Liberals, as reflected in the poll, tend to think homosexuality is genetically determined.
…
"A sinister cabal of superior writers."
Foreseeing the gay unions controversy - Comments Page 2
Liberals, as reflected in the poll, tend to think homosexuality is genetically determined.
…
Article comments
26 - bhw
I'll post your name and everything about you on the net within 36hrs.
Also, this type of threat is abusive. Why is it that people can't be trusted with power? You are an investigator, so your first line of defense is to threaten to publish everything you can find about a person?
27 - Roger
BHW, I was mainly refering to the character known as shark. This is the second weekend in a row I have been in a reasonable debate with someone with some intelligence like yourself when "shark" has popped in making remarks. Stupid ones.
28 - Roger
Strike a sore spot Mark or is it shark?
bhw sorry about the confusion on the postings.
29 - Mark Saleski
no sore spot with me, i just think that Hypocrisy/Idiot stew is very entertaining.
30 - Roger
I'll tell you Mark, it just digs my skin a bit when I'm debateing with someone who a least has a level head(like bhw) and a pesky shark character starts his or her shit.
This site would be a lot better if there weren't stupid character names, especially ones who make references to smoking pot like "Shark". I have actually been given hell over this site by some of my peers because when I ask them to visit it they came back laughing rather than taking it seriously. Mostly because of the idiots like shark, the posting Canada Rock's in which the person makes a remark about the former primeminister being a "dope smoking fiend" Not to mention being sponsored by porn. That book is a very poor disguise. It's pretty obvious that once you go to that site to is directly linked to numerous porn sites. Do you think if Phillip or whoever is in charge of this told "The Diary of Porn" no porn links or pics that there wolud be any sponsorship? I think the real intent is pretty clear. Porn is the hottest thing on the net. Besides I was at Borders books and Barnes and Noble earlier and I didn't find it on any best seller list. In fact when asked I was told that it couldn't be ordered.
I guess desperate times seek desperate measures.
31 - Phillip Winn
You're right, Roger, I don't like comment #22. I've warned you about this before, and I'll tell you again: Threats are not welcome here, and whether you choose to view your statement as threatening or not, this is now your second warning that statements of that nature are considered threatening here.
We have a number of Blogcritics and participants alike who rely on anonymity here for a variety of reasons, and as long as they refrain from threatening remarks, they shall remain anonymous. If you post personal details here that you have uncovered via private investigation or any other method, I will delete them and ban you. If you threaten to do so again, the same consequence is likely.
Read back over your comments on this thread alone and note to what I'm reacting and to what I am not, and move on, please.
Thanks.
32 - Phillip Winn
Also, Roger (#30), this is at least the third time I've mentioned that we have a place for comments about the site sponsor ad. You know this, you've been there.
If you read that page and understand anything at all about the way this site works, you would know that the current site sponsor is a weblog, not a book. In fact, we have had several sponsors of this site over time. The only requirement is that someone go to Blogads.com and click on the link and pay some money to get their ad in front of the many, many people who visit this site. I assure you, it isn't much money, and it is for a limited time only. Of course, if you had read that page before commenting on it previously, you would also know that I have nothing to do with choosing the ads, or even refusing them.
33 - Roger
I'll be more specific. I don't like a fucking nameless coward. Anonimity for a reason? So they can be smart-asses and make references to dope smoking. You're putting on a real serious advertisment for your site. You expect a credible sponsor to take you serious. I didn't threaten. If they are dumb enough to send me an e-mail after that wouldn't you think they may have made a stupid mistake and deserve it for not using common sense? Warn or even kick me off if you like.
34 - Roger
Phillip:
Would this anonimty be because besides being smart assed cowards, it's easier for one person to remember more than one character name as apposed to multiple aliases? You(meaning the characters) need to further understand that even though this is the internet don't think that you can push and not get pushed back. I don't like being fucked with by some pest.
I've had some good debates with people including one just now over Cortney Love that started heated but ended maturally.
35 - Mac Diva
I don't often agree with Roger, but there is a nugget in one of his comments on this thread I think deserves attention. I believe he is right that homosexuals being able to marry will not change the minds of people who think there is something inherently wrong with them. Some deluded gays may believe it will. But, I believe that many insightful gay people see marriage as a benefit whether straight people believe it 'equalizes' them or not. They will get the tax breaks, be able to attend each other in sickness and death, have children be in the custody of both members of the couple, etc. That is more important than the amorphous plum of societal acceptance.
I mentioned about a week ago that the opposed to gay marriage numbers went up in polls after gay marriage in Oregon became a fait accompli. That trend has continued. The antis have risen about ten per cent and continue to rise. There appears to be more discomfiture on the topic than people admit. It reminds of entry and exit polls when minority candidates run for office needing white votes. Whites say they will vote for those candidates pre-election, but the exit polls reveal many renege.
36 - Roger
I have a lot more interesting info on this subject. I'll weigh in later, that is if I am allowed back on the site of holy sanctity. If not see ya around everyone. Maybe sooner than later?
Good bye...
37 - Shark
Roger, FYI: it's threats from people like you that ENCOURAGE others to remain anonymous on the internet.
You sound more than a little unhinged to me.
PS: Less coffee, more deep breaths.
38 - bhw
Yep. I remain anonymous mostly, but not entirely, for personal safety reasons.
I've had a family member threatened in an e-mail, and even though I knew the person doing the threatening couldn't know who I was and was just being a dick, it still bothered me for quite a while. All of that because I wrote a satirical entry about wrestling [not the WWF kind].
Too many angry Americans, man. And too many walking stereotypes.
39 - RJ Elliott
To "bhw":
It's simply a fact that ALL people are imperfect, and their imperfections, if caused by genetic factors, are by definition genetic flaws, or defects.
And here come the eugenics! Genetic variations = defects. So, what would the perfect human look like?
A human being predisposed to engaging solely in non-reproductive sex will not have his/her genes passed on to the next generation. This is "not a good thing" from an evolutionary point of view.
It is a fact that male-male penetrative sex is more likely to damage sensitive tissues and increase the likelihood of getting an STD.
Are you aware of the injury that happens to most women when they lose their virginity? This makes them more prone to catch an STD during that encounter.
A one-time thing...as opposed to the countless even-more damaging anally penetrative sexual encounters male-male sex entails...
*But only if they're having unprotected sex with an infected partner.*
Most people have unprotected sex. And condoms rip.
Did you also know that women injure vaginal tissue every time they have intercourse? Small fissures in the tissue occur. Again, this makes them more prone to catching an STD.
The tissues that tear do not tear to the same extent as the anal tissues tear in male-male penetrative sex. Less tearing = less likelihood of getting a blood-borne illness.
*But only if they're having unprotected sex with an infected partner.*
Which is quite common. You knew that, right?
Does the fact that women get injured during intercourse mean that there's something wrong with or unnatural about that sexual act?
Not at all. STDs are "natural" by definition, because they occur in nature. And male-male penetrative sex increases the likelihood of these diseases spreading.
and as soon as I get a "head" in, they change their minds. Due to, you know, the pain of unnaturally inserting a relatively large object into an "exit-only" oriface...
Or due to improper technique, not to criticize yours, since I wasn't there.
Well, I must admit I'm no expert on ass-sex. But I'm guessing the goal is to lube up and insert slowly, right? Didn't work. They yelped. The mood was ruined. Why? Because the anus is supposed to be an exit-only oriface...
Also, thanks for admitting your personal interest in something other than the "flesh-in-flesh penetrative male-female intercourse." Don't worry, I don't think this makes you genetically defective.
I already admitted to being "defective" due to my nearsightedness. But I am not "defective" with regards to my sexuality, due to the fact that I find female humans sexually attractive, and do not find male humans sexually attractive. Even attempting "non-reproductive sex" with someone of the opposite sex is not "abnormal" because finding the opposite sex attractive is natural. Finding the same sex attractive is abnormal.
My point is that sexuality is quite diverse. What a boring world it would be if everyone stuck to plain old intercourse! Or even pretended that that was the only natural sexual act.
Having sex with a member of the opposite sex is natural. Having sex with a member of the same sex is not. That does NOT mean gays are subhumans to be sent off to death camps. It merely points out a fact (one that there is still a debate about, obviously).
And, remember, men, your penis does not rule the world. It only rules *your* world.
My penis only "rules" when I make my woman call me "King." (I'm just kidding.)
Aside from having sex with members of the same sex, what behavior(s) are you talking about?
I think you know...
Actually, I don't. That's why I asked.
Well, gay men tend to:
- Talk differently than straight men.
- Walk differently than straight men.
- Have different interests than straight men.
- Etc.
And, gay women tend to:
- Talk differently than straight women.
- Walk differently than straight women.
- Have different interests than straight women.
- Etc.
This isn't just "behavior" we are talking about.
That's what you were talking about. You said that gays "act" differently from straights.
They do, but not neccesarily due to "free will." Behavior is not always due to environmental causes, or choice.
Gays are still viewed as being an oddity.
By some. Indeed, many, in some areas of the country and world.
My initial point in commenting on MD's post was to say that I thought sexual preference was naturally determined and not a choice or purely environmentally determined. But I don't know that scientists will ever find a "gay" gene. That's because identical twins, who are genetically identical, sometimes have one twin who is straight and the other who is gay. Identical twins also usually have different personalities. So you might say that environment has something to do with it, but I think studies have shown personality traits to be present at birth.
Well, maybe it's not a gene, or a series of genes, that make one a homosexual. But it is almost certainly due to some bio-chemical factors. Environment may play a minor role, but the major role is likley reserved for the innate factors.
Example: It would take a gun to a single straight man's head to "go down" on, say, Brad Pitt. But I'll bet most single gay men would happily do so in a heartbeat. It cannot be all about mere choice or preference. Something else is in play here. Something deeper than upbringing.
40 - Mac Diva
Roger, check your email.
41 - Eric Olsen
The fact that there is discomfiture with gay marriage and the poll numbers have gone up in the middle of the current movement is completely predictable: people are very quickly forgetting what an extraordinary change there has been in cultural, social and legal perceptions of the matter, and homosexuality in general, in a very short period of time.
I am astonished there isn't a more forceful reaction against the now-looming reality of gay marriage, which just a few years ago was an utterly fanciful concept.
Re genetics and homosexuality: there is virtually zero doubt at this point that genetics plays a role in it. The questions are how much and what the other variables are. How "optional" is it? Is there a sliding scale of homosexuality or is it an either/or situation? What about bisexuals?
But denying any genetic component at this point is absurd.
42 - Shark
Ominous.
Roger makes some vague threats while referring to some obtuse 'email' something or other...
Then McD -- my nemesis who has been doing 'background' checks on me since the first day we clashed online -- posts a cryptic note to threat-boy that says,
"Roger, check your email."
Scary.
PS: Special thanks to Phillip Winn for warning "Roger" about his close brush with an online threat against yours truly.
PPS: TO ROGER - It's only glowing dots on a screen.
43 - Eric Olsen
Seriously, Roger and whomever, no threats of any kind. Included in the category of "threats" would be "exposure" of personal information, including the real name of someone who doesn't use that name online. One of the realities of the Internet is that you are who you say you are and that is that. Shark's "real name" is "Shark" on the Internet, period.
44 - JR
RJ Elliot, Comment 39: A human being predisposed to engaging solely in non-reproductive sex will not have his/her genes passed on to the next generation. This is "not a good thing" from an evolutionary point of view.
Actually, his/her genes can be passed on the next generation by his/her siblings. And those nieces and nephews can materially benefit from having an aunt or uncle with no offspring of their own, thus giving those young gene repositories a leg up on competitors with fewer surrogate parents. That, it could be argued from an evolutionary point of view, is a "good thing".
Consider also that if your interpretation of genetics were the whole story, any putative gay genes should have been bred out long ago.
In any case, trying to define what is ideal when it comes to genotypes and phenotypes is absolutely hopeless. What may seem like a "flaw" in one circumstance can become an advantage in another; high body fat may be a health risk here in America, but it's a survival trait if you live in Greenland.
The story of evolution is the story of "flaws" which ended up being advantagous under the circumstances. For all we know, post-human Earth will be ruled by the descendants of people with Down Syndrome - they do have that extra chromosome, who knows what beneficial genes it could end up carrying?
Having sex with a member of the opposite sex is natural. Having sex with a member of the same sex is not.
I don't know, it happens pretty often in nature. What is your definition of "natural"?
45 - Shark
Evolution might be erring on the side of gays as a reaction to overpopulation.
It could work ~ ? ~
PS: re. this THREAD - Last time I had such a graphic anatomy lesson was a money shot in a porno flick. Thanks to all who contributed!
46 - Shark
re. The 'normal vs 'abnormal'
I believe it's the great Robert Anton Wilson who has a standing offer of a $10,000 reward to anyone who can produce a 'normal' human being.
He's still waiting.
47 - JR
Evolution might be erring on the side of gays as a reaction to overpopulation.
I was thinking along these lines myself, and it's even more critical than you might think. Consider the fact that some areas of India are producing as many as 125 males per 100 females, and in some areas of China the ratio is over 135 to 100. That means a lot of guys who aren't going to find women. Given the already unstable situation in those countires, do we really want to add vast numbers of sexually frustrated young males?
If homosexuality is in any way a choice, we should probably be doing everything we can to promote it.
48 - Mac Diva
Before it gets lost, let me remind people that I'm pretty much saying what Eric stated above: The cause of homosexuality probably has genetic and environmental bases. I don't believe, we, meaning society, knows how much either accounts for their sexualities. I believe that is true of most human behavior. The mysterious human genome has only been seriously explored for a short time, yet some folks are claiming to know all kinds of things. We don't.
In regard to threats this thread has taken on a funhouse mirror aspect. The person who has posted several references to wishing me dead, including one in which he hoped another mentally unstable poster would kill me, Psycho Shark, is suddenly The Threat Victim. Hardly. This is another example of the little Right Wing cohort of BCers strange take on reality.
While we are alluding to Psycho Shark, he has posted another entry extolling violence against people of color. It is a continuance of David Yeagley's 'gorilla' game. I know he has fellow travelers who urge him on, including R.J. Elliott, who is responsible for his own bigotry inspired thread attacking me. But, I believe there is sufficient evidence for any reasonable person to realize that if there is a threat to anyone alround here it is this unbalanced and vicious individual.
49 - Wanderlust
Homosexuality is not genetically determined. That is wishful thinking.
Gays are not discriminated against, they have a right to marry someone of the opposite sex, same as everyone else. It is their hope to cast this as a civil rights issue, since their goal is not likely to be achieved on any other pretext.
50 - wanderlust
Since overpopulation is a red herring, homosexuality cannot be nature's response to it.
The rumours of overpopulation have been greatly over exaggerated, overall world population will peak around the year 2050, and likely decline thereafter.
Many modern countries are declining population wise, Germany had a net loss of 200,000 people last year.
51 - Mac Diva
How can you just say that, Wanderlust? Doesn't evidence matter?
52 - Mac Diva
I meant the no biological component to homosexuality post by Wanderlust. The newer one landed before my response did.
53 - Shark
Everyone please click on McDevil's link to my latest satirical sctick. Thanks in advance.
BTW: I'd ask McD to back up her allegations about threats, but she never does.
I'm learnin'... sigh
54 - Eric Olsen
MD, thanks for the support.
Re threats: a threat's a threat and is unacceptable against Mac Diva, Shark or anyone else.
Methodists go gay here.