this is funny. Is anyone else aware that scientists are well on their way to proving that homosexuality is entirely genetic?
from Slate's "Human Nature" column...
"Scientists made fruit flies gay by activating a single gene. Females with an activated "male" gene reject males and court females, while "males with a damaged version ignore females and sometimes try to mate with other males."
I'll admit this isn't 100% proof that it works this way in humans, but given these knew findings, it's a damned reasonable conclusion.
Pasha, I've heard of people like you, but this is my first encounter. I thought you were extinct as the dodo. Homosexual TENDENCIES are entirely genetic. Homosexual ACTS/RELATIONSHIPS are a product of environment for one reason- a homosexual will supress acting on their tendencies if they live around a bunch of people as prejudiced as you, and embrace their tendencies when living in more open minded society.
rita novel: you think you are free? don't you care what people think of you? aren't you afraid to be alone? when you are horny, and there is an opportunity, don't you go for it? you think you are your own master. no, you are your own slave.
snjr: There are numerous THEORIES about the origins of a person's sexual orientation; most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors.
is that basically what i said? its not genetic. if it was, evolution would take care of that, since there is no reproduction..
But you assumed that the end result of all those factors was a *negative*, not a positive, while scientific research does not, in fact, come to that conclusion. If anything, it's neutral. You're adding a value judgement to it, then claiming it's backed up by current research.
Also, you're idea that "evolution would take care of it" is also based on spurious reasoning. Heterosexuals are perfectly capable of bringing glbt children into the world, thus refuting your position that "there is no reproduction." Besides, just because I'm a lesbian doesn't mean I can't bear children, a fact that also refutes your position.
rationalist: people like me? woah.. don't be a hater man.. tolerance!! maybe when we get to third step you can get rid of people like us in a really entertaining way.. you are creative.. you'll make some kind of reality show..
snjr: homosexuals can't reproduce.. only artificially, and that's a recent development. that's enough proof that its not purely genetic.
in a course of evolution, those species would die off.. right?
so, theoretically there wouldn't be any homosexuals right now..
Dude. I can too reproduce. If I wanted a kid, I could sleep w/a guy. Just because it disgusts me doesn't mean I couldn't do it. Pay me a million dollars, and I'll sleep w/any man except Michael Jackson.
pasha, just because it is genetic does not mean it is always directly inherited. Just because a parent is gay (happens all the time, dad's figure it out later in life sometimes), does not mean that their child is gay. Gay children are born to straight parents all the time. If it were a directly inherited trait, then yes, the number of gay people would be reducing itself with each generation, but it does not seem to work that simply.
and I'm not going to put enough weight towards your little three part spiral theory to plan on killing you in 'phase three'. I'd really rather you listened to some damn sense.
actually pasha, evolution hasn't worked because of cultural influences. In the past, homosexuality was generally pushed far enough underground that people stayed in the closet and engaged in heterosexual relationships even if they were gay.
If you really want to end homosexuality, embrace it. However, anyone who is homosexual can still have heterosexual sex for reproductive reasons, keeping the genes alive and kicking.
Bigotry and hatred, however, are almost completely environmental. Which is why I actually made a post in the first place. Once society realizes that hate is not ok, it will become uncool to hate and all the haters will disappear. (hehe, I got to use the word hater in a sentence.)
rationalist: my point was that people aren't born gay.. you'll never be able to look at a baby and say.. yep... its gay..
genetics play a role, but its not significant..
like some one maybe predispositioned to anger.. well, that doesn't mean he'll be a criminal.. or a wife beater..
ok, ok let's play dirty... this thread obviously hints that majority of the postings came from people who are also xxx..
Jun 17, 05 3:44 pm ·
·
pasha, I just want you and everyone else here to realize that your above questions to me and you're final statement that I am a slave to myself acts very much as an admission that you belive it is right for people to control other people. No doubt you are here very much trying to control other people. So, in the great spirit of doing onto others as you would have them do unto you, please let us know how you want other people to control you.
Jun 17, 05 3:47 pm ·
·
pasha, I distinctly remember everyone looking at you as a baby and saying, "Yep, it's gay."
If it comes down to a gene sequence being a switch for homosexuality (see above article on flies) then yes, you will be able to look at a baby and say ... yep, it's probably going to be gay.
There are still a lot of questions about genetic predisposition. However, evidence is pointing more at the gene being a switch rather than a predisposition. Yes, fruit-flies are a long way from human (unless you are Jeff Goldblum) but, if the gene operates a very particular way in a simple form it is more likely to operate the same rather than different in a more complex form.
I'm straight remmy, just easily bothered by people who believe that their way of life is the only correct one. I'm a true believer in freedom as long as it's not harming others.
this discussion has drifted to the significance of genes in determining sexual orientation, and that's beyond my expertise. i have my opinion.
Rita: you are control freak dude.. and for the record.. i don't believe its right for people to control other people in absolute sense.. (we need government to punish those who violate its statues and reward those who do good)
and regarding your second comment.. well, no comment..
but pasha, what we're all trying to tell you is that this issue is swiftly moving well beyond the realm of opinions and into the realm of facts. Scientists are studying our genes, and have every reason to believe they have found the answer. If someone's just saying, "I doubt we work the same way as fruit flies", then the only answer is to wait until they are able to research the issue on humans. But you can't ignore the fruit flies completely and still have any validity to your arguement. If you were able to look at a baby's DNA, then yes, you could say, "Yep, it's gay."
Thank you for reminding me that there is ignorance in this world, and that there are people that with real reasons to dislike. I count you in that group.
pasha - this discussion didn't drift into a discussion of genetics. you were actually the first to bring nature v. nurture into the discussion. it's funny that you are now admitting you are not an expert when you certainly seemed like you knew all of the answers about three hours ago. and that is the very problem with these kinds of issues. people who have a limited understanding of the 'science' they are talking about use it to support their preconceived understanding of the world. unfortunately this is why no matter how much we actually know and don't know about the universe will never actually help because there will always be many (even educated) people who are going to use the facts that support their views.
rationalist: swiftly moving? don't hold your breath bud..
as of june 17th, 2005 there is no evidence that homosexuality is a direct cause of DNA, and THAT is a fact.
and why is everyone getting so hysterical? i don't hate anyone..
i am just trying to clear up this myth that people are born gay..
Lord Auch: sorry to hear that you were so thankfull that you got to hate a group of people.. not a good sign, especially for a man of authority..
Well the only thing that makes that first part true is that you said that homosexuality doesn't cause DNA. Well of course it bloody doesn't! Do you really think that's what we're talking about? That would explain why you seem so confused- we (and scientists, did you even READ the fruit fly story??) are saying homosexuality is a direct RESULT of DNA, not a direct CAUSE of it.
I don't think any of us are getting hysterical, but I'm definitely getting irritated with your refusal to see facts. But your associations of homosexuality with abuse and violence sure sound hateful to me.
pasha, in my last comment to you, I would suggest you go back up and read your earlier posts. Your memory is quite selective. Yes, you did say that homosexuality is not exclusively genetic, however, you also posited a theory of the degeneration of civilization based on your understanding of homosexuality. In addition, you suggested that homosexuals are emotionally disturbed (by calling them "insecure" and comparing them to criminals, etc.). Further, you said that the cultural influences that might contribute to homosexuality evolved from an environment of trauma or abuse. Finally, you claimed that homosexuality inevitably leads to violence. All of these positions have been refuted by the APA (see link above). That you are now trying to distance yourself from your own arguments (claiming not to be an expert in genetics, for instance) suggests that you might not be as sure of your position as you would have us believe.
Now, I'm back to thinking about architecture, not correcting the flaws in your logic. Have a nice day, seriously.
You're an idiot. I say this not out of hate or frustration, but because you are intellectually lazy.
True, there is currently no direct evidence to prove that homosexuality in humans is caused solely by genes. However, a lack of direct evidence does not make the theory a myth. For you to call it a myth, you would need to disprove it, and there is absolutely no scientific evidence that disproves it.
In fact, all current evidence points to genes as the sole cause. So although it is currently a still a theory, it is the best theory we have.
i briefly worked for him as a draftsman when he was doing the esprit store in los angeles in early 80's. he was doing so called industrial/minimal fashion stuff when most other puppies were engaged drawing michael graves looking elevations on yellow flimsy. we worked in a temporary little shitty carpeted office space, him and i drafting his designs. he was very talented and new his stuff well. he is gay. i learned a lot from him in a short amount of time. god bless joe. does anybody know what he is doing now. i knew he went underground and abandoned his practice.
e: who knows the depths that a human heart can sink to?
when people live in peace, prosperity is usually a result.. people begin to seek things beyond their need, pleasure.. then there is a need for excitement in life.. promiscuity.. this climate breeds sexual experimentation.. homosexuality.. be it appetite for sex, food, fine drink, furniture its all the same greed. its a bottomless pit that can't be filled..
you see how it can't be enough for everyone?. that breeds conflict.. strife.. violence.. war.. then peace... and again the cycle..
excuse my oversimplification.. if you look at history you'll see that pattern.
like i said.. the rise of homosexuality is just a sign of the times, its a logical followup to sexual revolution..
sept11th was a preview of what is to come..
9/11 was more a result of monetary greed than a result of homosexuality. Maybe you should spend more time decrying capitalism and less time on homosexuality. I can't think of any wars started over homosexuality. However .... money, religion, political power ... those are obviously the evils that have led to numerous wars in world history.
I fully agree that greed can lead to war. However, I fail to see how you can pinpoint homosexuality, or even promiscuity, in your argument.
Your reasoning falls apart for a couple reasons:
1. Gaining pleasure from something does not necessarily mean a person is greedy for it. Enjoying sex (with partners of either sex), food, fine drink and furniture doesn't mean a person is greedy.
2. Promiscuity doesn't equal greed.
Pasha I hope your not an architect. I guess history is not one of your strengths.
"the rise of homosexuality is just a sign of the times.."
Perhaps you need a history course. Homosexuality has been around since the dawn of mankind. In my experience the ones with the biggest problem with homosexuality are usually the fudge-packer in hiding.
slide: lets think of this as channels..you have sex as one channel, food as one channel, consumer goods as one channel.. at beginning you have little variety, then you have more, and more.. and all of this is driven by rising consumption and greed.. you might say that its just that the society is getting better and more sophisticated.. and that is true, yet all of the greatest civilizations of the past have reached their climax and then disappeared.. and the primary cause has always been internal conflict and strife.. (HOMOSEXUALITY IS A INDICATOR, NOT THE CAUSE. i dont' know how to say this any clearer)
isabelle: yes homosexuality has been since the beginning of time.. but its history in terms of numbers can be characterized as waves.. that is my point.. so its not really influenced by genetics but by social climate.. and please say something constructive, don't resort to cliches and rhetoric.
Jun 18, 05 10:49 am ·
·
pasha, please explain how internal conflict and strife were the primary cause of the disappearance of the great Native American civilizations.
And then, can you please name all the great civilizations that have disappeared due primarily to internal conflict and strife?
Also, please specifiy when the great waves of homosexuality occurred throughout history and please explain were the evidence of increased numbers comes from.
If you had your choice would you perfer your child to be gay or straight? Honestly.
Jun 18, 05 12:36 pm ·
·
Honestly, that choice so far has no reality. The question also strongly hints at the notion of it being ok for some people having control over other people.
pasha, you have offered very little facts to back up your claims. do you have proof or are these just your own opinions? please provide proof if you have it.
evilp, honestly if i were to have a child, i would not care. i would only care that my child be happy, kind, and proud of themselves.
Damn, sucked back into the conversation. evil, I assume I would love my kid if it was straight, even though I think I would understand it better if it was gay. I have nothing against straight people, and I wouldn't throw out my baby if it was straight. Surely not.
pasha, I'll put my historian credentials up against yours ANY TIME. The stuff you're saying is excatly the kind of babble that makes me fail people in History 101. And I'll have to refer you back to the person above who suggested you've mistaken homosexuality w/a free-market economy.
Here's what I'll say (and this really is my final comment because this is just a really, really stupid conversation). You have the right to set your moral standards and disapprove of homosexuality. If it's against your religion or something to be gay, that's all good. You don't have to participate in my life, and I'm fine w/that, assuming you don't start using your moral values and religion to legislate away my civil rights.
However, if you're going to walk around and spout out your three-steps-to-the-end-of-civilization theory, you're going to have to first read some history books (not to mention some Marxist theory) and provide some plausible evidence to back your claims up. I'd really like to see some evidence of these "waves," for instance. I'd like to know how the presence of two-spirit people brought the Navajo nation to its knees. I'd like to know how imperial Japan crashed and burned because of the popularity of the Takarazuka Review. I'd like to see all the gay people standing on the edges of the subcontinent daring India and Pakistan to nuke each other into oblivion. I'd like to see how gay bars contributed to the eruption of Krakatoa. And that whole tsunami thing. Damn lesbians, what were they thinking, messing with Mother Nature?
Ok as a gay man it has nothing to do with climate, or society. It is genetic. We are born this way. I never made the choice to be gay. Just like one never chooses to be straight. I choose architecture. I choose to cook. Gay men and women existing have never led to a war. We are the object s of ridule, hatred, and anger. What did we do for this? The extremists have to find something to bblame for their bad behavior. Whether it is a democratic society, homozexuality, segregation, women's right to vote, women's rights, race, or faith. pure and simple. People just need to treat others with respect
Also to note that thoughout history gay men have existed in all sorty of vocations and its just that maybe because they are most comfortable with themselves they are more prominent in the arts.
My Psychology teacher told us that being gay is caused by the amount of hormones your mother emits to you while you are in the womb. If you're a girl and she emits too much testosterone then you may be attracted to women and if you're a boy and she emits too much estrogen then you may be attracted to men. It made since to me. What do you all think?
Actually Justin, a quick google will bring up various theological theories on the possible homosexuality of Paul the Apostle. Yes, its nothing more than a theory, but then again, there is no proof that Paul was straight.
pasha-
i think i understand what you mean
you are suggesting that when people live in peace and dont have to worry about how they are going to survive they have more time on their hands to figure out who they would prefer to fuck and what not.
-i understand this.
however
to say that being gay isnt normal is pure bull shit.
men and women are biologically designed to be receptive to homosexual pleasure.
for instance my dear you have a prostate gland that can be penetrated by another mans penis. i hear its great. you should be a man and try it. bend over and take it in the ass. seriously.
and i promise that it will not make you violent or greedy.
gay architects
this is funny. Is anyone else aware that scientists are well on their way to proving that homosexuality is entirely genetic?
from Slate's "Human Nature" column...
"Scientists made fruit flies gay by activating a single gene. Females with an activated "male" gene reject males and court females, while "males with a damaged version ignore females and sometimes try to mate with other males."
and the link to the full story in the New York Times...
http://www.nytimes.com/auth/login?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/03/science/03cell.html&OP=7bc4c7b9/,0Q2Bi,g5Q60|Q2055bI,IxxY,xF,xG,|Q60PQ2BQ3FQ60Q2B,xGQ60Q2B((E)bK(
I'll admit this isn't 100% proof that it works this way in humans, but given these knew findings, it's a damned reasonable conclusion.
Pasha, I've heard of people like you, but this is my first encounter. I thought you were extinct as the dodo. Homosexual TENDENCIES are entirely genetic. Homosexual ACTS/RELATIONSHIPS are a product of environment for one reason- a homosexual will supress acting on their tendencies if they live around a bunch of people as prejudiced as you, and embrace their tendencies when living in more open minded society.
rita novel: you think you are free? don't you care what people think of you? aren't you afraid to be alone? when you are horny, and there is an opportunity, don't you go for it? you think you are your own master. no, you are your own slave.
snjr: There are numerous THEORIES about the origins of a person's sexual orientation; most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors.
is that basically what i said? its not genetic. if it was, evolution would take care of that, since there is no reproduction..
But you assumed that the end result of all those factors was a *negative*, not a positive, while scientific research does not, in fact, come to that conclusion. If anything, it's neutral. You're adding a value judgement to it, then claiming it's backed up by current research.
lets change the subject who is actually gay in the industry...
i can give some suggestions if anyone is interested...
Also, you're idea that "evolution would take care of it" is also based on spurious reasoning. Heterosexuals are perfectly capable of bringing glbt children into the world, thus refuting your position that "there is no reproduction." Besides, just because I'm a lesbian doesn't mean I can't bear children, a fact that also refutes your position.
rationalist: people like me? woah.. don't be a hater man.. tolerance!! maybe when we get to third step you can get rid of people like us in a really entertaining way.. you are creative.. you'll make some kind of reality show..
snjr: homosexuals can't reproduce.. only artificially, and that's a recent development. that's enough proof that its not purely genetic.
in a course of evolution, those species would die off.. right?
so, theoretically there wouldn't be any homosexuals right now..
Dude. I can too reproduce. If I wanted a kid, I could sleep w/a guy. Just because it disgusts me doesn't mean I couldn't do it. Pay me a million dollars, and I'll sleep w/any man except Michael Jackson.
Did you take biology in high school?
pasha, just because it is genetic does not mean it is always directly inherited. Just because a parent is gay (happens all the time, dad's figure it out later in life sometimes), does not mean that their child is gay. Gay children are born to straight parents all the time. If it were a directly inherited trait, then yes, the number of gay people would be reducing itself with each generation, but it does not seem to work that simply.
and I'm not going to put enough weight towards your little three part spiral theory to plan on killing you in 'phase three'. I'd really rather you listened to some damn sense.
sorry, didn't mean that i absolute sense.. its not normal for you to have sex with a guy.. its possible.. but.. like you said, its disgusting..
actually pasha, evolution hasn't worked because of cultural influences. In the past, homosexuality was generally pushed far enough underground that people stayed in the closet and engaged in heterosexual relationships even if they were gay.
If you really want to end homosexuality, embrace it. However, anyone who is homosexual can still have heterosexual sex for reproductive reasons, keeping the genes alive and kicking.
Bigotry and hatred, however, are almost completely environmental. Which is why I actually made a post in the first place. Once society realizes that hate is not ok, it will become uncool to hate and all the haters will disappear. (hehe, I got to use the word hater in a sentence.)
rationalist: my point was that people aren't born gay.. you'll never be able to look at a baby and say.. yep... its gay..
genetics play a role, but its not significant..
like some one maybe predispositioned to anger.. well, that doesn't mean he'll be a criminal.. or a wife beater..
ok, ok let's play dirty... this thread obviously hints that majority of the postings came from people who are also xxx..
pasha, I just want you and everyone else here to realize that your above questions to me and you're final statement that I am a slave to myself acts very much as an admission that you belive it is right for people to control other people. No doubt you are here very much trying to control other people. So, in the great spirit of doing onto others as you would have them do unto you, please let us know how you want other people to control you.
pasha, I distinctly remember everyone looking at you as a baby and saying, "Yep, it's gay."
If it comes down to a gene sequence being a switch for homosexuality (see above article on flies) then yes, you will be able to look at a baby and say ... yep, it's probably going to be gay.
There are still a lot of questions about genetic predisposition. However, evidence is pointing more at the gene being a switch rather than a predisposition. Yes, fruit-flies are a long way from human (unless you are Jeff Goldblum) but, if the gene operates a very particular way in a simple form it is more likely to operate the same rather than different in a more complex form.
I'm straight remmy, just easily bothered by people who believe that their way of life is the only correct one. I'm a true believer in freedom as long as it's not harming others.
this discussion has drifted to the significance of genes in determining sexual orientation, and that's beyond my expertise. i have my opinion.
Rita: you are control freak dude.. and for the record.. i don't believe its right for people to control other people in absolute sense.. (we need government to punish those who violate its statues and reward those who do good)
and regarding your second comment.. well, no comment..
but pasha, what we're all trying to tell you is that this issue is swiftly moving well beyond the realm of opinions and into the realm of facts. Scientists are studying our genes, and have every reason to believe they have found the answer. If someone's just saying, "I doubt we work the same way as fruit flies", then the only answer is to wait until they are able to research the issue on humans. But you can't ignore the fruit flies completely and still have any validity to your arguement. If you were able to look at a baby's DNA, then yes, you could say, "Yep, it's gay."
pasha.
Thank you for reminding me that there is ignorance in this world, and that there are people that with real reasons to dislike. I count you in that group.
pasha - this discussion didn't drift into a discussion of genetics. you were actually the first to bring nature v. nurture into the discussion. it's funny that you are now admitting you are not an expert when you certainly seemed like you knew all of the answers about three hours ago. and that is the very problem with these kinds of issues. people who have a limited understanding of the 'science' they are talking about use it to support their preconceived understanding of the world. unfortunately this is why no matter how much we actually know and don't know about the universe will never actually help because there will always be many (even educated) people who are going to use the facts that support their views.
rationalist: swiftly moving? don't hold your breath bud..
as of june 17th, 2005 there is no evidence that homosexuality is a direct cause of DNA, and THAT is a fact.
and why is everyone getting so hysterical? i don't hate anyone..
i am just trying to clear up this myth that people are born gay..
Lord Auch: sorry to hear that you were so thankfull that you got to hate a group of people.. not a good sign, especially for a man of authority..
Well the only thing that makes that first part true is that you said that homosexuality doesn't cause DNA. Well of course it bloody doesn't! Do you really think that's what we're talking about? That would explain why you seem so confused- we (and scientists, did you even READ the fruit fly story??) are saying homosexuality is a direct RESULT of DNA, not a direct CAUSE of it.
I don't think any of us are getting hysterical, but I'm definitely getting irritated with your refusal to see facts. But your associations of homosexuality with abuse and violence sure sound hateful to me.
pasha, in my last comment to you, I would suggest you go back up and read your earlier posts. Your memory is quite selective. Yes, you did say that homosexuality is not exclusively genetic, however, you also posited a theory of the degeneration of civilization based on your understanding of homosexuality. In addition, you suggested that homosexuals are emotionally disturbed (by calling them "insecure" and comparing them to criminals, etc.). Further, you said that the cultural influences that might contribute to homosexuality evolved from an environment of trauma or abuse. Finally, you claimed that homosexuality inevitably leads to violence. All of these positions have been refuted by the APA (see link above). That you are now trying to distance yourself from your own arguments (claiming not to be an expert in genetics, for instance) suggests that you might not be as sure of your position as you would have us believe.
Now, I'm back to thinking about architecture, not correcting the flaws in your logic. Have a nice day, seriously.
Pasha-
You're an idiot. I say this not out of hate or frustration, but because you are intellectually lazy.
True, there is currently no direct evidence to prove that homosexuality in humans is caused solely by genes. However, a lack of direct evidence does not make the theory a myth. For you to call it a myth, you would need to disprove it, and there is absolutely no scientific evidence that disproves it.
In fact, all current evidence points to genes as the sole cause. So although it is currently a still a theory, it is the best theory we have.
i'm still waiting for pasha to explain their comment of how promiscuity leads to homosexuality and then to violence.
Apparently the only ones who have to scientifically prove everything as fact before it can be considered are the people who disagree with Pasha.
i briefly worked for him as a draftsman when he was doing the esprit store in los angeles in early 80's. he was doing so called industrial/minimal fashion stuff when most other puppies were engaged drawing michael graves looking elevations on yellow flimsy. we worked in a temporary little shitty carpeted office space, him and i drafting his designs. he was very talented and new his stuff well. he is gay. i learned a lot from him in a short amount of time. god bless joe. does anybody know what he is doing now. i knew he went underground and abandoned his practice.
e: who knows the depths that a human heart can sink to?
when people live in peace, prosperity is usually a result.. people begin to seek things beyond their need, pleasure.. then there is a need for excitement in life.. promiscuity.. this climate breeds sexual experimentation.. homosexuality.. be it appetite for sex, food, fine drink, furniture its all the same greed. its a bottomless pit that can't be filled..
you see how it can't be enough for everyone?. that breeds conflict.. strife.. violence.. war.. then peace... and again the cycle..
excuse my oversimplification.. if you look at history you'll see that pattern.
like i said.. the rise of homosexuality is just a sign of the times, its a logical followup to sexual revolution..
sept11th was a preview of what is to come..
9/11 was more a result of monetary greed than a result of homosexuality. Maybe you should spend more time decrying capitalism and less time on homosexuality. I can't think of any wars started over homosexuality. However .... money, religion, political power ... those are obviously the evils that have led to numerous wars in world history.
I fully agree that greed can lead to war. However, I fail to see how you can pinpoint homosexuality, or even promiscuity, in your argument.
Your reasoning falls apart for a couple reasons:
1. Gaining pleasure from something does not necessarily mean a person is greedy for it. Enjoying sex (with partners of either sex), food, fine drink and furniture doesn't mean a person is greedy.
2. Promiscuity doesn't equal greed.
Pasha I hope your not an architect. I guess history is not one of your strengths.
"the rise of homosexuality is just a sign of the times.."
Perhaps you need a history course. Homosexuality has been around since the dawn of mankind. In my experience the ones with the biggest problem with homosexuality are usually the fudge-packer in hiding.
slide: lets think of this as channels..you have sex as one channel, food as one channel, consumer goods as one channel.. at beginning you have little variety, then you have more, and more.. and all of this is driven by rising consumption and greed.. you might say that its just that the society is getting better and more sophisticated.. and that is true, yet all of the greatest civilizations of the past have reached their climax and then disappeared.. and the primary cause has always been internal conflict and strife.. (HOMOSEXUALITY IS A INDICATOR, NOT THE CAUSE. i dont' know how to say this any clearer)
isabelle: yes homosexuality has been since the beginning of time.. but its history in terms of numbers can be characterized as waves.. that is my point.. so its not really influenced by genetics but by social climate.. and please say something constructive, don't resort to cliches and rhetoric.
pasha, please explain how internal conflict and strife were the primary cause of the disappearance of the great Native American civilizations.
And then, can you please name all the great civilizations that have disappeared due primarily to internal conflict and strife?
Also, please specifiy when the great waves of homosexuality occurred throughout history and please explain were the evidence of increased numbers comes from.
*cough*
schizo
*cough*
If you had your choice would you perfer your child to be gay or straight? Honestly.
Honestly, that choice so far has no reality. The question also strongly hints at the notion of it being ok for some people having control over other people.
pasha, you have offered very little facts to back up your claims. do you have proof or are these just your own opinions? please provide proof if you have it.
evilp, honestly if i were to have a child, i would not care. i would only care that my child be happy, kind, and proud of themselves.
Damn, sucked back into the conversation. evil, I assume I would love my kid if it was straight, even though I think I would understand it better if it was gay. I have nothing against straight people, and I wouldn't throw out my baby if it was straight. Surely not.
pasha, I'll put my historian credentials up against yours ANY TIME. The stuff you're saying is excatly the kind of babble that makes me fail people in History 101. And I'll have to refer you back to the person above who suggested you've mistaken homosexuality w/a free-market economy.
Here's what I'll say (and this really is my final comment because this is just a really, really stupid conversation). You have the right to set your moral standards and disapprove of homosexuality. If it's against your religion or something to be gay, that's all good. You don't have to participate in my life, and I'm fine w/that, assuming you don't start using your moral values and religion to legislate away my civil rights.
However, if you're going to walk around and spout out your three-steps-to-the-end-of-civilization theory, you're going to have to first read some history books (not to mention some Marxist theory) and provide some plausible evidence to back your claims up. I'd really like to see some evidence of these "waves," for instance. I'd like to know how the presence of two-spirit people brought the Navajo nation to its knees. I'd like to know how imperial Japan crashed and burned because of the popularity of the Takarazuka Review. I'd like to see all the gay people standing on the edges of the subcontinent daring India and Pakistan to nuke each other into oblivion. I'd like to see how gay bars contributed to the eruption of Krakatoa. And that whole tsunami thing. Damn lesbians, what were they thinking, messing with Mother Nature?
Ok as a gay man it has nothing to do with climate, or society. It is genetic. We are born this way. I never made the choice to be gay. Just like one never chooses to be straight. I choose architecture. I choose to cook. Gay men and women existing have never led to a war. We are the object s of ridule, hatred, and anger. What did we do for this? The extremists have to find something to bblame for their bad behavior. Whether it is a democratic society, homozexuality, segregation, women's right to vote, women's rights, race, or faith. pure and simple. People just need to treat others with respect
Also to note that thoughout history gay men have existed in all sorty of vocations and its just that maybe because they are most comfortable with themselves they are more prominent in the arts.
bmyrum, i know i don't need to tell you this, but the problem is "them" not you. you are right. respect and love are the answers.
three words: the dark ages
Paul the apostle was gay by some theoligans perspective
(when you've been sipping wine all afternoon, its a lot easier to hit that submit button)
photoshop or illustrator?
paul was not gay
My Psychology teacher told us that being gay is caused by the amount of hormones your mother emits to you while you are in the womb. If you're a girl and she emits too much testosterone then you may be attracted to women and if you're a boy and she emits too much estrogen then you may be attracted to men. It made since to me. What do you all think?
life is hormonal
Actually Justin, a quick google will bring up various theological theories on the possible homosexuality of Paul the Apostle. Yes, its nothing more than a theory, but then again, there is no proof that Paul was straight.
pasha-
i think i understand what you mean
you are suggesting that when people live in peace and dont have to worry about how they are going to survive they have more time on their hands to figure out who they would prefer to fuck and what not.
-i understand this.
however
to say that being gay isnt normal is pure bull shit.
men and women are biologically designed to be receptive to homosexual pleasure.
for instance my dear you have a prostate gland that can be penetrated by another mans penis. i hear its great. you should be a man and try it. bend over and take it in the ass. seriously.
and i promise that it will not make you violent or greedy.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.