homosexuality in the animal kingdom

[DKSuddeth]

Let me get out the crayons and paint the picture for you. Males have little pointy thingies on the front of their bodies, located approximately six inches below the belly button. On liberals, these thingies are about an inch and a half long. On conservatives they are considered small if shorter than six inches.

Merlin, grow up. you're not in the junior high locker room having to prove your 'manhood' or exagerate about your penis size.

 

[007]

Let me get out the crayons and paint the picture for you. Males have little pointy thingies on the front of their bodies, located approximately six inches below the belly button. On liberals, these thingies are about an inch and a half long. On conservatives they are considered small if shorter than six inches. These pointy thingies are meant to be inserted in the female orifice located on the female body in approximately the same location as the male's "thingie". Two people with pointy thingies are not intended, by nature, to do that which a male and a female are intended to do.

I think I was more eloquent...

 

[Merlin1047]

Merlin, grow up. you're not in the junior high locker room having to prove your 'manhood' or exagerate about your penis size.

Bah. You're just jealous.

 

[Merlin1047]

I think I was more eloquent...

LOL - well, your explanation certainly was more graphic.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Bah. You're just jealous.

oh yeah, thats it.

 

[007]

LOL - well, your explanation certainly was more graphic.

In all seriousness Merlin, I think more emphisis should be put on the queer "acts" and how dispicably disgusting they are. To most, they're too filthy and disgusting to even talk about. So maybe by exposing more people to WHAT FAGGOTS DO TO EACH OTHER, more people will condemn homosexuality for the horrid, perverted, vile and filthy sex romp it is.

 

[KLSuddeth]

Originally Posted by Merlin1047
Let me get out the crayons and paint the picture for you. Males have little pointy thingies on the front of their bodies, located approximately six inches below the belly button. On liberals, these thingies are about an inch and a half long. On conservatives they are considered small if shorter than six inches. These pointy thingies are meant to be inserted in the female orifice located on the female body in approximately the same location as the male's "thingie". Two people with pointy thingies are not intended, by nature, to do that which a male and a female are intended to do.


Wow - youre really out there in your simplicity arent you?

gee, lets all 'fear the fags' then post ENDLESSLY on it!!!! YEAH! WHY???? :duh3: Because we're moronic idiots!!!!

Hell, why dont you just beat the shit out of a few while youre at it. Im SURE that would further prove your 3 inches of manhood WHILE AT THE SAME TIME, prove how american, Christian AND intelligent that you are.

 

[Merlin1047]

Originally Posted by Merlin1047
Wow - youre really out there in your simplicity arent you?

gee, lets all 'fear the fags' then post ENDLESSLY on it!!!! YEAH! WHY???? :duh3: Because we're moronic idiots!!!!

Hell, why dont you just beat the shit out of a few while youre at it. Im SURE that would further prove your 3 inches of manhood WHILE AT THE SAME TIME, prove how american, Christian AND intelligent that you are.

Hmmm - you having a bad day today? I tried to add a little humor to liven up an otherwise dry post. If you can't recognize it, that's your problem.

And as far as your other foolish accusations, I'm going to let that pass - this time. I thought that except for my attempt at a little levity, my post was rational and respectful.

I'm not sure what I did to merit this fit of temper but rest assured that this is the one and only free shot you're going to get at me. Do it again when it is as totally unwarranted as this one and I won't be so polite in my next response.

 

[Johnney]

christ i thought this thread died a long time ago! :baby4:

 

[KLSuddeth]

Hmmm - you having a bad day today? I tried to add a little humor to liven up an otherwise dry post. If you can't recognize it, that's your problem.

And as far as your other foolish accusations, I'm going to let that pass - this time. I thought that except for my attempt at a little levity, my post was rational and respectful.

I'm not sure what I did to merit this fit of temper but rest assured that this is the one and only free shot you're going to get at me. Do it again when it is as totally unwarranted as this one and I won't be so polite in my next response.

pissy pissy pissy.

Knock off the prom-queen dramatics kiddo. I wasnt being shitty - I was actually making fun right along side. I accused nothing - I couldnt give 2 rat's asses about what you post, who you are, what you think etc.

When Im having a 'fit of temper' you'll know it.

As far as your not being polite, again, I dont care. It matters to me whether youre polite or not? Think not. Ive had my ass chewed by many on this board who are rougher than you and at the end of the day, its words on the screen, my good man....nothing more, nothing less. Also, at the end of that same day, I hit a little button called power and you and your dramatics become nothing more than a little blip that fades into darkness.'

To sum it up, pffffffftttttttt :moon4:

 

[Johnney]

:rotflmao:
yeah this one is going the same direction now as it did back then.

 

[007]

These threads ALL end up like this. The "normals" exposing fagness for the filthy, perverted, mental illness it is, and the fags and their liberal ass kissing supporters attacking those exposing them.

Same thing... every time.

 

[KLSuddeth]

Yeah, those friggin Liberals. Kill them too.

 

[ajwps]

Have a read of this story. It goes to show that homosexuality is not just a human characteristic.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4352011/

acludem

This is a study done on human sexual orientation ---- acquired or inborn

http://members.aol.com/gaygene/pages/blackbox.htm

Human Sexual Orientation: "The Black Box" from A Separate Creation: The Search for the Biological Origins of Sexual Orientation
A "black box" is a biological mystery. It s what biologists call any human trait they ve observed, studied, and measured on the "outside" of human beings but whose "inside" origins-- which genes formed it, which hormones made it that way-- remain mysterious. Each aspect of the trait that biologists establish (these are pretty standard: prevalence data (how many people in a random population have it), twin data, correlation data (do blacks or Asians have it more than whites, for example), pathology or not, and so on) is a clue pointing to the solving of the mystery.

We have a long list of black boxes human traits-- and each of these traits has a "clinical profile," the sum total of clues we have from looking at the outside, clinical level. They are mysteries waiting to be biologically solved on the inside, the mystery of what creates them: eye color, height, cystic fibrosis, cancer, intelligence, Tay Sachs, baldness, athletic ability, resistance to some viruses and susceptability to others, skin tone and muscle mass and allergies and sexual orientation. Some traits can be defined simply by looking at the person, like hair color or height. Some cannot, like cancer or blood type (A, B, or O). Some human traits are behavioral, like manual dexterity, sexual orientation, hand-eye coordination, and schizophrenia, and some are not, like blood type (A, B, or O), race, or the hardness of tooth enamel. Some are disease traits: hemophilia, schizophrenia, cancer, color blindness. Some are politically and religiously charged: skin color, sex. Some traits are not politically and religiously charged: the hardness of the enamel on your teeth, which is controlled by a single gene, whose location is known, and whose functioning we understand.

Here s a mystery for you (which should be pretty easy to figure out). One particular black box interests us here. It has been the object of decades of empirical observation, and researchers have compiled a pretty complete "clinical profile" for it. We know what the trait is; what we don t know is what creates it. This is What We Know, the clinical profile:

1) The trait is referred to by biologists as a "stable bimorphism, expressed behaviorally."

2) Its exists in the form of two basic internal, invisible orientations, over 90% of the population accounting for the majority orientation and under 10% (one reliable study puts the figure at 7.89%) for the minority orientation, although there is still debate about the exact percentages.

3) Only a very small number of people are truly equally oriented both ways.

4) Evidence from art history suggests the incidence of the two different orientations has been constant for five millenia.

5) A person's orientation cannot be identified simply by looking at him or her; those with the minority orientation are just as diverse in appearance, race, religion, and all other characteristics as those with the majority orientation.

6) Since the trait itself is internal and invisible, the only way to identify an orientation in someone else is by observing in them the behavior or reflex that express it. However--

7) --The trait itself is not a "behavior." It is the neurological orientation expressed, at times, behavioraly. A person with the minority orientation can engage, usually due to coercion or social pressure, in behavior that seems to express the majority orientation-- several decades ago, those with the minority orientation were frequently forced to behave as if they had the majority orientation-- but internally the orientation remains the same. As social pressures have lifted, the minority orientation has become more commonly and openly expressed in society.

8) Neither orientation is a disease or mental illness. Neither is pathological.

9) Neither orientation is chosen.

10) Signs of one's orientation are detectable very early in children, often, researchers have established, by age two or three, and one's orientation has probably been defined at the latest by age two, and quite possibly before birth.

These first intriguing observations began to catch the attention of researchers. The trait looked biological in origin. The data was indicating that the trait had a genetic source:

11) Adoption studies show that the orientation of adopted children is unrelated to the orientation of their parents, demonstrating that the trait is not environmentally rooted.

12) Twin studies show that pairs of identical (monozygotic) twins, with their identical genes, have a higher-than-average chance of sharing the same orientation compared to pairs of randomly selected individuals; the average (or "background") rate of the trait in any given population is just under 8%, while the twin rate is just over 12%, over 30% higher.

13) The incidence of the minority orientation is strikingly higher in the male population-- about 27% higher-- than it is in the female population, a piece of information that gives indications to the biological conditions creating the trait.

14) Like the trait eye color, familial studies show no direct parent-offspring correlation for the two versions of the trait, but the minority orientation clearly "runs in families," handed down from parent to child in a loose but genetically characteristic pattern.

15) This pattern shows a "maternal effect," a classic telltale of a genetically-loaded trait. The minority orientation, when it is expressed in men, appears to be passed down through the mother.

That s the clinical profile for this trait, this black box. What is the trait?

Human handedness, of course. Human handedness is a stable, behavioral bimodal polymorphism with the majority orientation, right-handedness, expressed in over 90% of the population and the minority orientation, left-handedness, in around 8%. There are very few truly ambidextrous people, and the art history evidence suggests these ratios or right-, left-, and ambi-dexterity have been constant for five millennia. Handedness is interesting in relation to the trait we will be looking at in this book, sexual orientation, because of the striking similarities between the two. Those who know the literature would know immediately that the trait profile above is not for sexual orientation, which differs from handedness in several ways: the population ratios for each trait's two orientations vary somewhat (while left-handed people comprise 8% of the population, the current figures for homosexuals is between 2 and 6%), and identical twin (MZ) concordance figures are radically different. Twin concordance for left-handedness is 12% against a background rate of 8% whereas for homosexuality, MZ concordance is 50% against a background of only around 5%, indicating that homosexuality has a much higher purely genetic component that left-handedness. (Also, and more subtly, the telltale "maternal effects" which both traits display are expressed somewhat differently.)

But these are the exceptions highlighting the fact that the trait profiles of the two are extraordinarily alike, and virtually everything we know about the one, we know about the other. Neither left and right-handedness nor hetero and homo-sexual orientation can be identified simply by looking at a person. Since both are internal orientations, the only way to identify them is by the respective behaviors that express them, motor reflex and sexual response. Handedness shows up in children starting at age two or before, and John Money of Johns Hopkins University puts the age of the first signs of sexual orientation at the same age. Neither left-handedness nor homosexuality correlates with any disease or mental illness (although there are studies showing a higher correlation between left-handedness and, for example, schizophrenia.) The grammar school coercion of left-handed children to use their right hands was ended years ago.

They also function well as working analogies. If you are right-handed, take a pen in your left-hand and try to write your name. With some effort, you can probably get it down semi-legibly, but the fact that you have engaged in left-handed behavior does not make you left-handed. Behavior is irrelevant; the orientation you have is what counts. And you are just as right-handed sitting still watching a movie as when swinging a tennis racquet with your right-hand. Did you choose to be right-handed? No? Then prove it. (You can't; as one clinical researcher noted tersely, "Science can't 'prove' you don't choose to have appendicitis.") Just as obviously, an interiorly heterosexual person is not homosexual even in the midst of homosexual intercourse, behavior (when it does not reflect the interior orientation) is irrelevant, and a homosexual is equally homosexual during the sex act and driving a car.

Incidentally, we actually know less currently about the biological origins of handedness than about those of sexual orientation. No one so far has done any genetic work on handedness, but scientists have started finding genes for sexual orientation, which is what this web page will be discussing.

ADDENDUM: A NOTE ON THE NEWS MEDIA

There is one interesting difference between handedness and sexual orientation: The news media has a ridiculous double standard for the trait "sexual orientation" and every other trait. ABC's science journalist David Marash reported on Nightline that a gay gene "suggests that homosexuality may not be a choice." This is absurd. Marash is suggesting that unless we locate a gene for homosexuality, homosexuality is a choice (or, at a minimum, that we can t know whether it is chosen or not). This is the equivalent of saying that since we haven't found the gene that governs left-handedness-- and we haven't lefthandedness is a choice (or, at a minimum, we can't determine if it is). Scientists know you don t need to look at a gene to determine if a trait is chosen; you need to look at the trait. And we have looked, at both of them.

Among scientists today, this issue of choice is as dead an issue for the trait "human sexual orientation" as it is for the trait "human handedness." Unfortunately, ABC (and NBC, Time, The Washington Post, etc. etc.) have not caught up with this yet.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Homosexuality is due to how the fetal brain develops in utero in response to hormone levels in the blood.

How many straight people here do "anal"? Isn't that disgusting as well. I think so.

 

[DKSuddeth]

well to hell with it all, I say we bring back the inquisition. Make the missionary position the ONLY recognized position, all else :69: to be considered sodomy and acts against nature. Anyone caught fornicating will be subject to imprisonment and humiliation.

 

[dilloduck]

I don't remember choosing hetersexuality. Did I sign an affadavit or something? It must be on file somewhere. Maybe I could go to sexuality.com and trace my roots. Am I in big trouble if I picked homo and acted hetero instead ? Alas and alack! I better stay celibate until I can talk with the sex police about this one.

 

[Merlin1047]

Well, that's twice that I've screwed up and participated in a discussion on the subject of homosexuality. Both times that discussion has deteriorated into a nonsensical contest of cliche'-slinging and name calling. Apparently when it comes to discussing homosexuality, some people on both sides of the issue are incapable of maintaining any semblance of equilibrium or civility. Some in this discussion have lacked perspective, some have lacked any semblance of a sense of humor and some have lacked common courtesy.

For anyone with a propensity for smugness, don't flatter yourself and assume that I'm whining. I can take as good as I give. It simply gets tiresome to participate in a discussion only to have it descend to the level of a kindergarten shoving contest replete with foolish posturing and childish shouting.

Perhaps some of you think that your viewpoint is superior if you can get others to abandon the argument. You are wrong. If this is the only contribution you are capable of making on this subject, I suggest you start a thread entitled "homosexual bitching contest". Then wallow away and indulge all your infantile urges and those of us who would rather not participate can steer clear.

So, who is going to be the first to tell me "If ya don't like it, why don't you just get your sorry ass out of here"? Isn't that the next "logical" step?

 

[DKSuddeth]

Well, that's twice that I've screwed up and participated in a discussion on the subject of homosexuality. Both times that discussion has deteriorated into a nonsensical contest of cliche'-slinging and name calling. Apparently when it comes to discussing homosexuality, some people on both sides of the issue are incapable of maintaining any semblance of equilibrium or civility. Some in this discussion have lacked perspective, some have lacked any semblance of a sense of humor and some have lacked common courtesy.

For anyone with a propensity for smugness, don't flatter yourself and assume that I'm whining. I can take as good as I give. It simply gets tiresome to participate in a discussion only to have it descend to the level of a kindergarten shoving contest replete with foolish posturing and childish shouting.

Perhaps some of you think that your viewpoint is superior if you can get others to abandon the argument. You are wrong. If this is the only contribution you are capable of making on this subject, I suggest you start a thread entitled "homosexual bitching contest". Then wallow away and indulge all your infantile urges and those of us who would rather not participate can steer clear.

So, who is going to be the first to tell me "If ya don't like it, why don't you just get your sorry ass out of here"? Isn't that the next "logical" step?

I hear ya.

 

[ajwps]

I don't remember choosing hetersexuality. Did I sign an affadavit or something? It must be on file somewhere. Maybe I could go to sexuality.com and trace my roots. Am I in big trouble if I picked homo and acted hetero instead ? Alas and alack! I better stay celibate until I can talk with the sex police about this one.

Actually you did pick heterosexuality but you don't remember doing so.

Most all children, male and female go through a short period of time in early childhood in experimentation with homosexuality. Most people have no awareness of the event but psychiatry agrees that most go through such an episode.

Some never get over this period as an inborn predisposition to gender identication becomes fixed in the conscious.