Dick Cheney's lesbo daughter becomes Mr Mom by piratenews

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
One very common instance of animal homosexuality is when the dominant Alpha male gets the pick of the best females, the lesser males are left with a much smaller pool of females, if any at all, to choose from and often revert to homosexuality out of little or no other way to satisfy that deep seeded instinctual urge. I believe that this is very well the case in some of the instances of human homosexuality.

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Homosexuallity is born out of desperation? I don't get much (well any really) interest of women, yet I've not "turned gay". How do you account for that? Saying homosexuallity is the last resort of the desperate seems to be much more of an attack than saying it is a genetic trait.

6ix is perfectly capable of defending himself. But if I may, I don't think he is saying homosexuality is the last resort of the desperate.

He is saying "some instances of human sexuality," as in some instances of homosexual ACTS, may be a result of having no alternatives. This is not unheard of. Guys in prison, guys on boats on long fishing trips, guys alone guarding sheep for months on end...it is entirely conceivable that SOME (not saying all) of them engaged in homosexual relations, not because they strongly prefer men, but because they had the urge, and had no other way to satisfy that urge.

Let's say you were bisexual in a 95% hetero/5% homo split. You normally would not entertain doing it with a guy, but if you were desperate enough, you might choose to indulge that 5%. It doesn't mean you have "turned" gay. And it doesn't mean that if you had never indulged, that little bit of gayness wasn't always in you. And it doesn't mean that either choice is right or wrong.

It isn't always either/or, black/white, hetero/homo. Sometimes it's varying shades of both, gray, and bi. We have evolved into very adaptable creatures, and our sexuality is no less adaptable.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 24, 2006 10:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
And 6ix, maybe I missed something, but I didn't read any homophobia in what you said. If homosexuality were indeed a choice, I would see it as a perfectly legitimate choice. I don't see why entertaining the "choice" speculation would make someone automatically anti-gay.

Seeing a genetic component to Homosexuality doesn't mean one is anti-gay or wants to cure homosexuality because it is a disease. It is 6ix's assumption that that has to be the case which brings up the question. I made the statement that you can only see homosexuality as a genetic disease if it has a genetic component if you already think of it as a disease.

I believe 6ix said that if it was Genetic it would be a genetic disease, this rings alarm bells for me.

As for the rest of your post I more or less agree, you don't get to choose your preference, but you do choose how you act on them. 6ixs whole idea that if there's a genetic component to homosexuality then somehow no one is in the slightest responsible for any action is lunacy, frankly. I don't see how recognising there's this thing called DNA suddenly means the abolition of freedom of choice.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 24, 2006 10:20 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by TheFr00n:
The story is great. The thread topic is offensive and unfortunate, though.

And yet...you're here--odd.

Seriously, how are we supposed to have an "open" forum and not have this kind of crap? This is, unfortunately, the price we pay for having such an open policy on the boards: two or three nutjobs who flap their gums for attention. And gee, look: we're giving it to them!

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 24, 2006 11:40 AM

HKCAVALIER

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Quote:
Originally posted by TheFr00n:
The story is great. The thread topic is offensive and unfortunate, though.

And yet...you're here--odd.

Seriously, how are we supposed to have an "open" forum and not have this kind of crap? This is, unfortunately, the price we pay for having such an open policy on the boards: two or three nutjobs who flap their gums for attention. And gee, look: we're giving it to them!

That's browncoats for ya! Nobody gets spaced as long as they care even a teensy tiny bit.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 25, 2006 3:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
There's a great amount of evidence for a genetic component to homosexuality, studies have shown differences in brain structure in Homosexuals that do not appear in Heterosexuals, specifically size of the Hypothalamus which is connected to the limbic system which is primarily involved with sexual activity. A study by Dr Dean Hamer found a correlation between homosexuality and polymorphic markers on the X chromosome. There's some strange autonomic behaviours too, for instance Lesbians blink in away more like heterosexual Men than heterosexual Women, do they choose to blink like men?

That's not to say that there isn't an environmental factor. The old nature vs nurture debate is crap because pretty much everything is both nature and nurture. Though there being a component of environment in homosexuality hardly means that gay couples will bring up a gay child any more than straight couples defiantly bring up straight children, nor does it mean, I think, that Homosexuality is a choice. I find it hard to believe that people would choose it, the relatively mild ostracism in the western world is one thing, but in places some countries homosexuality is a capital offence. Why would people choose that?

The thing that confounds me about the genetic account is that it seems like it would not be a very advantageous adaptation, from a survival of the fittest standpoint. Given that sex between two people of the same gender can't produce offspring, how would this gene survive, let alone contribute to the propagation of the species? I'm not saying there isn't a genetic component, but I can't get my head around the notion that it's all genetic--that seems like it would fly in the face of evolutionary theory. Thoughts?

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 25, 2006 4:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
I'm not saying there isn't a genetic component, but I can't get my head around the notion that it's all genetic--that seems like it would fly in the face of evolutionary theory. Thoughts?

Maybe it is an evolutionary advance that only comes after we make the technological breakthroughs to control fertilization, implantation, and gestation. Sort of Nature's way of saying, "Now that you're no longer limited to procreating the usual way, we'll no longer limit you to selecting mates from only 50% of the population." And we get an increasing number of bisexuals as opposed to having homosexuals as a minority.

Just conjecture of course.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

----------
There is more hunger for love and appreciation in this world than for bread.
--Mother Teresa

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 25, 2006 4:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Maybe it is an evolutionary advance that only comes after we make the technological breakthroughs to control fertilization, implantation, and gestation. Sort of Nature's way of saying, "Now that you're no longer limited to procreating the usual way, we'll no longer limit you to selecting mates from only 50% of the population." And we get an increasing number of bisexuals as opposed to having homosexuals as a minority.

But this violates the principle of parsimony (aka Ockham's Razor)--this posits that nature has some sort of omniscience that I'm not sure I ready to grant. In addition, as I understand it, random genetic mutation is one of the cornerstones of evolutionary biology, and if it worked the way you're suggesting, it's not random any more. Its selected by some agent (which gets awfully close to theist/ID).

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 25, 2006 4:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
I'm not saying there isn't a genetic component, but I can't get my head around the notion that it's all genetic--that seems like it would fly in the face of evolutionary theory. Thoughts?

Genes are often passed on that provide traits that are not beneficial in a survival of the fittest sense.

With the danger of comparing homosexuality to a disease which is not my intent, I merely use this as an example of how a gene can continue to be passed on despite not giving a benefit to survival, cystic fibrosis is detrimental to survival of the fittest but continues to be passed on. This is because the genes that cause cystic fibrosis don't cause cystic fibrosis in all cases. It takes both parents to be carriers, allowing the genes to continue because most carriers are not sufferers.

In the case of Male homosexuality it appears like the gene largely responsible is the X chromosome from the mother. Here you can see that the individual passing on the trait is not affected by it, so even though the trait reduces the chances of procreation it can still be passed on, mother to son. Some statistical research, however, shows that the gene responsible for Male homosexuality may also be responsible for increased female fertility. Which would mean that, that gene does bestow an advantage for the females, thereby keeping it in the gene pool.

To touch briefly on a possible evolutionary advantage to homosexuality I have heard, though by no means do I have any evidence to back it up, that homosexual couples, being childless, could act as surrogate aunts/uncles. That is looking after heterosexual couples children, natural childminders if you will. To my knowledge homosexuality has only been demonstrated in social species, and if there was any credence to the surrogate theory only in social species would there be any advantage to homosexuality. Although of course the increased difficulty of observing sexual behaviour in non-social species is a more likely explanation for no known homosexual activity in those species.

However if there is truth to the surrogate theory then this is an evolutionary advantage to homosexuality, albeit not to the individual but the species as a whole, and as these things work out the increased female fertility may have naturally developed as an evolutionary mechanism for keeping this advantageous trait in the gene pool.

Perhaps increased female fertility is the advantageous trait, the gene making women more attractive to and attracted by men in various ways, and these traits simply manifest as an increased likelihood of homosexuality in males. I don't know, but there are many ways a seemingly disadvantageous trait can continue to be passed down, and ways that, that trait may only appear to be disadvantageous.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 25, 2006 4:53 PM

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 25, 2006 5:41 PM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

Quote:
Originally posted by ladyjax:
For those of us that are gay/lesbian etc. who also have other close gay family members (in my case my late older brother, and two female cousins on my mother's side of the family), it's a little hard to completely dismiss a genetic link.

That's not about relying on an 'excuse' - it's about acknowledging a possibility.

As far as choices go, for me, the only choice involved was not to lie to my family and say that I was not a lesbian when it came to light. Everything else I deal with as it comes along.

The headline of the thread, however, that's just juvenile and totally unnecessary.

My relatives who are "gay" (i.e. UNhappy) appear to have all been raped as children. Raped by family members who had ties to various mafias. When I say "raped", some survived hideous physical torures and gang rapes (mind control). They never got counseling therapy for those crimes, and the perps were never arrested. One relative didn't become effeminate/homosexual until discharge from US military, which included exposure to hydrazine rocket fuel (extremly toxic, and now in 80% of cow juice in USA). How does someone's entire voice and personality change suddenly, unless by chemical change in hormones? He still thinks the military is sticking needles in his neck... But maybe that's just the amphetamine psychosis talking.

My gay relatives were not genetically hermaphrodites (so far as I know), which is not uncommon, where doctors have to make a surgical decision as to which gender the baby will be on its birthday. In such a case, a person could grow up wearing clothing of the wrong gender, while the hormones were predominant for the opposite gender. In such a case it's not technically homosexuality. That would be a tough situation, same as any other disability.

I've known folks whose parents suffered mental illness, and forcibly raised a son as a daughter. Very confusing for everybody. Tho that would be more understandable if it was a case of hermaphroditism. Many kids are raised by "insane" parents.

One classmate of mine is now an MD director at a hospital, married with kids, who husband is a wealthy business owner. Only when she was 35 years old did she tell us her mom was so insane, that every day after school she had to hide the family guns, so her mom wouldn't murder her dad. In college she required psychiatric help to make it thru med school, to deal with her nutty mom. Later her mom died from Lou Gerhig's Disease, which must have been tied to the mental illness somehow, perhaps toxicity from prescription meds.

The point being, nutty parents can raise nutty kids, like a computer virus. If a parent hates their own life, that hatred is tranferred to the kids, who grow up hating kids, "so why not just be gay" and never have kids, to make mommy or daddy "happy"?

The entemology of the word "gay" is "prostitution".

All offspring of Dick Cheney deserve deaths by waterboarding, for the crime of supporting their parents' homicidal crimes. Homosexuality is often a requirement for a life of crime, since it gives the crime syndicate additional blackmail ammo. Pedophilia is even better. Homosexual pedophilia is the "best". Which is why Bushes and Cheney have been running the White House for over 25 years. It is still a felony to be homosexual in US military, due to risk of treason.

Big Dick Cheney loves raping little girls,
according to sworn testimony by Cathy O'Brien,
and pedophilia is legalized by Tennessee judges
www.rotten.com/library/bio/usa/dick-cheney/
www.trance-formation.com

Lynn Cheney is a lesbian who raised a lesbian
www.rotten.com/library/bio/usa/dick-cheney/

My wife was personally offered a bribe, er, job by Dick Cheney, when he was secretary of war at the Pentagon, during Bush Sr's Gulf War #1 (when Bush told Saddam to invade Kuwait, and gave Iraq $2-billion in US weapons to kill US troops). By then we figured out the corruption went all the way to the White House, so my wife turned down Cheney's bribe and retired from USAF. That would have really been a disaster, if she had worked for that monster.
www.piratenews.org/pentagon_whistleblower.html

"You can't stop the signal!"
-Mr Universe, Pirate TV

FIREFLY SERENITY PILOT MUSIC VIDEO V2
Tangerine Dream - Thief Soundtrack: Confrontation
http://radio.indymedia.org/news/2006/03/8912.php
http://video.yahoo.com/video/play?vid=8cd2bd0379340120e7a6ed00f2a53ee5
.1044556
www.myspace.com/piratenewsctv
www.piratenews.org

Does that seem right to you?
www.scifi.com/onair/

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 25, 2006 6:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
But this violates the principle of parsimony (aka Ockham's Razor)--this posits that nature has some sort of omniscience that I'm not sure I ready to grant. In addition, as I understand it, random genetic mutation is one of the cornerstones of evolutionary biology, and if it worked the way you're suggesting, it's not random any more. Its selected by some agent (which gets awfully close to theist/ID).

All good points! OR...

Evolution and genes don't necessarily work the way we think. There has been a little bit of suggestion (from studies in rodents and microbes) in recent years that not only do genes influence behavior, but behavior and environment CAN influence genes that get passed on to successive generations. So while this would be consistent with your point that genetic mutation wouldn't be random anymore, unrandom doesn't necessarily equal theism or intelligent design. That is, the intelligent agent that does the selecting could be the creatures themselves.

And of course, my imaginary comment by "Nature" is more figurative than literal.

Another explanation could be that there has been no genetic changes. Maybe we've always all been genetically bi/omni-sexual, but have been restrained and repressed by environmental imperatives to procreate. Now that those environmental imperatives are more lenient and relaxed, we are allowing ourselves to increasingly express our genetic bi/omni-sexual nature.

Again, all conjecture.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 25, 2006 6:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Another explanation could be that there has been no genetic changes. Maybe we've always all been genetically bi/omni-sexual, but have been restrained and repressed by environmental imperatives to procreate. Now that those environmental imperatives are more lenient and relaxed, we are allowing ourselves to increasingly express our genetic bi/omni-sexual nature.

But this would support the "it's their choice" line of reasoning more than the "it's the way they are" line.

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 26, 2006 1:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
But this would support the "it's their choice" line of reasoning more than the "it's the way they are" line.

Not really, the choice is expressing, which no one has denied, not being.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 26, 2006 4:00 AM

I'm not sure I believe that's the case. CTS proposed that perhaps everyone has bi- or omni-sexual tendencies which had been repressed, but which we now "allow" (his word) ourselves to express. If we're all omni, then it would seem that either environmental factors push us in certain ways, or we choose in certain ways. I certainly appreciate the expressing/being distinction, but in this instance, I'm not sure it's as significant as you might think: CTS is proposing that in our being we are omni. If that's the case the "I'm born this way" argument pretty much evaporates.

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 26, 2006 7:10 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

6SJ- I may be jumping into a defunct conversation, but there 's a difference between "genetic" and "developmental". SOME human sexuality is steered by in-utero exposure ot "environmental" factors such as the mom's hormonal status and the genders of previous pregnancies and hormonal mimics (like bisphenol A). For example, "born" lesbians have statistically different finger length rations... more like men... indicating in utero exposure to higher than average levels of androgens.

I also know two gays- one male and one female- who were "made" that way through abuse by the opposite-sexed parent (aversive conditioning). And then there are people who swing both ways.

I think what your friend is saying is that he "chooses" to act the way his biology sets him in motion, as opposed to pretending to be straight. I believe the choice is whether to be self-accepting, not whether or not to be gay.

As far as Cheney having a child.... I don't know what she and Heather are like. If they love each other and are committed to each other, if they know how to behave like adults, if they can put their energies to giving a child the love and care and teaching that it needs... no problem.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 26, 2006 7:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
But this would support the "it's their choice" line of reasoning more than the "it's the way they are" line.

Well, in this scenario, there are no major changes in the gene pool, so it is a digression from our discussion of evolution. But yes, it would be more on the choice rather than the genes line of reasoning.

All right, back to evolution. Homosexuality could be an evolutionary adaptation to overpopulation.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 26, 2006 7:54 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I read an interesting article that began "Natural selection is not natural perfection".

There are a lot of deviations in the gene pool that aren't fatal enough to be selected out.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 26, 2006 7:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
If that's the case the "I'm born this way" argument pretty much evaporates.

IF that is the case. However, I personally don't believe it.

Haha, yes I tossed out a scenario that I don't believe. But I thought it was worth considering.

I know people who have no choice on their homosexual or heterosexual preference, and who are decidedly NOT bi.

I just wonder how many people ARE bi.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 26, 2006 8:33 AM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

When bad experiences trigger a compulsive reaction, that's neuroses. Neuroses is not "choice", it's defined in medical texts as "insanity". "Denial" is defined as the most prevalent form of insanity.

By claiming Mo's are "normal", that denies crime victims the right to medical cure for their disease. Like a rape victim denied rape counseling, and police refusing to arrest the rapist. Does that sound right to you?

In USA today, men, women and children face 50 years in prison for silently holding posters saying that homosex is a violation of God's 600+ commandments, quoting the Christian Bible (Jewish Torah) that's the foundation of the US legal system. Does that sound right to you?

As Mo's gain power in USA, pedophilia also gains power. We now have snuff kiddie pornographers running the White House - and owning Serenity. Does that sound right to you?

"You can't stop the signal!"
-Mr Universe, Pirate TV

FIREFLY SERENITY PILOT MUSIC VIDEO V2
Tangerine Dream - Thief Soundtrack: Confrontation
http://radio.indymedia.org/news/2006/03/8912.php
http://video.yahoo.com/video/play?vid=8cd2bd0379340120e7a6ed00f2a53ee5
.1044556
www.myspace.com/piratenewsctv
www.piratenews.org

Does that seem right to you?
www.scifi.com/onair/

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 26, 2006 8:36 AM

HKCAVALIER

As I mentioned earlier, the Sioux people traditionally celebrate the birth of a gay child as a sign that the tribe has reached a certain level of stability and civilization. This fits a scenario that nature would select for homosexuality once a population had reached some kind of critical mass. Put another way, once quantity of life has reached the saturation point, then quality of life becomes more important.

I've looked for statistics on this, the percentage of gays in populations according to environmental conditions, but I don't think such statistics exist, and I don't know how reliable they would be in any case, given the continuum of tolerance to hatred toward gays across cultures. False reporting would be a big problem in cultures where homosexuality has been criminalized, for instance.

Of course, 6SJ was talking about rats in a cage turning to homosexuality out of scarcity, but what if nature selected for homosexuality as a gesture towards population control?

It's interesting to me that in the great desert religions of the world--cultures born under harsh conditions where survival was a daily struggle--Judaism and Islam, homosexuality would be seen as a great evil. And here in the modern United States, as our very existense seems threatened, we as a people would become more and more intolerant of homosexuality.

Not to get too wonky on ya all--this is all just conjecture we're throwing around here--but if we look at the traditional role gays play in cultures that accept them we may see a pattern. In many cultures gays are seen as having a particular affinity to art and culture, beautifying and embellishing what has been given them. Gay culture tends to make life more livable, more colorful, more comfortable and more fun in general (and please, I'm talking about gay culture, not gay individuals--I'm not saying that all gays are opera queens or conform to any such stereotypes, but I am acknowledging that gay culture exists and that it has certain characteristics we can talk about).

I see no reason not to imagine that homosexuality is part of "nature's plan."

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 26, 2006 8:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
There are a lot of deviations in the gene pool that aren't fatal enough to be selected out.

Right, but I would think that a deviation that by definition can't produce offspring would disappear pretty darned quick.

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 26, 2006 10:08 AM

SEVENPERCENT

I have no dog in this fight, so to speak. But for the record, just so it's out there, I fully support gay rights. I don't care if it's genetic, psychological, choice, whatever - doesn't matter. Treat all people equally and we'd have fewer problems on this rock, IMHO.

But I came in here not to debate this, necessarily (and sorry for the thread hijack), but to ask Captain Paranoia just what the fuck, exactly, he's talking about this time. I swear, Piratenews, I sometimes read these threads just to see how cracked out you are, and today is no exception.

Quote:
In USA today, men, women and children face 50 years in prison for silently holding posters saying that homosex is a violation of God's 600+ commandments

Whiskey-Tango-Foxtrot, on this one. I'd like to see some documentation that this happened (unless it happened to Fred Phelps, then I'd be happy). Unless you're protesting homosexuality while aremed with a bomb in a restricted area of an airforce base, there's nowhere in the US that this happens. Ever.

You're. A. Nutjob. Period.

Quote:
quoting the Christian Bible that's the foundation of the US legal system

Unless the legal system in the US changed overnight, it wasn't founded in the least on the Christian bible.

Those wacky things with pages? They're called books. You read them. I know, it's hard what with your meds and all the other tinfoil brigadeers sending you internet links, but try to make the time, okay Pumpkin?

Quote:
As Mo's gain power in USA, pedophilia also gains power

You're a fucking retard. The fact that you connect homosexuality with pedophilia shows that you have absolutely zero brains in your head. In fact, I may have just insulted the mentally handicapped by lumping you in with them.

Use 'the google' as GWB calls it, and look it up. This is just one of hundreds of medically researched, peer-reviewed studies on the issue that show no link between the two.
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html
Other researchers have taken different approaches, but have similarly failed to find a connection between homosexuality and child molestation. Dr. Carole Jenny and her colleagues reviewed 352 medical charts, representing all of the sexually abused children seen in the emergency room or child abuse clinic of a Denver children's hospital during a one-year period (from July 1, 1991 to June 30, 1992). The molester was a gay or lesbian adult in fewer than 1% in which an adult molester could be identified – only 2 of the 269 cases (Jenny et al., 1994).

I've heard that 1 out of every 4 people has some form of mental illness. Not only do I think you're the 1 of 4, I think you picked up the slack for about a half dozen other groups of four ("You guys just stay home; I'll be crazy enough for all of us!")

------------------------------------------
"A revolution without dancing is no revolution at all." - V

Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 26, 2006 10:10 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Right, but I would think that a deviation that by definition can't produce offspring would disappear pretty darned quick.

Hmm... well, homosexuals - especially the distaff side- have been producing offspring for millenia. Who you have sex with is not always the individual's choice, and may not be related to attraction.

But setting that aside, there are truly fatal genetic flaws that continue to crop up that don't follow the two-parent laws of genetics, and those are the mitochondrial disorders. To recap briefly- mitochondria are the organelles within your cells that cleave "food molecules" into "energy" (ATP). They have their own independent DNA which is completely separate from nuclear DNA, and because sperm are such little critters with no room for mitochondria, everyone inherits their mitochondrial DNA in an unbroken line from their mothers and ONLY their mothers. (So animals have two genetic lines- the nucleus resulting from sexual reproduction, and the mitochondria resulting from asexual reproduction.)

Anyway, if something is wrong with your mitochondria you may suffer very serious metabolic flaws that result from the inability to break down certain key food components, and you will be poisoned by the incompletely broken down fragments of fats, organic acids, or proteins that cause seizures, retardation, lier and then total organ failure.

The mystery is how THOSE disorders persist long enough to even be recreated. And yet in many cases the mom didn't even know she had a "mito disooder" until her children were affected and in some cases can be traced back several generations. Anyway, the point is that all kinds of flaws can be tolerated as long as they don't exceed reproducion rate.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 26, 2006 10:16 AM

Interesting...both very good points (this is why I generally enjoy being a part of any discussion you're part of, Sig).

Of course, the philosopher in me is dying to bring up the is-ought problem and the naturalistic fallacy--we've delved thoroughly into the choice/genes issues, but almost not at all into the ethical one (which seems to be where the real emotion is in the question).

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 26, 2006 10:37 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Is-ought??

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 26, 2006 11:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Right, but I would think that a deviation that by definition can't produce offspring would disappear pretty darned quick.

Did you miss my post?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 26, 2006 12:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Is-ought??

A fallacy originally described by Hume, a sceptic philosopher. He thought that there was no way that one could reason validly (in the logical sense) from a descriptive statement about the way things in fact are (i.e. from an "is") to a normative statement about the way things ought to be (i.e. to an "ought"). So, for instance, one might run up against the is-ought problem by saying something like, "My family is starving, but I am broke. Therefore, I ought to steal some bread to feed my family." Now I think that most people would find this pretty reasonable, prima facie. But the trouble is that the conclusion about what one ought to do doesn't really follow from a description about the way things are. Contemporary philosophers disagree on how much of a sceptic Hume really was. Some think that he felt that as long as there is some "ought" premise in an argument, then one can validly conclude with an ought (something like, "One ought to provide for one's family by any means necessary"); but others think that he felt that there was no way at all for an "ought" to be validly derived from an "is"--even if there were a "ought" premise in the argument. I'm not sure where I think Hume falls out, but what I find interesting is that the ethical question seems to be where the real bullets are fired over the issue of homosexuality. The genetics vs. free choice question seems to just be peripheral.

It seems like the debate is over whether or not homosexual behavior is morally acceptable (and I want to make sure that everyone notes that I'm not taking a side on this issue). Those who claim that it is not usually appeal to religious traditions for their justification, but this is obviously going to be problematic, because not everyone shares those beliefs. Those who say that it is either morally acceptable tend to argue that "it's the way they are"--but this is equally problematic because they immediately confront the is-ought problem (and almost always because they are committing the naturalistic fallacy). Even more interestingly, on the one hand, it would seem that the ethics of a society change over the course of time such that what was once censured is no longer. But that is also problematic, because to commit to ethical relativism is to risk some serious logical problems. But the commitment to ethical objectivism (of which it should be noted that theistic ethics are but a single example) carries some problems, as it would seem that there in fact are some differences in ethical standards.

Anyway, all this to say that you can see how thinking about this issue seems like a lot of fun to me, as a philosopher.

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 26, 2006 1:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Did you miss my post?

No, sorry--I just have only had a few windows during which I could respond at leisure. Plus, to be honest, I didn't understand some of the stuff you posted, which made it even harder to get a timely response out. I'm glad that it's up there, though, because upon review (now that I'm finally at home), I find it interesting that it could in fact be the case that one-and-the-same gene that causes a beneficial adaptation in the female of the species could cause a not-so-beneficial one (from a reproductive standpoint) in the male. I think you could be right that if that's the case, it could account for the survival of the gene. Not sure I agree to the aunt/uncle hypothesis though: if that were the case, the gene would still die without being passed (in addition to which it seems that many (most?) human societies have frowned on homosexual behavior.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Editted to add:

Also, I guess maybe you meant the choice/genetic post.

Quote:
Originally posted by Citizen:
Not really, the choice is expressing, which no one has denied, not being.

Well, if the pertinent choice vis a vis the issue of homosexuality is the expression of said orientation (and not the orientation itself) then I suppose the question is: ought we to censure homosexual behavior or ought we not? If the former, then it wouldn't matter if they were genetically homosexual, because your post seemed to indicate that you thought that the relevant choice is the choice to express or not to express homosexual behavior (this, of course, goes to some of the philosophical problems I raised in my post to Signym).
________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 26, 2006 6:47 PM