Yep, They're Gay (but should we be killing them for the purpose of research)

Yep, They're Gay
By JOHN CLOUD
Friday, Jan. 26, 2007

Zoologists have known for many years that homosexuality isn't uncommon
among animals. (My own cat has raised suspicions ever since he tried
to mount a cowering male dachshund.) But I was surprised to learn
recently that male sheep exhibit homosexuality at least as often as
humans: roughly 8% of rams turn out to have sex exclusively with other
rams.

This little piece of faunal ephemera might otherwise have gone
unnoticed outside the rarely intersecting subcultures of gays and
shepherds. But a few months ago, People for the Ethical Treatment of
Animals launched a p.r. campaign on behalf of gay sheep. PETA claims
that researchers in Oregon are killing gay sheep and cutting open
their brains in order to learn how to turn gay rams straight. A few
weeks ago, London's Sunday Times picked up the story in an unnerving
article that states the research "raises the prospect that pregnant
women could one day be offered a treatment to reduce or eliminate the
chance that their offspring will be homosexual." The story has pinged
around quite a few blogs since, and Rush Limbaugh and Martina
Navratilova have taken their predicted positions. (Limbaugh: gay
activists finally have a reason to oppose abortion. Navratilova:
homophobes are murdering gay sheep.)

It's a pity that a story with so much potential for moral indignation
and bad sheep puns (ewegenics!) turns out to be wrong. To be sure, a
group of researchers led by physiologist Charles Roselli of Oregon
Health & Science University has killed about 55 sheep, homosexual and
heterosexual, in order to study the neurological basis of sexual
attraction. They have confirmed that test sheep are gay by allowing
them to pick among males and females that have been restrained in
stanchions to await sexual intercourse.

But Roselli says he and his colleagues never had any intention of
creating a drug that will turn people straight. And while they have
examined whether sheep sexuality can be altered with various
treatments, that's not the sole point of their work. Instead, like
many other scientists over the past two decades, they are conducting
basic research into the nature of sexuality by manipulating hormones
in animals. (Such experiments were done on zebra finches--to see if
females would pair with other females--as long ago as 1988.) A
colleague of Roselli's, Fredrick Stormshak of Oregon State, says a
means of identifying gay sheep would be useful to breeders who need to
ensure that males will reproduce, but the team hasn't had much
success. In its most recent experiments, the group used drugs to block
the action of a hormone thought to play a role in making most sheep
straight (in other words, this test was designed to produce more
homosexual sex, not less). But the results were inconclusive.

The Oregon group's work has shown, however, that gay rams have
different brain structures from heterosexual ones, news that should
cheer those who see homosexuality and heterosexuality as mere
biological variations. (Another small but fascinating finding: all gay
rams are butch--none present themselves sexually the way ewes do.)

As Roselli acknowledges in his papers, sexuality in humans is far more
complex than in sheep. The whole notion that researchers studying farm
animals could develop a "cure" for human homosexuality is a fantasy of
the far left and the far right, which both value a gay-sheep "scandal"
more than the messy reality that is Roselli's work.

But one could have a good argument about whether adorable little sheep
should be killed for sex research. As a gay man, I tend to believe the
more we know about the complex interplay of biology and environment
that shapes sexuality, the less time we will spend nourishing Old
Testament anachronisms about sex.

The more pressing question for me is, What would happen if research
like Roselli's did lead to, as the Sunday Times imagined, "a
'straightening' procedure [such as] a hormone supplement for mothers-
to-be, worn like a nicotine patch"? I hope scientists have better
things to do, but would a Hetero Patch be so awful? It would allow
bigoted women to get what they want--straight kids--and ensure that
gay kids grow up with moms who, at the very least, didn't try to
prevent their existence. Gay people seem to fear we would die out if
such a device existed. But the elaborate combination of genes,
hormones and psychology that produces same-sex attraction has
persisted, against all odds, through the millenniums. Gays have
survived Darwinian selection, Nazis, the dulling effects of Will &
Grace. I don't think a little patch would ever keep some rams from
wanting other rams.

Copyright © 2007 Time Inc. All rights reserved

It's probably a little more complicated for Humans. But our sexual
orientation is likely neither genetic nor enviromental - more likely
prenatal. If so, then a "straightening fix" for concerned, pregnant
moms is as inevitable as human cloning.

If couples aren't legally allowed to determine their offsprings
orientation, then it begs the question as to why they're allowed to
outright terminate those deemed too ill-timed, financially
inconvenient, energy draining, career distracting, socially
ebarrassing or (in some countries) simply because "it's not a boy."
Why should just one predicted outcome be legally protected?

It can be a 2-way street. Presumably, most straight parents will want
straight kids, if only for having grandkids (of any orientation?) to
enjoy later. But maybe lesbians w/ petri dishes or turkey basters may
help even up the team. The Amish, and other traditionalist
communities, may become a center for natural, gay populations. And a
few vanguarde, hetero parents may decide they already have too many
lawnmower repairmen and truck drivers in their lineage, and so will
want to up the odds for a budding, little interior designer or
choreographer. :-)

Whatever.

Welcome to the Brave New World...

<chatw@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1171065354.695635.183260@s48g2000cws.googlegr oups.com...
> It's probably a little more complicated for Humans. But our sexual
> orientation is likely neither genetic nor enviromental - more likely
> prenatal.

What a stupid (uneducated statement)
Humans are sexual.
Narrowing to a single sex (same or other) is trained or environmental.
Like it or not.
Yes there are very remote and rare exceptions to all generalities.

It also takes a LOT of training to not have at least a slight preference for
the opposite sex.

I suppose you think males are oriented to right hand masturbation or left
hand masturbation in the womb. ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

BTW, opposite of what your mommy and all the GREAT wisdom as a result of
mommies, it is more healthy to wash your hands BEFORE you touch your p p
than after. (It's cleaner than your hands.)

"PeterB" <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1170870166.862551.288820@q2g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...

Zoologists have known for many years that homosexuality isn't uncommon
among animals.
(Homosexual activity)

Obviously written as a political and self serving article rather than any
attempt at reality.

On Feb 9, 9:33 pm, " vernon" <stilthere@athere> wrote:
> <c...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1171065354.695635.183260@s48g2000cws.googlegr oups.com...
>
> > It's probably a little more complicated for Humans. But our sexual
> > orientation is likely neither genetic nor enviromental - more likely
> > prenatal.
>
> What a stupid (uneducated statement)
> Humans are sexual.
> Narrowing to a single sex (same or other) is trained or environmental.
> Like it or not.
> Yes there are very remote and rare exceptions to all generalities.
>
> It also takes a LOT of training to not have at least a slight preference for
> the opposite sex.
>
> I suppose you think males are oriented to right hand masturbation or left
> hand masturbation in the womb. ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
>
> BTW, opposite of what your mommy and all the GREAT wisdom as a result of
> mommies, it is more healthy to wash your hands BEFORE you touch your p p
> than after. (It's cleaner than your hands.)

Well researchers know that genetics play a part. There have been a
lot of studies showing this. Look at the twin studies. And the
environmental influences that they speak of are usually refering to
some type of trigger in the womb.....probably something hormonal. So
yes, it is becoming more and more clear that orientation is determined
in the womb. But regardless, it is not a choice and cannot be changed.
And to think that some people considere it to be an "abomination"
because of a few incoherent verses in the Old Testament is bizarre
beyond belief. Those people were kidnapping and raping little girls
and stoning people to death and who knows what else? Sheese!

"Ted" <chuckfrasher@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1171123858.930425.117630@k78g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
> On Feb 9, 9:33 pm, " vernon" <stilthere@athere> wrote:
>> <c...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1171065354.695635.183260@s48g2000cws.googlegr oups.com...
>>
>> > It's probably a little more complicated for Humans. But our sexual
>> > orientation is likely neither genetic nor enviromental - more likely
>> > prenatal.
>>
>> What a stupid (uneducated statement)
>> Humans are sexual.
>> Narrowing to a single sex (same or other) is trained or environmental.
>> Like it or not.
>> Yes there are very remote and rare exceptions to all generalities.
>>
>> It also takes a LOT of training to not have at least a slight preference
>> for
>> the opposite sex.
>>
>> I suppose you think males are oriented to right hand masturbation or left
>> hand masturbation in the womb. ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
>>
>> BTW, opposite of what your mommy and all the GREAT wisdom as a result of
>> mommies, it is more healthy to wash your hands BEFORE you touch your p p
>> than after. (It's cleaner than your hands.)
>
> Well researchers know that genetics play a part. There have been a
> lot of studies showing this. Look at the twin studies. And the
> environmental influences that they speak of are usually refering to
> some type of trigger in the womb.....probably something hormonal. So
> yes, it is becoming more and more clear that orientation is determined
> in the womb. But regardless, it is not a choice and cannot be changed.
> And to think that some people considere it to be an "abomination"
> because of a few incoherent verses in the Old Testament is bizarre
> beyond belief. Those people were kidnapping and raping little girls
> and stoning people to death and who knows what else? Sheese!
>

You have no clue what you are talking about.
People write books off the top of their head.

ALL HUMANS ARE SEXUAL

All humans will readily take what they want from someone else until they are
TAUGHT otherwise or consider the consequences.

YOUR rational as that of others with your misguided education is the ROOT of
all racism.

Humans are humans.
Society has rules and punishments. (Control mechanisms to further the
society)

On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 14:39:04 -0700, " vernon" <stilthere@athere>
wrote:

>
snip
>
>Humans are humans.
>Society has rules and punishments. (Control mechanisms to further the
>society)

Indeed. Little societies like the KKK said it was just fine to lynch a
black man for little cause but the mere thrill of it.

Brown shirts and SS followed the rules assiduously and rounded up
folks just because they happened to be a Jew or Black or gay.

Taliban or other strict and perverted adherents to Sharia law decide
women are so revolting they can only be seen in public drifting
ghostlike in a burkha and music is evil.

Yes. Humans are humans. Work sets you free! Duty is duty!

Thank god I'm a queer agnostic.

George M. Carter

On Feb 9, 9:37 pm, " vernon" <stilthere@athere> wrote:
> "PeterB" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1170870166.862551.288820@q2g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...
>
> Zoologists have known for many years that homosexuality isn't uncommon
> among animals.
> (Homosexual activity)
>
> Obviously written as a political and self serving article rather than any
> attempt at reality.

I don't get your drift, Vernon. I posted this partly because I
thought it was amazing that 8% of rams were homosexual (I would have
guessed maybe 1%), and mainly because I don't feel we should be
sacrificing these animals to study their brains. What is curious to
me about the various responses to the thread is that everyone
immediatly shifted their focus to human sexuality, rather than the
topic of the article, underscoring a cultural-based fixation on human
sexual behaviour. I also take something different away from the
lessons of nature, in that "training" cannot reasonably account for
the degree of homosexuality in these animals. Even if that isn't
true, it still underscores the fact that nature uses this feature of
sexual development for its own purposes, possibly as a form of natural
birth control. What would the human population on earth be today if
100% of humans procreated?

PeterB

>On Feb 9, 9:33 pm, " vernon" <stilthere@athere> wrote:
>> <c...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1171065354.695635.183260@s48g2000cws.googlegr oups.com...
>>
>> > It's probably a little more complicated for Humans. But our sexual
>> > orientation is likely neither genetic nor enviromental - more likely
>> > prenatal.
>>
>> What a stupid (uneducated statement)
>> Humans are sexual.
>> Narrowing to a single sex (same or other) is trained or environmental.
>> Like it or not.
>> Yes there are very remote and rare exceptions to all generalities.
>>
>> It also takes a LOT of training to not have at least a slight preference for
>> the opposite sex.
>>
>> I suppose you think males are oriented to right hand masturbation or left
>> hand masturbation in the womb. ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
>>
>> BTW, opposite of what your mommy and all the GREAT wisdom as a result of
>> mommies, it is more healthy to wash your hands BEFORE you touch your p p
>> than after. (It's cleaner than your hands.)

Guess again. That *might* be true if you went naked at all times. If
you don't, and especially if you wear underwear (and most people do),
you're going to get bacteria from your digestive tract on your
genitals. And *that* is the main reason to wash your hands
afterwards.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If George Bush were my dad, I'd be drunk in public so often that
James Baker would have me killed." -- Bill Maher on the Bush twins

In article <1171209097.270637.118870@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups .com>,
PeterB <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>On Feb 9, 9:37 pm, " vernon" <stilthere@athere> wrote:
>> "PeterB" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1170870166.862551.288820@q2g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...
>>
>> Zoologists have known for many years that homosexuality isn't uncommon
>> among animals.
>> (Homosexual activity)
>>
>> Obviously written as a political and self serving article rather than any
>> attempt at reality.
>
>I don't get your drift, Vernon. I posted this partly because I
>thought it was amazing that 8% of rams were homosexual (I would have
>guessed maybe 1%), and mainly because I don't feel we should be
>sacrificing these animals to study their brains. What is curious to
>me about the various responses to the thread is that everyone
>immediatly shifted their focus to human sexuality, rather than the
>topic of the article, underscoring a cultural-based fixation on human
>sexual behaviour. I also take something different away from the
>lessons of nature, in that "training" cannot reasonably account for
>the degree of homosexuality in these animals. Even if that isn't
>true, it still underscores the fact that nature uses this feature of
>sexual development for its own purposes, possibly as a form of natural
>birth control. What would the human population on earth be today if
>100% of humans procreated?

Would it really be that much larger? The majority of humans do
procreate, and with many of those who don't, it's not because they're
homosexuals. Furthermore, there are plenty of homosexuals who at some
point in their lives, do procreate. Just ask Melissa Etheridge.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If George Bush were my dad, I'd be drunk in public so often that
James Baker would have me killed." -- Bill Maher on the Bush twins

On Feb 11, 10:51 am, "PeterB" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 9, 9:37 pm, " vernon" <stilthere@athere> wrote:
>
> > "PeterB" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:1170870166.862551.288820@q2g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
>
> > Zoologists have known for many years that homosexuality isn't uncommon
> > among animals.
> > (Homosexual activity)
>
> > Obviously written as a political and self serving article rather than any
> > attempt at reality.
>
> I don't get your drift, Vernon. I posted this partly because I
> thought it was amazing that 8% of rams were homosexual (I would have
> guessed maybe 1%), and mainly because I don't feel we should be
> sacrificing these animals to study their brains. What is curious to
> me about the various responses to the thread is that everyone
> immediatly shifted their focus to human sexuality, rather than the
> topic of the article, underscoring a cultural-based fixation on human
> sexual behaviour. I also take something different away from the
> lessons of nature, in that "training" cannot reasonably account for
> the degree of homosexuality in these animals. Even if that isn't
> true, it still underscores the fact that nature uses this feature of
> sexual development for its own purposes, possibly as a form of natural
> birth control. What would the human population on earth be today if
> 100% of humans procreated?
>
> PeterB

That is interesting that you mentioned Nature's birth control. When I
was a teen, my mother went back to college and she told me about a
study that was done with mice. When they became over populated, a
certain portion of them became homosexual.

"PeterB" <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1171209097.270637.118870@j27g2000cwj.googlegr oups.com...
> On Feb 9, 9:37 pm, " vernon" <stilthere@athere> wrote:
>> "PeterB" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1170870166.862551.288820@q2g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...
>>
>> Zoologists have known for many years that homosexuality isn't uncommon
>> among animals.
>> (Homosexual activity)
>>
>> Obviously written as a political and self serving article rather than any
>> attempt at reality.
>
> I don't get your drift, Vernon. I posted this partly because I
> thought it was amazing that 8% of rams were homosexual (I would have
> guessed maybe 1%), and mainly because I don't feel we should be
> sacrificing these animals to study their brains. What is curious to
> me about the various responses to the thread is that everyone
> immediatly shifted their focus to human sexuality, rather than the
> topic of the article, underscoring a cultural-based fixation on human
> sexual behaviour. I also take something different away from the
> lessons of nature, in that "training" cannot reasonably account for
> the degree of homosexuality in these animals. Even if that isn't
> true, it still underscores the fact that nature uses this feature of
> sexual development for its own purposes, possibly as a form of natural
> birth control. What would the human population on earth be today if
> 100% of humans procreated?
>
> PeterB
>

They had a point or theorem to prove.

Leave a hundred RAMS alone for a year or two (no Ewes) and 8% would be very
low.

In a standard sheep society, the heavy duty Rams keep at "least" 8% from
fraternizing.

"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:092us2h4tq5834471h1knvrb3s22kvmgb1@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 14:39:04 -0700, " vernon" <stilthere@athere>
> wrote:
>
>>
> snip
>>
>>Humans are humans.
>>Society has rules and punishments. (Control mechanisms to further the
>>society)
>
> Indeed. Little societies like the KKK said it was just fine to lynch a
> black man for little cause but the mere thrill of it.
>
> Brown shirts and SS followed the rules assiduously and rounded up
> folks just because they happened to be a Jew or Black or gay.

The ORIGINAL Brown shirts were ALL homosexuals. It was a requirement.
Interesting, huh?

>
> Taliban or other strict and perverted adherents to Sharia law decide
> women are so revolting they can only be seen in public drifting
> ghostlike in a burkha and music is evil.
>
> Yes. Humans are humans. Work sets you free! Duty is duty!
>
> Thank god I'm a queer agnostic.
>
> George M. Carter
>
>

Over your head, yep.

The latest studies show the so called gene variation in homosexuals is the
same gene variation found in pedophiles.

Did you also know they have found a gene variation (a different one) in
obsessive thieves.

"EVERYBODY" knows that statistics prove that black have a genetic
disposition to robbery and murder.

But neither gene is dominant in blacks.

Just something to confuse you.

You, according to your statement don't really want to get into any
scientific discussion.

"Ted" <chuckfrasher@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1171224361.776759.36140@s48g2000cws.googlegro ups.com...
> On Feb 11, 10:51 am, "PeterB" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 9, 9:37 pm, " vernon" <stilthere@athere> wrote:
>>
>> > "PeterB" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >news:1170870166.862551.288820@q2g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
>>
>> > Zoologists have known for many years that homosexuality isn't uncommon
>> > among animals.
>> > (Homosexual activity)
>>
>> > Obviously written as a political and self serving article rather than
>> > any
>> > attempt at reality.
>>
>> I don't get your drift, Vernon. I posted this partly because I
>> thought it was amazing that 8% of rams were homosexual (I would have
>> guessed maybe 1%), and mainly because I don't feel we should be
>> sacrificing these animals to study their brains. What is curious to
>> me about the various responses to the thread is that everyone
>> immediatly shifted their focus to human sexuality, rather than the
>> topic of the article, underscoring a cultural-based fixation on human
>> sexual behaviour. I also take something different away from the
>> lessons of nature, in that "training" cannot reasonably account for
>> the degree of homosexuality in these animals. Even if that isn't
>> true, it still underscores the fact that nature uses this feature of
>> sexual development for its own purposes, possibly as a form of natural
>> birth control. What would the human population on earth be today if
>> 100% of humans procreated?
>>
>> PeterB
>
> That is interesting that you mentioned Nature's birth control. When I
> was a teen, my mother went back to college and she told me about a
> study that was done with mice. When they became over populated, a
> certain portion of them became homosexual.
>

Gee, statistics and opportunity in action. Will wonders never cease.

On Feb 11, 4:50 pm, " vernon" <stilthere@athere> wrote:
> "GMCarter" <f...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>
> news:092us2h4tq5834471h1knvrb3s22kvmgb1@4ax.com...
>
> > On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 14:39:04 -0700, " vernon" <stilthere@athere>
> > wrote:
>
> > snip
>
> >>Humans are humans.
> >>Society has rules and punishments. (Control mechanisms to further the
> >>society)
>
> > Indeed. Little societies like the KKK said it was just fine to lynch a
> > black man for little cause but the mere thrill of it.
>
> > Brown shirts and SS followed the rules assiduously and rounded up
> > folks just because they happened to be a Jew or Black or gay.
>
> The ORIGINAL Brown shirts were ALL homosexuals. It was a requirement.
> Interesting, huh?
>
>
>
> > Taliban or other strict and perverted adherents to Sharia law decide
> > women are so revolting they can only be seen in public drifting
> > ghostlike in a burkha and music is evil.
>
> > Yes. Humans are humans. Work sets you free! Duty is duty!
>
> > Thank god I'm a queer agnostic.
>
> > George M. Carter
>
> Over your head, yep.
>
> The latest studies show the so called gene variation in homosexuals is the
> same gene variation found in pedophiles.
>
> Did you also know they have found a gene variation (a different one) in
> obsessive thieves.
>
> "EVERYBODY" knows that statistics prove that black have a genetic
> disposition to robbery and murder.
>
> But neither gene is dominant in blacks.
>
> Just something to confuse you.
>
> You, according to your statement don't really want to get into any
> scientific discussion.

Wow. I think you need some serious help. No amount of truth, logic, or
rational thought has any effect whatsever on your bigotry and hatred.
You appear to be a very sick man.

On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 14:50:26 -0700, " vernon" <stilthere@athere>
wrote:

>
snip
>The latest studies show the so called gene variation in homosexuals is the
>same gene variation found in pedophiles.

LOL...you just make shit up, doncha?

Most pedophiles do it with children of the opposite sex.

Anyway, having sex with children isn't about sexual orientation.

But keep it up, Vernie...you're a good case study in abnormal but
common psychology.

George M. Carter

On 10 Feb, 03:37, " vernon" <stilthere@athere> wrote:
> "PeterB" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1170870166.862551.288820@q2g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...
>
> Zoologists have known for many years that homosexuality isn't uncommon
> among animals.
> (Homosexual activity)
>
> Obviously written as a political and self serving article rather than any
> attempt at reality.

It obviously bothers your beliefs but homosexuality is found all over
the natural world.

Biological Exuberance: Homosexuality and Animal Diversity is a
scholarly work written by biologists on precisely that subject.

Deal with this in a mature fashion. Or not.

But it is still correct.

"Ted" <chuckfrasher@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1171247591.876656.325750@v33g2000cwv.googlegr oups.com...
> On Feb 11, 4:50 pm, " vernon" <stilthere@athere> wrote:
>> "GMCarter" <f...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:092us2h4tq5834471h1knvrb3s22kvmgb1@4ax.com...
>>
>> > On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 14:39:04 -0700, " vernon" <stilthere@athere>
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > snip
>>
>> >>Humans are humans.
>> >>Society has rules and punishments. (Control mechanisms to further the
>> >>society)
>>
>> > Indeed. Little societies like the KKK said it was just fine to lynch a
>> > black man for little cause but the mere thrill of it.
>>
>> > Brown shirts and SS followed the rules assiduously and rounded up
>> > folks just because they happened to be a Jew or Black or gay.
>>
>> The ORIGINAL Brown shirts were ALL homosexuals. It was a requirement.
>> Interesting, huh?
>>
>>
>>
>> > Taliban or other strict and perverted adherents to Sharia law decide
>> > women are so revolting they can only be seen in public drifting
>> > ghostlike in a burkha and music is evil.
>>
>> > Yes. Humans are humans. Work sets you free! Duty is duty!
>>
>> > Thank god I'm a queer agnostic.
>>
>> > George M. Carter
>>
>> Over your head, yep.
>>
>> The latest studies show the so called gene variation in homosexuals is
>> the
>> same gene variation found in pedophiles.
>>
>> Did you also know they have found a gene variation (a different one) in
>> obsessive thieves.
>>
>> "EVERYBODY" knows that statistics prove that black have a genetic
>> disposition to robbery and murder.
>>
>> But neither gene is dominant in blacks.
>>
>> Just something to confuse you.
>>
>> You, according to your statement don't really want to get into any
>> scientific discussion.
>
> Wow. I think you need some serious help. No amount of truth, logic, or
> rational thought has any effect whatsever on your bigotry and hatred.
> You appear to be a very sick man.
>

No, just stating nonsense RESEARCH and fact.

You DID know that the Brown Shirts were originally al gay???? Sure you did.
You DID know that some of Hitler's early supporters were Jewish.?????

Get an education from other than movies and newspapers. On second thought
go get some newspapers from the late twenties and early thirties.

"Sammybaby" <roastfreesteel@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1171278781.633144.122160@a34g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
> On 10 Feb, 03:37, " vernon" <stilthere@athere> wrote:
>> "PeterB" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1170870166.862551.288820@q2g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...
>>
>> Zoologists have known for many years that homosexuality isn't uncommon
>> among animals.
>> (Homosexual activity)
>>
>> Obviously written as a political and self serving article rather than any
>> attempt at reality.
>
> It obviously bothers your beliefs but homosexuality is found all over
> the natural world.
>


Actually, I said the opposite.

But you are too narrow to see that.

Quit trying to defend yourself.

"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:81g0t2t7ipqjdablfercjvo4i8rk3t3aoh@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 14:50:26 -0700, " vernon" <stilthere@athere>
> wrote:
>
>>
> snip
>>The latest studies show the so called gene variation in homosexuals is the
>>same gene variation found in pedophiles.
>
> LOL...you just make shit up, doncha?
>
> Most pedophiles do it with children of the opposite sex.
>
> Anyway, having sex with children isn't about sexual orientation.
>
> But keep it up, Vernie...you're a good case study in abnormal but
> common psychology.
>
> George M. Carter
>

They are published studies that suck the idiots in.

People are selective as to which study (very loose term, study) they use in
any diatribe.

Are you a paying member of NAMBLA?

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 08:34:19 -0700, " vernon" <stilthere@athere>
wrote:

>
>"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
>news:81g0t2t7ipqjdablfercjvo4i8rk3t3aoh@4ax.com.. .
>> On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 14:50:26 -0700, " vernon" <stilthere@athere>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>> snip
>>>The latest studies show the so called gene variation in homosexuals is the
>>>same gene variation found in pedophiles.
>>
>> LOL...you just make shit up, doncha?
>>
>> Most pedophiles do it with children of the opposite sex.
>>
>> Anyway, having sex with children isn't about sexual orientation.
>>
>> But keep it up, Vernie...you're a good case study in abnormal but
>> common psychology.
>>
>> George M. Carter
>>
>
>They are published studies that suck the idiots in.

You're the one that claimed there was some study and provide no
evidence.

>People are selective as to which study (very loose term, study) they use in
>any diatribe.

Diatribe? Debate is generally the preferred form when discussing
controversial issues that lack incontrovertible evidence.

>Are you a paying member of NAMBLA?

No. Are you a wannabe cocksucker?

George M. Carter

***
Adams HE; Wright LW Jr; Lohr BA. Is homophobia associated with
homosexual arousal? J Abnorm Psychol 1996 Aug;105(3):440-445.

Department of Psychology, University of Georgia, Athens 30602-3013,
USA.

The authors investigated the role of homosexual arousal in exclusively
heterosexual men who admitted negative affect toward homosexual
individuals. Participants consisted of a group of homophobic men (n =
35) and a group of nonhomophobic men (n = 29); they were assigned to
groups on the basis of their scores on the Index of Homophobia (W. W.
Hudson & W. A. Ricketts, 1980). The men were exposed to sexually
explicit erotic stimuli consisting of heterosexual, male homosexual,
and lesbian videotapes, and changes in penile circumference were
monitored. They also completed an Aggression Questionnaire (A. H. Buss
& M. Perry, 1992). Both groups exhibited increases in penile
circumference to the heterosexual and female homosexual videos. Only
the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male
homosexual stimuli. The groups did not differ in aggression.
Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the
homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.

"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:kt83t2dqcn4rfusbpakt3dffcaiprg1utq@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 08:34:19 -0700, " vernon" <stilthere@athere>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>news:81g0t2t7ipqjdablfercjvo4i8rk3t3aoh@4ax.com. ..
>>> On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 14:50:26 -0700, " vernon" <stilthere@athere>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>> snip
>>>>The latest studies show the so called gene variation in homosexuals is
>>>>the
>>>>same gene variation found in pedophiles.
>>>
>>> LOL...you just make shit up, doncha?
>>>
>>> Most pedophiles do it with children of the opposite sex.
>>>
>>> Anyway, having sex with children isn't about sexual orientation.
>>>
>>> But keep it up, Vernie...you're a good case study in abnormal but
>>> common psychology.
>>>
>>> George M. Carter
>>>
>>
>>They are published studies that suck the idiots in.
>
> You're the one that claimed there was some study and provide no
> evidence.
>
>>People are selective as to which study (very loose term, study) they use
>>in
>>any diatribe.
>
> Diatribe? Debate is generally the preferred form when discussing
> controversial issues that lack incontrovertible evidence.


Incontrovertable.
The gene variation exists.
The debate, sooo?

I pointed out some wild assersions based on incontrovertible evidence.

It was just to illustrate how "studies" and published assumptions are mostly
sources of money grubbing or excuses for their own problem.

FYI, although your statement is basically true, pedopheliacs tend also to be
self described or clinically, homosexuals.
Logical? Only if one boils it down to humans are sexual and some push the
"acceptable" envelope.

>
>>Are you a paying member of NAMBLA?
>
> No. Are you a wannabe cocksucker?
>
> George M. Carter
>
> ***
> Adams HE; Wright LW Jr; Lohr BA. Is homophobia associated with
> homosexual arousal? J Abnorm Psychol 1996 Aug;105(3):440-445.
>
> Department of Psychology, University of Georgia, Athens 30602-3013,
> USA.
>
> The authors investigated the role of homosexual arousal in exclusively
> heterosexual men who admitted negative affect toward homosexual
> individuals. Participants consisted of a group of homophobic men (n =
> 35) and a group of nonhomophobic men (n = 29); they were assigned to
> groups on the basis of their scores on the Index of Homophobia (W. W.
> Hudson & W. A. Ricketts, 1980). The men were exposed to sexually
> explicit erotic stimuli consisting of heterosexual, male homosexual,
> and lesbian videotapes, and changes in penile circumference were
> monitored. They also completed an Aggression Questionnaire (A. H. Buss
> & M. Perry, 1992). Both groups exhibited increases in penile
> circumference to the heterosexual and female homosexual videos. Only
> the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male
> homosexual stimuli. The groups did not differ in aggression.
> Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the
> homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.
>
>

"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:kt83t2dqcn4rfusbpakt3dffcaiprg1utq@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 08:34:19 -0700, " vernon" <stilthere@athere>
> wrote:
>
> Adams HE; Wright LW Jr; Lohr BA. Is homophobia associated with
> homosexual arousal? J Abnorm Psychol 1996 Aug;105(3):440-445.
>
> Department of Psychology, University of Georgia, Athens 30602-3013,
> USA.
>
> The authors investigated the role of homosexual arousal in exclusively
> heterosexual men who admitted negative affect toward homosexual
> individuals. Participants consisted of a group of homophobic men (n =
> 35) and a group of nonhomophobic men (n = 29); they were assigned to
> groups on the basis of their scores on the Index of Homophobia (W. W.
> Hudson & W. A. Ricketts, 1980). The men were exposed to sexually
> explicit erotic stimuli consisting of heterosexual, male homosexual,
> and lesbian videotapes, and changes in penile circumference were
> monitored. They also completed an Aggression Questionnaire (A. H. Buss
> & M. Perry, 1992). Both groups exhibited increases in penile
> circumference to the heterosexual and female homosexual videos. Only
> the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male
> homosexual stimuli. The groups did not differ in aggression.
> Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the
> homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.
>
>

1. A paper by a University.
2. Numbers are low.
3. No real evidence of original classification
4. The conclusion is that humans are sexual and are "taught" various
responses. Of course there are those who the article identifies as being
taught one thing and feeling repelled by their own feelings. Sort of like
the gambler who dares not enter a Casino or establishes some campaign.

If you are trying to justify your homosexual feelings, forget it.
You do what you do and don't expect everyone else to give you a Hurray.

BTW, that study was done many times and is old hat.
I'll leave it up to you to figure out the REAL findings.
Clue, association and identification.

Their conclusions were totally preconceived and amateurish.

In article <kt83t2dqcn4rfusbpakt3dffcaiprg1utq@4ax.com>,
GMCarter <noway@nowherenospam.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 08:34:19 -0700, " vernon" <stilthere@athere>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>news:81g0t2t7ipqjdablfercjvo4i8rk3t3aoh@4ax.com. ..
>>> On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 14:50:26 -0700, " vernon" <stilthere@athere>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>> snip
>>>>The latest studies show the so called gene variation in homosexuals is the
>>>>same gene variation found in pedophiles.
>>>
>>> LOL...you just make shit up, doncha?
>>>
>>> Most pedophiles do it with children of the opposite sex.
>>>
>>> Anyway, having sex with children isn't about sexual orientation.
>>>
>>> But keep it up, Vernie...you're a good case study in abnormal but
>>> common psychology.
>>>
>>> George M. Carter
>>
>>They are published studies that suck the idiots in.
>
>You're the one that claimed there was some study and provide no
>evidence.

As best I can recall, vernon has a 100% record of never providing any
citations to back up his claims.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If George Bush were my dad, I'd be drunk in public so often that
James Baker would have me killed." -- Bill Maher on the Bush twins

On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 03:05:46 GMT, wright@l1000.prodigy.net (David
Wright) wrote:

>In article <kt83t2dqcn4rfusbpakt3dffcaiprg1utq@4ax.com>,
>GMCarter <noway@nowherenospam.com> wrote:
>>On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 08:34:19 -0700, " vernon" <stilthere@athere>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>>news:81g0t2t7ipqjdablfercjvo4i8rk3t3aoh@4ax.com ...
>>>> On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 14:50:26 -0700, " vernon" <stilthere@athere>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>> snip
>>>>>The latest studies show the so called gene variation in homosexuals is the
>>>>>same gene variation found in pedophiles.
>>>>
>>>> LOL...you just make shit up, doncha?
>>>>
>>>> Most pedophiles do it with children of the opposite sex.
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, having sex with children isn't about sexual orientation.
>>>>
>>>> But keep it up, Vernie...you're a good case study in abnormal but
>>>> common psychology.
>>>>
>>>> George M. Carter
>>>
>>>They are published studies that suck the idiots in.
>>
>>You're the one that claimed there was some study and provide no
>>evidence.
>
>As best I can recall, vernon has a 100% record of never providing any
>citations to back up his claims.

And here he goes again.

I suspect he has never done any kind of work as he claims to have done
as well.

George M. Carter

On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 10:22:08 -0700, " vernon" <stilthere@athere>
wrote:

snip
>If you are trying to justify your homosexual feelings, forget it.

LOL...I don't need to justify my feelings. What disturbs me is why so
many in the world hate me simply because I'm gay.

>You do what you do and don't expect everyone else to give you a Hurray.

I don't--but hurray has never been my worry. It's conflicted
individuals so full of hate--and this study goes a long way to
explaining it.

Most homophobes are just closet cases.

Your "analysis" is very weak.

George M. Carter

On Feb 9, 9:37 pm, " vernon" <stilthere@athere> wrote:
> "PeterB" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1170870166.862551.288820@q2g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...
>
> Zoologists have known for many years that homosexuality isn't uncommon
> among animals.
> (Homosexual activity)

I've been surprised how many well educated people don't know this,
however.

> Obviously written as a political and self serving article rather than any
> attempt at reality.

It's a very reductionist approach to the study of sexual response, but
I don't see it as "political." While I would be surprised to see a
brain structure anomaly, the idea that environment is the only trigger
seems farfetched. If it were true, every gay child would have no
heterosexual siblings, or at least the ratios would be far more skewed
than they are.

PeterB

On Feb 11, 3:06 pm, "Ted" <chuckfras...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 11, 10:51 am, "PeterB" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 9, 9:37 pm, " vernon" <stilthere@athere> wrote:
>
> > > "PeterB" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:1170870166.862551.288820@q2g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
>
> > > Zoologists have known for many years that homosexuality isn't uncommon
> > > among animals.
> > > (Homosexual activity)
>
> > > Obviously written as a political and self serving article rather than any
> > > attempt at reality.
>
> > I don't get your drift, Vernon. I posted this partly because I
> > thought it was amazing that 8% of rams were homosexual (I would have
> > guessed maybe 1%), and mainly because I don't feel we should be
> > sacrificing these animals to study their brains. What is curious to
> > me about the various responses to the thread is that everyone
> > immediatly shifted their focus to human sexuality, rather than the
> > topic of the article, underscoring a cultural-based fixation on human
> > sexual behaviour. I also take something different away from the
> > lessons of nature, in that "training" cannot reasonably account for
> > the degree of homosexuality in these animals. Even if that isn't
> > true, it still underscores the fact that nature uses this feature of
> > sexual development for its own purposes, possibly as a form of natural
> > birth control. What would the human population on earth be today if
> > 100% of humans procreated?
>
> > PeterB
>
> That is interesting that you mentioned Nature's birth control. When I
> was a teen, my mother went back to college and she told me about a
> study that was done with mice. When they became over populated, a
> certain portion of them became homosexual.

That would imply spontaneous genetic adaptation in response to a
stimuli, but population growth is not a direct stimulus. What is more
likely is that a certain percentage would be homosexual regardless of
population growth. In any event, it's a completely natural
phenomenon. This article might be of interest... http://
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/mag...es/2005/08/14/
what_makes_people_gay/

On Feb 14, 9:56 am, "PeterB" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 9, 9:37 pm, " vernon" <stilthere@athere> wrote:
>
> > "PeterB" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:1170870166.862551.288820@q2g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
>
> > Zoologists have known for many years that homosexuality isn't uncommon
> > among animals.
> > (Homosexual activity)
>
> I've been surprised how many well educated people don't know this,
> however.
>
> > Obviously written as a political and self serving article rather than any
> > attempt at reality.
>
> It's a very reductionist approach to the study of sexual resp