Cure yourself from homosexuality!

[Vince]

HA! Natoma, common.... think. It's obviously not genetic, the proof is in the facts. What you still have yet to grasp from my posts is that underlying those differential behavors and psychologies are the same fundimantal hormones, neurotransmitters and other enviromentally controlled variabled.

That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. It really sort of sounds like you're talking out of your butt trying to imply something, but I'll be buggered if I can figure it out or if I think even you know.

How does it not? It's simplistic to an extreme. We can state with a reasonable probability that we're all evolved from a common ancester, and as such we have similar mechanisms which are fundimantal to life. Most of these have to do with physiological aspects of an organism. Yet, as we progressively become more evolved neurologically and our cognative skills dramatically increase (Our relative neural capacity/volume exploded around 100,000 years ago), the way in which many of these fundimantal, hormonal instincts are "felt" differently by the organism; they are interpreted differently, manifested differently, etc. Yet, it's still the same basic mechanisms underlying it all..... no wonder you don't read my posts.

 

[digitalwanderer]

HA! Natoma, common.... think. It's obviously not genetic, the proof is in the facts. What you still have yet to grasp from my posts is that underlying those differential behavors and psychologies are the same fundimantal hormones, neurotransmitters and other enviromentally controlled variabled.

That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. It really sort of sounds like you're talking out of your butt trying to imply something, but I'll be buggered if I can figure it out or if I think even you know.

How does it not? It's simplistic to an extreme. We can state with a reasonable probability that we're all evolved from a common ancester, and as such we have similar mechanisms which are fundimantal to life. Most of these have to do with physiological aspects of an organism. Yet, as we progressively become more evolved neurologically and our cognative skills dramatically increase (Our relative neural capacity/volume exploded around 100,000 years ago), the way in which many of these fundimantal, hormonal instincts are "felt" differently by the organism; they are interpreted differently, manifested differently, etc. Yet, it's still the same basic mechanisms underlying it all..... no wonder you don't read my posts.

You miss my point....so what?

 

[Vince]

Uhm, no.

They are the limits within which the environment develops with, they are not "organized" by the environment!

Um. Digitalwanderer, what your implying doesn't make sence. It's physically impossible for you to code every facet of development of a human into DNA. This is a fact, and this is why human growth is so neat. Like, artificially growing human organs is pretty well known today in popculture and will show the problem with what you're saying well. So, here is where the problem is - every cell in your body, except the so-called "sex-cells" which show natures desire for heterosexuality, has the potential (information in it's complete DNA) to create everything else - but it can't just spontaniously regrow the rest if you ask it to. You need to recreate the unique conditions which bounds the growth of said organ. This is simplistic, but I think it gets the point across.

Think of self-organizing systems kinda like being on the top of a waterslide and wanting to get in the pool. You have several potential paths, the most probable is that you'll walk off the sides of the ladder and fall into chaos (bad) or you can have someone wite you directions in a note on how to walk down the ladder, make a turn, walk along the pool and walk down the stairs into it 30 feet away and include all potentialities and the reaction - be them a slippery step, or a random dog, or space aliens decending from the heavens (this is really, really, really hard [read: impossible] to do biologically) or you can go down the slide and after that initial, insanely small push, you're pulled down a set path, guided mysteriously by the enviroment into the pool. Not perfect analogy, but it works.

No, but DNA does store tendancies and traits which wil determine how someone will react in a situation.

So, um, idential twins will react the exact same way to a situation, say the exact same things, move in perfect unison, do everything perfectly in sync, from their smallest thought to their actual biomolecular dynamics? I think not.

Dude, GET A CLUE!!!! You obviously have a brain, I just wish you'd start using it for something. :?

I could very easily tell you to fuck off and enjoy your blissful experience which is really stupidity and ignorance, but I elected to explain a bit. Lets hope it helps.

 

[Natoma]

And of course here's the part where I say "And I believe the evidence indicates the contrary. what's your 'evidence'" and you say "blah blah blah blah blah" and I respond "blah blah blah blah blah" and this goes on for another 30 pages of ever lengthening posts.

So far so good. 5 pages down. 25 to go........

* Natoma goes to play UT2K4

 

[Vince]

You miss my point....so what?

Well, Digitalwanderer, it means that when Natoma states that:

You answered your own question. If you can immediately rule out psychology and behavior, what's left as a point of common ground? Genetics. And since nearly all species on this planet are very closely related genetically, well......

His basis for saying it's "genetic" is wrong because his tenants which support his case of eliminating the alernatives is wrong. What he didn't notice is that because we all believe in evolution, we all have the same fundimantal physiological entities - we just interpret and integrate them differently due to many factors. Neurological evolution and prevelance is one of them, one which gave rise to society and this whole 'PC' talk which keeps the homosexual community above questioning by many.

 

[Tagrineth]

Oh, yes. All gay men must certainly be GID. Or at least, very highly feminine.

I believe Natoma should have a few great 'choice words' for that statement.

Most likely, sure. Apart from this specific article, which I don't necessarily agree with, If you start early enough in a humans life and influence their hormonal levels, neurotransmitters and enviroment. But, why stick to actual facts about evolution and the clever mechanisms and dynamics nature has created to basically mold a living entity's growth down a certain pathway without explicit information guiding it - ohh, no - but lets listen to Natoma and his few "choice words" because he'll sure as shit know what's going down. Just like asking a drunk or OCD patient - because let me tell you - they know what's really going on.... Gotta love how that whole 'PC' mentality can totally close any potential avenue of thought, belief, or reseach just because some powerful lobbies with total assholes running them doen't approve.

*shakes head and walks away from thread*

I wanted to hear Natoma's choice words because of the statement about how homosexuality - according to that article - necessarily involves GID as well. Not about what actually causes it... just their statement, which is a load of crap.

Actually, the most masuline, MALE guy I know is gay. I'd probably die from shock if he turned out to be GID.

 

[K.I.L.E.R]

So not all male homosexuals actually work for GDI?
That means they work for NOD, right?

 

[epicstruggle]

First, Natoma any chance you could tell me where I missed your point?

Trying to make comparisons of who's got it worse. That was the first step.

Now, i have no idea what a black gay man goes through in life. But any average ugly fat straight guy/gal goes through worse. Ive seen how badly they get treated. Almost every tv show has no problem poking fun at them, ridiculing them for cheap laughs. When was the last time you heard of a show that actively ridiculed blacks or gays?

You're joking right?

No im not. Everytime you come with the poor gay person paragraph. Ill come back with that others have had it far worse. You act as like a little kid that didnt get the chocolate desert, while there are starving kids else where.

later,
epic

 

[The549]

Vince, homosexuality isn't i nherently human...there are animal fags too.

Wow, animal "fags" too, huh? Do animals not have hormones and neurotransmitters and other such variables? Or are they special too? By the way, great choice of words there pal... not even I would say that.

If anything, Digitalwanderer, they are a great example of what I'm saying as they don't have as evolved cognative abilities as humans and the associated traits which drop out of it such as global societal beliefs and pressures to conform and other "effects" - if you will - which are associated with human epistemology. They're [animals] a perfect microcosm.

I really don't see how you can view it as some form of disease or aberration, it's a natural thang.....DEAL WITH IT!

Wow, I'm blown away by your supporting evidence. It's too bad I can point to the best definition of life and the overriding goal of all biological organisms we've ever witnessed (no exceptions, ever) and state that Homosexuality is a faulty strategy in the evolutionary trend towards greater diversity, a wider gene pool, and the advancement of our species vis-a-vis reproduction. I can then point to human DNA, which is a known, and state that it's inheriently made with procreation by two sexes in mind to further the above qualities by being diploid.

I can then, state that it's just as "natural" as incest and beastiality - which are other "dead-end", attempted reproductive strategies in the proverbial eyes of evolution.

The difference, which you illuminated for me - thanks, is that humans have evolved to such a cognative level, such stature, that we've lost sight of the animal which we truely are. We've lost sight of the fact that emotions exist to further the survivability of an organism and by extention a species, nothing more. The emotions a homosexual feels are true feelings, of course, nobody is denying this. But they are misplaced feelings, feelings which are the result of irregular activies in the human on a biochemical level which has created feelings which don't further the survivability of the organisms and it's information content; but rather are now supporting a fallicious evolutionary strategy. And it's justified by the cognative level we've reached, into the belief it's something true, something pure. But alas, it's not - it's merely a biological fault, magnified and made acceptable by the human mind and it's societal creations.

OK, one difference between humans and animals is that even if someone has a "disorder", or if someone can't reproduce, we don't let them wither away in order to steal their food.

Someone in here said to prove that gay people were in basically every society....well, to me that's something that is understood in history. I haven't met an educated person who did not know that, so the burden of proof is on the wrong hand here.

And another thing, (as you may already have figured epic), if a gay kid came out in my school, I would give him an extremely high risk factor. Fat kids can play football. Gay kids would be hurt, that's as fact as can be without someone actually getting hurt. All my friends agree on this; that it would be crazy to let anyone in my town know if you're gay. Yay Rush Limbaugh, knamean?

 

[Legion]

OK, one difference between humans and animals is that even if someone has a "disorder", or if someone can't reproduce, we don't let them wither away in order to steal their food.

Maybe not often but for political reasons we can kill each other in mass.

Someone in here said to prove that gay people were in basically every society....well, to me that's something that is understood in history. I haven't met an educated person who did not know that, so the burden of proof is on the wrong hand here.

I'll just chalk this up as an extremely weak defense proffering an entirely irrelevant point regarding the nature of genetic predisposition.

And another thing, (as you may already have figured epic), if a gay kid came out in my school, I would give him an extremely high risk factor. Fat kids can play football. Gay kids would be hurt, that's as fact as can be without someone actually getting hurt. All my friends agree on this; that it would be crazy to let anyone in my town know if you're gay. Yay Rush Limbaugh, knamean?

Why do people in this thread continue to argue this matter when it is purely emotional and irrelevant to the discussion of genetic predisposition?

Are some of these forums goers wanting to stack fallacy upon fallacy hoping to establish a foundation of truth?

Again there are thousands of ridiculed behaviors committed by people who often feel at odds with or unwilling to change their habbits. Such is true with various sexual behaviors as paedaphilia. Shall we assume all of these behaviors are geneticly linked because patients show reluctance in relinguishing these habbits? That would be the paramount of psychological stupidity (IE instinct theory).

 

[Druga Runda]

uh ah... read trough this ... and well

on one hand: People who claim that the 'gay' genetic trait is impossible - goes against evolution - on the other hand people who claim that 'gay' people are mistreated and claiming genetic trait as a means of 'equality'. And obviously this argument cannot get to an end, as no side can prove their point.

IMHO, that doesn't really matter, what you do in your sex life is up to you, and if someone beast someone else for whatever reason he should be punished. But well we all know it doesn't work that way, so I guess that getting some more 'equality' is alway a good thing to calm down our own predjudices. As for the truth - it looks to me that genectis are a more unlikely cause of being 'gay' as we are both influenced by the environment and the genetics, I would go for the environmental influece... we all have parents,and something there could go 'wrong' for many... however that is just my unprofessional opinion. The fact remains that people are mistreated by many others in 'normal' life if they admit are gay. and that is surely the 'real' wrong that needs to be corrected.

But what I found interesting in the article is the alleged ex-gay. Sounds weird that they are there, however I kida got my own answer that 93% in that survey said they were religious, so for me puts the lid of coercion on the whole idea...

As for all the arguments, gay animals, gay in all societies, discrimination, being 'gay' against the evolutionary principles, and all other forms of weird sexual behaviour? - why not... discrimination is a fact, gay animals as well, gay in all societies - that is pretty much a given, as well that being 'gay' against the evolutionary principles makes total sense too... so what?

Well that sex feel good factor, why people do sex we all know , at least most of us, whatever we practice, and 99% of the time it's not to make children ... the problem with undesireable sexual behaviour is when it is one side agains the other unwillingly... and that includes minors, still same sex orientation is not harmfull to anyone, nor is bestiality - how do you get consent from a sheep is a question, still probably better than slaughtering her from sheeps perspective ...

but overall the 'normal sex' is the norm and it is understandable and desireable from many perspectives - but that does not explain the question in these threads - where does gay come from, how come that different sex is disguisting to some and good to someone else, and the third kind don't mind whatever the partner(s), and where is the moral of the story. The moral is that we all like pleasure, it comes in different forms, and people should be allowed to go for it as long as they are not harming each other.

Well that is a pragmatic solution, but we knew all that all along ....

as for the creation, well you gay people probably know, and that is that you realised that you were gay at some stage in life, what drove to it, certainly doesn't appear, and it seems natural, now if they find a 'gay' gene - that would be funny, would you want your sexuality changed if you could turn it off? I doubt, and that sure is right, as you are a person in your own way and if it works for you what makes a good life is relationships, wherever you esp including you partners and not sex... so WTF, if you like it this way that's good. The problem is that even if there are those guys like ex-gay at this point it is very hard to distinguish them as the society 'noise' on the issue is wayyy too high, and there doesn't seem to be a lot of those people so their voices if there are any - cannot get any attention.

The real problem, and this thread is not about that, is that we people like to discriminate - against pretty much everything, now find me a gene for that and we'll be in heaven

 

[Natoma]

First, Natoma any chance you could tell me where I missed your point?

Trying to make comparisons of who's got it worse. That was the first step.

Now, i have no idea what a black gay man goes through in life. But any average ugly fat straight guy/gal goes through worse. Ive seen how badly they get treated. Almost every tv show has no problem poking fun at them, ridiculing them for cheap laughs. When was the last time you heard of a show that actively ridiculed blacks or gays?

You're joking right?

No im not. Everytime you come with the poor gay person paragraph. Ill come back with that others have had it far worse. You act as like a little kid that didnt get the chocolate desert, while there are starving kids else where.

later,
epic

And you say what I wrote was absurd. You still, keep, missing, the point. Here is how you're missing it, even again in your baffling response.

Trying to make comparisons of who's got it worse. That was the first step.

Here's a hint. It's pointless to do so.

As for asking whether you were joking or not, you obviously haven't watched any primetime show that depicts every gay man (and gets its subsequent punchlines) as a prissy, horribly self-centered, fashionista with the ever present one line quip, swishy hips, and high pitched voice. And you obviously missed the blaxploitation era, not to mention the fact that there are many shows with dominant black casts today depict many black people as sassy, unintelligible, ghetto thugging losers.

But as I said before, making comparisons of "who's got is worse" is totally pointless.

 

[Natoma]

The real problem, and this thread is not about that, is that we people like to discriminate - against pretty much everything, now find me a gene for that and we'll be in heaven

In a nutshell describes every single basher in this thread, no matter what they try and hide behind as their "logical reason" to feel the way they do.

p.s.: good post.

 

[Legion]

But what I found interesting in the article is the alleged ex-gay. Sounds weird that they are there, however I kida got my own answer that 93% in that survey said they were religious, so for me puts the lid of coercion on the whole idea...

Using coercion to escape explaining how they were able to usurp a supposed genetic predisposition is a clear and obvious cop out.

As for all the arguments, gay animals, gay in all societies, discrimination, being 'gay' against the evolutionary principles, and all other forms of weird sexual behaviour? - why not... discrimination is a fact, gay animals as well, gay in all societies - that is pretty much a given, as well that being 'gay' against the evolutionary principles makes total sense too... so what?

No matter how many times you repeat the matter it makes no more sense then when this discussion started. The mechanism for which homosexuality would be transmitted can not be explained by any evolutionary psychologist. On top of this matter sexual orientation is not a genetically determined dimorphic schema. This is a proven fact. No matter how much research is done in order to prove homosexuality is genetic the research always points back to enviroment as the cause.

As for the animal situation i've already discussed some of the present fallacies regarding "homosexual animals". You ought to read what i stated wts rats and fruit flies.

Well that sex feel good factor, why people do sex we all know , at least most of us, whatever we practice, and 99% of the time it's not to make children ... the problem with undesireable sexual behaviour is when it is one side agains the other unwillingly... and that includes minors, still same sex orientation is not harmfull to anyone, nor is bestiality - how do you get consent from a sheep is a question, still probably better than slaughtering her from sheeps perspective ...

Right from the start you are against the bulk of evolutionary psychological thought. Sex, according to them is nothing more than a biproduct of genes wantingness to procreate. Absolute and complete nonsense which has no grounds or explanation within human psychology.

If genes determined orientation you wouldn't see beastiality or paedophilia which are two seperate orientations.

but overall the 'normal sex' is the norm and it is understandable and desireable from many perspectives - but that does not explain the question in these threads - where does gay come from, how come that different sex is disguisting to some and good to someone else, and the third kind don't mind whatever the partner(s), and where is the moral of the story. The moral is that we all like pleasure, it comes in different forms, and people should be allowed to go for it as long as they are not harming each other.

Whether certain sex is considered "normal" is irrelevant to the dicussion entirely. Genes do not define sexual normality.

Also, the matter of revoltion is clearly cultural.

 

[Legion]

The real problem, and this thread is not about that, is that we people like to discriminate - against pretty much everything, now find me a gene for that and we'll be in heaven

In a nutshell describes every single basher in this thread, no matter what they try and hide behind as their "logical reason" to feel the way they do.

p.s.: good post.

Natoma please do not attempt to undermine this conversation by implying all of those who are against the notion of genetic predisposition of sexuality are bigots/bashers.

You aren't addressing the points made and this particular comment was most certainly in rather bad taste. Stating or implying everyone who doesn't follow with the unproven rhetoric of the gay lobby is a basher/bigot is every bit as bigotted as gay bashing.

 

[Natoma]

Yet again, you miss the point.

The real problem, and this thread is not about that, is that we people like to discriminate

Now, try and find whatever reason you want to back up your beliefs. For epic it's religion. For Vince and you it's biology. For someone else it's fear. Whatever the reason, it comes down to the same thing. Discrimination.

I address your points and all I get is useless Bullocks/Bullshit/Myth/Cop out/Fallacies/etc etc etc. Can't say I feel much different about your "evidence," but then, it gets back to what I said way back on page 2 I think it was.

And of course here's the part where I say "And I believe the evidence indicates the contrary. what's your 'evidence'" and you say "blah blah blah blah blah" and I respond "blah blah blah blah blah" and this goes on for another 30 pages of ever lengthening posts.

So, please.

 

[Sabastian]

The real problem, and this thread is not about that, is that we people like to discriminate - against pretty much everything, now find me a gene for that and we'll be in heaven

In a nutshell describes every single basher in this thread, no matter what they try and hide behind as their "logical reason" to feel the way they do.

p.s.: good post.

Natoma, I certainly hope that this is not directed at me. I know at one point I was a horrible "basher" but not anymore. I have changed. I no longer care about the matter enough to "bash", fairly indifferent pretty much sums it up. Sorry about any grief that I might have caused in the past. Because though I don't understand the dilemma I try though to be objective there really is not allot of emotion tied to it.

 

[PaulS]

Discussions such as these remind me that sometimes people spend so much time with their head in a science book, that they forget to look up once in a while and look at the world around them.

Forest, Trees. Science Theory, Reality.

 

[epicstruggle]

But as I said before, making comparisons of "who's got is worse" is totally pointless.

THEN stop telling us how bad gay people have it. Jesus, you gain no sympathy when you cry about this or that about being gay. You obviously dont know how much better you have it.

If you dont want comparisions about on whose got it worse, dont cry that gay people have it, simple as that.

later,
epic

 

[Natoma]

Since you continue to miss the entire point of what I was saying, by a mile I might add, here you go. I've bolded the pertinent part.

I've been doing better things today, like celebrating my mom's 50th birthday. But it's nice to know that I'm pined after when I'm not around.

But as to the topic at hand, I'll keep this short and to the point. Anyone who would willingly put up with the bullshit, and in some cases threats to their very lives, that gay men and women have to put up with day in and day out from the time we realize our sexuality in our early youth would have to be certifiable, or at least gets off when receiving punishment.

The lives of gay men and women would be at least 10x easier overall if we were straight. Of course, we're not the problem. It's people like Vince who have no issue making homosexuality comparisons to alcoholism or drug abuse, or Joe, who's timeless comparisons between homosexuality and beastiality live on in eternal infamous stupidity, that are the problem.

And of course those that go out and decide to beat the living crap out of someone because they're gay, or evict someone because they're gay, or fire someone because they're gay, or expel qualified service members from the armed forces because they're gay, or kill someone because they're gay, or make snide comments because they're gay, or kick them out of their homes because they're gay, or deny them custody of their own children because they're gay, or deny them children all together because they're gay, etc etc etc, are the problem as well.

And after the part I bolded, I go on to list the kinds of people that in fact have the problem. In short, the problem does not lie with gay people. It lies with the bigots of the world. Simple? Do you finally get it now?

I obviously don't know how much better I have it than whom? A fat person? Sorry, I didn't get in shape until I was around 15 years old. Before that I was a ripe porker and was made fun of mercilessly regarding my weight. I've got pictures too if you want to see them. A black person? Sorry on that count. A gay person? Doh! Can't be that. A religious person? I was deeply religious throughout my youth until I went to college, and can remember having my beliefs made fun of quite often.

I've been turned down enough times in my life to realize that not everyone thinks I'm attractive. In someone's eyes, I'm ugly, just as in someone else's eyes, I'm utterly gorgeous.

So as I said before, your whining about comparisons of "who's got it worse" is totally pointless.

Yes, life for me would be a hell of a lot easier if I were a white heterosexual. But why would that be the case? Would it be because there is some inherent flaw to being a black homosexual? No. It's because of bigots in our society who decide to make my life and the lives of other people like me harder than it should be.

Do you finally get the point?