Disturbing article/science and homosexuality

[Guest guest]

@@@@@@@@@@@

> the real problem here, though, is that homosexuality becomes some

kind of

> " mutant genetic disaster " which i think is just totally bogus. i

don't know

> if i can buy the validity of any of these scientific arguments

anyway,

> since homosexuality has been around (and well documented) since

ancient

> times. (i guess that's two problems, isn't it?)

> -katja

@@@@@@@@@@@@@

I don't see how the universal existence of homosexuality through the

entire history of our species has any bearing on those scientific

arguments. The scientific arguments don't have any implications for

morality; they simply attempt to explain the pre-cultural ontogeny of

the phenomenon (genes + womb). These are two independent matters.

I'm choosing my words carefully to distinguish this from the separate

matter of homosexuality as a cultural choice (i.e. ubiquitious

college-only lesbianism or the " not gay but like to have sex with

other men " attitude that Heidi mentioned). As far as I'm concerned,

no amount of scientific explanation will ever change the basic human

rights of homosexuals and I can only hope the basic, universal human

phenomenon of homosexuality becomes more common to keep it safely

beyond the ideologically vulnerable margins of culture. It would

probably be beneficial culturally and ecologically if human

relationships were 50/50 homosexual/heterosexual. Social progress

and adaptation.

Mike

SE Pennsylvania

[Guest guest]

>It would

>probably be beneficial culturally and ecologically if human

>relationships were 50/50 homosexual/heterosexual. Social progress

>and adaptation.

Personally I liked Heinlien's world where people formed family

" groups " under contract ... sex or not within the group was

up to the group, but they were bound together financially

etc. A group of 6 individuals that got along well would have

a lot more power and flexibility than one married couple.

However, I have never known 6 individuals who actually

got along that well. Hard enough with 2.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

At 02:50 PM 2/12/2004, you wrote:

> > times. (i guess that's two problems, isn't it?)

> > -katja

>@@@@@@@@@@@@@

>

>I don't see how the universal existence of homosexuality through the

>entire history of our species has any bearing on those scientific

>arguments. The scientific arguments don't have any implications for

no, it didn't. that's why it was two problems

[Guest guest]

From my patch homosexuality is a religious " crime. " I couldn't care less

what my neighbors' or co-workers' (when I was working) sexual preferences

are as long as they don't push them on me..

I did get " propositioned " by a co-worker once. But when she discovered that

I was not interested she never mentioned it again. Very nice lady, good to

work with and I liked her a lot. I thought no less of her for asking the

question.

Judith Alta

-----Original Message-----

From: Anton [mailto:michaelantonparker@...]

I don't see how the universal existence of homosexuality through the

entire history of our species has any bearing on those scientific

arguments. The scientific arguments don't have any implications for

morality; they simply attempt to explain the pre-cultural ontogeny of

the phenomenon (genes + womb). These are two independent matters.

I'm choosing my words carefully to distinguish this from the separate

matter of homosexuality as a cultural choice (i.e. ubiquitious

college-only lesbianism or the " not gay but like to have sex with

other men " attitude that Heidi mentioned). As far as I'm concerned,

no amount of scientific explanation will ever change the basic human

rights of homosexuals and I can only hope the basic, universal human

phenomenon of homosexuality becomes more common to keep it safely

beyond the ideologically vulnerable margins of culture. It would

probably be beneficial culturally and ecologically if human

relationships were 50/50 homosexual/heterosexual. Social progress

and adaptation.

Mike

SE Pennsylvania

[Guest guest]

Judith Alta wrote:

> From my patch homosexuality is a religious " crime. " I couldn't care

> less what my neighbors' or co-workers' (when I was working) sexual

> preferences are as long as they don't push them on me..

In short, you don't care who puts whose hoo-hoo in whom?

[Guest guest]

Nope. What consenting adults do is their own business. If it's legal for

opposite sex partners it should also be legal for same sex partners.

Judith Alta

-----Original Message-----

From: Berg [mailto:bberg@...]

Judith Alta wrote:

> From my patch homosexuality is a religious " crime. " I couldn't care

> less what my neighbors' or co-workers' (when I was working) sexual

> preferences are as long as they don't push them on me..

In short, you don't care who puts whose hoo-hoo in whom?

[Guest guest]

> > From my patch homosexuality is a religious " crime. " I couldn't

care

> > less what my neighbors' or co-workers' (when I was working) sexual

> > preferences are as long as they don't push them on me..

>

> In short, you don't care who puts whose hoo-hoo in whom?

@@@@@@@@@@@@

,

That's very post-graphemic.

Mike

SE Pennsylvania

[Guest guest]

---Why did you limit it to consenting adults? They want your boys!

Dennis

In , " Judith Alta " <jaltak@v...>

wrote:

> Nope. What consenting adults do is their own business. If it's

legal for

> opposite sex partners it should also be legal for same sex partners.

>

> Judith Alta

>

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Berg [mailto:bberg@c...]

>

>

> Judith Alta wrote:

> > From my patch homosexuality is a religious " crime. " I couldn't

care

> > less what my neighbors' or co-workers' (when I was working) sexual

> > preferences are as long as they don't push them on me..

>

> In short, you don't care who puts whose hoo-hoo in whom?

[Guest guest]

You're not talking about NAMBLA are you? Yes, it is somewhat intertwined

with gay issues for some

A line has to be drawn somewhere.

Re: Disturbing article/science and homosexuality

---Why did you limit it to consenting adults? They want your boys!

Dennis

In , " Judith Alta " <jaltak@v...>

wrote:

> Nope. What consenting adults do is their own business. If it's

legal for

> opposite sex partners it should also be legal for same sex partners.

>

> Judith Alta

>

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Berg [mailto:bberg@c...]

>

>

> Judith Alta wrote:

> > From my patch homosexuality is a religious " crime. " I couldn't

care

> > less what my neighbors' or co-workers' (when I was working) sexual

> > preferences are as long as they don't push them on me..

>

> In short, you don't care who puts whose hoo-hoo in whom?

[Guest guest]

> You're not talking about NAMBLA are you?

Judging homosexuals by NAMBLA is a little like judging straight men by

Ted Bundy and Ridgway.

Lynn S.

[Guest guest]

> ---Why did you limit it to consenting adults? They want

> your boys!

I was browsing Iowa's online sex offender database the other day, and

guess what? Heterosexual men want your little girls!