Supreme Court overturns Texas Sodomy Law (w00t!)

[Bigus Dickus]

Apparently you are too lazy to read.

And you're a fuckwit who has less interest in a rational discussion than you do in pushing people's buttons. Just a few posts above you posted that this was "the first time I mentioned this." Perhaps you should clearly define "this" since I was referring to your statement that 99% of the population is bisexual.

Bisexuality wrt attraction, NOT arousal.

Here, let me lay it out clearly for you, by selectively quoting you (which I know you love) to remove the irrelevant parts:

If you look at the numbers... simply attraction to someone else, then... Roughly 1% of the population... is exclusively homosexual or heterosexual...

Now, I have fully read and fully comprehend that this is with respect to sexual attraction, and not sexual arousal. The fact remains that you are defining sexual attraction as "simply attraction to someone else" and are claiming that 99% of the population falls into the bisexual category on these grounds. I absolutely, unambiguously disagree. You are very clearly stating that 99% of the population is, at least sometimes, attracted to people of the same sex. I would love to see any polls or other statistics that you could produce to support this assertion. 99% of the population might recognize attractiveness in people of the same sex, but that doesn't equate to being attracted to them.

Your banter about attraction and arousal are irrelevant, it is definitions you assign to them that are in question. Make all the distinctions you want about which terminology you apply to which statistics... I hold steadfast that the definitions you are using for that terminology is fundamentally flawed.

Again, you are not reading, or you are missing point, intentionally or not.

And there can be no doubt that you are intentionaly dodging the point, which again, is:

You continue to use a definition of bisexual which allows you to classify 99% of the population as such, but which 90% of the population would emphatically disagree with.

See any problems with such a definition?

 

[Legion]

Sexuality is genetic. Homosexuality is an expression of that gene,

How is an expression of a sex drive an indicator of the determination of sexual orientation? How does sex drive predetermine your sexual orientation?

How many times do i have to ask you these questions before you answer them?

as is Heterosexuality. Hormones in the womb and after birth have been shown to affect sexual orientation.

Show me a report on humans that demonstrates this. Which hormones? Who preformed the tests? What was the nature of the expiriment? What was the sample? What was the criteria for judging sexuality? etc

For instance, it has been shown that Lesbians are more likely to have been exposed to higher levels of testosterone in the womb than heterosexual women.

Please show me the tests.

 

[Legion]

http://more.abcnews.go.com/sections/living/dailynews/fingerlength000329.html

http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cach...stm+androgen+sexuality&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

As you can see Natoma sexuality is genetic as determined by the length of people's fingers

Notice the actual report, who conducted it, its outcome, the precission behind the test, their ability to be replicated, the foundation that funded the tests, who funded the foundation are never mentioned throughout the articles. Kind of makes you wonder why the BBC would post such information without bothering to substantiate it.

random quote

This is pretty laughable pseudoscience, right? Even an elementary school kid would be able to figure out that Xerox machines don't measure finger lengths accurately to within the thickness of a credit card. So why did this study ever get any attention? Who funded it? How could a professor at a respected educational institution dare to publish it under his own name? Why did a supposedly respectable scientific journal like Nature pay him money to print it? And why did TV networks, radio networks and newspapers all over the world report on it and treat it as though it were worthy of at least some kind of serious consideration? Better yet, why did they get so many facts wrong ("the index fingers of lesbians tend to be much shorter . . .") and omit so many completely devastating criticisms (like the extreme unlikelihood of a Xerox machine being able to produce consistent finger lengths to within the thickness of a credit card)? What is the news media's agenda here?

I never cease to be astounded by colleges who teach refuted garbage such as this to their students.

While looking over the iternet i have already run into various colleges who include the "discoveries" of the XQ28 gene sequence and its relation to homosexuality. Dean Hamer's Hq28 findings have been refuted dozens of times and it doesn't take a genius to see the logical flaws in his own reasoning.

Currently none of the biological studies have been replicated. Attempts have been made to replicate many of the results and those attempts have failed. In some cases the same researcher who originally found differences have tried to replicate their findings in larger samples but have failed to find a difference (eg., Bailey). While this doesn't disprove the biological hypothesis, it does make it impossible at this time to state that biology has "proven" anything. Currently the most we can say from a scientific standpoint is that evidence indicates a biological component to homosexuality, but that there is no conclusive evidence.

Current genetic theories

Genetics


Xq28
-indicates a potential genetic marker that predisposes the individual to homosexuality (Hu S. Pattatucci AM. Patterson C. Li L. Fulker DW. Cherny SS. Kruglyak L. Hamer DH. Linkage between sexual orientation and chromosome Xq28 in males but not in females. Nature Genetics. 11(3):248-56, 1995 Nov.; Hamer, D.H.. S. Hu, V.L. Magnuson, N. Hu and A.M.L. Pattatucci, "A Linkage Between DNA Markers on the X Chromosome and Male Sexual Orientation." Science 261(1993): 321-27.)

Twin studies
-- indicate that if one maternal twin is homosexual then the other is more likely to also be a homosexual, more so than fraternal twins, who, in turn, experience a greater liklikhood of having similar sexual orientations than non-twin siblings. (Bailey JM. Pillard RC. A genetic study of male sexual orientation [see comments]. Archives of General Psychiatry. 48(12):1089-96, 1991 Dec.; Bailey JM. Pillard RC. Neale MC. Agyei Y. Heritable factors influence sexual orientation in women. Archives of General Psychiatry. 50(3):217-23, 1993 Mar. ;Bailey JM. Pillard RC. Dawood K. Miller MB. Farrer LA. Trivedi S. Murphy RL. A family history study of male sexual orientation using three independent samples. ehavior Genetics. 29(2):79-86, 1999 Mar.)

Experimental: Drosophilia
.--switched sexual orientation of fruit flies by changing a single gene (w). (Zhang SD. Odenwald WF. Misexpression of the white (w) gene triggers male-male courtship in Drosophila. roceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 92(12):5525-9, 1995 Jun 6

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/narth/1996papers/berger.html

In a recent prominent but inflammatory article,{3} Isay indicated that he accepted the claims suggesting that there was a biological basis for male homosexuality, put forward by LeVay,{4} and Bailey and Pillard.{5} In May 1995, Isay appeared together on the same side as Hamer at a panel debate about the origins of homosexuality, apparently accepting the claims put forward by Hamer and his colleagues.{6} Unfortunately, none of the claims and work of these authors has been repeated and confirmed by others.

The methodology of some of these studies was shoddy, the claims were grossly exaggerated, the corroborative references brought by Bailey and Pillard did not support their conclusions, and the declared personal biases of these authors was to say the least, scientifically questionable.

These papers were published in conjunction with media publicity of a highly political nature{7} that raised serious questions about the scientific neutrality and credibility of the authors. Not only have the claims made in these papers not yet received any scientific confirmation, but serious errors and inadequacies have been convincingly demonstrated.{8}

http://www.gaytostraight.org/html/chapter2.pdf

 

[Natoma]

#1, obviously

Blue eyes and blond hair do not affect one's ability to survive in this world.

They also don't affect the ability to produce offspring. The aspects of "fit" are a bit more broad than your physical health.

You didn't make that point in your original post to which I responded. That's why I added my qualifier at the end wrt reproduction.

Sickle Cell Anemia is actually a genetic adaptation to invalidate the dangers of Malaria.

Which is obviously why I chose that as an example as something different than a physical or mental abnormality (which is what option 2 is about), as obviously it has both benefits and detriments.

Uhm, Sickle Cell Anemia is indeed a physical abnormality. I don't believe it's normal for one's red blood cells to be sickle shaped, causing clots in blood vessels, and massive pain in sufferers.

Now, if you want to argue that homosexuality has a deleterious effect on the survival of one's genes, i.e. spreading them to the next generation, then you can, as homosexuals cannot reproduce in homosexual relationships.

I have made that argument, or at least raised that possibility.

Only after I responded. That is when you went back and edited your original post, as evidenced by this in your following post:

Note that I changed the post you quoted to reflect that "fitness" is an open question.

I have no intention of editing my original post to take that into account. We can discuss this in later posts if you wish.

However, that is shot down quite easily by the fact that homosexuals are physically capable of reproduction, and if necessary could reproduce.

Shot down? The argument isn't what you could do, but what you do. If they don't reproduce, even if by choice, then the genes aren't passed on. Genetic conditions may leave members physically capable of reproducing, but if that condition lowers their chances for reproducing then it has evolutionary disadvantages. That much is clear, despite your assertion that it is "shot down."

Genetic conditions may leave members physically capable of reproducing, but if that condition lowers their chances for reproducing then it has evolutionary disadvantages? Uhm, care to rephrase that one?

What I'd like to know is your opinion on the possibly evolutionary benefits.

Sounds closer to option (3) than option (1) to me. I'm curious as to why it's so "obviously" option (1).

I know no evolutionary advantages or disadvantages to homosexuality. There are no obvious advantages or disadvantages to blue eyes and blond hair. Unless of course you're in a society whereby blue eyes and blond hair are deemed undesirable. Then you are dealing with a societal construct that impacts the survivability of the individuals in question. Just as in some societies today, homosexuality is deemed undesirable. But that has nothing to do with the biology as homosexuals are physically capable of reproducing, just as heterosexuals are. But then, if that makes us unfit, or less fit, then heterosexual couples that choose sterilization, or couples in which one participant is incapable of reproducing, or senior citizen couples which are incapable of reproducing, are also unfit, or less fit, than "normal" and "healthy" heterosexual child-rearing-age couples, simply because they cannot pass on their genes. Yea.....

But to continue your original posited thesis. There are obvious evolutionary "advantages" to sickle cell anemia to those with high risk to contracting malaria. There are obvious evolutionary "disadvantages" to those with missing limbs. So I suppose we should be trying to keep Sickle Cell Anemia around since it offers its hosts obvious evolutionary advantages, especially if they live in hot zones.

 

[zurich]

For the most part i agree with many of your arguments in support of homosexuality (this of course is aside to the fact i am bisexual). I do not allow my sexuality to interfere with such debates. I have made my decisions based on the logistics of society etc.

Legion, for all this shit you've given Natoma, you still haven't offered up one ounce of reasoning from your behalf on sexual orientation, its origins, etc.

Its pretty easy to be a critic and scream 'what tests, what proof, WHAT FCUKING PROOOF~!~@' when you haven't offered up anything yourself.

For most of us, it was pretty simple. At the age all our buddies were looking at the cheerleaders, we were looking at the football players

I'm surprised no one has brought up the 'gay voice' yet. I don't mean 'Will & Grace' Jack-lisps, but that certain pitch/tone/inflection that all homosexual/actual-bisexual men have, regardless of social construct. If anything, that right there screams genetics. If you don't know what I'm speaking of, then you obviously having logged in much time with queer men. I mean, anyone who's been out and active for a decent number of years can spot the poof about 5 seconds after they start talking. And whats interesting (to me atleast), is this isn't an English-speaking phenomenon.. UK-English, French, German, Dutch, Italian, Eastern-Bloc, you name it.

 

[Natoma]

I stated explicitly that the environment plays a role in reaching your full potential wrt to muscular development. But the capacity for that muscular development is inborn in us all. I stated this:

Then you have no reason to disagree with what i stated.

I didn't disagree with what you stated. I agreed completely with what you stated, and I brought up the parts of my original post in which I agreed with your statements. It was you who then took that and stated that I did not agree and you couldn't see why I was denying that environmental factors affected one's expressed musculature, not the capacity that one possessed to put on muscles.

First you stated that I was denying that environmental factors had something to do with expressed musculature. Then you went on to state once you saw that I addressed that point just a sentence later that I had no reason to state it in the first place. That's why I said in my prior post to you that you need to make up your mind wrt what you want me to do.

Sexuality isn't a genetically passed trait? Then how do you explain sexuality in nature and in human beings? How do you explain the need to procreate that every species exhibits?

Need to procreate? All humans have a need to procreate? Can you prove such a blanket and assinine statment?

I'll let any Bio-101 student handle this one.

Please demonstrate to me how any form of sexual orientation is passed on genetically while at the same time discussing the genes involved and or brain structures in sexual patterning as instinct.

I did Legion.

Sexuality is genetic. Homosexuality is an expression of that gene, as is Heterosexuality. Hormones in the womb and after birth have been shown to affect sexual orientation. For instance, it has been shown that Lesbians are more likely to have been exposed to higher levels of testosterone in the womb than heterosexual women. And gay men have been shown to be more likely exposed to less levels of testosterone in the womb than heterosexual men.

There have been studies shown that homosexual men are more likely to have older brothers, or a succession of them, due to the fact that women have a limited supply of testosterone. As more children are born, there is less testosterone supplied to each successive infant.

There have also been studies shown that there is a marked difference between the sizes of certain brain structures dealing with sexuality in homosexual men than heterosexual men. Homosexual men have brain structures that are more in line heterosexual women and Homosexual women have brain structures that are more in line with heterosexual men.

Science is coming out every day to prove a genetic/hormonal link to the expression of sexuality, even before we are born.

Satisfied? Or will I need to copy and paste this again a page from now when you state again that I haven't addressed your question.....

Not to mention extensive mating rituals that occur in nature, without the animals learning them. Or species that will travel thousands of miles to places that they have never been exposed to in order to mate? All of this is passed through their genes.

Please demonstrate to me how sexual patterned/posturing behavior is passed on in humans and which regions of the brain/genes are associated with these traits.

Please provide me with a list of genetic sexual behaviors while demonstrating them to be instinctual traits based on genetically in humans.

I never said that there was an analagous construct in human behavior wrt sexually patterned/posturing behavior. I merely stated that these things can and are indeed passed through genes, then gave examples of those instances. If they are passed along through genes in animals, then the possibility in us is the same

I can point you to many homosexuals who exhibited sexual arousal when they were little children,

And your point? What on earth does this prove? How does this prove there is some kind of genetic link between sexual orientation and genes? Please tell me? How can you say there isn't an eviromental cause for such behavior? Is age now a requirement for knowing genetic sexual determination?

Unless millions of homosexuals around the world in every country, land, fiefdom, city, village, town, etc all have the same exact environmental features, then there is no single environmental factor that can affect us all. However, there are certainly genetic/hormonal factors that can affect all human beings no matter where they are.

You being unaware that such feelings are sexual is really more an indication that sexuality is a learned trait then anything else.

I was unaware of what sexuality as a societal construct was. But I knew what I felt. I knew I was attracted to other boys. But I didn't know what it meant within the societally defined construct of sexuality.

The learned trait is the definition of sexuality in our society, not the behavior.

How do these behaviors come from your genes? The children explore their bodies as a process of learning and gathering information. They discover they feel sexual pleasure from stimulating various organs of their bodies. How is this genetic? Please explain in detail.

Every child in every environment does this. It is hardwired in all human beings to explore everything. It cannot be environmental because the environment changes everywhere you go. There has to be some other common denominator and that common denominator intrinsic to all human beings is DNA.

that sexuality eventually expressed? Through our exploration of that sexuality. We explore our sexuality until we figure out where we "fit" and that becomes our orientation.

If we figure out where we fit we are making a choice as to which sexual orientation to be. this is eviromental not genetic by your own admition.

Let me say this again. Expression of the sexuality that is innate to all humans is something that all humans do. Figuring out how society defines that expression is how we figure out what our orientation is. But that is merely a definition of the natural expression of our sexuality. The expression itself would still exist even without the societal definition.

I would still be sexually aroused by men even if the societal definition "Homosexual" had not created. You would still be sexually aroused by men and women if the societal definition of "Bisexual" had not been created.

I can't even grasp such a correlation.

And that, in elegant summation, is the problem.

1. we "discover" pleasure "centers" on our bodies as infants - which is in no way linked to the determination of sexuality as an infant has no awareness of this.

2. as we grow older we are taught to associate these centers with "sexuality" and sexual encounters.

3. Most don't grasp these concepts until they are some what older and their sex drive begins to manifest.

Indeed. I didn't grasp what I was feeling towards other boys until I hit puberty. That's when my understanding of my feelings emerged and I became aware of my homosexuality as a sexual construct. Before then I had simply known that looking at other boys and being with other boys made me feel "good" in a way that was different from being with girls.

p.s.: I don't know about your household, but sexuality wasn't "taught" in mine. I grew up in a deeply christian environment. Family, Friends, Church.

Denial of a massive level of enviromental stimuli within these growing years (acknowledging the openness of the child like mind to stimulus) is damned ridiculous and flies in the face of years of psychological research.

I never said that there wasn't any environmental stimuli. In fact I stated multiple times that I realized I was aroused by boys when I was younger, an arousal that did not occur with girls. I accepted this as normal and natural until I got older and realized what my feelings meant wrt society and my religion as a whole. That's when my psychological problems began as I wrestled with feelings that I wanted to get rid of in order to "fit in," but could not.

Orientation is merely a societal construct given to define sexuality.

Which is a clear indicator that it isn't genetically determined as it is an enviromental construct.

Orientation as a definition, NOT as a state of being. If there were no definition of what a male is, you would still be in your state of being would you not? If there were no definition of what an itch was, it would still be there would it not? Lack of definition or understanding does not negate existence.

Hence if a tree falls in a forest and no one hears it, it still does indeed make a sound.

There will be people sexually aroused to members of the same sex,

If you strip them of their sexual orientation this is impossible. Unless of course you can point out to me the genes related to sexual orientation.

If you strip the definition of sexual orientation away they are still sexual and still expressing that sexuality. Our society has merely defined that sexuality as "Orientation."

You do understand definitional constructs right?

 

[Natoma]

Apparently you are too lazy to read.

And you're a fuckwit who has less interest in a rational discussion than you do in pushing people's buttons. Just a few posts above you posted that this was "the first time I mentioned this." Perhaps you should clearly define "this" since I was referring to your statement that 99% of the population is bisexual.

Bigus Dickus. All I did was quote the link I gave you. That's all I did. "This" was obviously referring to the link I gave. And then when you expressed your flabbergasted opinion, I provided the text from that link so that you wouldn't have to click on it for yourself since it seems that was too difficult for you.

Bisexuality wrt attraction, NOT arousal.

Here, let me lay it out clearly for you, by selectively quoting you (which I know you love) to remove the irrelevant parts:

If you look at the numbers... simply attraction to someone else, then... Roughly 1% of the population... is exclusively homosexual or heterosexual...

Now, I have fully read and fully comprehend that this is with respect to sexual attraction, and not sexual arousal. The fact remains that you are defining sexual attraction as "simply attraction to someone else" and are claiming that 99% of the population falls into the bisexual category on these grounds. I absolutely, unambiguously disagree. You are very clearly stating that 99% of the population is, at least sometimes, attracted to people of the same sex. I would love to see any polls or other statistics that you could produce to support this assertion. 99% of the population might recognize attractiveness in people of the same sex, but that doesn't equate to being attracted to them.

Again, you are taking sexual attraction and trying to superimpose sexual arousal onto it. You clearly see the issue and yet you clearly are still making the same mistake. Maybe if I state it in another language you'll comprehend it a little better..

attraction != arousal

$attraction ne $arousal

attraction <> arousal

:?

Your banter about attraction and arousal are irrelevant, it is definitions you assign to them that are in question. Make all the distinctions you want about which terminology you apply to which statistics... I hold steadfast that the definitions you are using for that terminology is fundamentally flawed.

Here's the definition from Webster's dictionary, accepted English Canon.

Arousal: To stimulate sexual desire in

Attraction: The act or capability of attracting.

In the definition of attraction there is no mention of sexuality. In the definition of arousal there is a clear mention of sexuality. It seems that your beliefs are most certainly not in line with our language. Accept it or not, this is fact.

Again, you are not reading, or you are missing point, intentionally or not.

And there can be no doubt that you are intentionaly dodging the point, which again, is:

You continue to use a definition of bisexual which allows you to classify 99% of the population as such, but which 90% of the population would emphatically disagree with.

See any problems with such a definition?

As stated above, thank you very much English Canon, my usage of attraction and arousal are not erroneous. You will simply have to expand your understanding of these definitions as I did when I learned them years ago when I studied Psychology and the varying facets of the Human Sexual Response.

 

[Natoma]

http://more.abcnews.go.com/sections/living/dailynews/fingerlength000329.html

http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cach.../695142.stm+androgen+sexuality&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

As you can see Natoma sexuality is genetic as determined by the length of people's fingers

Actually the study concludes that the length of people's fingers can be used as an indicator of sexuality. There is a key difference in the way you're stating the findings and the way I'm stating the findings.

Dark skin is the result of extra melanin. Extra melanin is the result of dark skin. I am stating the former wrt the results while you are stating the latter.

And btw, I read that study on twins. It also found that when the twins are exposed to different environments in their lives, the chance of homosexuality is still higher between the twins than between fraternal homosexuals, suggesting a strong genetic component.

Also, I don't know if you're trying to disprove the link between genetics and homosexuality, but the study you gave with regard to Drosophila, i.e. the fruit fly, clearly shows a link. Are you sure you didn't copy and paste the wrong thing, since it seems that you are so intent on disproving a link between homosexuality and genetics?

Experimental: Drosophilia
.--switched sexual orientation of fruit flies by changing a single gene (w). (Zhang SD. Odenwald WF. Misexpression of the white (w) gene triggers male-male courtship in Drosophila. roceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 92(12):5525-9, 1995 Jun 6

What this basically states is that a genetic mutation can cause homosexuality, as can hormonal factors in the womb and post-birth (established earlier). But we all know that genetic mutation does not necessarily equate to bad. Blue eyes and blond hair, not to mention "whiteness" have been proven in recent years to be a genetic mutation caused by lack of sunlight as people migrated from the tropical regions of Africa and the asian subcontinents. But that certainly doesn't mean that blue eyed and blond haired people should be discriminated against, or receive the level of acrimony you and Bigus Dickus and others are dumping on homosexuals.

 

[Bigus Dickus]

#1, obviously

Blue eyes and blond hair do not affect one's ability to survive in this world.

They also don't affect the ability to produce offspring. The aspects of "fit" are a bit more broad than your physical health.

You didn't make that point in your original post to which I responded. That's why I added my qualifier at the end wrt reproduction.

"Original post?" Mind clarifying precisely which one you're referencing? If it's the one beginning "I wonder..." than I specifically used the term evolutionary advantages to cover all aspects of individual and group fitness, including reproductive success (a large indicator - perhaps the most important of all - of evolutionary fitness).

Or were you referring to the next one, in which I stated "Perhaps you would like to argue that being homosexual does confer evolutionary benefits (such as being more attractive to the opposite sex for whatever reasons). This reference to attractiveness is obviously related to reproductive success. You think peacocks have bright tail feathers just because the attention from the females? Not in and of itself... it's the benefit to reproduction that is key. I shouldn't have to spell this out for you.

Uhm, Sickle Cell Anemia is indeed a physical abnormality. I don't believe it's normal for one's red blood cells to be sickle shaped, causing clots in blood vessels, and massive pain in sufferers.

Are you seriously going to pursue this line of sillyness? Of course it's a physical abnormality. I was offering it as a different classification than the lack of a limb or Down's Syndrome because of it's more complicated evolutionary status, seeing as how it conveys both positives and negatives on its bearer. That isn't the case with a random mutation leading to the birth of a child with no arms. I can't believe that I would choose this as an example and a separate category precisely because of the more complex evolutionary nature of this disorder, only to have you lecture me on what the disorder is and argue over what my point was. Something about not reading or comprehending comes to mind.

Now, if you want to argue that homosexuality has a deleterious effect on the survival of one's genes, i.e. spreading them to the next generation, then you can, as homosexuals cannot reproduce in homosexual relationships.

I have made that argument, or at least raised that possibility.

Only after I responded. That is when you went back and edited your original post, as evidenced by this in your following post:

Note that I changed the post you quoted to reflect that "fitness" is an open question.

I have no intention of editing my original post to take that into account. We can discuss this in later posts if you wish.

Biological fitness is more expansive than physical fitness. It includes reproductive fitness, and that assessment must include any mental or physical aspects that might prevent an otherwise healthy individual from reproducing.

BTW, you were too lazy to actually read the changes I had made. You quoted my post in its entirety, and could have easily made the comparison. I changed "is" and "does" to "may be" and "may." That's it. You are suggesting I somehow added new material... that isn't the case at all.

Shot down? The argument isn't what you could do, but what you do. If they don't reproduce, even if by choice, then the genes aren't passed on. Genetic conditions may leave members physically capable of reproducing, but if that condition lowers their chances for reproducing then it has evolutionary disadvantages. That much is clear, despite your assertion that it is "shot down."

Genetic conditions may leave members physically capable of reproducing, but if that condition lowers their chances for reproducing then it has evolutionary disadvantages? Uhm, care to rephrase that one?

No need, I meant precisely what I wrote. Comprehension problems? You might be physically capable of reproducing, but if a genetic condition renders you horribly disfigured or mentally unstable to such a degree that either you don't want to mate or other individuals don't want to mate with you, then by all means that genetic condition represents an evolutionary disadvantage. Them's the facts.

Take your own advice... go back and read it a few times and then come back when you understand.

I know no evolutionary advantages or disadvantages to homosexuality.

Erm... a condition that leaves it's carriers unwilling to reproduce. Yep, I can't think of a single evolutionary disadvantage of such a condition.

But then, if that makes us unfit, or less fit, then heterosexual couples that choose sterilization, or couples in which one participant is incapable of reproducing, or senior citizen couples which are incapable of reproducing, are also unfit, or less fit, than "normal" and "healthy" heterosexual child-rearing-age couples, simply because they cannot pass on their genes. Yea.....

If there were a gentic condition that made people unanimously choose sterilization, that condition would quickly be bred out of the population. Ever wonder why genetic disorders tend to strike older people much more often than younger people? If the disorder struck when early, and the person couldn't reproduce, then the disorder would cause its own downfall. The two examples you gave illustrate perfectly the complexity of biological fitness. Though you were being sarcastic, you were spot on.

But to continue your original posited thesis. There are obvious evolutionary "advantages" to sickle cell anemia to those with high risk to contracting malaria. There are obvious evolutionary "disadvantages" to those with missing limbs. So I suppose we should be trying to keep Sickle Cell Anemia around since it offers its hosts obvious evolutionary advantages, especially if they live in hot zones.

Not if we can reproduce the benefits of the disorder without the disadvantages.

 

[Bigus Dickus]

Apparently you are too lazy to read.

And you're a fuckwit who has less interest in a rational discussion than you do in pushing people's buttons. Just a few posts above you posted that this was "the first time I mentioned this." Perhaps you should clearly define "this" since I was referring to your statement that 99% of the population is bisexual.

Bigus Dickus. All I did was quote the link I gave you. That's all I did. "This" was obviously referring to the link I gave. And then when you expressed your flabbergasted opinion, I provided the text from that link so that you wouldn't have to click on it for yourself since it seems that was too difficult for you.

No, you made a statement to the effect of your "very first post" on this subject (attraction vs. arousal), and then provided a link of what was presumably that "very first post." I was flabbergasted because it clearly wasn't your "very first post" on the subject, evidenced by the post three pages earlier where you first brought up the topic. And then you tell me I'm too lazy to read... while you're too lazy to go back and check when and where you said what. Go figure.

Again, you are taking sexual attraction and trying to superimpose sexual arousal onto it. You clearly see the issue and yet you clearly are still making the same mistake. Maybe if I state it in another language you'll comprehend it a little better..

attraction != arousal

$attraction ne $arousal

attraction <> arousal

:?

I'm not making a mistake, I'm disagreeing with you. In the proper context of this discussion:

attraction != recognizing attractiveness

$attraction ne $recognizing attractiveness

attraction <> recognizing attractiveness

:?

Here's the definition from Webster's dictionary, accepted English Canon.

Arousal: To stimulate sexual desire in

Attraction: The act or capability of attracting.

In the definition of attraction there is no mention of sexuality. In the definition of arousal there is a clear mention of sexuality. It seems that your beliefs are most certainly not in line with our language. Accept it or not, this is fact.

Do you not see that attraction has two implied defnitions there? I am using the first, you are using the second. It has nothing to do with whether it mentions sexuality or not, the issue is whether attraction is a capability, or an action/reaction. As I've stated a dozen times now, being attractive does not dictate that another individual actually be attracted to him/her. Recognizing attractiveness as a capability or quality of one individual does not dictate that you are attracted to them as an act or state of your own personal being. The two are separate, as indicated by the definitions you provided.

And that is my point all along. You are mixing or combining the two distinctly different definitions and then applying a result (bisexual) of satisfying one of them (attraction -act) to the other (attraction - capability or quality).

And personally, I don't think this mixing of definitions on your part of that of the psychology texts is innocent. It seems done to convince people that bisexual tendancies are widespread and common - the de facto state of being. It is not. Twist definitions however you will... it won't change the facts.

As stated above, thank you very much English Canon, my usage of attraction and arousal are not erroneous.

Not technically erroneous, just intentionally misleading.

 

[Legion]

I'll let any Bio-101 student handle this one.

Then it should't be a problem to demonstrate to me that all humans have the desire procreate.

I did Legion.

No you didn't natoma. You explained what you believe happens.

I don't recall seeing anywhere you citing genes, brain structures, scientific research, etc.

Natoma wrote:
Sexuality is genetic. Homosexuality is an expression of that gene, as is Heterosexuality. Hormones in the womb and after birth have been shown to affect sexual orientation. For instance, it has been shown that Lesbians are more likely to have been exposed to higher levels of testosterone in the womb than heterosexual women. And gay men have been shown to be more likely exposed to less levels of testosterone in the womb than heterosexual men.

to which i replied:

How is an expression of a sex drive an indicator of the determination of sexual orientation? How does sex drive predetermine your sexual orientation?

How many times do i have to ask you these questions before you answer them?

You have failed to answer the question Natoma.

How is an expression of a sex drive an indicator of the determination of sexual orientation?

You haven't answered this question.

What you said indicates you believe there is some kind of correlation between genetically affected sex drive and sexual orientation. Have you anywhere in this entire debate proven and association between sex drive and sexual orientations that proves sex drive determines sexual orientation?

No you haven't.

I asked you to back up these claims about hormones affecting sexual orientation. You haven't done this.

I infact took the initiative to provide you with links to such research and critiques/refutations of the them demonstrating the lack of authenticity of the researchers claims.

Please at any time show me a report that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt androgens affect sexuality.

There have been studies shown that homosexual men are more likely to have older brothers, or a succession of them, due to the fact that women have a limited supply of testosterone. As more children are born, there is less testosterone supplied to each successive infant.

You are correct and they have been rather bogus. The ability to post reports says nothing about their accuracy Natoma.

The most noteble of these such tests are Dean Hamer's Xq28 research, Bailey and Pillards research on brothers, and Marc Breedlove's reports on androgens.

None of these reports have ever been substantiated. No one has been able to replicate their studies objectively with nonbiased samples. Such is also true with Simon LeVay and his research on INAH-2/3.

There have also been studies shown that there is a marked difference between the sizes of certain brain structures dealing with sexuality in homosexual men than heterosexual men.

Ah the infamous INAH-2/3 scam.

Simon Levay conducted research on people based on his findings in rats

His discovery was that an area of the Hypothalemus affected sexual posturing in rats. By altering the size of said sectors one could affect how these rats behaved in sexual encounters (whether or not they took on male/female esque sexual positions).

His emmediate baseless assumption was that if the rats were affected humans could be affected in the same way. Of course humans do not have instinctual behavioral sexual postering. No such system has ever been demonstrated to exist within humans. His findings didn't support his over all claim rather pointed a figure at his clear lack of scientific method.

However, there are numerous problems with Levay's study which have clouded the reliability of his findings. It is quite possible that the correlation of INAH 3 volume and sexual orientation are due to confounding factors such as AIDS (3). This casts doubt on already ambiguous results of whether or not sexual orientation is caused by brain differences or whether the samples LeVay used were unreliable due to the degenerative effects of AIDS on the brain. The latter, however, is unlikely, since LeVay's control subjects were also men who had died of AIDS. Another problem with LeVay's study was that the INAH 2 was not dimorphic although it was predicted to be. As mentioned above, the INAH 2 was twice as large in the male brain than in the female brain and LeVay expected to see smaller INAH 2 nuclei in homosexual men (6). LeVay did not find a significant difference in the size of the INAH 2 of homosexual and heterosexual men (7). The existence of exceptions in Levay's study also challenges his conclusions. For example, he found heterosexual men with small INAH-3 nuclei and homosexual men with very large INAH-3 nuclei. Other questions have also been raised about the ambiguous nature of the sexual histories of his subjects. A common argument that disputes LeVay's research is his dualistic view of sexuality. LeVay's subjects are labeled as either homosexual or heterosexual. Although this make research simpler, it is unlikely that division works well in the real world (1) . Sexuality would best be defined with as continuum with varying degrees of behavior (1).

even if these said structures in said forms were found in many of the members of the homosexual community would such a finding provide evidence for genetic determinism?

I would say no based on just this information alone. Simply because they may share some characteristics doesn't mean those characteristics are the cause of their behavior. Perhaps they are the effect of said behavior.

Unless a system can be demonstrated that links such structures to the inclination of homosexuality such research is meaningless.

Homosexual men have brain structures that are more in line heterosexual women and Homosexual women have brain structures that are more in line with heterosexual men.

Actually i posted a link above concerning this information.

How does the overall shape of their brain affect their sexuality? Was that what the research was geared to show? No. The research in question (done by Marc Breedlove) merely suggested a portion of 700 or so homosexuals had female like brain structuring. This in no way demonstrates how or why the other homosexuals who didn't share such structures were homosexual or for that matter how the structures effected their sexual orientation. correlation doesn't equal causation

I would say right off the bat his sample is corrupt. He needed to gather people with said brain structures and then do research based on the prior knowledge of these individuals having these selected brain structures. Randomly grabbing people from a crowd or so and researching them as one collective category is a flawed method.

Science is coming out every day to prove a genetic/hormonal link to the expression of sexuality, even before we are born.

Really? Why is it their research is admittedly inconclusive ?

Satisfied? Or will I need to copy and paste this again a page from now when you state again that I haven't addressed your question.....

Do i sound satisfied?

I never said that there was an analagous construct in human behavior wrt sexually patterned/posturing behavior. I merely stated that these things can and are indeed passed through genes, then gave examples of those instances.

Well i am just asking for examples

If they are passed along through genes in animals, then the possibility in us is the same

Yet no one has ever demonstrated such a thing to exist?

Unless millions of homosexuals around the world in every country, land, fiefdom, city, village, town, etc all have the same exact environmental features, then there is no single environmental factor that can affect us all.

Are you limitting the enviromental affects that could cause or incourage homosexuality??? Why would all homosexuals have to share similiar experiences? What exactly does similiar entail? How does being similiar limit the number of like factors? What does it limit them to? Hundreds, thousands, millions, billions? Is it not possible that we infact do share many enviromental factors? You appear to right this off as impossible.

However, there are certainly genetic/hormonal factors that can affect all human beings no matter where they are.

You mean those i disputed/refuted ?

[quiet]I was unaware of what sexuality as a societal construct was. But I knew what I felt. I knew I was attracted to other boys. But I didn't know what it meant within the societally defined construct of sexuality.[/quote]

Hell thats all the scientific evidence we need natoma. Your feelings.

I explained before the mere notion that you had experienced sexuality at the age of 7 doesn't mean you were genetically determined to be that way.

The learned trait is the definition of sexuality in our society, not the behavior.

Actually i 100% disagree with that. Sexuality in its many forms (especially in the case of sexual positions) is learned.

Every child in every environment does this. It is hardwired in all human beings to explore everything. It cannot be environmental because the environment changes everywhere you go.

I don't agree with that. A child's interpritation of "enviroment" at young ages do to their obvious limitations restricts them at first to self exploration. This is true across the board. Where as some of an infants behaviors can be seen as instinct i wouldn't say all of what they do is 100% motivated by instinct.

The mere fact that a child may explore itself as an infant in no way correlates with its ultimate sexual orientation. If you think this provide research that establishes various infantile instincts to the progression of certain sexual orientations.

There has to be some other common denominator and that common denominator intrinsic to all human beings is DNA.

No there doesn't have to be.

Let me say this again. Expression of the sexuality that is innate to all humans is something that all humans do.

I am glad that you did choose to say this again as it gives me yet another chance to walk you throw this.

What you call "expression of sexuality" in infant behavior seen as masterbation in no way way correlates with sexual orientation. Most infants do infact "masterbate" as a response to the pleasurable sensation gathered by touching their genitals.

How do you see this as behavior leading to some form of sexual orientation? Most infants do this. Are we to assume based on this most infants should be of a certain sexual orientation?

Figuring out how society defines that expression is how we figure out what our orientation is.

It has been demonstrated people do change their sexual orientations. How do you account for this? Spontaneous mutation?

Can you provide for me conclusive evidence that suggests orientation is predetermined and is inflexible?

But that is merely a definition of the natural expression of our sexuality. The expression itself would still exist even without the societal definition.

Based on your presuppositions alone of course.

I would still be sexually aroused by men even if the societal definition "Homosexual" had not created. You would still be sexually aroused by men and women if the societal definition of "Bisexual" had not been created.

And have i always been attracted to men and woman? Which came first natoma? Men or Women?

Bisexuality has always thrown a monkey wrench into the works when concerning genetic sexual orienation. Many researchers just label people like my self as "gay", "straight", or "irrelevant" as it makes doctoring their figures easier. Simon Levay knows a lot about this.

And that, in elegant summation, is the problem.

Most likely do to the nebulous nature or your "supporting facts" and your inability to correlate data with your personal beliefs.

cheap shot acknowledged

Indeed. I didn't grasp what I was feeling towards other boys until I hit puberty.

Indeed. I was pointing out holes in your argumentation.

That's when my understanding of my feelings emerged and I became aware of my homosexuality as a sexual construct.

No this is when you became aware of sexuality and formed the basis of your falacious argument in support of genetic determinism.

Before then I had simply known that looking at other boys and being with other boys made me feel "good" in a way that was different from being with girls.

Natoma this is why i throw such nonsense out the door when i debate sexual orientation.

You definition of "feel good" in no way correlates how you felt with sexuality. Of course you will say that was so igorning all possible enviromental factors.

[/quote]p.s.: I don't know about your household, but sexuality wasn't "taught" in mine. I grew up in a deeply christian environment. Family, Friends, Church.[/quote]

And they never said a word to you about sexuality nor could have affected your sexuality in any way viewed as enviromental

Natoma please explain to me how your genes knew you were hanging out with boys so they could stimulate your pleasure center/libido inorder for you to make such a correlation between being with them and sexual inclinations. Are you suggesting they know the difference between male/female?

Male and female are societal constructs for humans. You are not born with the knowledge of a difference between male and female. How on earth are your genes some how aware of the visual appearance of females or males? How do your genes identify with sex?

I never said that there wasn't any environmental stimuli. In fact I stated multiple times that I realized I was aroused by boys when I was younger, an arousal that did not occur with girls. I accepted this as normal and natural until I got older and realized what my feelings meant wrt society and my religion as a whole. That's when my psychological problems began as I wrestled with feelings that I wanted to get rid of in order to "fit in," but could not.

This has been your argument for genetic determinism thus far. You have stated your sexual orientation is genetic thus a denial of enviromental determinism by default.

Many people have problems ajusting their sexual behaviors. This of course is not to say they can't be 100% alerted.

Such has been demonstrated within paedophiles who have engaged in such sexual orientation for a good portion of their life. It becomes addicting. This is not evidence of genetic determinism either - unless of course you want to entertain the notion that paedophilia is gentically determined among other less accepted sexual behaviors.

If there were no definition of what a male is, you would still be in your state of being would you not?

I am so tempted just to completely omitt these comments.

If there was no such thing as male; meaning i had no inclination of myself as being different from the opposite sex (or for that matter the realization that the opposite sex exists) my sexual orientation couldn't exist. I would in no way be able to preceive the difference between myself and the other sex.

What would i be attracted to? How would i be attracted to it? How would i identify with female if i have no capacity to understand what male or female are?

This refers back to what i said about genes. How are genes aware of the sexes, sexuality, or sexual orientation? How then could they respond to enviromental simuli to single a sexual reaction to something they have the capacity to realize exists?

If there were no definition of what an itch was, it would still be there would it not? Lack of definition or understanding does not negate existence.

true. BUt it the concept did not we couldn't preceive it.

If you strip the definition of sexual orientation away they are still sexual and still expressing that sexuality.

No this isn't true. If you cut out their sexual orientation they haven't the ability to react with others in sexual encouters.

 

[Legion]

Actually the study concludes that the length of people's fingers can be used as an indicator of sexuality. There is a key difference in the way you're stating the findings and the way I'm stating the findings.

Are you suggesting that this information is valid? How absurd. How on earth could the length of a person's fingures pose as evidence for their sexuality.

No where in those articles is there even a suggestion or basis for the belief in such nonsense that is substantiated by facts.

Come on Natoma! This is a clear example of the correlation equals caussations fallacy. If i porposed a report that suggested homosexuals have larger appendixes then most average men does that mean larger appendixes are an indicator of homosexuality as part of the cause

If my data can in no way be replicated it is clearly wrong. Nor can i suggest how on earth a link to homosexuality would exist in the size on one's appendix.

Jesus Christ.

Dark skin is the result of extra melanin. Extra melanin is the result of dark skin. I am stating the former wrt the results while you are stating the latter.

No Natoma what you are saying is this:

1. Set A (homosexual males) have certain brain structure x
2. Set B (straight women) shares certain brain structure x
3. Set [A B] structure must be linked some how to their cause of sexual orientation

What i am saying:

1. Set A (Homosexual males) have certain brain structure or trait x
2. Set B (strait women) have certain brain structure or trait x
3. Set [A B] share x

4. Set C (homosexual males) have certain brain structure or trait y
5. Set D (strait males) have certain brain stucture or trait y
6. Set [C D] share y but not homosexuality

7. Set E (straight males) have brain structure or trait x
8. Set B have brain structure or trait x
9. Set [B E] share x but not sexual orientation

10. Set A are homosexual
11. Set C are homosexual
12. Set [A C] have homosexuality incommon but not x and y.

13. Set E are strait males
14. Set A are homosexual males
15. Set [A E] share x but not homosexuality

16. brain structure or trait x/y can not be demonstrated as the cause of homosexuality
17. report inconclusive.

And btw, I read that study on twins.

B and P's ?

It also found that when the twins are exposed to different environments in their lives, the chance of homosexuality is still higher between the twins than between fraternal homosexuals, suggesting a strong genetic component.

Bailey and Pillard tested children from the same enviroment.

Also there are other major flaws:

monozygotic twins are 99.99999999999999% if not 100% identical gentically. What accounts for only a 52% match up ???

They should expect 99.99999999999% accuracy if not 100%!

This should be your clue something is very wrong.

Along with the adopted child category being higher then the "other" related chategory which happens to be damn goofy.

If i have the same father but different mother or same mother and father i should share at least 50% or so genetic background as my brother. Why then does the category demonstrate 9.5% match up? The adoptive brother category was at ~11%.

If my brother and i are dizygotic twins the same is true yet the match up was only 22%.

I would say this is highly inconclusive Natoma.

Also, I don't know if you're trying to disprove the link between genetics and homosexuality,

No. I am just stating there hasn't been any supported evidence thus far that suggest this. Only the mere possibility currently stands.

but the study you gave with regard to Drosophila, i.e. the fruit fly, clearly shows a link.

In fruit flies.......

Are you sure you didn't copy and paste the wrong thing, since it seems that you are so intent on disproving a link between homosexuality and genetics?

No. I was never suggesting that other animals don't have genetically determined orientation. My main argument is that such can not be demonstrated in humans.

What this basically states is that a genetic mutation can cause homosexuality,

in fruit flies.

as can hormonal factors in the womb and post-birth (established earlier). But we all know that genetic mutation does not necessarily equate to bad.

This test was done on fruit flies not humans.

 

[Natoma]

Bigus Dickus and Legion:

You know, I told myself that I'd log in to see what levels of comic entanglement you two would provide for me this morn. Now that I've seen it, I honestly don't know whether to laugh or cry, or both.

But just a quick answer to a few basic problems you two are positing (mainly because I have to get to work. I'd indulge you a little longer if I were on vacation, but alas I cannot anymore).

Legion: So you're stating unequivocably that a condition cannot exist without its definition? I suppose new diseases don't exist unless they are defined by man. I suppose people weren't dying from SARS last year because SARS hadn't been defined yet.

I suppose the earth going around the sun didn't exist because we had not defined planetary revolution yet. I suppose Venus was indeed a star at first because humans had defined it as a star, and before that it did not exist at all.

Orientation is the definition provided by society to explain sexual expression. It is not the actual embodiment of sexual expression. You can have a sexual expression without the label "bisexual" or "heterosexual" or "homosexual" attached. They are descriptors Legion. I can't believe how basic this is and you can't grasp this.

p.s.: Yes, you still would have the state of existence of "male" even if "male" was not defined by our society. You would still have male genitalia for instance. Male/Female are, again, classifications given by society in order to define our existence as organisms.

p.p.s.: Fruit Fly DNA is extremely close to mans. That's why genetic experiments are performed on Fruit Fly's all the time. That and because generations can pass by in a matter of mere weeks, giving the scientists ample time to study the effects of turning one gene off in favor of another. Most human genetic ailments/remedies are discovered in fruit flys first, translated to higher organisms such as pigs (who also share a very close genetic structure with humans), and then, if there is a medical application, human trials.

The early implications of these tests suggest a strong genetic/hormonal corrolation between Sexuality and Expression of that Sexuality in human beings.

Bigus Dickus:

I can't believe you're actually arguing against me and English Canon wrt the definitions of Attraction and Arousal. I mean, you're actually going to sit there and be that stubborn?

Here is what I stated before:

Here's the definition from Webster's dictionary, accepted English Canon.

Arousal: To stimulate sexual desire in

Attraction: The act or capability of attracting.

In the definition of attraction there is no mention of sexuality. In the definition of arousal there is a clear mention of sexuality. It seems that your beliefs are most certainly not in line with our language. Accept it or not, this is fact.

You're honestly going to sit there and say I'm trying to imply something else when I specifically stated that Attraction is completely separate from Arousal and should be treated as such?

0 - 100% heterosexual arousal. No response to members of the same sex
1 - 100% heterosexual arousal. Physical attraction (not arousal, big difference) to members of the same sex.
2 - Predominantly heterosexual arousal. Occassional dreams featuring sexual arousal by members of the same sex, and/or occassional real world sexual arousal by members of the same sex.
3 - Bisexual. Sexual arousal by members of both sexes equally
4 - Predominantly homosexual arousal. Occassional dreams featuring sexual arousal by members of the same sex, and/or occassional real world sexual arousal by members of the opposite sex.
5 - 100% homosexual arousal. Physical attraction (not arousal, big difference) to members of the opposite sex.
6 - 100% homosexual arousal. No response to members of the same sex.

I have been making these statements (finally laid out in chart form in the post I took this quote from) since my original post on this subject. You want to tell me where I'm implying anything other than what is stated, along the lines of how attraction and arousal are defined by english canon, and subsequently my usage of those terms?

If Zebra is defined as a horse-like creature with stripes and I say that I saw a Zebra yesterday according to the English Canon definition of Zebra, you would tell me I'm implying I saw a Mule, when that's obviously not the case. I really, truly, honestly, do not have a clue as to whether or not I should be laughing or crying at this. But I'm definitely doing both atm. Good lord you two.......

 

[Legion]

Bigus Dickus and Legion:

You know, I told myself that I'd log in to see what levels of comic entanglement you two would provide for me this morn. Now that I've seen it, I honestly don't know whether to laugh or cry, or both.

Laugh about your style of argumentation and cry about your lack of substantive claims.

But just a quick answer to a few basic problems you two are positing.

Legion: So you're stating unequivocably that a condition cannot exist without its definition? I suppose new diseases don't exist unless they are defined by man. I suppose people weren't dying from SARS last year because SARS hadn't been defined yet.

I have been pointing out to you many things cocerning the lack of any real evidence for genetic sexual orientation.

I have done so by demonstrating: the nature of shotty research, the lack of a basis for sexual patterning in humans, the inability to replicate researchers findings, the absurdity of researchers claims, the lack of necessary mechanisms to explain researchers findings, etc.

I suppose the earth going around the sun didn't exist because we had not defined planetary revolution yet. I suppose Venus was indeed a star at first because humans had defined it as a star, and before that it did not exist at all.

Lol it most certainly does exist but without prior knowledge or evidence you couldn'tt accurately claim this. In the end, if you guessed the earth revolves around the sun you would be correct - you would have just happened to guess correctly.

Since researchers and their "findings" lack substance, lack mechanisms, etc no one can state sexual orientation is genetic conclusively.

Orientation is the definition provided by society to explain sexual expression. It is not the actual embodiment of sexual expression. You can have a sexual expression without the label "bisexual" or "heterosexual" or "homosexual" attached. They are descriptors Legion. I can't believe how basic this is and you can't grasp this.

You clearly missed what i was trying to point out to you Natoma. This however is nothing new.

If there was no such thing as sexual identity sexual orientation and expression would be very limited outside of one's self.

p.s.: Yes, you still would have the state of existence of "male" even if "male" was not defined by our society.

Lol what difference does it make if male exists if we can not perceive it? No sexual arousing trait could be ascribed to a non perceivable entity

You would still have male genitalia for instance. Male/Female are, again, classifications given by society in order to define our existence as organisms.

If we couldn't identify sexes Natoma it should go hand in hand logically that one couldn't realize the difference in genitals.

With the point made. How do our genes recognize sex? How do they apply sexual arousing reactions to stimuli they can't interprit?

Fruit Fly DNA is extremely close to mans.

You point? As if the variation between our genes accounts for nothing

I think you are coveniently omitting reason for the sake of proposed similiarities.

Seeing that humans lack such sexual posturing instincts and the involving characteristics of such it appears very difficult to make an argument for the alteration by mutation of one's brain structure/gene structure affecting a feature that clearly doesn't exist within humans.

That's why genetic experiments are performed on Fruit Fly's all the time. That and because generations can pass by in a matter of mere weeks, giving the scientists ample time to study the effects of turning one gene off in favor of another.

Natoma has it occured to you that there is quite a substantial difference in sexual behavior/structure between humans and fruit flies? It is easily proven that fruit flies have instinctual behaviors that are preformed during sexual encounters. Humans however do not have such behaviors. How then does one link the two when the claim's validity rests on the assumption both humans and fruit flies share some kind of similiar sexual patterning genes/structures?

If humans and fruit flies share ~98% genetic sequences and the whole number of sequences translates to X number of sequences then there are .02x sequences they do not share. Obviously the larger number of total sequences dramatically affects the figure of .02x. If there are over 100 million total sequences then that .02x translates to over 2,000,000 sequences. Considering all of these sequences do not affect all the same "parts" it is safe to say by division .02x could account for a lot in terms of brain developement.

Most human genetic ailments/remedies are discovered in fruit flys first, translated to higher organisms such as pigs (who also share a very close genetic structure with humans), and then, if there is a medical application, human trials.

This is true. However my point true also.

The early implications of these tests suggest a strong genetic/hormonal corrolation between Sexuality and Expression of that Sexuality in human beings.

No actually they don't and can't. Hence the reason they haven't been replicated sufficiently.

 

[Bigus Dickus]

Bigus Dickus and Legion:

You know, I told myself that I'd log in to see what levels of comic entanglement you two would provide for me this morn. Now that I've seen it, I honestly don't know whether to laugh or cry, or both.

Whatever is required for you to feel better about yourself and your arguments... by all means, go ahead.

Bigus Dickus:

I can't believe you're actually arguing against me and English Canon wrt the definitions of Attraction and Arousal. I mean, you're actually going to sit there and be that stubborn?

I'm not arguing against English Canon at all. You posted the definitions which back up my argument, thank you very much. What you posted clearly contained two definitions for attraction, and you are repeatedly ignoring one of them, and applying the other incorrectly to your statistics. I've pointed this out to you numerous times now, and you still insist on applying the wrong definition to the statistics. I mean, you're actually going to sit there and be that stubborn?

You're honestly going to sit there and say I'm trying to imply something else when I specifically stated that Attraction is completely separate from Arousal and should be treated as such?

Yawn. Were you too lazy to read where I explicitly stated that the distinction between arousal and attraction isn't in dispute, but rather your inappropriate use of one of the definitions of attraction? You obviously have some difficulty with reading, since I've made that clear in about a dozen posts now.

I've found that people who can't logically support their argument try to repeatedly steer the arguement in irrelevant directions. You are the poster child for this behavior.

You want to tell me where I'm implying anything other than what is stated, along the lines of how attraction and arousal are defined by english canon, and subsequently my usage of those terms?

Sure.

0 - 100% heterosexual arousal. No response to members of the same sex

You've defined this category as being unable to identify attractiveness in members of the same sex.

1 - 100% heterosexual arousal. Physical attraction (not arousal, big difference) to members of the same sex.

This follows the first definition of attraction you provided. That definition is innapropriate with the limited number of categories you have outlined. Where is a category containing the second definition of attraction? Why leave it out entirely? It is a separate definition, and should require a separate category. If that were the case, and the label "bisexual" were limited to the categories you have explicitly stated it is appropriate for, then the percentage would drop from 99% to something like 10% or 20%, depending on the source for your statistics.

You're manipulating the language to try and make the statistics say what you want them to say, and throwing in idiotic and irrelevant analogies to boot. Par for the course.

 

[London Geezer]

You're manipulating the language to try and make the statistics say what you want them to say, and throwing in idiotic and irrelevant analogies to boot. Par for the course.

Isn't that what pretty much what everyone using statistics to prove their arguments do anyway? statistics are there for "some" people to be used as apparent "mathematical proofs" to any kind of argument. the fact that statistics are mostly useless for the majority of the aspects they are used for is irrelevant. especially when using statistics to prove some kind of human behaviour, which by nature is as chaotic and random as it can be...

havent read the whole thread, too long, and too deep into a discussion between u guys to add anything that hasnt been said before. so here's my contribution.

 

[Legion]

You're manipulating the language to try and make the statistics say what you want them to say, and throwing in idiotic and irrelevant analogies to boot. Par for the course.

Isn't that what pretty much what everyone using statistics to prove their arguments do anyway? statistics are there for "some" people to be used as apparent "mathematical proofs" to any kind of argument. the fact that statistics are mostly useless for the majority of the aspects they are used for is irrelevant. especially when using statistics to prove some kind of human behaviour, which by nature is as chaotic and random as it can be...

havent read the whole thread, too long, and too deep into a discussion between u guys to add anything that hasnt been said before. so here's my contribution.

Is it true that england statistically has women with the largest breasts in europe?

 

[mboeller]

Is sodomy the thing you do when you are sleeping?
I do that a lot in my room.

errr....I'm just guessing that sleep and sodomy don't mix easily. Nothing would wake me from slumber quicker than somebody attempting to stick something up my bum.

Sodomy is generally defined as sex other than Vaginal. Anal *and* Oral qualify in some states, fyi.

I'm not willing to read the 12 pages of this thread, but when I first read about sodomy, I thought what a strange state to allow sodomy, but as it seems we have an very different definition of the word sodomy.


In germany sodomy is forbidden too, but Sodomie in germany means sex between human and animal !


So maybe the bestiality aspect of the english definition of sodomy comes from the different definition in other countries.


So if you engage an man/woman in germany don't try to have sodomy with them.

 

[London Geezer]

Is it true that england statistically has women with the largest breasts in europe?

well, i wouldnt know, and i wouldnt really care anyway

still, see, if it were true, what a load of BS.... we all know Italians have the biggest breasts...

 

[Ty]

still, see, if it were true, what a load of BS.... we all know Italians have the biggest breasts...

But what about the women?