Shocker: Am I Anti-Gay? ["Gays" malign "Gay"-friendly Pychology Today editor]

Psychology Today ^ | Jan/Feb 2003 | Robert Epstein

[RAT Patrol]

I wouldn't know.

[ezo4]

I had to drive to the big city today. I usually try and avaoid that place. Anyway sure enough I saw two guys. (I'd call them Men but there not)These to queers are holding ands and walking all feminine. And then they started kissing.

I grossed out in a bad way. I seriously wanted to run both of these freaks down and then back over them a few times. Am I anti Gay? Yes I am.

Gay people are sick.

[RAT Patrol]

If homosexuality is genetic (I don't buy it) then it is a genetic and hormonal error. Otherwise, their bodies would adapt to their desires rather than be contrary to them. It is not normal for a man to feel like he is really a woman, or vice versa. A lesbian would have no need of monthly cycles and all of that. She would also have some way to actually have intercourse with her desired female mate. Gay men would have genitals that fit together, or at least a different anus -- and no sperm.

Everyone can claim it's genetic and normal (equal to heterosexuality) all they want, but all I see is a "I want to therefore it's normal" argument. That is not enough to change the definition of marriage and family. It is not enough to force the concept on all children in school, church and the Boy Scouts. It is not enough to change the definition of morality. It only takes a couple of eyes and half a brain to know the human species was designed (or evolved -- whichever you prefer) for opposite sexes to mate.

[yendu bwam]

I could not care less about what some rabbi told you. That has nothing to do with me. The Supreme Court of California will decide what is appropriate behavior for that state's judiciary. That's their job and has nothing to do with me. And I can't even believe that public schools routinely teach The Joys of Gay Sex in classrooms. That's just ridiculous... and, of course, has nothing to do with me. Like I said... your "Gaystapo" comments can be amusing... but cannot be taken seriously.

These things may not have had anything to do with you, madg. They have to do with ME and MY FAMILY and with WHAT I BELIEVE IS RIGHT. The Gaystapo is out and at war with normal, decent American families.

[Maelstrom]

Said "private conference" was a public school Sexual Education conference.

For public school children.

In a public school.

During school hours.

Thanks for confirming your bias. Good-bye.

[yendu bwam]

Anybody that is aware of his or her own sexual orientation should be able to understand that.

Madg - this is really one of the most preposterous things in the homosexual gaydeological mantra. Anybody with a serious psychological disorder experiences that disorder as a part of him/her self. I knew a girl who couldn't stop buying things - she drove herself deep into debt buying things that she didn't need. When confronted by friends about her problem (which was destroying her), she repeatedly claimed that she was normal and that that was part of her. It WAS part of her - it wasn't normal - and it's a condition which psychologists can frequently cure. The person with the disorder is the person LEAST able to understand its abnormality. Homosexuality is incredibly abnormal. If you're homosexual, you can choose to live your life with that condition - that's your business. But don't indoctrinate my kids with the idea that it's normal - it's not. Don't tell them that anal intercourse, high levels of promiscuity (often with anonymous partners), short lifespans on average, etc. etc. are normal. They're obviously not.

[Maelstrom]

Look up the definition of "springboard".

Stop trying to deny that the homsexual agenda includes indoctrinating teens. There was a child molestor in a high school in Snyder, NY for a number of years. This guy successfully persuaded student after student that they were "gay"...it became a FAD.

Roughly 30% of those students decided that they were homosexual. They were *made*, not born. Low self-esteem was the primary access used in combination with the lie: "You wouldn't have had an orgasm if you weren't gay."

http://www.blessedcause.org/Militant%20Intent.htm

Multiple excerpts from articles for which you declined to look:
http://www.inoohr.org/nea.htm

Homosexual activism is about training children into their (your) lifestyle.

[Clint N. Suhks]

To oversimplify, one could posit a genetic set up where there are two genes contributing; each parent might be 40% influenced towards being gay, but function as heterosexuals. Their child might then get the characteristics of both and be 80% influenced towards being gay.

There’s absolutely no proof of this. In fact, the twins studies prove just the opposite. Identical twins have never had a 100% concurrence rate, at best only a 0-50+%.

[Clint N. Suhks]

So if "homosexuality" is two percent; and if you take a bunch of twins, then the "gay concordance" rate should be about two percent.
But it's not... it's about fifty percent.

Wrong!! It’s 0 to 50% unless you want to believe a faulty volunteer study since discredited by one of the original researchers.

[RonF]

If you look back at my posts, I was giving this as an example of how in some heritance schemes, there are multiple genes involved. A previous posted seemed to be under the impression that inheritance was based on single genes in an "on/off" scenario. I specifically said that I was not indicating that such inheritance was necessarily proven to occur in this case.

[equus]

You're not understanding evolution which requires mutation, error, diversity, variation, etc. Homosexuality to a certain extent is present in many species. No its not the mean, I didn't say whether it's normal or abnormal. And hormonal/genetic variation that might lead a woman to be gay doesn't mean that her entire body is going to be rescripted and therefore she will have no monthly cycles. That's silly reasoning, you just don't understand evolution and genetics at all.

What moral/ethical/"normal"/"abnormal" spin you put on it is your own. I didn't put any spin on it myself. You totally ignored the science because apparently you find it so threatening.

[equus]

There's no possibility for a 100% concurrence rate in identical twins because you're ignoring the influence of environment on genes which is what I was talking about. In the womb even in identical twins one twin gets more of the nutrients because of where it's connected to the placenta. And once they get out--some will be exposed to different viruses, bacteria, they'll have different food tastes (even Siamese twins historically often have different food cravings). Genes are a big part of the picture but they don't operate like little widgets, they are influenced by the environment which is chemical, biological, hormonal, experiential, emotional etc etc

When you see a significantly higher than chance concordance (i.e. among identical twins, and higher than normal but not as high on fraternal/siblings, and less as you become less genetically allied)_....then you know genes are at work. It isn't 100%....

Yegads, freeps, get some of your science right!

[Clint N. Suhks]

Nice theory but ALL unprovable. I suppose you’re in the genetic predisposition quackery camp. I am however intrigued that Homosexuality is comparable to “food cravings” hehehe, does that mean when I detested anchovies and oysters in my twenties and now love them in my forties, I could maybe be interested in same-sex sodomy in my sixties?

So what you are saying is if we can manipulate nutrients to the placenta during gestation we can cure the disorder of homosexuality? Exactly what are the nutrients involved? Oh, and what viruses and bacteria cause genetic homosexuality in general? Would you be so kind to cite some of “your science” that supports these conclusions?

[Clint N. Suhks]

One powerful gene, known as SRY, seems to jumpstart manhood and can change a genetic female into a male.

Sorry gonadal ridges are common to BOTH sexes, by 6-7 weeks of fetal life, fetuses of both sexes have two sets of internal ducts, the Mullerian (female) ducts and the Wolffian (male) ducts. In males, the gonadal ridge develops into testes as a result of a product from a gene located on the Y chromosome. This product has been termed the "testis determining factor" or "sex determining region of the Y chromosome" (SRY). In females, the absence of SRY, due to the absence of a Y chromosome, permits the expression of other genes which will trigger the gonadal ridge to develop into ovaries.

Not only does intersex disorder have nothing to do with homosexuality, your assertion “genetic female” is wrong premise.

[Clint N. Suhks]

Biologically, SRY is clearly the first sculptor of gender

Wrong again science dude. It’s the chromosomes that determine gender, that’s why EVERY Syndrome of Abnormal Sex Differentiation is specific to either an XX combination or an XY combination.

[Maelstrom]

Not to mention that these are all *disorders*.

As is the *behavioral* disorder known as homosexuality.

[RAT Patrol]

That's silly reasoning, you just don't understand evolution and genetics at all.

With all due respect, equus (you're a smart person and everything) but telling me I don't understand evolution and genetics at all really does not make your case.

Genetics, "a branch of biology dealing with heredity and variation," or, "the science dealing with the interaction of the genes in producing similarities and differences between individuals related by descent" is also very mathematical. When a gene is both recessive AND non-reproducing in anyone who shows the trait (plus the other variables you are wanting to add) it should become rarer and rarer throughout time. While science is still learning about genetics, the precision of it is amazing.

Besides, you cannot argue both ways - that homosexuality is normal because it is genetic, AND it doesn't have to follow a pattern or logic because genetics doesn't have to make sense. It's one way or the other. Yes, traits can skip around. However, homosexuals cannot reproduce. IF the gene is recessive as well, that's significant. If you are arguing that sexual attraction is a matter of degree then you are saying that we are all somewhat bisexual. I don't buy that. Nothing about the physical condition of humans supports that theory.

Evolution is equally amazing and precise (in theory). There are reasons behind each change. Characteristics are developed slowly, over time, and with purpose. We lose traits we don't need and gain ones we do. Is that not the theory? If homosexuality were a natural phenomenon, it should have evolved physically as well. The ONLY so-called evidence anyone has to prove homosexuality is genetic is the "I want to" argument, plus the study of some gay activists who discovered a brain difference in gays. Well, other brain studies have found that stimulating a certain area of interest -- music for example -- at certain ages, develops that part of the brain. So when a claim of "genetics" is made solely on a "difference in the brain," it seems to me that nature vs. nurture is still at issue.

I do not pretend to be an expert in any of this. I don't think you are either. But there are some logic and science issues that don't fit, imo.

There is far more evidence to suggest that homosexuality is NOT physically normal, but it is an emotional/mental variation -- abnormality -- of unknown origin (some decent theories out there).

And yes, some mental illness is hereditary, but it is not "normal" as in ideal-give-em-kids-to-adopt, and it does not have the reproduction issue.

[RAT Patrol]

You are way better at arguing this than I am. Nice job!!!

[RAT Patrol]

"Gay Gene" Critic Links