Alleged Cannibal Says Victim Was Willing

[5stringJeff]

Don't worry Darin, you're out of the Army now, you can come out of the closet too!

 

[_dmp_]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
Don't worry Darin, you're out of the Army now, you can come out of the closet too!

I'm not sure how to read that....

One could read it:

"You are out of the Army, so it's okay to be out of the CLOSET"


OR, my GUT tells me:


"You are out of the Army (like me), so you can come 'OUT' like me too!"

:-/

:fear:

 

[5stringJeff]

Touche! :clap1:

 

[janeeng]

FAGS!!!!! j/k!

 

[Isaac Brock]

Originally posted by dmp
No No No...you are making claims with no viable evidence. What has been shown by whom? If you want to believe people are Homos because of faulty wiring, and make allowances for their behavior, then you'd have to allow that those who participate in beastiality or Voluntary cannibalism must also be 'wired wrong'.

:-/

You want evidence? Very well:
3 Sources (Non religious, gay pride or biased sources.)

Overview
http://hamp.hampshire.edu/~kebF92/genetics.html

Gives both sides of the neurological view for the genetic question
http://www.neurolinguistic.com/proxima/articoli/art-41.htm

Latest Twin Study
http://www.psych.nwu.edu/folks/bailey/Publications/Bailey et al. twins,2000.pdf

I can give more if you wish. There are indeed studies to either side of the story, but from the work I've seen they've at least figured out that it's not just a matter of free choice.

I'm implying neither is worse than the other - if both parties agree. Both cause damage to society.

It cannot affect you directly - it's between the eater and eatee.

Again, my last few posts explain the difference.

Homosexuality destroys its participants...I wouldn't expect a liberal to understand.

I suppose I could retaliate and say "... and I wouldn't expect a conservative to explain", but I know that there are conservatives that are well argued. I will not play that card.

Just a few...

You're absolutely right. HIV/AIDS is much higher in homosexuals. However the trend toward gay unions will no doubt reduce that trend and safe sex I imagine can be practiced in either hetero and homosexual sex. AIDS is hardly an issue unique to homosexuals.

 

[_dmp_]

Originally posted by Isaac Brock
You want evidence? Very well:
3 Sources (Non religious, gay pride or biased sources.)

Overview
http://hamp.hampshire.edu/~kebF92/genetics.html

Gives both sides of the neurological view for the genetic question
http://www.neurolinguistic.com/proxima/articoli/art-41.htm

Latest Twin Study
http://www.psych.nwu.edu/folks/bailey/Publications/Bailey et al. twins,2000.pdf

I can give more if you wish. There are indeed studies to either side of the story, but from the work I've seen they've at least figured out that it's not just a matter of free choice.



Again, my last few posts explain the difference.



I suppose I could retaliate and say "... and I wouldn't expect a conservative to explain", but I know that there are conservatives that are well argued. I will not play that card.



You're absolutely right. HIV/AIDS is much higher in homosexuals. However the trend toward gay unions will no doubt reduce that trend and safe sex I imagine can be practiced in either hetero and homosexual sex. AIDS is hardly an issue unique to homosexuals.

Aids is ONE aspect - I gave a few examples, If you believe people are 'born gay' - which there is no honest evidence of, Granting HomoMarriage won't show a decline in the rate, because we'll still have single gay people. Right?

I can provide you with evidence - the truth. You can choose NOT to believe it because it implies that God is 'right' when it comes to homosexuality or beatiality or adultry, or other sexual sins. People don't like the truth because it convicts them.

 

[jon_forward]

just recently there was an article I believe it was in USA today that was about a study about homosexuality and the brain... they had proof that being gay was hardwired in the brain not that I am going to buy into it put thouhgt it should be out there still... being gay has nothing to do with cannabalism,, stretch armstrong could not link these two and I am sure you wont either

 

[Isaac Brock]

Originally posted by dmp
Aids is ONE aspect - I gave a few examples, If you believe people are 'born gay' - which there is no honest evidence of, Granting HomoMarriage won't show a decline in the rate, because we'll still have single gay people. Right?

I can provide you with evidence - the truth. You can choose NOT to believe it because it implies that God is 'right' when it comes to homosexuality or beatiality or adultry, or other sexual sins. People don't like the truth because it convicts them.

I gave empirical evidence of the genetic backing of homosexuality. I do not know what more evidence you want. Check the links. I have yet to see your emperical evidence for the "destruction" of individuals and society of homosexuals beyond AIDS, which cannot be valid since you could logically argue:

1. Yes, AIDS destroys people;
2. Not all homosexuals have aids (7% as a very, very conservative figure, most likely less than 5);
3. Therefore not all AIDS destroys homosexuals; and
4. Not all homosexuals are destroyed.

I cannot comment on divine truth, because like I always say in my posts on this board, I do not profess to be divine or know what the divine wishes. I can only believe through faith, which is valid, but unique to each individual. I certainly will not put down yours as each man and woman has a inherint right to believe through faith what they will. However, it doesn't necessarily make it logically correct.

What I know, i know from observation. Cannabilism destroys people and society (I cite the statue building tribes of the easter islands and the now extinct head hunter tribe of vanuatu as evidence, I will provide links if I must). It removes people from society, destroying the fabric. Homosexuality does not. Homosexuals can still benefit society, however they remove their genetic defect (and it is in social evolutionary terms) from the gene pool.

 

[Isaac Brock]

Originally posted by jon_forward
just recently there was an article I believe it was in USA today that was about a study about homosexuality and the brain... they had proof that being gay was hardwired in the brain not that I am going to buy into it put thouhgt it should be out there still... being gay has nothing to do with cannabalism,, stretch armstrong could not link these two and I am sure you wont either

Exactly, thank you. The studies can certainly be debated. I'm not debating the merits of homosexuality, I can't see it myself. However to compare to canabilism, is frankly or well... at least respectfully, disturbing.

 

[_dmp_]

Originally posted by jon_forward
just recently there was an article I believe it was in USA today that was about a study about homosexuality and the brain... they had proof that being gay was hardwired in the brain not that I am going to buy into it put thouhgt it should be out there still... being gay has nothing to do with cannabalism,, stretch armstrong could not link these two and I am sure you wont either

That study is false and or misleading...there is no biological evidence to support Homosexuality as anything but a choice in behaviour.

I'm not linking cannibalism and homosexuality - I'm linking 'Choice between consenting adults

 

[Isaac Brock]

Originally posted by dmp
That study is false and or misleading...there is no biological evidence to support Homosexuality as anything but a choice in behaviour.

I'm not linking cannibalism and homosexuality - I'm linking 'Choice between consenting adults

How is it false? My apologies, it is true that you are not linking cannibalism to homosexuality. You are however are implying that severity of each act is the same.

 

[_dmp_]

Originally posted by Isaac Brock
How is it false? My apologies, it is true that you are not linking cannibalism to homosexuality. You are however are implying that severity of each act is the same.

Firstly, I'm looking at the stats you provided; withholding comments until I'm clear on a few things.


There have been MANY studies claiming to have found a 'homosexual' gene - but none has passed strict, non-biased critique - I'm looking for data to show...

 

[jon_forward]

go to usa today and read the article....they do have proof of their claims wether you agree or not is your choice, consenting adults implies sex not killing and I dont think Im the only one that see's you linking gays with cannibalism

 

[_dmp_]

Originally posted by Isaac Brock

4. Not all homosexuals are destroyed.

Nobody with a modicum of intelligence would suggest that - the data I provided, by reliable sources, shows how the homosexual lifestyle is destructive.

Originally posted by Isaac Brock
What I know, i know from observation. Cannabilism destroys people and society (I cite the statue building tribes of the easter islands and the now extinct head hunter tribe of vanuatu as evidence, I will provide links if I must). It removes people from society, destroying the fabric. Homosexuality does not. Homosexuals can still benefit society, however they remove their genetic defect (and it is in social evolutionary terms) from the gene pool.

What I know I know from Observation. Homosexuality destroys people and society. It removes core-values from society; and lends to destruction of perhaps the most important foundation - The Family. Homosexuals, as individuals can do good things. Homosexuality as a lifestyle will only bring destruction, emotionally and physically to a society.

 

[_dmp_]

Originally posted by jon_forward
go to usa today and read the article....they do have proof of their claims wether you agree or not is your choice, consenting adults implies sex not killing and I dont think Im the only one that see's you linking gays with cannibalism

There is no proof there - they have claims based on one perspective of research....to believe it as truth is bad-logic.

If you, or anyone else thinks I'm linking Homosexuality and Cannibalism in ANY Other way than "Both are Choices People Make", you/they aren't using your brain.

 

[_dmp_]

Good reading:

The most famous of all the "gay brain" studies must surely be the research of Simon LeVay, who claimed that he discovered a modest but significant difference in the size of an already tiny section of the brain, the hypothalamus, in a group of dead straight and gay men. His 1993 book The Sexual Brain is an effort at popularizing his theory that sexuality in all its forms is ultimately attributable to physical structures of our brains, everything from mere sexual orientation to preferences for specific kinds of sexual acts and positions. The many serious flaws in LeVay's research and conclusions have been pointed out repeatedly, as have the tentative and problematic nature of the other work that has been done on identifying the biological causes of homosexuality. For example, there was no way to tell from the brains LeVay studied whether the differences in brain structure were the cause or the effect of homosexual behavior. Moreover, there was no verifiable way to determine the men's actual sexual behavior, since they were dead by the time the research was done -- the assumption was simply made that the ones who died from HIV infection were homosexuals.

Despite all the warning lights on LeVay's work, it has been received as the first "proof" of the biological basis of sexual orientation by gays and straights alike. The specific flaws of studies such as LeVay's have mattered less than the simple fact of their existence and public dissemination. By linking homosexuality with science, the publicity around the LeVay gay brain studies confers legitimacy upon the biological explanation itself. It promotes faith in the idea that science will soon enough identify the fundamental difference between gay and straight. The eagerness with which the LeVay study has been received and even celebrated indicates that a profound collective wish already existed for just such a "proof" that our sexuality is something forced upon us, that it does not involve free choice and free will.

The wish is especially strong among gays and lesbians, who have of course long insisted that sexual orientation be understood as outside of the realm of individual choice, both because that is how so many of us subjectively experience our sexual desires, and also because the "no choice" argument is directly linked to claims for equal protection under civil rights laws. Such an essentialist understanding of homosexuality is the foundation of current mainstream gay and lesbian political self-representation. Proof of the biologically "hardwired" nature of homosexual desires, in the optimistic scenario of gay people and their progressive straight friends, must inevitably lead to greater acceptance and fair treatment.

However, the problem with the "no choice" position on homosexuality is that in order to be effective it requires us to forget about the important distinction between desire and behavior. The position implies that a desire one can't help feeling is a desire one is entitled to satisfy: thus because homosexuals can't help feeling same-sex attractions, they should therefore be allowed to act on those attractions. However, the logic of this argument cannot hold up to much scrutiny. While we may have no choice about our feelings and desires, we routinely and continually do exercise control over our actions. As the right-wing opponents of gay rights point out, just because you have a desire does not necessarily mean that you should act on it.

Whether we like it or not, the conservative opponents of gay rights are right when they point out that even if research conclusively proves that homosexual feelings are biological in origin and thus not something an individual has any control over, this does not necessarily carry with it the right to act upon those feelings. The constitutionally homosexual body cannot serve as a defense of homosexual behavior, a fact that becomes clear as soon as we apply the reasoning of the no-choice position to feelings and desires other than homosexual attraction. In an appearance on ABC's Nightline in 1991, columnist Cal Thomas, who opposes gay rights, said about the gay brain studies, "I don't think it legitimizes homosexual practice and behavior any more than the discovery of heavy doses of testosterone in a male justifies his adultery or promiscuity."

The comparison is apt. While progressives and liberals have embraced the no-choice position to defend homosexuals, they would be unlikely to accept the logical extension of that position to Thomas' counter-example. If a man's body produces excess levels of testosterone, and he therefore experiences constant feelings of lust or aggression, does the fact that he can't help having these feelings make it legitimate for him to act on them? In the case of sexual behavior, we might be inclined to say yes, as long as he satisfies his desires with a consenting partner. However, research is also well under way into the biological and even genetic basis for violent criminal behavior. There is about as much evidence to support a biological or genetic basis for habitually violent behavior as there is similar evidence about homosexuality.

So if violent and abusive individuals can claim that they, like homosexuals, have no choice about their feelings, that they can't help their impulses to violence, does that mean that we should feel sympathy, respect and tolerance for their essential identities, and grant them the right to attack and abuse, since it is "in their nature" to do so? Even more provocatively, if it can be proven that a rapist's impulses are genetic in origin, does that grant him the right to rape? Do we try to match him up with women who are genetically destined to enjoy sexual abuse? And what do we do if we find a genetic basis for incestuous feelings?

But these are questions that the advocates of the no-choice position on homosexuality must ignore in order to make their argument seem credible. One of the ironies of the current debates about gay rights is that the right-wingers seem to understand human sexuality in much more generous and fluid terms than do so-called progressives and leftists. As the debate about gays in the military made clear, the right-wing position accepts that same-sex attractions are felt by nearly everyone -- they just insist that it is morally wrong to act upon them. The right wing's vicious homophobia is thus testimony to an underlying acceptance of the fundamental susceptibility of all individuals to the appeal of homosexual relations. It is as though, in the anti-gay right-wing imagination, people are fundamentally bisexual, which explains their anxieties about seduction and conversion. Indeed, the right- wing insistence on the suppression of homosexuality is a kind of back-handed tribute: they seem to think that if society openly tolerates even a few homosexuals, everyone will want to try it!

There are further ironies here, since scientific research has long supported the basic assumptions of the anti-gay right wing regarding human sexual desire. Ever since Kinsey published his watershed study Sexual Behavior in the Human Male in 1948, there has been scientific evidence to support what most people already knew (even if we learn not to admit it, even to ourselves), namely that sexual desires and attractions are far more complicated than any simplistic division of "heterosexual" versus "homosexual" can account for. Both that study and the anecdotal evidence of our own everyday experiences suggest that varying degrees of sexual attraction to individuals of both sexes are common enough to qualify as normal for everyone, both men and women. There is also anthropological and historical evidence that other cultures do not always regard heterosexual and homosexual attractions and behaviors to be incompatible with each other. It is our own culture which teaches us to interpret bisexual feelings as "confusion," and to resolve that confusion through self-identification as heterosexual or homosexual.

The consevative right implicitly accepts that homosexual feelings are common and normal, but that you should not act on them. Progressive liberals and leftists, on the other hand, believe that homosexuals have the right to act on those sexual desires -- but only by representing homosexuals as people who are distinctively and constitutionally different from heterosexuals. In other words, the left insists homosexuals must be marginalized as a minority identity in relation to the larger society of heterosexuals. In exchange, we will get minority "rights." What both positions have in common is an underlying anxiety about contamination. The "conservatives" seek to contain the threat through absolute moral injunctions, while the "progressives" seek to contain it by making it something absolutely confined to an identifiable group within society. Thus both positions are reaction-formations to the deeper and more frightening recognition of the multiple sexual desires and possibilities that exist within everyone, a recognition that is getting harder and harder to suppress due to the increased visibility and self-respect of gay people. (That is the clear and unambiguous implication, for example, of the argument that gays cannot serve openly in the military because their mere presence is disruptive and unsettling.)

The fear of contamination, which is really a fear of recognition and identification, is at the heart of what might be called the heterosexual alibi, the belief that there are clear and observable differences between heterosexuals and homosexuals that go beyond specifically sexual behavior. In other words, personality traits are supposed to correspond with sexual preferences ("How can he be gay? He played football!"). We should be suspicious of biological explanations of homosexuality because they are likely, in the context of a homophobic society deeply invested in the heterosexual alibi, to function as a reinforcement of stereotypes -- even among people who are supportive of gay rights. At the beginning of this article I quoted progressive columnist Molly Ivins' version of the no-choice position on homosexuality, that it is a condition fixed at birth. She initially sets up homosexuality as merely another physical quality like eye-color or left-handedness, but in the very next paragraph of her column it suddenly becomes implicitly equated with a specific kind of personality. Attempting to enlighten her Texas readers in the wake of the scandal involving gay-affirmative Apple Computer's plans to open a plant in rural Texas, Ivins says that homosexuality "has existed in every type of society throughout human history." The next paragraph opens: "In fact, one of the most famous drag queens in history was from Round Rock" (a small town in the same Texas county where Apple proposed the plant).

The slippage between "homosexual" and "drag queen" implies an equivalence between the two, as though they are essentially interchangeable terms. Of course, many gays and lesbians also participate in this kind of stereotyping and reification of gay identity. Homosexuals buy into the heterosexual alibi as well -- the idea that a certain sexual preference necessarily correlates with certain other kinds of preferences, particularly the idea that to be homosexual is to be a gender invert, a man with a woman's personality or vice versa. Promotion of the biological explanation of homosexuality does not necessarily have to lead to the reinforcement of stereotypes, but in the context of actually-existing social attitudes and prejudices it is likely to do just that.

And that brings up the most obvious and certainly most ominous danger in the biological explanation and defense, which is that there is no necessary reason why the homosexual body cannot be understood by homophobic society as a sick body in need of a cure. An association already exists in public discourse and the popular imagination between gay men and AIDS. In other words, the specifically male homosexual body is strongly linked not just to fun images like drag queens, but also to images of death and disease. When they argue that a genetic or biological origin for homosexuality must lead to greater social acceptance and protection, the proponents of the no-choice position conveniently forget that there are all sorts of genetic conditions about which individuals have no choice, and which are considered unhealthy and unacceptable. Again, the point here is that the simple fact that we do not choose to be a certain way does not by any means inevitably result in the conclusion that it is acceptable to be that way.

The fear of contamination tells us a good deal about why gay-affirmative heterosexuals would wish to embrace a biological explanation of sexual orientation. But why would so many gays and lesbians continue to find it so attractive and compelling, given the objections I have outlined here? In order to answer that, we need to look not at whether such explanations are true, but rather what functions they perform. At a practical and individual level, the lives of many gay men and lesbians have been made much easier through the defense that that they cannot help being who they are. Families, friends, and employers who cannot accept homosexuality as a choice may accept it as a biological destiny. And even if it's not true, the belief in some kind of biological essence of homosexuality is a useful fantasy about the distinctiveness of homosexuals as a people, as if we were an ethnicity or race (which is the currently prevailing model for understanding identity).

But as any racial or ethnic minority will tell you, just because you didn't "choose" your identity by no means guarantees that people will tolerantly accept your identity. Whenever we find people repeatedly insisting upon something, we need to ask just who it is they're seeking to convince. Think for a moment about the implications of the very language of the no-choice defense. To justify a behavior by saying "I can't help it" is to imply that if you could help it, you would. I think that the popularity of biological accounts of homosexual desire among gay people has to be understood as a way of coping with deeply-rooted homophobia. What else can it be when we defend ourselves by saying things like, "Do you think anybody would choose to be this way?" This is a defensive position, one that implicitly accepts that there is something wrong with homosexuality, that it is indeed an abnormality which demands to be explained. It suggests that if we did have a choice in the matter, we would choose to be heterosexual. The position is both totally understandable and completely unacceptable.

 

[_dmp_]

More

We need to reject the no-choice argument because it allows us to be accepted only by representing ourselves as victims, in this case, victims of desires over which we have no control. In blaming our uncontrollable biologies for our sexual desires, wherever those desires lead us, we simply reinforce our existing alienation from our bodies and our sexuality. A truly progressive position -- whether or not it would be "leftist" -- would be to take full responsibility for our desires as well as the actions and satisfactions they drive us toward. Only then can we make meaningful and human decisions about what sorts of desires are acceptable and what sorts of desires we must suppress.

Those are the difficult questions confronting a society in which diversity is valued and old normative standards are falling down all around us. The fantasy of the essentially and biologically homosexual body is, among other things, a fantasy about abdication of responsibility for our feelings and actions. It is about the wish to escape from responsibility, to let someone or something else make the decisions for us -- in this case, by holding our biology responsible for our behavior. It is dangerous because it encourages us to forget that what is most human is our ability to choose what we do with our bodies, sexually or otherwise. Since homosexual desire is perfectly normal, there is no need to account for it, and there is no reason to repress it. Who cares what causes it? Just say yes. Homosexual relations should be accepted for the same reasons as any other consensual form of sexual expression: as an affirmation of our human freedom, and a celebration of the pleasures of being a body among other bodies.

 

[jon_forward]

wrong study, 10 years old... now you proclaim to be above professionals in their field....and as for the choices people make... both of them are wrong.. funny how you are rewording you statements

 

[jon_forward]

nothing wrong with it??? just say yes???? not in my lifetime..... as for gays being hardwired... its not in their jeans ..its a defect in the brain, like a birth defect only permanent...so far. I dont believe gays will ever be mainstream, thye are but a nuisance to me much as a knat would be. sorry that you cant understand medical proof about this...who is having the same problem as this in nigeria with polio vaccine....natives think it makes the woman sterile...same thing as you...go figure

 

[jon_forward]

I will add that while homosexuality has to an extent been excepted/tolerated by most, murder and cannibalism have not nor will they ever be. Insane people do insane things, this is one instance of such.