigotry. Instead they hide behind religious scripture as justification for their derision. Others will simply use the excuse that there's no way that something like homosexuality can exist in nature so that they can take the position that it's nothing but a behavioral disorder, which is easier to ridicule then some inherent condition. These methods are a way to avoid the guilt that is associated with treating people poorly when they don't deserve it. I don't expect everyone to like it, but I don't see the purpose or benefit in being discriminatory, particularly from a legal standpoint.

 

The fact of the matter as I see it is that most of the people who choose to take that position of judgement (don’t agree, must be a homophobe/bigot/racist/horrible parent/etc) don't even have the courage to admit their own bias . Instead they hide behind inconclusive/preliminary/speculative data (how many cancer breakthroughs have been announced on preliminary data and later found to be wrong?) as justification for their position. Others will simply use the excuse that there's no way that something like incest can exist in nature so that they can take the position that it's nothing but a behavioral disorder, which is easier to ridicule than some inherent condition. These methods are a way to avoid the responsiblity that is associated with treating people fairly when they deserve it. I don't expect everyone to like it, but I don't see the purpose or benefit in being objective, particularly from a scientific standpoint.

 

Now dont come unglued over the above. I was just having fun, mostly.

 

Dont wave around inconclusive data as anything but inconclusive. Its too easy to dispute. There is no 'proof' homosexuality is genetic. There is no "Eureka, the gene sequence for homosexuality is ....". The blanks have not been filled in. They may never be filled in. Much of the speculative or preliminary finds are its not so much genetic as much as its an immune function/hormone imbalance of the mother resulting in a genetic dysfunction in the male (because this doesnt seem to be the factor in female homosexuality). And many of those have been refuted.

 

So the two headed snake is appropriate. Yeah, it happens, but it is unnatural. Yeah Mom kinda attacks the embro when shes used as a baby machine. Maybe catholics will start allowing birth control if its proven they are going forth and multiplying the homosexuals. Islam is just gonna kill the moms, now that science has proven its cuz of mom. /irony

 

Dont wave around speculative field observations (and often second hand recountings) as proof of animal homosexuality. Its too easy to dispute.

Dont wave around pedophilic cultural habits as something related to homosexuality. Its not and appears to be an act of desperation. Besides. Ick.

 

Its the double standard. You got a problem with the actual content dispute it. Wait! If you dispute it you might be labeled a bigot/homophobe/racist/horrible parent. Maybe I should just STFU (well that aint gonna happen). We got a right to pervert science to fit our needs/goals/agenda.

 

You got a problem with legitimate use of a word? Move on. Its petty and makes it look like you [the pro crowd] hasn’t a valid argument.

[Moontanman]

Cedars, what is your point? Just because you disagree about homosexuality in animals doesn't make you correct. Your post about the colored kid is off topic and has no bearing on what we are talking about. The cultural sex acts you described have nothing to do with homosexuality. Pedophilia is not something you are born with. there is evidence that homosexuality is genetic and hormonal sometimes both in men and women. And as i have pointed out you are using the term unnatural in a way that is not accurate in this context. Just because blue eyed black people are unusual doesn't make them unnatural. Just because albinos are unusual it doesn't make them unnatural. and just because homosexuals are a small part of the population it does not by definition make them unnatural. Unusual and Unnatural are not always the same thing. a two headed snake is quite unusual but none the less natural. a snake that has an extra head sewn on is both unusual and unnatural. I were to have sex with a man it would be unusual and unnatural because it would be going against my natural sexual feelings. For my son to have sex with a woman it would be both unusual and unnatural for the same reasons. Just because in some cases unusual is unnatural doesn't make always so nor are the two words just different ways of saying the same thing. Take for instance the word lier, is it the same thing to call someone a lier as it is to say they are disingenuous? In some instances it might be accurate but in others not so much. Now I am going to assume you are not a homophobic and are just arguing semantics. So i think it's inaccurate to say homosexuality is unnatural just because it is unusual. As for the animals being homosexual i personally think we as humans are the only creatures that make a point to define sexuality in those terms. It makes me think that in a real way the idea of separating out homosexuality and heterosexuality from simple sexuality is unnatural

[freeztar]

Dont wave around speculative field observations (and often second hand recountings) as proof of animal homosexuality. Its too easy to dispute.

What would constitute good evidence for animal homosexuality, in your opinion?

[Cedars]

What would constitute good evidence for animal homosexuality, in your opinion?

 

At this point in the sciences, I really dont know. But its been pretty easy to read the bits and pieces out there (some of which isnt science and more an opinion) and find other evidence to contradict it, or point out the flaws in the conclusions (ie but the study didnt examine ____ condition(s)).

 

And then there is the funding factor. With all we dont know of the bigger picture should we divert funds for a marginal factor to prove/disprove the meaning of mounting behavior in wild elk (ie traqulize/kill) sample and test, necropsy and test, then analyse/publish.

 

Personally, I find it handy that mounting behaviors of my neutered cat on the diabetic cat signal changes in her insulin levels. It was handy when we had cattle. We knew to pay special attention to target of these efforts.

 

I dont know that it is in cats/dogs/cattles best interest to have people thinking, damn, I got me a homosexual dog.

[mynah]

Seems at least in fruit flies pheromones could make the difference between heterosexual and sexually indiscriminate behaviour. Especially interesting is the finding that pheromones, rather than stimulate attraction, act as a barrier to same sex and interspecies matings.

 

Article

[lemit]

At this point in the sciences, I really dont know. But its been pretty easy to read the bits and pieces out there (some of which isnt science and more an opinion) and find other evidence to contradict it, or point out the flaws in the conclusions (ie but the study didnt examine ____ condition(s)).

 

And then there is the funding factor. With all we dont know of the bigger picture should we divert funds for a marginal factor to prove/disprove the meaning of mounting behavior in wild elk (ie traqulize/kill) sample and test, necropsy and test, then analyse/publish.

 

Personally, I find it handy that mounting behaviors of my neutered cat on the diabetic cat signal changes in her insulin levels. It was handy when we had cattle. We knew to pay special attention to target of these efforts.

 

I dont know that it is in cats/dogs/cattles best interest to have people thinking, damn, I got me a homosexual dog.

 

Careful. Some time in the future, you might well want to cite research done on non-humans. You probably shouldn't burn those particular bridges behind you.

 

--lemit

[Cedars]

Careful. Some time in the future, you might well want to cite research done on non-humans. You probably shouldn't burn those particular bridges behind you.

 

--lemit

I am unsure what your point is with this. Are you saying that you cant argue my point in this particular post so you enlisting psychic abilities to predict my journalistic future?

[freeztar]

At this point in the sciences, I really dont know.

 

Well, it will be really difficult to sway you if you yourself don't know what would sway your opinion.

 

So, perhaps the best way forward is to present studies and we can all argue on the deficiencies and merits of those studies individually? Over time, we could develop a catalogue of scientific evidence for and against "natural homosexuality" and compare the lists to go deeper into our scientific understanding (or lack thereof) of the big picture.