Homosexuality [Archive] - Global Affairs Forum, Politics, Law, Science, Health

HaYwIrE

11-04-2002, 10:34 PM

From <a href="http://www.msnbc.com/news/830384.asp" target="_blank">MSNBC.com</a>.....

Gay sheep that mate only with other rams have different brain structures from “straight” sheep, a finding that may shed light on human sexuality, U.S. researchers said on Monday. The differences are similar to those seen in some homosexual humans, but probably only go a small way to explaining the causes of different sexual preferences, the team at Oregon Health Sciences University said.

“WE ARE not trying to explain human sexuality by this study,” Charles Roselli, a professor of physiology and pharmacology who led the study, said in a telephone interview. “Whether this is a big component of what contributes in humans, that’s still debatable.”

Working with a team at the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Sheep Experiment Station in Dubois, Idaho, Roselli’s team studied 27 sheep — 10 ewes, nine rams that mated only with other rams and eight rams that mated only with females.

The “gay” sheep are strongly homosexual, Roselli said.

“They don’t pair-bond,” he said. “But they are exclusive. They don’t court or mate with females. They only court and mate with males.”

First the scientists watched the sheep to be sure of their behavior — something that cannot be done with humans. Then they took apart their brains.

DIFFERENCES IN HYPOTHALAMUS

“There had been reports in humans that a certain area of the hypothalamus, the preoptic area ... was usually larger in males than females,” Roselli said. This area was also found to be larger in heterosexual humans than in homosexual men.

But the researchers had used the brains of men who had died of AIDS in their study, which meant the disease or drugs used to treat it could have had an effect on the brain.

“With an animal model you can be more selective and do more controlled studies,” Roselli said.

The sheep had similar differences in their brains, the researchers told a meeting in Orlando, Florida, of the Society for Neuroscience.

“In a sense we confirmed what been found in humans,” Roselli said.

The brain cells in this area also made greater amounts of an enzyme called aromatase in the heterosexual rams. Aromatase is involved in the action of testosterone, the so-called male hormone.

This does not mean the gay rams had less testosterone in their brains, Roselli stressed. “It is not necessarily the activational effect of the hormone,” he said. Other types of neurons are probably active — they just have not found them yet.

No differences in testosterone relating to sexuality have been found either in the sheep or in humans, he said.

“It’s not that gay men have lower levels of testosterone,” he said. “And it’s not the case with these sheep.”

Roselli believes that exposure to hormones while still in the mother’s womb may affect the brain and cause differences in sexual preference, and more experiments will aim to show whether this is true.

So, isn't this essentially saying that homosexuality is a brain disorder of sorts... only in a very carefully worded and "Politically Correct" kind of way? I have always thought this and have been flamed as a hater... bigot... and/or "Politically Incorrect". It's even been said that my beliefs on this issue make me some kind of "closet fag". :rolleyes:

Now, this is not to say that homosexuals are "retarded" or anything like that. But shouldn't this be considered scientific evidence that homosexual brains are structured closer to that of a woman than that of a man? And would this not be considered a mental disorder or at the very least, an abnormal brain structure?

ethics

11-04-2002, 11:30 PM

Originally posted by HaYwIrE
[B]So, isn't this essentially saying that homosexuality is a brain disorder of sorts... only in a very carefully worded and "Politically Correct" kind of way?

Well, that also would be applicable to prodigy kids. Their brains are different also.

All this tells me, and I've always been a believer in this anyway, is that homosexuality is something you are born with, not something you pick and choose.

edit: grammar.

HaYwIrE

11-04-2002, 11:46 PM

Originally posted by ethics
All this tells me, and I've always been a believer in this anyway, is that homosexuality is something you are born with, not something you pick and choose. True. True.

John R. Beanham

11-04-2002, 11:53 PM

AS the father of twin, gay, sons I also believe that it is genetic. I am certain that there is a 'gay gene' that runs in my side of the family and as a genealogist, I was amazed at the number of un-married and married/childless men in my line.

Just an unproven theory I know but I believe it.

John.

ethics

11-05-2002, 12:02 AM

Originally posted by John R. Beanham
AS the father of twin, gay, sons I also believe that it is genetic. I am certain that there is a 'gay gene' that runs in my side of the family and as a genealogist, I was amazed at the number of un-married and married/childless men in my line.

John, I never knew this. Both are gay, correct?

I've been friends with too many gay men and women (hey, it's NYC) and I've gotten the truth out of them through torture, drunkeness, and lie detector tests. ;)

In all seriousness, I think this is very important study not for people like me, you, and Haywire, but for people who still think that Homosexuality is a choice.

Perhaps one day, the study will be announced for humans.

John R. Beanham

11-05-2002, 12:23 AM

Ethics,

" people who still think that Homosexuality is a choice."

I often wonder just who in their right mind would "choose' the homosexual life given the, even now, social stigma and rejection involved in such a choice. Also, knowing the horrible risk of AIDS (we lost Michael, one of our twins after a 6 year, enormously courageous, battle with the disease) I cannot imagine such a risky choice.

I am certain they have NO choice.

John.

ethics

11-05-2002, 12:26 AM

Originally posted by John R. Beanham
I often wonder just who in their right mind would "choose' the homosexual life given the, even now, social stigma and rejection involved in such a choice. Also, knowing the horrible risk of AIDS (we lost Michael, one of our twins after a 6 year, enormously courageous, battle with the disease) I cannot imagine such a risky choice.

Shit, I am soo sorry, John, I didn't know. :(

As to your question, I don't know.

jamming

11-05-2002, 12:40 AM

Does this mean that prebirth gene therapy could be developed to cure homosexuality? So that Homosexuals would be non-existant in the future? What if they developed a nano-technology that would build the brain back to normal size and structure? What would your reaction be to this, RRedline and BTDude?

RRedline

11-05-2002, 01:32 AM

Originally posted by HaYwIrE
So, isn't this essentially saying that homosexuality is a brain disorder of sorts... only in a very carefully worded and "Politically Correct" kind of way? I have always thought this and have been flamed as a hater... bigot... and/or "Politically Incorrect". It's even been said that my beliefs on this issue make me some kind of "closet fag". :rolleyes:

Now, this is not to say that homosexuals are "retarded" or anything like that. But shouldn't this be considered scientific evidence that homosexual brains are structured closer to that of a woman than that of a man? And would this not be considered a mental disorder or at the very least, an abnormal brain structure? At least it suggests that people do not CHOOSE to be homosexual. You can call it whatever you want to call it. Perhaps it IS a disorder by the literal definition - I really don't know. If it is, then there certainly are a lot of "sick" people!

I don't mean to keep thrashing religion, but what does this say about Christian beliefs against homosexuality? If it can be proven that it is a biological trait, then wouldn't that mean that God made us gay? Why then would he condemn us(read Leviticus)?

What I am curious about is why this happens with so many different species? What possible advantage could having a small percentage of homosexuals in your species have that evolution has decided to pass it along? Any theories?

P.S.: HaYwIrE, you are such a closet fag! :happy:

RRedline

11-05-2002, 01:39 AM

Coot

11-05-2002, 02:40 AM

Originally posted by jamming
Does this mean that prebirth gene therapy could be developed to cure homosexuality? So that Homosexuals would be non-existant in the future? What if they developed a nano-technology that would build the brain back to normal size and structure? What would your reaction be to this, RRedline and BTDude? I'm answering after your request for clarity...RRedline has answered with a perfunctory..."Well maybe...how the hell should I know...probably wouldn't be my first choice." Asking him or others this question is pretty much non-sequitar as the only answer they have is from their own life experience. Presuming the premise of the article, answers such as you're seeking are unknowable and for the most part irrelevant. These people are living the life handed to them as best they can...just as your are or anyone else.

To ask the question, "Hey, we have a cure for what ails ya'...you up for it? Begs the question as to whether they see it as an issue as they're pretty much busy playing the cards they were dealt.

Rephrase the question towards prospective parents, and I'm quite sure you'd get the answer you're looking for. For a variety of reasons, this particular genetic trait is one that most parents I know would rather not pass on....whether or not they accept that some of their children are of this persuasion...or not.

HaYwIrE

11-05-2002, 02:59 AM

Originally posted by RRedline
P.S.: HaYwIrE, you are such a closet fag! :happy: Asshole. :rolleyes:

jamming

11-05-2002, 04:06 AM

Originally posted by Coot
These people are living the life handed to them as best they can...just as your are or anyone else.

To ask the question, "Hey, we have a cure for what ails ya'...you up for it? Begs the question as to whether they see it as an issue as they're pretty much busy playing the cards they were dealt.

I understand that, but I was wondering if there was a coorelation between this and those people of the Deaf Community that are offended by the Cochler(sp?) Implant that allows children to hear, when born without hearing. What if a treatment meant an end to any vibrant culture, would those with that issue that developed this culture, be offended at that?

ethics

11-05-2002, 08:08 AM

Originally posted by jamming
I understand that, but I was wondering if there was a coorelation between this and those people of the Deaf Community that are offended by the Cochler(sp?) Implant that allows children to hear, when born without hearing. What if a treatment meant an end to any vibrant culture, would those with that issue that developed this culture, be offended at that?

I think, indirectly perhaps, that's what Coot was driving at. If you ask parent's if they want their pre-born child to be gay or straight, how many would say gay?

btdude

11-05-2002, 08:52 AM

Originally posted by HaYwIrE
But shouldn't this be considered scientific evidence that homosexual brains are structured closer to that of a woman than that of a man? And would this not be considered a mental disorder or at the very least, an abnormal brain structure? [/B]

I've said this before, and I will say it again, I am just as much man as any other straight guy in here. In fact, my brain as a gay man may be larger, because I have to think of different ways to combat such ridiculous research. My fingers are large, what does that mean? We need research to find out why homosexual men and women do not have life and health insurance for their domestic partners. We need reaserch to ask why it is that straight men like to play jack off with other gay men. We need research to find the connection between bisexual, homophobic or closet gay men and the statements they make that supports only their misunderstanding of a way of life that is in my view, genetic. This is silly.

ethics

11-05-2002, 08:56 AM

Originally posted by btdude
My fingers are large, what does that mean?

BT! The size comment by researches was sort of, kind of taken taken out of context.

There had been reports in humans that a certain area of the hypothalamus, the preoptic area ... was usually larger in males than females,” Roselli said. This area was also found to be larger in heterosexual humans than in homosexual men.

It wasn't that the entire brain was larger it was a special area, hypothalamus that was. Which, in essence, means:

The brain cells in this area also made greater amounts of an enzyme called aromatase in the heterosexual rams. Aromatase is involved in the action of testosterone, the so-called male hormone.

Which doesn't explain much since they also say there's no difference in testosterone production between gay and straight males.

More research is definitely needed.

Oh didn't they say that bigger fingers meant that you had a... oh never mind, that was disproved. ;)

btdude

11-05-2002, 09:02 AM

And, in reply to the gentleman who had one of his sons die from complications from AIDS: MY HEART GOES TO YOU.

I have had to deal with this illness for many years now, as 2 of my best friends died from the same complications. WE ARE ALL effected by this, folks. I spoke at both of my friends' funerals, and guess what? It was not about what he DIED from, or that he was a gay man. It was about the fact that he was a human being who died. I spoke of his life as a wonderful thing that we needed to celebrate. Let's not turn this into something evil, Haywire. ANd, while I am here, I do believe that Redline was joking with you, when he called you a closet FAG. Now, unless he is correct in that statement, you had no right to call him an asshole.

Gay men are not "destined" to get HIV/AIDS as a punishment. And, before you find a research study that supports your view that gay men started this all, I invite you to find the current reasearch that indicates that more and more it is the bisexual white male, black females and younger gay males who are most likely to be infected. BTW, a little knowledge here: HIV is the virus that causes AIDS. AIDS in itself is the by product, if you will.

btdude

11-05-2002, 09:04 AM

Sorry, Ethics . . . about the finger comment, I mean. I was holding up one particular finger when I read that amazing reasearch finding. I'll edit the post, if you want me to.

ethics

11-05-2002, 09:09 AM

Nah, man, no need for that. We are pretty laid back here. ;)

I know this topic is close to home for many, so I am trying to be a bit more sensitive here myself. :)

btdude

11-05-2002, 09:10 AM

Originally posted by jamming
Does this mean that prebirth gene therapy could be developed to cure homosexuality? So that Homosexuals would be non-existant in the future? What if they developed a nano-technology that would build the brain back to normal size and structure? What would your reaction be to this, RRedline and BTDude?

I am not sure how to respond to this. If you are joking, I would say to you that I do not WISH to be cured, given that I have had to shape my entire life on what I know I am. Would I ever PURPOSELY CHOOSE this? Probably not, given the society we live in. DO I want homosexuality to be completely engineered away? Never. That would be like saying that one rac, religion or whatever else is not good enough, and we have to get rid of it. We all know that gay men and women, people of color, etc. all have wonderful contributions to make to this world. How boring and hopeless of a world would we live it, if we did not have these people around?

jamming

11-05-2002, 09:24 AM

No Btdude, I was not joking and I appreciate your honest opinion. I think it would be a greyer world if we try to make everyone fit into a box of what is allowed.

HaYwIrE

11-05-2002, 10:53 AM

Originally posted by btdude
I do believe that Redline was joking with you, when he called you a closet FAG. Now, unless he is correct in that statement, you had no right to call him an asshole.I do believe that RRedline knows that I knew he was joking and that I was joking back. Hence, the ":rolleyes:".
Originally posted by btdude
DO I want homosexuality to be completely engineered away? Never. That would be like saying that one rac, religion or whatever else is not good enough, and we have to get rid of it. We all know that gay men and women, people of color, etc. all have wonderful contributions to make to this world. How boring and hopeless of a world would we live it, if we did not have these people around?Originally posted by btdude
Gay men are not "destined" to get HIV/AIDS as a punishment. And, before you find a research study that supports your view that gay men started this all, I invite you to find the current reasearch that indicates that more and more it is the bisexual white male, black females and younger gay males who are most likely to be infected.I don't think anyone suggested that the person should be engineered out of existence. But if homosexuality is a mental illness or abnormality of some sort as this research suggests, should the illness not be treated and possibly even engineered out of existence if at all possible?

Oh, I know what's coming next...

"But my homosexuality is part of who I am! Engineer that away and you have, in effect, engineered the person away!"

To this I would submit that any mental illness should be engineered out of existence, if it were at all possible.

Pointing out the three groups of people that are most succeptable to contracting the AIDS virus...

<li> Bisexual white males = Persons who have homosexual sex
<li> Young gay males = Persons who have homosexual sex
<li> Black females = What is this saying for young black males? The odds of a woman contracting it from another female are insignificant compared to the odds of them contracting it from a man infected with this horrible virus, probably one who has had homosexual sex with another man.

Two thirds of the groups that you point out have homosexual sex, correct? And I'm willing to bet that the number of black females (AS OPPOSED TO THE OTHER TWO GROUPS) is also relatively insignificant. The main way they contract it is from another individual who has had sex with another infected individual, most likely through homosexual sex... or IV drug use.

As rampant as AIDS has become, would it not be prudent to take a deeper look into homosexuality to see if it can be cured/prevented? Would this not "practically" eliminate AIDS, or at least bring it down from the epidemic it has become? But no. "Political Correctness" and gay rights activism will not allow this type of legitimate medical research, and that is a shame.

You say that everyone who is what you consider a "homophobe" is somehow wrong in their beliefs. You are against the genetic engineering of individuals to eliminate homosexuality, but are all for the engineering of society to accept homosexuality as "normal"? http://www.plauder-smilies.de/sad/confused5.gif

I cannot agree with this. Although I do agree that homosexuals have and do contribute greatly to society, the fact that they are homosexual has not a thing to do with it, while the fact that they are homosexual is contributing significantly to a disease that has killed and is killing millions.

drslash

11-05-2002, 11:09 AM

Originally posted by RRedline
I don't mean to keep thrashing religion, but what does this say about Christian beliefs against homosexuality? If it can be proven that it is a biological trait, then wouldn't that mean that God made us gay? Why then would he condemn us(read Leviticus)?
I don't see this as trashing religion, I see it as self reflection concerning something personal. Why God made us gay or straight is something I don't have an answer for, if indeed the sexuality component is biological. Even though we are different we each still face questions.

I see God as making me a sexual person. I may want to have sex with all the females I see but that isn't condoned by God either. Wanting sex with many different women is the way I feel sexually but I choose to not do that. I realize that this is not equivalent to the possible choices for a homosexual. My choice, according to God's rules, is to have sex with just one woman or no sex at all, a homosexual's choice is to have sex with one women or no sex at all, including with men, according to God's rules. Strictly speaking these choices, in my mind, are not equavilent. Basically, then the homosexual's choice is supposed to be to not have sex at all. Is that fair? It doesn't sound like it. Is that what God wants? I think so. Are both gay and straight sinners forgiven if they ask for forgiveness? Yes. Are all gays and straights children of God? Yes.

-Ken

11-05-2002, 11:12 AM

Upon reflection, I think I'll wretch.
Such thinly veiled bigotry being
passed as intelligent discourse
is shameful.

Move along folks, there's nothing new to see here.

RRedline

11-05-2002, 11:48 AM

Originally posted by btdude
My fingers are large, what does that mean? It means that if I ever find myself single, I may have to give you a call. :)

Seriously though, I know exacltly what Jamming is driving at. If I were a straight man and wanted to bring another human life into this world, I would probably prefer for him or her to be straight. I say that only because I wouldn't want him or her to be ridiculed or discriminated against simply for being what he or she really is. If I had to choose between lots of freckles or no freckles at all, I would choose no freckles. Does that mean that people with freckles should be ashamed of themselves for being different? No, it just means that some people can be real assholes and tease people who happen to be different. We discipline our children for teasing other children, but we do it ourselves without even realising that we are doing it. When will society ever grow up?

I would rather that scientists focused their energies towards a cure for cancer and AIDS rather than studying gay sheep. To me, it is simple logic that homosexuality is largely genetic and partly environmental. I don't see any Earth shattering results coming this study.

I do believe that genetic engineering will be mainstream sometime before the next century - possibly in my lifetime. Once we get past the initial reluctance to take part in such an "unnatural" process, I think most people will be okay with it, especially to remove diseases and physical/mental disorders from society. It will be interesting to see just how far people will go with this and whether or not we will legislate what we may or may not do through genetic engineering. What if everyone wants to have boys? What if everyone wants their kids to have blue eyes? Should we remove homosexuality at the genes if we can? Again, I just don't know. I think that if this technology became mainstream right now, people would probably choose to have only straight children. How will people feel about it if this isn't mainstream for another hundred years? It wouldn't surprise me if even in a hundred years from now, some people would still argue that homosexuality is nothing but a choice. After all , isn't there a Flat Earth Society?

RRedline

11-05-2002, 12:02 PM

Originally posted by HaYwIrE
As rampant as AIDS has become, would it not be prudent to take a deeper look into homosexuality to see if it can be cured/prevented? Would this not "practically" eliminate AIDS, or at least bring it down from the epidemic it has become? But no. "Political Correctness" and gay rights activism will not allow this type of legitimate medical research, and that is a shame. First off, I knew you were joking about calling me an asshole because I know you don't want to get your ass kicked by a fag. And for the record everyone, that too was a joke. See, isn't this fun? :)

HaYwIrE, you are correct that wiping out homosexuality would probably help to, if not totally remove HIV/AIDS from society. However, wouldn't getting people to pactice safe sex achieve the same thing? I actually know a gay couple who have been together for many years, and one of them is HIV+. The other one gets tested every six months, and he has never tested positive. Safe sex works, but people need to put the effort into it and stop pretending that they are invincible.

Maybe we need to find the "stupid gene" and remove stupidity from society instead? Then we wouldn't have people plugging each other without using protection, and we wouldn't have drunks driving their cars into other people. Poor people would stop having so many kids...the possibilities are endless!

As I've already stated, I am not saying that removing homosexuality is necessarily a bad thing. I just question people motives for doing it.

By the way, I was hoping for a response(from anyone reading this) to my earlier comment about evolution. Why has evolution passed homosexuality along in humans and other species? I am baffled.

ethics

11-05-2002, 12:06 PM

Originally posted by RRedline
By the way, I was hoping for a response(from anyone reading this) to my earlier comment about evolution. Why has evolution passed homosexuality along in humans and other species? I am baffled.

Anomaly? Evolution "passed" other things we do not need also, like a tailbone, apendix, and other physical traits.

Besides, gays can reproduce. They have been doing that AND living gay.

Sierra Mike

11-05-2002, 12:11 PM

Also, knowing the horrible risk of AIDS (we lost Michael, one of our twins after a 6 year, enormously courageous, battle with the disease) I cannot imagine such a risky choice.I'm very sorry to hear this, John. :( How long ago was this?

SM

HaYwIrE

11-05-2002, 12:28 PM

Originally posted by RRedline
Maybe we need to find the "stupid gene" and remove stupidity from society instead?Unfortunately, "Political Correctness" is doing just the opposite in that it is dumbing society down and making many of us ignorant to many truths which we all know to exist, but are afraid to speak of for fear of...Originally posted by Ken
Upon reflection, I think I'll wretch. Such thinly veiled bigotry being passed as intelligent discourse is shameful.No RRedline, I believe that science has a significantly better chance of removing our solar system from the Milky Way than it does of removing stupidity from society.Originally posted by RRedline
Why has evolution passed homosexuality along in humans and other species? I am baffled.Is that not exactly what this research is trying to do? Without "Political Correctness" and all of the gay rights activism in the world, perhaps we would have had an answer to your question a long time ago. ;)

HaYwIrE

11-05-2002, 12:30 PM

Originally posted by ethics
Besides, gays can reproduce. They have been doing that AND living gay.Huh? :huh:

Sierra Mike

11-05-2002, 12:32 PM

Haywire, you're quoting Ken and attributing them to RRedline!

SM

Misu

11-05-2002, 12:40 PM

[i]Now, this is not to say that homosexuals are "retarded" or anything like that. But shouldn't this be considered scientific evidence that homosexual brains are structured closer to that of a woman than that of a man? And would this not be considered a mental disorder or at the very least, an abnormal brain structure? [/B]

For some time, researchers have been finding that a homosexual male's brain is more like a heterosexual female's brain - this isn't anything new. Heck, I learned about this in my sexuality course 2 semester ago, out of a book that was 6 months old at the time of the course.

Didn't know about the hypothalumus, though - I learned that the Corpus callosum was thicker in homosexual males compared to hetero males (it's also thicker in females).

And I don't agree that this study is saying homosexuality is a brain disorder - I think if anything, it's saying that some people are being born the wrong gender - that their brain is saying they are one gender while their DNA dictated another. Also, note that it's only talking about homosexual men - it's not saying anything about homosexual females.

Misu

11-05-2002, 12:46 PM

HaYwIrE

11-05-2002, 12:47 PM

Originally posted by Steve Moore
Haywire, you're quoting Ken and attributing them to RRedline!

SM Whoops! Not intentional, but I fixed it. :)

RRedline

11-05-2002, 12:51 PM

Originally posted by HaYwIrE
Huh? :huh: It's true, HaYwIrE. My partner has two children, and he was married at one time. He tried very hard to be straight bcause that's what society tells us to do. It's just that now there are more people willing to have the courage to live their lives true to themselves and flip society the bird. I tried to make a relationship with a woman work, but I just couldn't do it anymore. You'd be surprised how many gay people have children. It is actually rather common. :)

HaYwIrE

11-05-2002, 12:51 PM

Originally posted by Misu
And I don't agree that this study is saying homosexuality is a brain disorder - I think if anything, it's saying that some people are being born the wrong gender - that their brain is saying they are one gender while their DNA dictated another.If their brain is telling them that they are female and they are not female, what is it, if not a brain disorder, Misu?Originally posted by Misu
Also, note that it's only talking about homosexual men - it's not saying anything about homosexual females.How much would you be willing to bet that the opposite of what they are finding in homosexual males would be found in homosexual females?

Misu

11-05-2002, 12:55 PM

Originally posted by HaYwIrE
As rampant as AIDS has become, would it not be prudent to take a deeper look into homosexuality to see if it can be cured/prevented? Would this not "practically" eliminate AIDS, or at least bring it down from the epidemic it has become? But no. "Political Correctness" and gay rights activism will not allow this type of legitimate medical research, and that is a shame.

.....

I cannot agree with this. Although I do agree that homosexuals have and do contribute greatly to society, the fact that they are homosexual has not a thing to do with it, while the fact that they are homosexual is contributing significantly to a disease that has killed and is killing millions.

Haywire, this is so wrong, I can't even begin to start. The fact that many homosexuals have gotten the disease and died from it does NOT make it a homosexual disease - HIV and AIDS is more rampant among blacks/young females/ old white couples than it is in the gay community - and it's has ALWAYS been that way. In this country a lot of homosexuals have died from it - but in this country, many more heterosexuals have died from it, from the very start - and in the rest of the world, it's an epidemic NOT because of homosexuals but because of cultural practices - such as the belief that a man infected with HIV or AIDS can cure himself by having sex with as many VIRGIN GIRLS as possible.

Wipe out homosexuality, you will still have HIV/AIDS. Go back in time and wipe out homosexuality before this disease was discovered, you'll STILL have an epidemic later on - we're humans, throughout human history, there have been plagues that have wiped out millions of people - this is just another plague affecting us as humans.

HaYwIrE

11-05-2002, 12:57 PM

Originally posted by RRedline
It's true, HaYwIrE. My partner has two children, and he was married at one time. He tried very hard to be straight bcause that's what society tells us to do. It's just that now there are more people willing to have the courage to live their lives true to themselves and flip society the bird. I tried to make a relationship with a woman work, but I just couldn't do it anymore. You'd be surprised how many gay people have children. It is actually rather common. :) Hence my confusion over Ethics' comment...Originally posted by ethics
Besides, gays can reproduce. They have been doing that AND living gay. A homosexual who is LIVING a gay life cannot reproduce without venturing outside of the gay lifestyle or using other scientifically artificial methods.

HaYwIrE

11-05-2002, 01:00 PM

Originally posted by Misu
HIV and AIDS is more rampant among blacks/young females/ old white couples than it is in the gay community - and it's has ALWAYS been that way.I dunno where you're getting your information from, Misu. But you are definitely wrong. That statement could not be farther from the truth if it were on Pluto, Princess. ;)

Misu

11-05-2002, 01:05 PM

Originally posted by HaYwIrE
If their brain is telling them that they are female and they are not female, what is it, if not a brain disorder, Misu?

How much would you be willing to bet that the opposite of what they are finding in homosexual males would be found in homosexual females?

It's not a brain disorder - if you want to classify it a disorder, then it's a disorder in the genetic mechanism that assigns gender.

See, I think in order for something to be classified a disorder, it needs to be something that is rare - like having your DNA say your gender is XXY (Klinefelter's syndrome). Homosexuality is not such a rare thing.

Also, as per 2 semesters ago, the opposite was not found to be true among homosexual women - hetero and homosexual females' brains were found to have no significant differences. This may have changed with newer research.

Misu

11-05-2002, 01:08 PM

Originally posted by HaYwIrE
I dunno where you're getting your information from, Misu. But you are definitely wrong. That statement could not be farther from the truth if it were on Pluto, Princess. ;)

No Sir, I'm not wrong - as per the latest findings in the research community, distributed in universities (which I attend), the latest figures show that the sector of our population (US population) that is getting infected with HIV at the highest rate is older couples - those that are 65+ and I think they went so far as to say white older couples. The second group following them is teens between (I believe) the ages of 15-19. I think they also mentioned a specific race, but I'm not too sure now.

wapu

11-05-2002, 01:20 PM

Alright, we all know that all women are lesbians. Don't any of you watch Playboy or Spice?;)

I wonder what the study would have to say about bisexual men. What about a guy who likes to have sex with other guys, but is not interested in relationships with guys or not attracted to guys? Is he just a homosexual that has not realized it yet? Is a guy that prefers a Transvestite a dillusional gay guy who is only fooling himself? Is it always one or the other? Are you either straight or Gay? Is there a gray area where the bisexual male can exist? If not, what does that say about the number of bisexual males in the swinger community or in the bathhouse? If there is no middle ground, then the actual number of Gay men is drastically higher than statistics are saying right now.

wapu

btdude

11-05-2002, 01:20 PM

Well, sort of. I can donate my sperm to a woman who is willing to carry my child. I have reproduced. I have not ventured outside of my life. There is nothing scientific or artificial about it. That said, I would be just as happy to adopt a child. To me, parenting is way more important than fathering.

btdude

11-05-2002, 01:24 PM

Originally posted by wapu
Alright, we all know that all women are lesbians. Don't any of you watch Playboy or Spice?;)

I wonder what the study would have to say about bisexual men. What about a guy who likes to have sex with other guys, but is not interested in relationships with guys or not attracted to guys? Is he just a homosexual that has not realized it yet? Is a guy that prefers a Transvestite a dillusional gay guy who is only fooling himself? Is it always one or the other? Are you either straight or Gay? Is there a gray area where the bisexual male can exist? If not, what does that say about the number of bisexual males in the swinger community or in the bathhouse? If there is no middle ground, then the actual number of Gay men is drastically higher than statistics are saying right now.

wapu

Yep. But they get to enjoy the simple benefits of life, like oh, health insurance, tax write offs, all that stuff. NOt being mean, I'm just agreeing with your observation.

HaYwIrE

11-05-2002, 02:07 PM

Originally posted by Misu
No Sir, I'm not wrong - as per the latest findings in the research community, distributed in universities (which I attend), the latest figures show that the sector of our population (US population) that is getting infected with HIV at the highest rate is older couples - those that are 65+ and I think they went so far as to say white older couples. The second group following them is teens between (I believe) the ages of 15-19. I think they also mentioned a specific race, but I'm not too sure now. Yes, you are wrong.

Per the CDC (Center for Disease Control)...

<li> Of new infections among men in the United States, CDC estimates that approximately 60 percent of men were infected through homosexual sex, 25 percent through injection drug use, and 15 percent through heterosexual sex. Of newly infected men, approximately 50 percent are black, 30 percent are white, 20 percent are Hispanic, and a small percentage are members of other racial/ethnic groups.

<li> Of new infections among women in the United States, CDC estimates that approximately 75 percent of women were infected through heterosexual sex and 25 percent through injection drug use. Of newly infected women, approximately 64 percent are black, 18 percent are white, 18 percent are Hispanic, and a small percentage are members of other racial/ethnic groups.

I question the 60% figure given by the CDC though. BTdude and RRedline have made it quite clear that there are a significant number of "closet" cases out there who wouldn't admit to having homosexual sex. That being said and assuming it is true, it stands to reason that this number is probably very low. But that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.

And besides, how the hell would the group of 65+ older whites suddenly become so vastly infected with AIDS? That's just totally preposterous rhetoric being spewed by the Liberally controlled universities. :rolleyes:

Misu

11-05-2002, 02:22 PM

I was going to post the links from my school, but seeing that you just called my school a liberally-controlled university, I will now bow out of this topic, seeing as I can't have a discussion with someone that holds preconceived ideas. Sorry.

Later.

HaYwIrE

11-05-2002, 02:25 PM

Originally posted by Misu
I was going to post the links from my school, but seeing that you just called my school a liberally-controlled university, I will now bow out of this topic, seeing as I can't have a discussion with someone that holds preconceived ideas. Sorry.

Later. NO! NO! Please post them. Just because I stated the fact that American universities are Liberally controlled (I KNOW MISU... I'VE WORKED AT QUITE A FEW OF THEM, AS DOES MY WIFE) shouldn't make you "bow out". ;)

Jedi Writer

11-05-2002, 04:23 PM

To me sexuality is not a choice and homosexuality is not a moral issue except within the confines of religion and then that is between individuals and God. At the human or social level the only difference between straights and gays is their sexual preference without any morality attached to either. Adults and very probably adolescents cannot change their sexual preference. In othere words they cannot make a choice to successfully change.

AIDS is not a gay disease but because of the specific make up of the virus and the mechanism of infection it is more likely to be transmitted through unprotected homsexual sex and unsterile needles than any other way--by far. So in this country the gay community is the largest segement of the population that is afflicted with it.

Based upon the best evidene and facts available to us the statistics on who is infected that are quoted by Haywire are much more accurate than Misu's. In fact Misu's statistics are ludicrous. (Just slamming your source Misu, not you!)

Coriolis

11-11-2002, 01:21 PM

John R. Beanham

11-11-2002, 04:02 PM

Steve,

"I'm very sorry to hear this, John. How long ago was this?"

Thank you Steve. Michael was about 20 in 1984 when he contacted the disease. We were informed by he, and his partner, that they were both HIV+ in about 1990. His mother and I were devastated, and we quite literally cried ourselves to sleep for many months after being informed.

There was none of this 'cancer' type optimism involved. We ALL knew exactly what we had in front of us and as the disease progressed, eventually to full blown AIDS we visited Michael in hospital almost every day with usually a day off each week when another family member would take over. Michael never went a day without at least one visitor.
What really got to me that the other 15 men in the ward RARELY had a visitor and I saw what appeared to be parents about TWICE!!!

Michael died at his home, (from Encephalitis) surrounded by all his family after a coma of 27 hours. His Mother sat beside him for 17 hours holding his hand without so much as goimg to the toilet.

They gave him a little pump dispenser of Morphene? that his partner turned up full blast just before he died. If he had not I would have.

The method of transmission has been discussed here and I truly believe that RECEPTIVE anal intercourse is the MAIN way the disease is transmitted. This includes within so-called "heterosexual" intercourse and also of course homosexual intercourse. Dirty needles and bad transfusions are a different area all together. It is rare for an infected female to transmit the disease to a male partner via vaginal intercourse, also it is rare for a male to transmit to a female via the same act.

I am not taking any moral side, I am simply stating what I believe to be the case.

John.

jamming

11-11-2002, 04:14 PM

Originally posted by Coriolis
Cure? Christ, you state this like homosexuality was a disease, or a plague of some kind. I think what needs to be "cured" is this attitude.

What needs to be cured is people assuming that they know what my opinion is. Personally, I would be against a "Cure" for Homosexuality, but that appears to be where this research is heading. The Deaf Community is against a Hearing Implant as it would destroy their culture. I was interested in seeing if there was similar feelings in the Homosexual Community.

jamming

11-11-2002, 04:22 PM

Originally posted by John R. Beanham
I am not taking any moral side, I am simply stating what I believe to be the case.

I will take a moral side, John. I think that your son was a fortunate man to have such a loving and caring family. Even in his darkest hours he was not alone, with his families love which was with him. I was told by my Grandma, after she buried her oldest son, that parents should not have to see their children buried. Your simple act of "family" is inspiring and I am sure that your son appreciated your love. I would be proud to have a man such as yourself as my Father.

Sierra Mike

11-11-2002, 04:34 PM

John,

I'm very, very sorry you had to go through that. It makes me want to cry...can't imagine what it does to you...

Steve

RRedline

11-11-2002, 05:15 PM

Originally posted by jamming
What needs to be cured is people assuming that they know what my opinion is. Personally, I would be against a "Cure" for Homosexuality, but that appears to be where this research is heading. The Deaf Community is against a Hearing Implant as it would destroy their culture. I was interested in seeing if there was similar feelings in the Homosexual Community. This conversation is a little old, but I think I remember the premise. Without re-reading the entire thread, I believe we were discussing the idea of removing homosexuality from our genes. The term "cure" was used loosely to describe the process.

As I've pointed out many, many times already(and I'm sure a few of you would love to tell me to shut my pie hole about it already), I know that homosexuality is not a decision that one makes. If it were a decision, there would not be millions of us in the USA alone. I would have chosen vagina a long time ago if it would have meant not having to explain why I am not married and not having to hear people whisper behind my back. It is a tough life, and I CHOOSE not to run away from it and pretend that I am not homosexual.

Even though I feel(know) that sexuality is largely biological and can not be chosen, I am open-minded enough to consider that environment does play a part in it as well. I am pretty certain that the majority of the population is either strictly heterosexual(most) or strictly homosexual. However, I know that there are a lot of people out there who may, in fact, be influenced into trying things that most people would never consider. I couldn't even venture a guess as to what percentage may be in this gray area, but I think it's much larger than most would agree. I used to think that "bi" was a lie, but I feel differently now. I feel that the overwhelming majority of these people live their lives mostly as heterosexuals simply because of the stigma that comes with having relations with someone of the same sex. Not only that, but someone who is interested mainly in the opposite sex, but who likes the occasional fling with the sex same, is probably going to be labelled a homosexual and will be subject to the same type of stigma. It's probably very similar to how someone who is bi-racial is likely to be identified with the minority(black) rather than the majority(white). It isn't fair that bigots treat others this way, but as Bruce Hornsby once sang, "That's just the way it is."

I know that I am 99% homosexual(sometimes a ravishing female will make me think twice, but then I get a glimpse of her hairy boyfriend), and my environment, which was not open-minded at all towards homosexuality, was still unable to produce a heterosexual out of me. It's just not possible without causing me tremendous psychological trauma. It would be like trying to teach my cat how to swim. The same thing would happen if you tried to influence someone like HaYwIrE into trying out homosexuality. It's just not going to happen because his brain tells him that it is not right for him.

However, I feel that there are many people who truly do fall into a cetegory that I would call bisexual. I don't think one has to have sex with both genders to be a bisexual. It is these people who fall somewhere between heterosexuality and homosexuality who can be influenced by their environments. Back to the main topic though...should homosexuality be encouraged? Should it be embraced? Or should we use science to eliminate it the same as we would like to remove other undesirable characteristics? It is easy to convince someone why we should try to eliminate cancer and obesity from our genes if we have the technology to do so. Removing somethinig that not everyone agrees is a bad thing is another matter entirely.

And for the record, I think the deaf people in the situation previously mentioned are out of touch with reality. It sounds more like envy to me than anything else. Why wouldn't a deaf person want to hear? Why wouldn't anyone want to see? I don't think a physical deformality belongs in the same discussion with something like sexuality.

Other than the fact that so many people and so many people's religions shun it like the plague, I can't really think of one good reason why we should "cure" ourselves of homosexuality. If you remove the stigma that society has created, you remove almost all of what's really bad about the lifestyle. As Coriolis suggested, perhaps it is society that should be cured? To the proponents of removing homosexuality from our genes, I ask this very simple question: Why?

ethics

11-11-2002, 11:40 PM

Originally posted by Steve Moore
John,

I'm very, very sorry you had to go through that. It makes me want to cry...can't imagine what it does to you...

Steve

Heck, I did. Too moving of a post for me, and I thank John for sharing it with us.

Coriolis

11-12-2002, 10:09 PM

jamming

11-13-2002, 12:15 AM

How is something tha only 3% to 10% of all human population, without regard to location or culture, be considered normal? Male or Female is normal reflect 99+%, there are normal hair colors, which as a group, reflect 99+% of all human populations. I believe your definition of normal is a bit off. Whether you approve of the way the question is phrase is besides the point, that the question is out there. Your direct implication to deafness as a defect or disabiltiy is just as telling you consider them to be an abnormality, which could wipe out their culture. You are throwing stones rather than considering what the question is, you wish to discredit the question with implications to the reasoning behind it. I guess that is easier to respond to rather than addressing the actual content of the question, which you have not even attempted to answer.

There is this place called BBR/ EL forum where that kind of stuff goes on, here we try to discuss the issue. If you want to start a thread on Homosexuality is normal or not that is another thread and start it. Quit trying to impart your opinions as being superior as you frame your arguments. Under what you have said so far, as long as one human experiences it all things could be normal within the human experience. If you find these semantic games fun, fine but your getting on my last nerve, and these games are not useful.

RRedline

11-13-2002, 02:28 PM

Originally posted by jamming
How is something tha only 3% to 10% of all human population, without regard to location or culture, be considered normal? Male or Female is normal reflect 99+%, there are normal hair colors, which as a group, reflect 99+% of all human populations. I believe your definition of normal is a bit off. And Coriolis and I happen to believe that your definition of normal is off as well. Just because a characteristic makes up a minority doesn't make it abnormal. For example, I am left handed. Is that normal? Don't lefties make up around 10% of the overall population? How about redheads? What percentage of the population has red hair? How about cleft chins?

I think what this all comes down to is people's(society's really) preferences. For a very long time, left handed people were forced to learn to do things with their right hands. Why was that? Was it because there is something wrong with being left handed? Or perhaps there was something wrong with society? That is all that Coriolis has suggested. If you would like for us to eradicate homosexuality, please answer the question I asked in my last post: Why? To say that it is abnormal doesn't cut it for me because by your very same reasoning, one could suggest that we make everyone right handed heterosexuals with no cleft chins.

And for the record, I am not suggesting that the removal of homosexuality would necessarily be a bad thing. Or even left handedness! I am just curious as to what would be the true motives for doing such things.

Coriolis

11-13-2002, 02:51 PM

In response to Jamming

Well, I thought we were discussing the issue.

I understand perfectly what the question is, and I have provided my answer, but will state it more concisely -- I do not believe there is a need to "cure" homosexuality. I think there is a need to "cure" society of this belief that homosexuality is an abnormality, which stems not from research but from religions which condem homosexuals as "depraved and immoral". Not to mention that we have a society that places homosexuals just above pedophiles in the "depraved and immoral" department (thanks, ironically, to a pedophile harboring church).

By world population, I believe the percentage is about 11% homosexual. This is not insignificant, yet there are no physical, cognitive, or physchological defects (which means that something that ought to work, doesn't or is impaired -- like in deafness) to explain what makes a person gay or straight. So far, research has shown subtle differences in various brain structures and possibly the endocrine system, which are probably important though not well understood. By medical definition, these differences are not defects. Call it semantics if you like, but homosexuality is to deafness as apples are to oranges.

About your last statement: If you feel I somehow believe my opinion superior to yours, that's your problem not mine. Have we become so PC in here that we can't even tell someone "you're wrong" (which I didn't say, but no doubt implied) without being dismissed as having a superiority complex? I find this very ironic. I'm just conveying my opinion, which comes from the heart (in other words, don't take it so personal). I only state what I believe to be true, and question what I believe to be false. There are no semantic games being played here as far as I'm concerned.

Jedi Writer

11-13-2002, 04:09 PM

People are arguing among other thing whether or not homosexuality is normal. The problem I see in that arguement isn't whether it is or not but rather most people unfortunately attach some moral or value label to the term or description "normal."

I would suggest that if one would not look at normal versus abnormal without regard to morality and value then one might reach a better or more infomed opinion.

RRedline indirectly touches on this in his post where he refers to being left handed versus right handed.

btdude

11-13-2002, 04:31 PM

Here's the deal. Nobody knows what normal is, other than those who claim they are in the majority, or let's say ARE in the majority. This definition serves as a validation to all things that these folks see or perceive as good and wholesome and all those things that are so utopian, it makes me wanna gag. I say, is it NORMAL just because someone with a bigger proverbial stick SAYS it is NORMAL? I think not.

While I am here, I will say that I never want to see homosexuality go away. What a boring world this would be, not to mention how poorly dressed we would all be.

jamming

11-13-2002, 04:40 PM

Originally posted by RRedline
If you would like for us to eradicate homosexuality, please answer the question I asked in my last post: Why?

I never said that I would or would not eradicate homosexuality in my original question. That is something that is being attributed to me by Coriolis, which is just plainly wrong. Earlier in one of your posts you said:
As for stopping homosexuality using gene therapy, well I'm just not sure about that either. I can't say that I think it would be a bad idea, but I also don't see that it is necessary. Stopping cancers and other horrible diseases using this type of technology is a no-brainer, but sexuality traits is another beast. I just don't know.

Now if you read the thread further I responded to Btdude with "My Own Personal Opinion" before someone came into this conversation (Coriolis) and told everyone what my opinion was, like he knows me and can speak for me.
I think it would be a greyer world if we try to make everyone fit into a box of what is allowed.

jamming

11-13-2002, 04:53 PM

Originally posted by Coriolis
About your last statement: If you feel I somehow believe my opinion superior to yours, that's your problem not mine. Have we become so PC in here that we can't even tell someone "you're wrong" (which I didn't say, but no doubt implied) without being dismissed as having a superiority complex? I find this very ironic. I'm just conveying my opinion, which comes from the heart (in other words, don't take it so personal). I only state what I believe to be true, and question what I believe to be false.

See My Response Under the UIF Forum "Coriolis is A F*CKHEAD"

Sierra Mike

11-13-2002, 06:41 PM

What a boring world this would be, not to mention how poorly dressed we would all be.LOL!!!!!

And in saying this, you realize you play into Hollywood stereotypes about gays, right? ;)

SM

Misu

11-13-2002, 06:58 PM

Originally posted by Steve Moore
LOL!!!!!

And in saying this, you realize you play into Hollywood stereotypes about gays, right? ;)

SM

Actually I don't think it's a stereotype at all - at least in my experience with my gay male friends, every single one of them was a much better dresser than any hetero male I've met.

My husband got mad at me one time when I told him maybe he should go shopping with one of them so that he could teach him to dress better :angel:

RRedline

11-13-2002, 07:27 PM

Originally posted by Misu
Actually I don't think it's a stereotype at all - at least in my experience with my gay male friends, every single one of them was a much better dresser than any hetero male I've met.

My husband got mad at me one time when I told him maybe he should go shopping with one of them so that he could teach him to dress better :angel: That's funny. However, my partner shows very little skill when it comes to choosing clothes for himself. He is no longer permitted to go shopping for clothes without my supervision. He sees nothing wrong with wearing white socks under his pair of Rockport shoes. :(

John R. Beanham

11-13-2002, 07:31 PM

RR,

HEY!!

Wot's wrong with wearing white socks.

Come to think of it, our son looks down his nose with much distaste at my choice of apparel.

sigh,

John.

btdude

11-14-2002, 09:00 AM

LOL Oh you all are silly. The well dressed thing was a pun, an attempt at humor. And, Mr. Moore, Sir, LOL I do believe there is enough stero-typing OUTSIDE of Hollywood to go around. These views are just representative of what is, or what is not understood about being gay in America. HMMM forgive that line, it sounds like a documentary. Anyway, Red makes a good observation. Some gay men cannot for their lives, shop well. On the other hand, I can be a butch bastard (sterotype myself here) on the soccer field or mowing the lawn and being Bob Villa one minute, and then shopping for the finest suit and tie the next. Notice , I did not mention anywhere that my shopping entails a tutu, nor makeup, nor false tits. I am a male, I am a masculine male. Yes, there are those in the gay community who thrive on feminity, and that's ok for them.

But, to get back to the normality thing: I pose this thought. When I am in San Francisco, or in Greenwich Village, or in Dupont Circle in DC, I am in the norm. I am in the majority of society in these places. Thus, my behaviors, my actions and the way I respond to people, are (not to under use the term) accepted as what is normal. Same setting, but with a straight man or woman. I cannot tell you how many times I see a man and a woman literally grabbing on to one another as they walk down the streets of Dupont Circle, like some bad gay monster is going to leap out and eat their head off and try to convert them and make them join our club. This to say the least, is humorous to watch. They are in a place where their sense of what is normal, is challenged and threatened. Same setting, a Straight but not narrow couple. No big deal, people are who they are, notice I did not say WHAT they are.

For the record, Jamming makes some good observations based upon personal experience, the way he was raised, and also upon what we, in here and in society have brought to him in terms of education and enlightenment. That's OK. Do not blow the chance to help someone understand another person for who they are. Now, I have just abliterated another gay stereo-type in that we all stick together. No, Mary, we do not all stick together.

Scoticus

11-15-2002, 07:30 PM

Funny all of this......we were born with the right of free choice. There are those of us like me...who chose to deny my homosexuality for years, now I choose to accept and embrace it. I wanna know what right a parent has to determine if their prospective child is going to be gay or straight. Dumping money into that research is ridiculous....Its kinda like parents deciding if their child is going to be fat or skinny, well muscled or average, blue eyes or brown...what right to parents have to make those choices? Pouring money into research to heal and cure the diseases that plague our world. But finding a cure for homosexuality? C'mon!

ethics

11-15-2002, 07:36 PM

Welcome Scoticus. :)

RRedline

11-17-2002, 12:31 AM

Originally posted by Scoticus
Funny all of this......we were born with the right of free choice. There are those of us like me...who chose to deny my homosexuality for years, now I choose to accept and embrace it. I wanna know what right a parent has to determine if their prospective child is going to be gay or straight. Dumping money into that research is ridiculous....Its kinda like parents deciding if their child is going to be fat or skinny, well muscled or average, blue eyes or brown...what right to parents have to make those choices? Pouring money into research to heal and cure the diseases that plague our world. But finding a cure for homosexuality? C'mon! Woohoo...the ratio is being maintained! Welcome aboard. :)

While I happen to be gay, I have to admit that I am not 100% against studying this type of thing. Most people will agree that we should program cancer and other horrible nasties out of our genes. You say, "What gives parents the right to do these things," but what gives someone the right to deny them these opportunities? Should we allow people to deterine the sex of their children? How about eye color? Intelligence and athleticism? Who knows where the debates will go, but I do know one thing: Anyone who has never seen the movie Gattica should go rent it RIGHT NOW. ;)