We knew about identical twins, where a fertilized egg divides to form two embryos with the same genetic makeup, and fraternal twins, where two eggs are fertilized by two different sperm, resulting in twins no more alike than any other siblings. Now researchers have found a third type that they are calling semi-identical, in which two sperm cells fertilized one egg cell. The resulting twins were one with typically masculine genitalia and the other with sexually ambiguous genitalia.
This discovery, along with the Vanishing Twin Syndrome, in which an embryo can be absorbed by its twin — and take on some of its twin’s genetic characteristics — raises questions about the nature or nurture of homosexuality. Is it really a “lifestyle choice” when it can be the result of how an egg cell develops?
Posted by Patrice Hein
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- American_Way on Health care reform would save state money
- American_Way on Health care reform would save state money
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on So they said
- Phantom on Jail consultants straining patience
- Phantom on Health care reform would save state money
- Phantom on Health care reform would save state money
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
- writerdog on Health care reform would save state money
- writerdog on Minority status in Senate; majority approval at home
56 Comments
I don’t know. Go ask the guy that ‘cured’ Haggard of having sex with the male prostitute in 60 days or so. He sounds like an expert. Maybe Fred knows. Sure, ask the religious right in the Kansas Legislature that have to vote aganist gay marriage, they should know what causes the thing they fear the most.
Think,Unfortunately, they don’t. That, of course is the reason for their irrational fear. They don’t, and probably can’t understand homosexuality, are afraid that they might be “latent homosexuals” and because of the culture of hatred inherited from past generations, are just plain afraid! Homosexuality then has to be a choice, so they can choose not to be gay. Really screwed up, isn’t it?
for once I am staying out of this topic. Nothing new to add. Next topic?
This thread begs the punchline, “What came first? The homo or the egg?”
But seriously, I can no more “choose” to be straight than someone like Tim Huelskamp or Terry Fox or Phred Felps can “choose” to be gay.
thetech.org/genetics/ask.php?id=172
It’s apparently kindof along the same lines here. I saw this recently, some people have actually two sets of DNA. They’re called Chimeras.
Then there are the studies of those who had sex reassignment surgeries as babies born with both sex organs- when a doctor determined which sex the child most LIKELY was, and found they got it wrong.
I think we’re on the brink of determining once and for all that homosexuality does indeed have a biological basis. I wonder what the RR will say then?
PoliticalMom – The problem with those studies is that even if they determine that homosexuality is genetic or biological, they are making the determination that it is an anomaly – a ‘defect,’ in essence.
The RR, if that occurs, SHOULD become non-judgmental, as to fault, but will the results of those studies pigeonhole homosexuals, then, as freaks?
Instead of damning them to hell – they will likely set about to ‘fix’ them.
And I seriously doubt there is a parent anywhere that would not want a homosexual child ‘fixed,’ so he, she, did not grow up to be tormented by others. Loving parents, by their very nature, want to protect their children and provide them with the best, and happiest outlook for life.
So – while the results of these types of studies may close the door on judgmentalism – it will open other doors that might be just as bad.
Well when they can FIX things like Down’s syndrome, maybe that will be an issue. But for now there is no way to do that. So there will be no FIX push.
Actually, the FIX push has already begun. Also, take a look at this article – testing to determine IN TH WOMB if a child will be gay- is going on right now.
Tell me what you think the result of a fetal test on a first-trimester baby that is genetically determined to be gay is going to be?
What will the mother choose?
This is happening now – not in the far distant future.
http://www.radaronline.com/from-the-magazine/2007/03/is_your_baby_gay_1.php
Vicki and Barb
How about people just accept it and MOVE ON. The thing about homosexuality, it’s needs to be treated as if it’s NOT a disease.
Yes, I said right now if I knew there was a ‘cure’ for gay, and I knew I was carrying a gay child- I would opt for treatment. BUT ONLY because of how society would treat my child.
The better way to deal with this- is to stop treating those who are gay like it’s the plague. Blue eyes aren’t a genetic defect, and neither should a perfectly healthy baby who will be gay later in life be treated like it’s a defect either.
How do you get homosexuality from sexually ambigious genatalia (hermaphradite)-sp?
Their DNA would be male or female.
First post -The answer to the question the original post asks is “Nature”.
It is natural for a man to want to have sex with another man, and it’s natural for a woman to want to have sex with another woman.
It’s also natural for a man to want to have sex with a woman, and a woman to want to have sex with a man.
It’s natural for a man to want to have sex with a dog, and for a woman to have sex with a horse.
It’s natural for a man to want to have sex with a 4 year old girl, and it’s natural for a woman to want to have sex with a 9 year old boy.
It’s natural for a man to break into a neighbor’s house, kill the inhabitants, and steal their TV. It’s natural for a woman to go to the other woman who was looking at the first woman’s boyfriend, and poke her eye out with an eye-liner pencil.
It’s natural for a man to lie to his wife about how many beers he had at the bar before coming home from work. It’s natural for a woman to lie to her husband about how much she spent on shoes during the last week.
It’s natural for a teen-ager to peek across the aisle at his class-mates math test, and get the answer to #5.
It’s natural for us to not want to know the things of God, and to deny His very existence, if need be, so that we can do those things that come naturally to us. Nature is as nature is, because it is a corrupted nature. Nature was changed when the first man became proud, ignored how nature was first created, and did what he wanted.
But….(don’tcha just love that word?)…all of this corrupted nature will one day be made perfect again, just as God created it to start with. Look for, learn, and accept the truth, and you’ll get to experience that perfect nature.
OK. So I have a child born with both sex organs. I “choose” for this child to be a son thru surgery. The child however as more female DNA and grows up a homosexual, because really in its genetic makeup, he is a woman.But he was not born a man, I chose to make him that way.
.
Don’t you just hate it when someone tries to inject something totally unrelated to the homosexual debate. WHAT IF THEY LIKE HORSE SEX!
Please.
People have normal fetishes all the time, and some would consider it deviant as well. Some prefer to be on top. Some have a thing for feet. Some (heteros) like backdoor. Some think polygamory is a good thing for them. Some just like swapping.
And the fact remains, ALL of it is consensual between adults. Leave people alone for crying out loud.
PoliticalMom – I think you hit upon the conflict. You, like most good parents, don’t want a child of yours to be tormented by society, and so, would opt to ‘fix’ him/her.
The genetic studies are a harbinger to Eugenics. The article I linked to – shows that it may soon be possible to determine if a fetus is gay in the womb. If the parents not be able to afford the fix- my guess is that the baby will be aborted.
I suppose that since abortion is legal for ANY reason – we should expect it will stay legal for this reason, also. In fact, this may be where religious fundamentals jump on board and support abortion.
Furthermore – if it is determined, as we were discussing on the other thread, that children’s behaviors MAY be genetically predisposed, some of those children may be aborted, too, when it is determined they are of ‘lesser’ genetics.
I thought this was going to be a can of worms when I read the topic, but it seems like it is kind of quiet on the board right now.
The only thing I want to add is that the threat to the religious right and most of modern religion regarding homosexuality and why they fight to keep it as a choice rather than some genetically inherited trait has to do with the end of religion.
I know that is a pretty strong statement, and you will have to have some Philosophy guys post here to explain it more thoroughly than I can………..but here is the crux of the argument.
If it is genetic, then that means that it came from God almighty.
It means that God created homosexuality.
In the Bible it talks about Adam and Eve, and in the Bible it talks about (I guess) where a man is supposed to only sleep with a woman and that to sleep with anything else is either a sin or an abomonation (I don’t pretend to be an expert on this stuff, but you get my general idea here).
Genetics is the complete contradiction for the basis of all modern religion…………if we are of the muck, swamp and gasses and we truly started out as an organism that has evolved over these millions of years into humans, then there was no Adam and Eve and the Bible never existed, and therefore God never existed, and therefore Religion is based on a false pretense and is man made.
That is why the religionists don’t want it to ever be proven that homosexuality is of a genetic nature because that means that it came from God himself………..who was supposed to have only created Adam and Eve.
If a Man’s genes are from Adam and a Woman’s genes are from Eve, then God could not have created Adam and Eve if it is proven that homosexuality has a genetic basis in mankind.
It would mean the end of religion and prove that God is simply a creation of Man’s psychological needs.
If homosexuality is genetic…
Why is it not something we can trace?
If it were truly genetic then you would be able to predict it by looking at offspring through generations.
Unfortunatley, when you start looking at that, you will see exactly why it is nothing but a “choice.”
There are many factors which probably go into someone choosing to be gay, but it is a choice no less.
They are trying to find the trace now……….as science evolves and their discovery of mapping the gene and the genomes continues, they will ultimately find it.
It is not a choice, but I respect your opionion that is different than mine. Different opinions are the basis for pushing the envelope forward.
Just because they haven’t discovered all that science has to offer us in the world, does not meant that we shoud stop discovering, nor does it meant that it doesn’t exist or isn’t possible.
I have read of studies wherein people who are homosexual (man and woman)……….are given tests wherein they are asked to look at pictures of people. In the mix of pictures are some average looking people and some attractive looking people, and some of those people are unclothed and some are clothed.
Now imagine this.
What they are measuring is the amount their eye dilates.
(Maybe I didn’t say that correctly, but there is something in your eye, maybe the cornea, or the iris, I really don’t know what, but when the brain is arouse, like when a heterosexual male looks at Playboy magazine in the 9th grade, this part of his eye opens up wider than with just looking at other kinds of pictures).
They call that arousal in the brain and that is one of the ways that it is measured through the eyeball.
In these particpants, they know that the eyeball cannot be trained to be arouse by the concious mind……….that is simply a genetical reaction to what their brain is aroused by. I think it is called the autonomous nervous system………the same thing that causes us to blink, and breathe, and our heart to beat…………causes our eyes to widen when aroused.
What they found was that in homosexual people that their eyeballs all widened when exposed to unclothed, attractive people of the same sex.
They know that is not a choice that someone makes or programs their brain to react to.
They also found that heterosexual people when exposed to the same battery of photographs, their eyeballs did not widen.
That is some of the greatest support for the fact that homosexuality, heterosexuality, and many other combinations are simply a matter of how we are wired when born…………it repudiates the concept of choice.
I understand that it is almost impossible for people to belive that homosexuality is not a choice, because of the many implications it has for them, and our society.
It is difficult to hate someone who is created by God……….it makes us feel that we are not better than those Germans who de-humanized the Jews and others during WWII.
We like things that are so different and yet so close to us to be dehumanized……….that is how we rationalize our bad feelings or ill will that we give to ‘outsiders’ who are not like us.
The main reason that we cannot trace homosexuality is that it is a recessive gene (they will discover) and it cannot be passed down through marriage.
In otherwords, homosexual marriages do not produce children.
Yet, homosexuality still exists.
It could be choice as you postulate, or it can be in the sexual wiring at birth……through a recessive gene…….that is what the fuss is all about………..choice or genetics……..no one knows the answers yet.
I respect how you believe, but you can no more prove that it is a choice, than I can prove that it is genetics.
Just because children can’t be tracked yet through genetics doesn’t mean that it isn’t possible or true.
Blooger –That is crap; your eyes are reactive because of the design and the health of your eyes.The autonomous nervous system can be control thru conscious awareness; Indian Gurus do it all the time thru meditation.Homosexuality is choice and so is being a Rapist.
Wiseman,
I’ll type slowly so you understand.
“Rape” is a criminal act of violence. Victims of rape don’t consent – they *submit* out of fear for their lives and safety. Futhermore, children under the age of consent, by definition, can’t consent, which is why sex with children is morally repugnant and rightfully illegal.
Homosexuality is not a crime of violence. It’s a characteristic that a significant percentage of humanity possesses. Whether it’s endocrinal or genetic or a combination of the two, it’s not a characteristic one “chooses.”
Conflating rape with sexual orientation is typical of slimeballs who need someone to hate. Well over 90% of all rapists are heterosexual, and well over 90% of all child molesters are heterosexual as well. Raping women and children *is* a choice.
In your case, stupidity seems to be a choice as well.
Tom
ps…I just love Phyllis Schafly. “By getting married, the woman has consented to sex, and I don’t think you can call it rape,” she said. Wow.
Wiseman……..Umm…….your kee-jerk reaction is silly.
You didn’t even read what I had to say………..what you are saying is that you know more than the researchers who did the study……….and that all they measured was the ‘health’ of the eyeball.
OK……..whatever you choose to believe is fine with me, but you offer no proven facts to prove any of your postulates.
I believe in UFO’s……..that doesn’t mean they are real.
I believe that the earth is flat………that doesn’t mean that it is real.
You believe that homosexuality is a choice and that the measurement of peoples eyes is crap………..that doesn’t mean it is real.
unWiseman, can you control your pupils with just thought?
I just wanna know. Since it’s something that you think we can all control.
Actually, I don’t think rape in all cases is an act of violence. Date rape comes to mind. Hyper active hormones can cause young men to use all sorts of coercion to convince a girl to have sex. Or take advantage of a girl that is under the influence, asleep or in a compromising position.
It is still rape, just not necessarily violence accompanied the rape.
Then there is statutory rape which includes sex between an adult and those under age of consent. With all the female teacher and student cases in the news now, I didn’t hear of any violence going on.
There is rape by instrumentation. The cigar thing? Was that an of violence?
Yes, there are violent rape offenders that will beat, maul, injure and even murder their victims.
I wanted to make it clear that by making the broad sweeping that rape is always violent is not true.
I know someone who had a twin absorbed into their body. They are heterosexual in their desires and normal in every other way.
I suspect if there was an actual survey done of homosexuals a tiny percentage of them will have this “vanishing twin syndrome.”
Then what would one conclude? :)
Republican, you get today’s award of the Single Strand Of Hair and Very Sharp Scalpel for that last post.
You used the word “coercion” to say date rape or alcohol rape isn’t rape. Here’s what my dictionary says:
co•er•cion (k÷ ûr‚shƒn) n.1. the act of coercing; use of force or intimidation to obtain compliance.
That doesn’t sound like consent to me, and reinforces my statement that rape victims “submit out of fear for their lives and safety.”
Likewise, I already made the point that children below the age of consent can’t, um, CONSENT. Back to the dictionary:
con•sent (kƒn sent‚) v.i.1. to permit, approve, or agree; comply or yield
So the opposite of consent would be…hmmm…let’s see if we can figure this one out…
In any case, my point remains: Wiseman chose to conflate a heinous crime of violence with being gay. Shame on him, and on anyone who keeps beating that poor dead horse (which can’t give consent, either)
Date rape is rape. I cannot believe some of the things I see on this board.
Date rape is NOT just some guy who begs a lot to have sex.
Tom,
Intimidation does not always include violence or forceful means. A person can be intimidated by lots of things.
Perhaps their Boss has an aggressive personality and the worker feels intimidated by him/her. It doesn’t mean there is any violence going on.
One can be intimidated if they never drove a car before. Learning how to drive doesn’t mean any acts of violence is occurring learning how to drive.
Your introduction of consent into my analysis regarding rape always occurring is an introduction of a new factor.
Rape can be described as a lack of consent by statute or from an individual of legal age.
I don’t have an argument with consent.
I do have an argument with violation always be used in the description of rape.
Political Mom,
If you’re referring to me, I never said Date Rate wasn’t rape. It is sex without consent.
Cars don’t rape people, PEOPLE rape people.
Step back from a statutory analysis: Are you trying to make the case that children under the age of consent can consent to a sexual relationship with an adult???
This is silly. You’re still avoiding my original point: Conflating rape, a crime of violence/intimidation/non-consent/Anything involving Phyllis Schaflay’s privates, with being gay is completely below the belt, wrong, and hateful.
Your posts are usually a little more intelligent than this.
Tom,
You’re the one that introduced “intimidation” not me.
I already covered under the age of consent as being used for a standard when it comes to defining rape.
I think you are arguing for the sake of oneupmanship, not on a logical basis. :)
I don’t disagree as wrong or hateful.
Why do you keeping placing ancillary points of argument and terms into the argument?
I used the fact that one can be intimidated learning how to drive a car. I was pointing out that the etiology of intimidation has many psychological beginnings and outcomes. Violence isn’t the only conclusion of intimidation.
Random House Unabridged says:
rape n., v., raped, rap•ing — n.1. the unlawful compelling of a woman through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse.2. any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person.3. See statutory rape.4. an act of plunder, violent seizure, or abuse; despoliation; violation: the rape of the countryside.5. Archaic. the act of seizing and carrying off by force.— v.t.6. to force to have sexual intercourse.7. to plunder (a place) ; despoil.8. to seize, take, or carry off by force.
None of those things are without violence or the threat of violence. Rape is *always* a violent act, whether its victim has visible bruises or other injuries, or not.
Now it’s your turn Tom. :)
Demonstrate to me that sex between a 18.5 year old and a 15 year old which falls under statutory rape laws of Kansas is somehow defined under your standard that rape is always a violent act.
Explain the violent act in this hypothetical case.
Well, perhaps it is more accurate then to say that many instances that some CALL rape – are not.
Date Rape does not always fit into the above definition – so is it not rape?
What hurts the victim of a violent rape is the fact that non-violent forms of sexual abuse are also called rape.
So rape can be a near-death experience, or it can be a drunk girl who passes out just before she got the chance to say ‘no.’
Problem is – the first case is MUCH worse than the second, but if the girl from the second incident pursues charges of rape – then rape, itself, as a crime, loses some of the importance we would like it to have.
Should the men in both of these acts be given the same punishment?
Why can’t we differentiate between the crimes?
Maybe we could have Rape 1, where great bodily harm is involved. Rape 2, where some physical abuse occurs and physical force is present, and Rape 3, where the girl says ‘no,’ but the boy either doesn’t listen, or doesn’t believe her -but he doesn’t physically harm her.
Nice try with the “hypothetical,” Republican. You must think I’m daft or uninformed.
Matthew Limon was rightfully convicted of having sex with a child below the age of consent, and rightfully served his time. The problem with People v Limon wasn’t in the facts of the case, which the defense stipulated, but in the sentencing disparity based on the gender of the victim. Had the victim of the exact same crime been female, Limon would have received a 15 month sentence, not a 200+ month sentence.
Tom – I think Republican is right about this, you may be using a dictionary – but he’s using legal definition. And date rape does NOT have to include violence at all.
“Rape is *always* a violent act, whether its victim has visible bruises or other injuries, or not.”Posted by: Tom | March 31, 2007 at 06:17 PM
Ah, but Tom, you have not provided proof for your statement shown above.
You wrote “violence” and “always” in your definition.
Define how statutory rape always logically concludes that violence occurred.
HOW is it less traumatic to be sexually assaulted while passed out?
Because she wasn’t beaten up first?
That is nonsense. There is a reason why rape and physical beatings are different. It’s in the mind. The physical heals most of the time. But the psychological effects are just as traumatic to a woman.
It results in the same end, shame, fear, mistrust, a lost sense of control of what happens to them. Insecurity.
THAT is why rape is so bad. The bruises heal just fine.
Tell me how date rape involves no violence.
I don’t think trauma was ever questioned Political Mom.
What was questioned was that violence occurs in all occurrences of rape, including – according to Tom – statutory rape.
I believe *any* sex crime against a child is an act of violence. I’m surprised this is even a question here.
Politicalmom – if a girl is unconscious during the assault – she will have no recollection of the rape – hence no rape trauma.
She, may, however, have trauma from the fact that her body was used without her permission. But violence did not necessarily occur.
Tom – also when a girl under 16 that looks, and claims to be 19, initiates sex with a 20 year old male – how can you say violence has occurred if the sex was mutual?
Who is harmed by our labeling ‘lesser’ sexual offenses as ‘rape?’
That’s easy – the victims who suffer the worst form of rape.
In fact the entire term, “rape” is lessened by sticking it on non-violent sexual incidents.
Tom,
You need to google or otherwise look up the definition of statutory rape under Kansas Law.
I even gave you a hint in my hypothetical. :)
Republican:
Not every act of violence is a strap-him-to-the-gurney-and-stick-a-needle-in-his-arm crime. Society, and the law, recognize different degrees of violence, and punish them with different degrees of retribution. That’s why the Romeo & Juliet law carries a 15 month penalty, while the guy who raped and killed Sanderholm is likely to get the needle. Of course, you know all this, and you’re basically just toying with me. Enough.
The original point of this tangent still stands: Wiseman’s conflation of the violence of rape with the characteristic of homosexuality is nothing more than hatefulness, and is flat wrong.
Tom,
You’re still avoiding how statutory rape as defined includes violence in its legal description.
But since you are giving up with your argument and disproving my hypothetical, I’ll let it go undone. :)
“…like when a heterosexual male looks at Playboy magazine in the 9th grade…”Posted by: blooger | March 31, 2007 at 02:05 PM
9th grade?!? Blood flow to the eye area?!? WTF!?!?
What, are you gay, you faggot? (BIG wink, I’m kiddin’)
LOL, hell if you don’t have to choose whether you like outies or innies every time yer lil’ soldier takes a mind to swell all up (a choice Nathan claims; as if), then what worked in the 9th grade will ALWAYS work, bro.
It’s regular as clockwork.
Just sayin’. ;>)
The great victory for homosexuals will be that as long as the debate continues there will be more and more generations gay kids growing up with straight kids and there will come a day when the laws will fully support homosexuals and the churches can continue to follow their dogmas however they wish.
APRIL FOOL’S, WINGNUTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Don’t try to pretend you didn’t miss us. Else, why would so many of you slither over to The Other Place—some to chat, some to troll? Right-Wing solidarity? Feh. Evidently, y’all aren’t any better at not breaking ranks than your liberal adversaries.
Well, the liberals you love to hate are BACK. Slap CF2K some skin, people! And in honor of the big reunion, CF2K (same old CF + 2K + Typekey—let’s see Repubican try to steal CF’s name NOW) wants to serenade all of you Wingnuts with a little ditty he composed just for you this very morning.
The tune is one you all should know, though it may be one you’d rather forget: “The Brady Bunch.” Play a verse of it in your heads, and then join in. It’ll be fine—just pretend this is church. Get ready for a tune, and some snappy asides, that CF2K calls…
THE WINGNUT BUNCH
“Here’s the story of a lovely lady,”
(That’s Mom, or GSheridan, resplendent in her patented Carol Brady mullet and Xanaxed, welded-on, Laura Bush smile)
“who was bringing up three very lovely girls,”
(Girl #1. Marsha also = GSheridan. Can you say, “Mirror, mirror, on the wall, who’s the fairest Marsha of all?” Or “Marsha, Marsha Marsha!” It’s a safe bet GSheridan does. Frequently)
(Girl #2. Jan = ksgrm. I grant this breaks the pecking order, but ksgrm is TOTALLY Jan. She’s second best, First Runner-Up, attendant to the Queen Bee, and is a bit, well, loopy. Can’t say whether there’s a wig involved, though, so maybe she’s not TOTALLY Jan. CF2K’s bad)
(Girl #3. Cindy = Fleetwood. Self-explanatory)
“All of them had hair of gold, like their mother,”
(Well duh—they’re all WHITE REPUBLICANS)
“The youngest one in curls.”
(Fleetwood—sans his two front teeth or any semblance of adorableness)
“Here’s the story, of a man named Wingnut,”
(Dad = Repubican / JM / Eier, sporting all the repressed gayness and badly permed hair of his namegiver)
“Who was busy with three boys of his own,”
(Boy #1. Greg = GMC70—same first initial, not to mention the fact that GMC70 thinks that he looks most fetching in the Johnny Bravo jumpsuit made famous by Greg)
(Boy #2. Peter = Nathan AND Outlander—both included for the nicest reason possible. Nice guys, after all)
(Boy #3. Bobby = KSGolfnut—included for some reason other than the nicest one possible. Smug guy, after all. Uber-smug, really.)
“They were four men, living all together,”
(Must not take obvious homoerotic cheap shot, must not take obvious homoerotic cheap shot…)
“Yet they were all alone.”
“Till the one day when the lady met this fellow,”
(Given Mike Brady’s real-life gender confusion and the questions that have arisen regarding GSheridan’s identity, it is less than clear who figures as the “lady” and who figures as the “fellow.” No matter: a Love Connection ensued. I will leave you to imagine the details. Doing so is more than I can bear)
“And they knew it was much more than a hunch,
That this group would somehow form a family,”
(And here, to echo Ben Huie upthread, CF2K thought It Took A Village. Ain’t that just like a Liberal)
“That’s the way they all became the Wingnut Bunch.The Wingnut Bunch, the Wingnut Bunch,That’s the way they all became the Wingnut Bunch.”
Hold up. There’s a bit of housekeeping / due diligence yet to be done. This “Bunch” isn’t complete yet. There’s:
1. Tiger = Hank Price: always talkin’ ’bout his “bitches.”
2. Fluffy = SOB: markedly less than manly. Screeching and feline, in fact, as demonstrated by his sniveling troll posts on The Other Place.
3. Alice = Joe Williams: half the time he’s totally on the ball; the other half he’s trying to drag Sam the Butcher to the altar.
So, Wingnuts and Wingnut fellow travelers, I hope you like your new names. Get my drift, fellow Lefties?
Daddy’s home, Wingnuts. Time to get real. Your unctuous, fatuous, disingenuous “civility” is as over as George Bush’s “Presidency.” So over, in fact, that, as Carrie Bradshaw said on “Sex in the City,” “we need a new word for ‘over.’”
Be seein’ ya. Got church in the morning. It’s Palm Sunday, after all.
To answer Ms. Hein’s original question about homosexuality:
Is it really a “lifestyle choice” when it can be the result of how an egg cell develops?
Ms. Hein cleverly hides her cards from us by use of the word ‘can’, which allows her to straddle the fence on this question, simply posing the hypothetical rather than stating her opinion………but for an intern she is just learning so I will give her a break.
It would be fun if Ms. Hein were to post what she actually thinks rather than just post the question, but nonetheless, if homosexuality is proven to be ‘how the egg cell develops’, then clearly it is not a choice, but rather a genetic mandate.
Earlier someone posted about ’sex reassignment’ wherein babies are born with opposite genetalia, which is clearly a genetic determination. Many of these studies have shown that while a female infant may be born with a small penis (or visaversa) a male infant born with vaginal definitions……….it is critical to remember that the physical appearance of the genitalia in these studies does not determine sexual preferences and this has been proven.
This strongly lends itself to the kind of conclusion that simply because a female infant does not have a vagina or a male infant does not have a penis that therefore they are the opposite sex.
This has been proven to be classically wrong.
Sexual appearance at the genitalia level has nothing to do with desires and arousal. That is a different set of wires that we usually always assume are linked together, but this study proves that it is not so.
The majority of us are genetically wired so that our sex drives and preferences reflect our genitalia.
Men with penises prefer women with vagina’s. Classical heterosexuality definition.
Women with Vagina’s prefer men with penises. Classical heterosexuality definition.
Men with vagina’s must be raised as women and taught that they are women, otherwise, we would be raising men with Vagina’s to love men with penises. That would be a classical societal short-circuiting. We don’t really know what to do in the earlier years with these minority of sitautions.
Women with penises must be raised as men so that when they are older and have sexual urges and desires, they will ‘naturally’ mate up with a female. Classical Societal Short-Circuiting in that situation too.
Just because someone has male or female genitalia does not mean that is what they are attracted to.
Due to the lack of understanding of homosexuality and its causes, we reverted to the simpler explanations through most of our history. If they had a penis, they were a man, and if they had a vagina, they were a woman. We always thought that it would mean that they were going to be sexually attracted to the kind of person who had the opposite kind of genitalia.
We are beginning to realize that it is not so simple.
Genitalia and sexual arousal are two different things and have no direct linkage to each other per se.
In the majority of us though, our sexual preferences are linked to our genitalia, but that is just the hormonal thing in the cells that causes that, and I believe that at some point they will be able to discover and measure that it is only millionths of parts of hormonal levels at the cellular level are what causes these differnces in genitalia reassignment and sexual preferences.What we know now is to determine the number of chromosones and count them, and if they are a woman with male genitalia, we know that they are going to be aroused by men, regardless of the kind of genitalia that they have. That is not a choice, but a genetic mandate.
We also know that if a man is born with vaginal characteristics instead of penile characteristics, that we count the chromosones and if they are a man with a genitalia difference that we should raise them as men, understanding that they are going to be arouse by women when they are old enough, regardless of the kind of genitalia that they have.
The list can go on and on, but it is genetic in basis and not a choice.
To me, homosexuality is genetic wiring that is present in a minority of individuals in the world that simply has them being aroused by the same sex.
It is a man who was wired to be aroused by men, or a woman who was wired to be aroused by women………those are the minority………..but then there are the majority of us who are wired to be aroused by the opposite sex……….again, it is just wiring………genetic stuff.
Yea, CF. Nothing’s changed. Pretty words, all show, no go. Meaningless drivel. Pretty drivel, but drivel nonetheless.
Your point to all that? There is none.
And you pretend that you left to “improved” the blog. You all then pick up exactly where you left off. Get real. You arrive, and begin an immediate name-calling fest.
And here I wondering if I overstated the case the way I spoke to you all the other day. If the rest of the moonbats are coming back the same, I should regret nothing.
Do us a favor. Go away and pout again.
GMC70,
And here CF2K was trying to be nice by letting you be Greg Brady. No good deed goes unpunished, and all that.
Are you really that devoid of humor? I mean, really? Are you really that thin-skinned?Whatever. That’s the universe you choose to inhabit. Not my problem.
I agree that the post was anything but substantive. That was the point: it is, after all, APRIL FOOL’S DAY.
TTFN. Got church, you know.
Why on earth is this subject even being discussed? I can see a bunch of geneticists getting interested in what causes homosexuality, but why are we so interested? Some people are gay, some are left handed, some have green eyes; a few are even republicans! What possible difference does orientation make, unless you’re looking for a date?
Jed………because if it is choice, then we can fix it (according to those who want to invest their life energy that way)………..and if it is genetic………then it is God-Given and we cannot fix it.
I guess the reason that it is being discussed is to determine if we (as a society) should just leave this issue alone, or embrace it………..as you suggest like we would someone with blue eyes or left-handedness.
I can’t think of a bigger can of worms that has no answers today and such high reprecussions for the world’s religions and even God himself, were homosexuality to be determined to be from genetics…….hence no Adam and Eve……..hence no Bible…….hence no God……..hence no basis for religion.
I guess there are many (probably the majority) who don’t think it is the same as being left-handed or blue-eyed as you do………..that is why there is the discussion.
Booger,Interestingly enough, left-handedness and homosexuality are statistically linked; while only about 10% of the general population is left-handed, nearly 50% of the gay population is. That might lead one to assume that whatever factors that cause left-handedness might also play a role in sexual orientation.Not all that many years ago, left-handedness was considered an evil that had to be corrected, and children were punished, even beaten for using their left hands for eating or writing. we’ve made it past that now. Maybe it’s time to let that other shoe drop, and stop punishing people over orientation.Surely religion, which has managed to survive science and slavery can find a way to get over gay people too.
There is absolutely no coorelation between being left-handed and being gay, anymore than there is between being blue eyed and gay or being tall and being gay. Traits on the genome are individualistic and are either recessive or dominant, and are either there or they are not.
There is absolutely no science behind your comments………just your rabbling to try to make it so.
I’m really not sure about the answer to the original question. DO I say “nurture” or “nature”? I believe neither is the answer or maybe both are the answer.I don’t think you will ever trully be able to predict whether a child will be gay or straight. If they say they will soon be able to genetically predict a child will be gay, then it follows that they could also be able to predict if a child will be straight or bi. I don’t think it’s that easy.I believe homosexuality is as normal as heterosexuality. I think it has more to do with changes that occur at puberty then our starting blueprints. Some say I’ve always known I’m different, while others say that they didn’t know until they meet that special person. I think that it’s not simple and it never will be. There are two opposite views for each side of the homosexuality argument. The ones who believe it’s normal and genetic; normal and a choice and abnormal and genetic; abnormal and a choice.If however they are convinced that it is genetic and can be predicted (they’ll find a way whether it really is possible or not), it is still not something that can be predicted. Just like you may carry a gene for a certain disease, does not mean you get that disease or that any of your kids or grandkids will get it either. It’s simply a possiblity and not a guarantee… You won’t be able to tell until a study is done on the babies that were predicted to be gay and were never told and those that would not be gay…then you may know for sure…..