Posted on 08/29/2007 7:43:20 AM PDT by jodiluvshoes
The literature is voluminous. There is no way I can post a half file drawer of scientific literature here. But let me try to approach your question in a way that I hope might shed some light on my thinking without getting too technical.
Male homosexuality is not an isolated trait; with it come a variety of characteristics. If you were asked to name the trait most likely to identify a man as homosexual, I'd guess you would cite the sibilant lisp that has become part of the gay stereotype. In fact, you would be right. I suppose you might also name certain occupational preferences, such as interior decorating and hairstyling. Also accurate observations. But there are less recognized traits also. As a group, gay men have a cognitive pattern that trends toward that of females: on average, higher verbal but poorer targeting ability than heterosexual males. In fact, research has found gay males are not significantly better than females at accurately hitting a target (think of throwing an object at a bullseye). From an early age, they also have a history of sex-atypical behavior (e.g. playing with dolls).
You can argue that all of this is learned, but IMO it gets ridiculous when you have so many traits to account for and so little evidence that anyone teaches males to do any of these things. All social conditioning of males is in the opposite direction; with the exception of feminist moonbats, no one encourages males to play with dolls, style hair, and be lousy at things like throwing. Or consider the lisp. How plausible is it that gay men learn to lisp after they decide they are homosexual? So much ridicule accompanies the lisp that one must ask why anyone would voluntarily adopt it. Even more problematic are reports of gay men who had the lisp in elementary school. It's illogical to argue that they learned this lisp as young children in preparation for becoming gay in their late teens. And how would gay men in the first study of targeting ability have known that they should not outperform the females? No one could have taught them that, because no one knew that this characteristic was associated with homosexuality.
I am sure you are familiar with the concept known as Occam's razor: the simplest explanation for a phenomenon is the preferred explanation. Here, the simplest explanation is that some aspect of the prenatal environment affects the brain of the developing fetus in a feminizing manner. As the child develops, his ability pattern and personal preferences trend toward those of the female (hence the preference for male sex partners). If this is the case, the causal factor(s) remain to be identified. For some time, there was interest in the relative balance of sex hormones in the prenatal environment, but I think the weight of the evidence is now against this. The most promising research going on right now is probably work looking at effects from the mother's immune response.
This is not to say that all instances of male homosexuality have the same cause or even that all instances have a biological basis. But I do think that biological influence is involved in the story. Twin studies are also relevant to that conclusion, but this is getting long and I have other things I must get done.
I hope this has been helpful.
Personally, I believe that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. I do not believe we are all born a clean slate and then *become* male or female. Studies have shown there is a small part of the brain .. in the in the hypothalamus .. where the dff btw male and female is evident.
It seems to me that there is almost a desperate attempt to find that elusive "gay gene" .. or some other kind of medical proof that they are born homosexual. Gay activists attempt to promote this theory as factual, if they can. Being born gay would solve some problems for them. So far, they haven't proven a thing; its all a lot of speculation and theories. Their proof always turns out to be a very irresponsible study that they try to offer up as "scientific proof".
That being said .. it could happen. If they do come up with a gay gene, or a responsible study that qualifies for a writeup in the New England Medical Journal proving that people are born gay .. I will reconsider and change my opinion.
Until then, I am not going to pretend that has already occurred.
You posted: I have seen this odd mind set, equating a bar with a bathroom, so much right here on this conservative website that I’m “seriesly stuned.”
I don’t expect the sodomites to understand. After all, they are people who identify themselves by their sex life. They see everywhere as a place to troll for sex. It is their habit to sexualize everything and every place. They can’t comprehend that normal people don’t think the same way.I am interested in knowing if these people who think bars and bathrooms are the same are reasoning through sodomite brains, or are just brainwashed kids, or are a whole generation of people with poor thinking skills.
***
You have made some suggestions about me that are simply wrong. If this Senator did what is claimed, and it looks like he did, he is a sleaze and scum. I am not a supporter of homosexuality. I think the lifestyle is wrong, although I understand that the Supreme Court has, to a degree, legitimized it. My thinking is solely related to whether what Larry Craig did is illegal, given what we allow to take place elsewhere. The question is not whether it is right, but whether it is illegal. Certainly having sex in a public restroom is illegal. I don’t think Craig did that or was charged with it (at least not in this case). He was not charged with leering or ogling anyone in that bathroom. Prostitution was not involved, as homosexual men seem to be willing to do these things for free. What Craig seems to have done was to inquire, through some understood gay communication system, as to whether his stall partner (policeman, as it turns out) wanted to have sex. Of course, Craig says that was not what he was doing, but that doesn’t seem credible.
If he had simply asked the cop just outside the restroom if he would like to have sex, it would have been just as wrong, but not illegal, right? If they had been washing at the sink after relieving themselves he could have asked, right? It would be no less disgusting, but would it have broken the law? That is my only question.
I am no gen-x’er, by the way. I am 50 years old, married, father of two. And, long long ago, in a campus restroom during undergrad years, this same thing happened to me. I wasn’t sure what was being asked by the guy who tried to pass paper and pencil to me under the stall, but I let him know in no uncertain terms that I was not interested, and he was smart to leave quickly.
Elsewhere on campus there was a nearly constant effort to get women to consent to sex, and it was not limited to bars. It took place everywhere men and women were together. That didn’t make it right, but I doubt that there was any law against it.
Had the guy in the next stall been a Chinese agent he could have very well blackmailed Craig into divulging secrets or God forbid voting with the Kook Fringe Chinese loving (Hillary) Democrats.
learned and chosen.
That may be the case with some of the gay activists. But among scientists, most simply want to understand why the world is the way it is. Even if someone has an ulterior motive, as long as the work conforms to the scientific method, the motive should not influence the data (although it may influence the individual's discussion of the data)
I have to tell you, I also see the other side of the coin ... "almost a desparate attempt" to deny the existence of credible data indicating that a biological basis for homosexuality is indeed a possibility.
We are of like mind on private behavior vs. demanding special rights. Also, there is no excuse for cruising for sex in a public men's room.
P.S.I understand what you are trying to say about not being born a clean slate relative to sex, but technically, we are. The process of sexual differentiation into male v. female does not begin until the second month of fetal development.
That is because we have PLENTY of degenerates here, infiltrators, passing as "conservatives," in order to move opinions to the left on everything. Especially the fags, after all that is their whole purpose in life! :)
I can spot them on the first two sentences. Many of those are the ones pushing for the 3 frontrunners... anything to delude social conservative principles is to their advantage, in their eyes. So don't kid yourselve or be surprised, they are here in droves!
Obviously, you have not read the actual charges. Go here:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0828071craig6.html
Without any disputing, in a signed admission of guilt, he plead to the lesser of the two charges here:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0828071craig8.html
The problem it seems you are having is in thinking that the way Craig acted in the can while trying to pick up people was normal. If he had just said hi, how are you. My hotel room is...that would be another story. But that is not what he did. He kept peeping through the crack in the door again and again, sticking his foot and his hand under the stall wall. His degenerate behavior was disturbing the reasonable expectation of privacy that you have when you enter a bathroom. As I already mentioned, if he had acted the same way in the ladies' room, he would be having trouble now too.
So, there is the problem I am having with your inability to understand. Either you don't believe people should expect to have privacy while they are undressed and doing their business in a bathroom. Or you just don't know the predatory behavior of those who are on the troll.
"Elsewhere on campus there was a nearly constant effort to get women to consent to sex, and it was not limited to bars. It took place everywhere men and women were together. That didn’t make it right, but I doubt that there was any law against it."
FYI (remember the ERA wasn't ratified) - men and women don't get together in bathrooms.
The problem is in the behavior. Should predatory advances be allowed where innocent children and a expectation of privacy have traditionally been respected? I don't think there is any question as to what the answer should be. The public bathroom is for the public, not someone who has another purpose for it. If the behavior is disturbing the public use of the facility, the behavior must end. That is why the laws exist.
A latrine is not a pickup place and a bar is not a bathroom. Don't try to equate the two. Remember, dogs get their drinks out of the toilet, people don't. You want a date, don't look in the lou.
I'm still at a loss as to why this is so difficult for some to understand.
Please don't take my words personally, I don't know you and I wasn't making suggestions about you as an individual. I was however, making observations about the number of people I have engaged over the past few days who share that indefensible idea, and I was speculating as to how they could possibly come to think that way. It is so far from any reasonable understanding of what is acceptable, I find it hard to fathom the logic behind it.
Thank you for the additional information. It is clear that if Craig did what he is said to have done, he commtted at least the disorderly conduct under the statute. As I have said in this thread, Craig’s actions were sick and perverted, (I didn’t know about the looking into the stall, I had only heard about the footsie and reaching his hand under the stall, which seems a closer call to me. The peeping seals the deal for me.)
You can usually tell them right off the bat. But as long as they are respectful, I don't have too much of a problem with them. It is just that in this situation with Craig, people seem to have taken leave of their common sense. A bathroom is not a bordello and most people have no problem understanding that people in a public restroom should be left alone. But these odd ones seem to think that it must be a constitutionally protected right.
I can see it now, people banging on the stall door, sticking their ugly mugs under the door to leer at you, mirrors and video cameras above and below the stall -- all protected by the constitution. No more disturbing the peace or lewd behavior arrests. Everybody just do whatever, where ever, and whenever. Anarchists, nihilists and liberaltarians unite in this brave new world.
Please for give me. I have had to deal with a number of people who for whatever reason did not like the fact that Craig has been brought to justice. Sometimes I forget that people may not have all the information. If I had just heard about the foot and the hands, perhaps I would have felt the same way. The fact that it was a known pickup area with known, acted upon behavior sealed it for me.
I am glad the information was able to help.
Be proud of your words and deeds, Larry, not a bundle of contradictions.
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.