virus for sexual inversion

The only thing I am certain of, is that no one wakes up one morning and decides to become homosexual and that if such a decision were at their disposal, that would be the one they would opt for. Aside from sexual preference, they are people just like the rest of us and in some ways maybe even better. It has been proven that there are fewer perverts and paedophiles amongst homosexuals, percentage wise, than amongst the rest of the so called heterosexual population. Why do we have to keep going over this time and again??? They don't try to convert us to their lifestyle. Why do we feel it necessary to convert them to ours??? All they are asking for is a little acceptance. Is that so difficult to understand??? Feel for them and be happy you aren't one. As for gays marrying??? Why shouldn't they be as miserable as the rest of us??? :p :O

Dawg ]:)

Survival is another biological imperative. Homosexuality is not unheard of in nature. It occurs mostly where there is a LACK of the opposite sex. [i]Or too many of the same sex?[/i]

PERHAPS... homosexuality is a biological imperative of population control... PERHAPS we'll see more and more homosexuals as the human population of the planet gets closer to the point of being unsupportable by our natural resources.

This could also explain why hunter-gatherer groups and rural dwellers see less instance of homosexual behavior. Perhaps, it's proximity to too many people that "flips the switch" turning one towards homosexuality.

Sure, it'd be nice to know what makes one person hetero and another homosexual... but in the meantime, can't we all just get along?

Had the front page "Is the child gay?" and had a picture of a baby.

They talked about finding the "gay gene" and this was proof that people were "born gay", instead of it just being a choice to be gay.

There was then insane talk about trying to get minority status, blah blah blah. Crazy talk.

After a while this died away. People started to realize you could take this defective gene theory to an ugly conclusion.

If they are born this was because of a defective gene then that makes being gay a birth defect and NOT a natural way of life.

It also would mean that if it is a birth defect, then there could be a cure for it.

Not a popular idea for gays to think they are suffering from a birth defect and thus should be cured by science.

This would and could have led to some really really REALLY ugly times in the world.

If people could check DNA for hair color they could then check for homosexuallity, and because so many people think it is perfectly acceptable to get an abortion, they could start to abort all future potentially gay children.

BRRRRR! Not a world I would want to be a part of.

I see what you're saying...but, I see also that if you call someone's preference a defect...then, what do you call someone that has no preference?

If the human "norm" should be to prefer the other sex...then to be without preference (asexual) would not be a defect (deviation in standard), but instead making absence of a standard human trait.

Therefore, should asexual people be considered non-human since they are missing characteristically human though processes??

Personally...I think you should live happily ever after, so long as you don't infringe on anyone else's right to live happily ever after.

In the spirit of my acceptance and openness of all sexualities, I'd like to quote one of my favorite movie characters, Psycho from Stripes:

"Any of you homos touch me, and I'll kill ya." :D

And now...back to see if my beer thread has picked up!

A process of elimination of another possibility, genetic mutation, has pretty much resulted in his conclusion that it is viral?

It cannot be LOGICALLY be considered genetic, therefore it must be viral?

The whole issue with homeosexuality is that it seems so ilogical and that's why so many people are devout on finding out what causes this anomaly.

It can't be the environment, it can't be genetic transfer or mutation, it can't be evolutionary (as that also requires a parasite or infection), so therefore it must be viral?

It's just a conclusion based on elimination of theories, whether that elimination is validated or not, the writer has deemed them impossible by his standards and as a result reached a conclusion that is just as speculative and minimalistic as possible.

Ergo, nutbag.

Why would we seek a cure?

Gay men and women are EXTREMELY happy with their sexuality, they don't begrudge feeling gay, perhaps at a younger age when they are still confused, but that happens in heterosexuals as well, until we develop our self confidence.

So why would a CURE be needed? A Vaccine?

What is the purpose and WHo would be willing to take it? These men and women are as happy with THEIR partners as you and I with ours. Would YOU be interested in taking a vaccine if someone decided that heterosexuality was a disease and being gay was correct? Not bloody likely!

WHY do we need to try and fix something that only a small portion of the world's population considers a sickness?

Are we to then pass a law that everyone must be vaccinated against being gay? Will we force the gay lifestyle to go back into hidin gand repress a large portion of our society?

WHAT is the purpose behind seeking such a conclusion to begin with? You have to start thinking about HIS mind, WHAT has motivated him to
take interest? IS he looking for a way to 'solve the gay problem'?

There is absolutely NO reason for any consideration on this matter other than to read someone's opinion. It has no purpose outside of serving someone's self interest, to make the world what someone else deems ideal.

THAT is a sickness, one that is cured by getting a little culture in your life.

I am not saying to cure the evil gays or line them up and shoot them.

Just stating a line of research and exploring some of the unintended consiquences that could come from it.

Was not here to judge. I have more important things to worry about that actually AFFECT my life, than how other people live their lives.

Just don't indoctrinate this in the schools as an "acceptable alternative life style" as that IS a morality judgement and the public schools damn well better not be spending my tax dollars to teach morals on this or the many other issues in life.

go back to the first post. I was an old article in NewsWeek in the late 80's.

I was also pointing out that people have gotten away from that line of reason because of all the bad things that could be concluded.

Sheeess!

after all, eagles ( mate for life )
wolves ( mate for life )
ducks ( mate for life )

all have homosexual relationships.

so I would say that The GODS want homosexuality to be around.

anyone that says different is only under the influence of chaos.

Consider musculature. One gene may regulate the total mass of muscle, one or more others may regulate the ratio of fast, slow, and medium twitch fibers. Or there might be three genes, one responsible for a level of production of fast-twitch muscle fiber as a response to exercise, another for medium-twitch fiber and another for slow-twitch fiber.

Now, consider how complicated we all know sexual behavior to be. How many of your values and emotions are involved if you consider all the different ideas related to sex? Is it likely that one gene alone determines your sexual preference? Cochran assumes so:

"One expects natural systems to work pretty well, because of these endless generations of pruning and refinement. And again, working means replicating - and, of course, the functions that support replication. Good, not perfect: mutations happen, almost all bad. But the mutation rate of any individual gene is always low, and natural selection keeps weeding them out: mutation-driven diseases are never common. Certainly the most common ones known are several hundred times rarer than homosexuality (which, by the way, doesn't even look particularly genetic in origin - MZ twins are 80% discordant). In fact the evolutionary cost of homosexuality is about as big as the sum total of _all_ known mutation-driven genetic disease. It can't be cause by mutation - too common. Let me make this very clear: if one in ten thousand men were homosexual, homosexuality would not be an evolutionary anomaly. A few genetic diseases are that common. But when, say, 3 in 100 men are homosexual, it's a huge anomaly."

First, it seems more likely that homosexuality works according to a switch, as (I think) Jessie has already suggested, wherein behavior that is advantageous to reproduction is switched to homosexuality. Maybe the gene(s) responsible for cooperative behavior in asexual same-gender relations also has (have) a role in sexual behavior?

Second, the evolutionary cost of homosexuality is a term I did not find defined in that article, but I did notice that on the second page of that collection, Cochran mentioned that "homosexual men have low fitness, around 0.20 in recent US surveys." If my memory of conventions in statistics is correct, that 0.20 represents 20% of homosexuals passing on their genes to the next generation? That does not suggest to me an expectation that homosexuality vanish from the population. As long as the total population grows at a particular rate, I wouldn't expect changes in its composition.

That it was a bunch of bloke's mincing about, and getting cured with aversion therapy.
The therapy consisted of being forced to indulge in disgustingly intimate heterosexual relationships with a sucession of nubile lovelies.
After they had suffered this horrendous experience AND the reasearch funds had run out, they humbly agreed that they no longer fancied each other.

Case Proven

Sadly I'm so set in my ways now, I'd have to punch the cretin out even though I would be sacrificing such a chance to be considered free of defects by the good doctor.

Indeed you weren't homosexuality is not disease therefore It can't be cured.
In fact any sentence that links homsexuality and cure doesn't contain any logic. Don't sweat about finding out you susceptible to bigotry, that is a natural biological, socialogical thing that is cured by logic. Some of your metaphors sort of give you away. Of course you weren't calling homosexuality a sexually transmitted disease.

Actually the orginal dis-inclination for a cure for the clap, was the 'umbrella' treatment. After you had that a few extra stripes on the back and latrine duty were nothing.

"Homophobia", which would be an unreasonable fear of gays.

Not everyone who believes this chosen lifestyle is morally wrong is a homophob, even though mainstream media and the "progressive" movement would like you to think so.

If this truely is an "acceptable alternative lifestyle", then why don't these same understanding people ever say "gee, I hope my son/daughter grows up to be a homosexual".

Actually both of them,

1) He is implying that viral homosexuality can be justfied with aviary flu as an example. We could say the same about people being A$$holes.

2) WHO would he convinced to take a treatment they don't feel they need, it's the same as telling you that the heterosexual feelings you are having can be corrected.

"Now I don't care who ya are, that there's FUNNY!" - Larry "The Cable Guy"

It could be viral bigotry, couldn't it? I mean, after all, birds can transmit flu to humans.

Maybe there are bigoted gnats or mosquitoes, it would only be logical to conclude that it's hereditary in that case.

First I wondered if you said that you are bisexual, then I thought maybe asexual. You have just taken the analogy too far for me to follow; I cannot make heads nor tails of your meaning, but I suspect you're saying something totally different than either of those guesses. Will you explain? It it's a private matter, I understand, and I have to admit I'm not completely sure what I'm even asking!

"I reject the coin and cannot display either face of it."

???

you address the post to which you reply instead of changing the subject.

If "someone believes that mutual masturbation (buggary, cunnilingus, fellatio, anilingus, all those things) is sinful" that person has a general sex phobia, not a belief based in reason. Use of the word "sinful" does not erase the fact that the belief is irrational, meaning without basis in reason.

You could justify bestiality with that argument.
My take is quite simple, if one or more people of any sex want to do something involving only themselves, then that's their business.
Leaves out sheep f***ers then as I've never heard of one giving formal consent.

There is absolutley no evidence that homosexuality is abnormal, given how assiduously afoten and for how long it's been practiced, biologically and scoially you would have to say the exact opposite, just on a statistical basis.

On what basis is it being criticized, if it's against an already exsiting belief which considers homosexuality wrong in some way then nothing has been examined except your own predjudice.

By all means, please present your criticism? [i]Your[/i] criticism is something I expect to find extremely laughable, so by all means, move beyond pointing out errors in others' arguments, and present it?

In case you haven't noticed, I'm making fun of john.a.wills' silly use of punctuation, which was intended to imply, perhaps, that his right to free speech was being stifled? If you believe that your criticism is [i]threatened[/i] by presentation of a counterpoint in exactly the same electronic medium as you presented your opinion, does that mean that you acknowledge the weakness of your assertion. Note change in punctuation?