gilgigamesh

Repeat article number 2. If you can't debate with this, I give up. We'll go back to talking about gays.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=
I tried posting a message (2004-07-12 05:06:29 PM) which I will shortly submit to IDG Books under the title 3rd World Bribery For Dummies.

The sad fact is, this is a non-story that was puffed up by Capitol Hill Blue.

"Bbbbuttt!!!! The bribery! The corruption! PPPeople paid off!!!"

Sit down my son. Dig into the financials of ANY large multinational company and you will find very large payments to various lawyers and other consulting agencies and middlemen through the subsidiaries of these companies in the developing world. As mentioned above, this is, to put it delicately, bribe money.

I repeat, if Halliburton did anything wrong, it was to leave a paper trail which incriminates the head office. Bad!!!

The consequence of this is, Halliburton will be found guilty and fined. If Cheney is made to do the perp walk by a French Magistrate, the AGs office here will suddenly find accounting problems with Elf Aquitaine resulting in some nice Ecole Polytechnique grad from the French Aristocracy doing a similar walk in New York.

Our system is wonderful, innit? EVERYONE is guilty. The only thing about Bush and Company is that they are perhaps uniquely BAD at being guilty.

2004-07-12 05:07:08 PM DROxINxTHExWIND

Well, read my other response to your post on the comparison between the gay movement and the black civil right's movement.

I was using the light skinned black point to counter one of your arguments that the difference between the two movements is that gays can act *not gay* and avoid their rights being violated. But I don't think it's really central to either argument because for certain things gays are going to be outed sooner or later (military service and marriage). It's sort of a moot point.

And again, just light light-skinned blacks used to get fired if they were found out, gays used to get fired if they were outed.

m00 --

Adoption, I'm already seeing gay couples being able to adopt in some places. It looks like it's going to be a state by state thing. I wouldn't look for it being widespread until some long term studies are done and they need to be done.

I'm not sure what you mean by "equal treatment" in custody cases. Do you mean when a couple gets divorced because one is gay and can't get joint custody? I don't think that's happening all that much these days.

I think it's up to the military. Personally, I would say no based on added cost alone. I'm sorry, I'll be deserting or draft dodging before I'm forced to knowingly shower with a gay guy. I also don't see the military going through the hassle of putting up seperate barracks for both men and women homosexuals. A lot of people seem to think it's the government officials who are stopping gays. I don't see too many folks bringing up the existing service personnel and their feelings. If the majority of the armed services will not serve with homosexuals amongst them then you have a national security problem.

Marriage, frankly, marriage is between a man and woman. Always has been. Make up a new word, I don't care. As for tax breaks and benefits, they should be stripped from both heterosexuals and homosexuals unless they have children. Giving benefits or tax breaks to homos and heteros in unions is discriminatory against singles.

Other than all that, I don't see what they're biatching about other than that they just want special attention which is par for the course.

I needed an "as" in that last sentence.

AuntofDogface
I don't remember where I read this, but
God didn't fax us the bible. It was written by man.

Thus, a book of lies.
/watch, Ill test it. GOD SUCKS ASS!

See if it true, I would've been struck by the hand of god before I finished typing this sentence.

st8kdryver

Do us all a favor and keep your ass in Floriduh
Remember, you want to pick the one with a D behind their name, when it comes time to impregnate a chad.

Someone from NC making fun of someone in Florida is like an idiot calling a moron a retard.

Quadriplegic,

Still, we can say that heroin addicts hardly choose a life in the gutter, they simply try it a few times and end up tied to an addiction that is more powerful than they are.

At least some people manage to kick heroin. I've been told by people who have done it, it's actually not that bad. You lock yourself in a room for a week, puke your guts out, Keith Moon the room, etc. Once your system is cleaned of smack, the worst is over. As long as you can avoid social situations where you'd be shooting up, you can probably stay clean.

Homosexuality is hardly an addiction, though. A better comparison would be to, say, schizophrenia or perhaps genetically transmitted disorders, depending on your view.

I didn't ever say it was. My point was that some destructive, disease-causing, socially alienating behaviors were voluntary. I don't consider homosexuality to be one of them.

A further question: if homosexuality is genetic, how can it spread?

This thing about being exclusively gay is a fairly recent (say, last 25-30 years) phenomenon, which applies mostly to Western Europe and North America.

When I was bumming around China, all but a handful of the gays I knew were expected to marry some nice lady (often a lesbian, but not always), have a child, and fufill their "filial duties". Once the public illusion was maintained, they were free to do whatever they wanted with their private lives.

gilgigamesh --

Don't forget the French factor. Being persecuted by the French can only help Cheney. Convenient, in case the shiny ting fails to mesmerize the masses...

Republican francophobia is interesting. People are easily whipped into a froth. If our media owners wanted folks to boycott Chinese products, or "spontaneously" do anything else about China, these people would vie for the honor of being most stridently anti-China.

Which could be refreshingly righteous, except for the virtual certainty that extreme and stupid anti-China strategies would be taken seriously by a majority with almost no understanding of things.

But anyway. Isn't it time again for an American (pot) to castigate the French (kettle) for corrupt dealings with Saddam?

2004-07-12 05:18:54 PM Omega Ohm

Adoption, I'm already seeing gay couples being able to adopt in some places. It looks like it's going to be a state by state thing. I wouldn't look for it being widespread until some long term studies are done and they need to be done.

Yes, the barriers are slowly being eroded. But more still needs to be done so it isn't an issue. I agree with you on the long term studies, but I think we equally need long term studies on heterosexual family patterns -- single moms, two working parents, that sort of thing, as they may be just as dangerous.

I'm not sure what you mean by "equal treatment" in custody cases. Do you mean when a couple gets divorced because one is gay and can't get joint custody? I don't think that's happening all that much these days.

I recall one case where the husband accused the wife of being a lesbian, and he got sole custody. What happened was the husband pressured the wife into a threesome, and therefor the wife had lesbian sex. And as we all know, lesbians are unfit mothers.

I think it's up to the military. Personally, I would say no based on added cost alone. I'm sorry, I'll be deserting or draft dodging before I'm forced to knowingly shower with a gay guy. I also don't see the military going through the hassle of putting up seperate barracks for both men and women homosexuals. A lot of people seem to think it's the government officials who are stopping gays. I don't see too many folks bringing up the existing service personnel and their feelings. If the majority of the armed services will not serve with homosexuals amongst them then you have a national security problem.

Well, this is the exact same argument for barring blacks from general service in WWII; that no white soldier would trust a black with his life. It was wrong then, and it's wrong now.

Marriage, frankly, marriage is between a man and woman. Always has been.

Actually, it had always been between one man and several women. Read the bible.

Make up a new word, I don't care. As for tax breaks and benefits, they should be stripped from both heterosexuals and homosexuals unless they have children. Giving benefits or tax breaks to homos and heteros in unions is discriminatory against singles.

Well, I think the government should get out of the marriage business entirely. It would solve all these problems. You want to keep your word? Fine, then only use it in a religious/social context. But the moment the government starts sanctioning marriages than it must do so evenly.

If you want to encourage family, and the gays that adopt/ use science should get the same breaks -- that's fine. A lot of lesbian couples use artificial insemination. They deserve the same status as a couple that procreates "naturally."

Other than all that, I don't see what they're biatching about other than that they just want special attention which is par for the course.

You don't think the things we've discussed is enough to biatch about?

fags

nearly 10 years old and referencing a different amendment, but it sums up my thoughts on this topic fairly well. (11mb avi...divx5 if i remember right)

I stand correct by Tigger.

Aparently, gays (federally speaking)can get fired for being gay.

As for the landlord kicking you out, I'm not so sure about that. If you sign a lease they can't kick you out unless you violate that lease. What they can do is choose not to re-rent to you, but as its private property that's their perogative.

bbcrackmonkey, I may be wrong about this, but from what I remember in high school history class (*ahem* *mumble* years ago), didn't Manifest Destiny pretty much get its start because of the Louisiana Purchase? Having one's nation's Western border jump halfway across the whole continent as its total land area doubles in one day can have a rather galvanizing effect on such movements, I'd think.

factusnonverbus

Well, I am no evolutionary biology expert either, but I do have a minor in geology (much of which was spent studying soft rocks - so a lot of work in fossil record, extinction theory, morphological change and such) and two (well 1.99 - I hope to finish my MA this summer) are in Anthropology, a lot of which I spent studying behavioural ecology.

I was actually seriously considering an undergraduate thesis on homosexuality and so studied the behaviour quite a bit. I even came up with a theory as to why we see homosexuality expressed. (Oh, by the way, I listed some ideas I had about why I didn't buy the theory you were discussing above in a response to DarwinEffect).

I think to understand human sexuality you have to understand several complex things:

1. Humans do not engage in sex for procreation. I know - this seems disingenuous. However, humans have not always known that sex led to children. Other primates certainly don't know this, as they are incapable of "knowing" things of that complexity. Humans have sex because it is pleasurable. Pleasure is the mechanism by which we are made to procreate. There is a lot of complex crap I could get into here, but the post would get too long. While you can say that today we do have sex specifically in order to procreate, this is not a biologically determined behaviour. It cannot be. Our genes did not favour us wanting children. Our genes favoured us wanting the pleasurable experience of sex.

2. Sexual pleasure can be had from either a female or a male, no matter what sex you are. You can say that you "can't get off that way," but you're wrong. Erection and Ejaculation are autonomic reflexes. It will happen, with proper stimulation, whether you want it to or not. While I am not sure whether or not this is the case for women, I suspect it is so.

3. We sexually evaluate everyone we meet, whether we are heterosexual or homosexual and whether the person we meet is our own sex or the opposite. If you don't believe this, imagine yourself in the following situation: You are a heterosexual male. You are in prison (let's say for a crime you didn't commit, but it doesn't matter). You are going to be raped. The rapist can either be Brad Pitt or Fat Bastard from Austin Powers. Now, I am not saying that you want to have sex with either of them, but I am going to call you a liar if you say that, given a choice you wouldn't pick Brad Pitt.

4. The desire for sexual pleasure is in a more primative level of the brain than the choice between whom we are attracted to. We want sexual pleasure. We are going to get it somewhere. Those of us who tend to get it from those of the opposite sex (and to be more attracted to the opposite sex than to the same sex) will tend to pass on this tendency. However, it is by no means necessary biologically for us to always desire people of the opposite sex - only part or most of the time must we do that.

5. It follows from the above that we all probably have varying levels of attraction to the opposite and same sex. Or possibly, more exactly, we tend to have attractions to certain qualities in other individuals. Most of the time, genetics favor those who have attractions for the opposite sex, but it is not necessary for one to be 100% hetersexual, by any means, in order to pass their genes in the very non-competitive environment (and I mean resource wise - not sexual wise) in which humans live.

6. Now let's look at society. Societies have varying levels of disgust for homosexual behaviour (there are lots of theories on how this could wax an wane which I will not go into here). Societies will punish homosexuals to greater or lesser degrees depending on the particular mores of the society. I would say that a lot of mores of a society are artifacts of coded biological behaviour that's been ritualized, but some are not. Pork being an unclean meat is not biologically determined behaviour, but probably a man-made cleanliness law. Same goes for shellfish. Same goes for not eating other humans, come to think of it. These beliefs are /very/ deeply held. But I don't think they are biologically based. Despite being animals, humans are very very odd and can create completely unbiological cultural artifacts to govern themselves.

Ok, take the ingredients above. Apply them to an individual. I bet, given enough data, I could make a scale that, with the proper inputs could determine whether or not someone was going to engage in homosexual activity. The inputs would be: 1. the person's base sexual desire, 2. the person's level of attractedness to certain physical and phsiological features, 3. society's particular attitude toward homosexual sex at the time.

With that data, you could probably predict pretty readily whether or not someone would act on a homosexual desire.


As for why heteros are put off by homosexuality? I don't know. I can't see it being biologically based because it is so commonly practiced by our closest relatives, the bonobos. I think that the fear of homosexuality is just the basic old human fear and mistrust of things with which we are not familiar. When you ritualize that and pass it down for 100 generations and make a religion which forbids it it tends to start carrying a LOT of psychological weight.

These days, all that I ask people is this:

Should the president die (hypothetically), who would you rather be the VP: Cheney or Edwards?

Even my fiercest relatives cave in when given the choice. President Cheney seems like a very bad nightmare.

cleverloginname

You win today's uber-tard award. Hate to tell you sweetheart, but france, yeah - she went under. And it wasn't due to the local mime revolt of 1938... And While they did help backi in the late 1700's, it's been paid back 50 times over. Remember vietnam? Most of you are quick to throw that one down as american imperialism...hate to tell you sunshine, that was a french colony - and the french got their asses handed to them, asked for our help...here you have it. So let it go little one, let it go...


Get your shiat straight you panty-waist.

Comparing our entertainment (a reality-based fact that still elludes a significant portion of the world) with Americans is common and idiotic.

sumdumguy

Interesting, thank you. I was wondering about genetic transmission. What does "Keith Moon the room" mean? Destroy it?

The only other way around genetics I could find was that people are inherently bisexual to some degree (Kinsey report, etc.) and both hetero- and homosexuality were just extreme forms of human life.

Quadriplegic

A further question: if homosexuality is genetic, how can it spread?

Funny you mention that. Some time ago, a bit of research was done on what happened amongst common black rats when space and food became limited. The result was a good deal of them became homosexual. Let's see if I can find a reference to that experiment... Nope, not at the moment (I'm at work) but I'll be sure to post a link to some reference of it tonight.

I'm honestly not sure about this next part, but I think that similar behavior was found amongst numerous mammals when food and space ran short, as if it was a natural reaction to help control the population.

Quadriplegic

What does "Keith Moon the room" mean? Destroy it?

Yes, after Keith Moon, the fabulously excessive (and destructive) (and talented) drummer for the Rolling Stones.

// Sheesh. Doesn't anyone go deaf listening to rock and roll anymore? Kids these days!

LincolnLogolas

Fascinating. That would run contrary to natural selection, as these animals would give up passing on their own genes that the race may survive, but does make sense on a larger scale.

sumdumguy

My musical knowledge is somewhat lacking. I was a weird kid.

2004-07-12 05:33:00 PM Yellowbeard

Good job. I sense you will be misunderstood. Especially if people don't read the whole post.

2004-07-12 05:36:53 PM LincolnLogolas

A further question: if homosexuality is genetic, how can it spread?

Funny you mention that. Some time ago, a bit of research was done on what happened amongst common black rats when space and food became limited. The result was a good deal of them became homosexual... as if it was a natural reaction to help control the population.

The lord DOES work in mysterious ways.

Yellowbeard
That was the best post yet.
An essay I wrote a while back on the hormonal-biological matrix of socio-cultural gender divisions touched breifly upon several of the points you raised -in particular the socio-sexual activites of bonobos and their cousins, the chimpanzees. I attempted a correlation between sexual activity and violence as it pertains to heirarchical constructs within the differing primates groups.
Also the point about coding for pleasure figured prominently.
And now I have a new essay to write. I may have to cite you.

2004-07-12 05:38:54 PM sumdumguy

Quadriplegic

What does "Keith Moon the room" mean? Destroy it?

Yes, after Keith Moon, the fabulously excessive (and destructive) (and talented) drummer for the Rolling Stones.

The Who, NOT the Stones dork!

2004-07-12 05:47:44 PM DarwinEffect

And I suppose if you believe the bible's "be fruitful and multiply" is a good idea, it probably follows that you want to kill off whatever genetic code causes that to happen.

sumdumguy
Yes, after Keith Moon, the fabulously excessive (and destructive) (and talented) drummer for the Rolling Stones.


KEITH MOON DRUMMED FOR THE WHO!
/try not to live up to your nom de fark

2004-07-12 03:53:58 PM Jake Steed

Father_Jack

"The Netherlands and Belgium are the only countries in the European Union where same-sex "marriage" is legal. However, about 10 other EU member states recognize same-sex partnerships with varying rights. France, Germany and the Scandinavian countries allow forms of "registered partnerships," and Britain recently enacted a law enabling homosexual couples to register in "civil partnerships."

Why is it that you and Mrs. Kerry are such Euro wannabes?!?!?

so i cite how countries which have enacted legislation legalizing gay marriage and /or partnerships has not resulted in the cataclysmic decline of society so many people seem to fear, and you answer with "wannabes".

you really are bereft of any sort of intellect arent you.

lets say it again since you dodged the first time:

What is the danger in allowing the state to support a loving relationship? What is the real danger, exactly? How will it effect your life in any way? Why should you deny other consenting adults the happiness to publically and legally express their love and devotion for one another? And that's somehow Moral to deny this of your fellow citizens? Because, why, they might or might not practice sexual acts that you dont like? Millions of heteros have anal sex, should they not get married either?

Why should you care if two gay men have the same rights of property and inheritance as a hetero couple? Why is that "immoral"?

LincolnLogolas

I have a problem with your data in that, from everything I have studied, genes do not tend ever to favour group selection (which is basically what you're arguing) but things only look that way under certain circumstances of individual selection.

Nonetheless I always try and be skeptical (though often fail) even about things which I have traditionally believed to be true. I look forward to reading the article if you find it.

"See if it true, I would've been struck by the hand of god before I finished typing this sentence."

Oh wait... I have a cramp in my leg.. and now my balls are numb... and Im blind! Oh wait, its gone. Must have just been Joe Pesci.

This Land belongs to you and me!

Oh, and Dick Cheney, too.

2004-07-12 05:53:40 PM Father_Jack

Because social orders tend to organize themselves in heirarchies, with an "in" crowd at the top and social outcasts at the bottom.

That's why.

m00
And I suppose if you believe the bible's "be fruitful and multiply" is a good idea, it probably follows that you want to kill off whatever genetic code causes that to happen.
DAMN! I misread that part. I thought it said "Be fruity and multiply."
Now I understand why they won't allow me to teach Sunday school anymore.

Dick Cheney is ghey?
..or was that Noah?
and which of them played drums for The Who?

DarwinEffect

The lord DOES work in mysterious ways.

A program I saw on the Discovery Channel came to mind just a minute ago, involving cattle. In overcrowded conditions cattle will tend to mount the same sex. This includes heifers.

I think it started out with a bunch of farmers not being able to figure out how their heifers were getting back injuries, because they weren't getting knocked up. A bunch of scientists came up, rubbed blue chalk on the udders of all the cattle, and wound up finding blue chalk on the naughty bits of the heifers the next day. The heifers were making wild cow-sex in the middle of the night, using their udders for... er.... push-power.

That just painted a really disgusting picture, and I think I'll go watch somebody slaughter a pig now, to get that image out of my head.

If up was down and left were right then;

I Love Christianity! Christians are the smartest people ever!

As a matter of fact I love ALL religions! Religious people in general are VERY smart, intellectual, open minded and observant of their physical world around them.

There is an invisible man in the sky that sits on a throne and decides what is going to happen to each and every one of us every day.

I wish I were Christian!

Dozhdbog

Wow. That's very flattering and thank you, but as my hypothesis has not been tested even in the least, but is merely a gestunken experiment, I am not sure what it is worth. Most of what I stated in the premises is, at least to my knowledge, as verifiably true as science allows (that is, you can "prove" it by experiment but there will always be people who will claim to be able to "disprove" it) but I can't tell you the sources.

In all my studies of humans, biosocial interactions have always seemed to make the most sense to me for describing intricate behaviour.


Rememeber Yellowbeard's Rule #3: It's probably more complex than you think.

;)

m00 --
"Yes, the barriers are slowly being eroded. But more still needs to be done so it isn't an issue. I agree with you on the long term studies, but I think we equally need long term studies on heterosexual family patterns -- single moms, two working parents, that sort of thing, as they may be just as dangerous."

Yes, I would agree some more studies to done in all areas.


"I recall one case where the husband accused the wife of being a lesbian, and he got sole custody. What happened was the husband pressured the wife into a threesome, and therefor the wife had lesbian sex. And as we all know, lesbians are unfit mothers."

One case does not a norm make. I can go drum up a million cases where women lied through their teeth about anything and everything to cut fathers out of their children's lives. In divorces, you're dealing with the state guidelines and accepted norms. I'll be surprised when I see two divorce cases go down exactly alike.


"Well, this is the exact same argument for barring blacks from general service in WWII; that no white soldier would trust a black with his life. It was wrong then, and it's wrong now."

No. You're talking about race not sexuality. They are entirely different. I will not serve a country that will make me have to keep both my eyes in front of me and behind me. It's not happening. Racial discrimination is a product of conditioning. Homophobia is not. If you are genetically disposed to homosexuality or heterosexuality, you can be equally genetically dispositioned to being repulsed by either. Remember also, we went from a draft to a volunteer military since civil rights and that smoothed a lot of it over.

"Actually, it had always been between one man and several women. Read the bible."

What part of this contradicts man and woman? It doesn't.


"Well, I think the government should get out of the marriage business entirely. It would solve all these problems. You want to keep your word? Fine, then only use it in a religious/social context. But the moment the government starts sanctioning marriages than it must do so evenly."

Fine by me. Get the government out of it entirely.


"You don't think the things we've discussed is enough to biatch about?"

No, I don't. At this point, it's nothing but a "I'm being victimized!" scream of crap. I don't go advertising if I'm straight or gay and I have zero problems. Guys who flaunt their straightness run into problems too. There's a lot of places a Harley riding beer guzzling biker can't go. Not because they're straight men, but because they're obnoxious.

I think they bring a lot of their problems on themselves and are too quick to jump to cries of persecution because of their sexuality. I don't care what your sexuality is, I just don't want to farking know about it.

I have a predisposition to disliking people who like to pound ass. Don't tell me about it and I won't take off in another direction every time you come within my immediate vicinity.

2004-07-12 05:52:30 PM m00
Hey there, buddy, there's me here, and you, and I don't see any hamburgers.

Whatcha got under dem jeans, boy. You gots da purty mout, yeah.

In all seriousness, sometime in the infinite void of intelligence which is represented by this thread, I mentioned my belief that a "gay gene" would be the equivalent of biological suicide. It goes directly against our primary procreatory imperative.

We're here to breed, period. If you take the theory of intelligent design and couple it with the theory of evolution you come up with what AI programmers like to call "genetic algorithms".

You set up a task, generate some random neural nets who's mission is to accomplish that task, let the ones who suceed "breed" and cull the ones that fail. The result is rapid development of an "intelligence" that is capable of performing the task, each successive generation is a little better equipped than the last, provided the parameters of the task are clear and measurable.

What's to say God didn't do this with earth/humans?

Look into Jesus's "Parable of the seeds" for biblical proof.
;)

YELLOWBEARD

"Rememeber Yellowbeard's Rule #3: It's probably more complex than you think."

except when its about the war in iraq or terrorism, then its either "with us or with the terrorists". :)

2004-07-12 05:55:03 PM Yellowbeard

Ahh, but group selection is a good idea, and I think it does happen.

Easy example: parasites that kill their host(and thereby killing themselves). What genetic incentive does the parasite have to keep making successive generations, after the host has already passed the contageous stage? Wouldn't the parasites want to keep the host alive?

The do keep the immune system down -- if the host ever recovers it will have an antibody resistance. If the parasites half-assed it, they would only kill some hosts. The surviving ones would be selected for their resistance. The parasites don't want to affect host selection, by creating strains of the host resistant to the parasite.

But this is group selection, because the parasite is doing what's best for it's group -- those that already moved to healthier hosts -- even though killing their host means genetic death to the parasite colonies still around.

Father_Jack

Well naturally not then. I mean, some things are so obviously clear cut that they need not be questioned - especially when it is the government that is acting. Their actions should absolutely never be questioned by the people.

Yellowbeard

As for why heteros are put off by homosexuality? I don't know. I can't see it being biologically based because it is so commonly practiced by our closest relatives, the bonobos. I think that the fear of homosexuality is just the basic old human fear and mistrust of things with which we are not familiar.


I've done the same thinking on homosexuality and come up with most of the same conclusions, except for this one.

We may want sex for pleasure rather than linking it directly to procreation in our brains, but we do know inately that procreation is the goal of the species.

The instinct to shun homosexuals is the same one that makes a herd avoid or drive out a sick member to prevent that member passing on their sickness and perhaps weakening or stopping other members breeding. It's purely an animal instinct which, because we are smart animals and can understand that homosexuality is in fact a survival strategy for the species, we should be able to recognise as a pointless behaviour driver and control.

Unless we are in fact dumb, uneducated animals who are unable to understand their basic instincts. Which I find most homophobes are :)

So in essense, non-breeder human sexual behaviour is instinctively 'wrong' to those with more of a procreative bent to their sexual preferences. They know their purpose is to breed and so find dead ender sexual behaviour to be a wrongness in their fellow animal. The social mores surrounding the rejection of homosexuality are a reflection of this rather than the cause.

"In all seriousness, sometime in the infinite void of intelligence which is represented by this thread, I mentioned my belief that a "gay gene" would be the equivalent of biological suicide. It goes directly against our primary procreatory imperative."

*caveat before i answer to this: i don't believe in a gay gene per se; theres no proof for it or against it to my knowledge.

disclaimer aside tho, thats not necessarily true. alot of gay people live straight lives and never "come out" and could still "pass it on" if there was one.

besides, there are alot of destructive genes out there that for whatever reason still make it through. take hemophilia. you wouldnt think the people who have that would survive to pass the trait on, but they do.

so i dont think that "just coz its destructive" to the procreation tendencies of its practicioner means that it couldnt be genetic.

/advocate.devil

My girlfriend accused me of being a Peter Puffer once, she got sole custody of our shaved and declawed pet hamster.

I was watching the Senate "debates" on television. Interesting there was noone to "debate" it, except Republicans, declaring that if the states have the right to decide that society will collapse on top of itself. Of course there rational is protecting marriage, and "tradition", well interracial marriage was untraditional too back in the 50's. I just wanted someone to stand up and yell at the top of their lungs during one of those old farks speaches, ITS INEQUALITY! YOU ARE TRYING TO LEGISLATE INEQUALITY! ITS WRONG. GODDAMN IT YOU IDIOTS!

They're other argument is that the "courts" are trying to decide whats right and wrong instead of the people. Thats bullshiat, the courts are there to keep they're asses in check. The courts are doing exactly what they should be doing.

/politicians suck

Dozhdbog

Long time no talk Doz. I thought you worked in film not in biological science. Interesting :)