Posted on 03/07/2004 5:32:14 PM PST by knak
And in rams that preferred to mate with other males, this area was smaller than in males that preferred females.Two males CANNOT MATE!!!! Words have meaning people. They aren't simply arbitrary reflections of your feelings from moment to moment.
Only a male and female are capable of having sex. That's implicit in what the word "sex" means!!! And yes, one can now go to a dictionary and find a definition of "sex" to sanction their delusion of what the word really means. Sorry to be graphic but what males or females are engaged in together is nothing but mutual masturbation.
There can be no way to pass on this "homo-gene" if the carrier sheep did not engage in sex.(i.e. real sex male and female.) So these rams might like to rub on each other but they would still obviously engage in sex as well. Have these people ever owned a dog? A lot of dogs are more than happy to hump your leg or a fence post. Some dogs would seem to prefer the fence post but that's only because its a non moving target.
I perfectly expect researchers to be able to find a genetic deference between "homosexuals" and the rest of us. This is what I expect them to find:
They will find a slight biological difference in gay men that manifests itself as problems becoming aroused, and a tendency to need greater amounts of stimulation. As a result, some of these men CHOOSE to stimulate each other over sex with women as there are no strings attached and they can jump from partner to partner at will. Their senses to an extent were ever so slightly deadened but prolonged exposure to male gay sodomy and multiple prolonged orgasms increase the deadening and the need for over-stimulation. It becomes, to a degree, an addiction. An addiction being pushed on ever younger boys. But this is not a sexual difference. Unlike sheep we are capable of controlling our urges to hump anything that moves
Likewise they'll probably find many biological differences in lesbians. Aside from anecdotal instances this difference will probably manifest itself in their physical appearance or personality. An increase in facial hair, fairly short or too tall, larger weight or too skinny, in general what some would call non-attractiveness. It could also manifest itself in crabbiness or an obtuse personality. Now note, some of these features might be considered desirable or attractive in other societies or at other times in the past. A persons personality can change as they mature and better understand how to interact with those around them. And relationships aren't all about physical appearances but must also provide an intellectual and spiritual bond. But modern feminism has told these women that if all men do not find them attractive it is because the idea of a family and the bond between man and woman is a fraud. So instead of examining their personality or seeking a man who would love them, these women abandon their hopes. They gather around other jaded women in what is essentially mutual support groups. They try to console them selves for not finding what they were told to give up looking for. Again this is not a sexual difference, just a difference in appearance and the actions they CHOOSE to take in order to adapt to it.
The ridiculous idea is constantly being pushed on us that there is some new biologically distinct creature emerging from the breed of man that engages in some different sort of "sex". That's all hogwash. People are simply reacting to the same kind of pressures that have shaped social interaction from the beginning. But if we admit that these people's actions are arrived at by choice and choice only then we forfeit the "victim" angle.
. . .maybe just 'screweing'?
You are exactly right. It also implies penetration. Let's see the study where one of these oddball rams actually gets his dick up the other ram's rump. Ain't gonna happen. And if it don't, then you've got no analogy here.
Some jokes simply write themselves...
Just damn.
If you want on the list, FReepmail me. This IS a high-volume PING list...
How do I get invited to the barbecue...err, funeral?
It's not, they know it, but they want everyone else to say it's normal so they'll feel better about their sexual perversion.
This classic title is complex on so many levels. A+++
More to the point, which rams are the mounted and which the mounters?
To get sperm from horses, they often mock up a padded wooden "mare" to protect the horse and obviate the strain and stress on the real mare; they simply put the false mare and the real one in close proximity to stimulate the stallion and tether him so that the mockup is within his reach while the mare is not.
As soon as ejaculation is effected, an attendant runs over, scoops up the seminal fluid full of sperm and rams it deep into the mare's vagina; mission accomplished.
Now, was this stallion normal or did it prefer wooden horses?
I don't think we're talking about the same thing.
As for peer review, LeVay's research was published in Science and Nature. Later research was published in the Journal of Neuroscience, American Journal of Physiology, Science, and other peer reviewed journals.
I was not referring to a "gay gene." Sexually dimorphic nuclei and their development is not a genetic question. It is a development phenomenon. As the hypothalamus develops (fetal and neonate), it is bathed in hormones. If those hormones aren't in the right concentrations or if the cells don't respond to the hormones then the neurons do not develop correctly in humans. Some species, like certain lizards, switch sexes during their lifecycle and thus the hormones are responsible for "re-wiring" the hypothalamus to switch it from male to female. This is a hormonal interaction and not a "gay gene" that can be passed on - just like fetal alcohol syndrome can not be passed on.
So "not quite" back to you Ophiucus. So far all these "researchers" have presented are biased attempts at legitimatizing a deviant and morally inferior lifestyle.
The researchers of this article or ones investigating LeVay's findings don't have an agenda outside of understanding how the brain interacts with other body systems to produce behavior. The neurophysiology of learning, memory, and behavior is an important area of study and the only bias it has is for understanding and knowledge.
Dan Quayle was correct, biblically and physically, [not "pc" though] when he said that homosexuality is a bad moral choice.
Simplistic thinking. If the cause is from developmental disorder, then a blanket condemnation is like saying a retarded child is punishment of the sins of the parents - a once held view.
On the other hand, as the gay community continues to advocate dangerous and damaging behaviors stemming from a disorder and using that as an excuse, then they are guilty of immoral behavior.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.