First man standing was 4 mn years ago
J Young
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1042839.cms
ADDIS ABABA: A team of US and Ethiopian scientists has discovered the
fossilised remains of what they believe is humankind's first walking
ancestor, a hominid that lived in the wooded grasslands of the Horn of
Africa nearly 4 million years ago.
"Right now we can say this is the world's oldest bipedal," said Bruce
Latimer, director of the Cleveland Museum of Natural History in Ohio.
The bones were discovered in February at a new site called Mille, in
the northeastern Afar region of Ethi-opia, said Latimer. They are
estimated to be 3.8-4 million years old.
The fossils include a complete tibia from the lower part of the leg,
parts of a thighbone, ribs, vertebrae, a collarbone, pelvis and a
complete shoulder blade, or scapula. There also is an ankle bone which,
with the tibia, proves the creature walked upright, said Latimer,
co-leader of the team that discovered the fossils.
The bones are the latest in a growing collection of early human
fragments that help explain the evolutionary history of man.
james g. keegan jr.
J Young wrote:
> Here's a scary thought; What if he had been gay?
your obsession with gay males is growing, isn't it?
Rev. Karl E. Taylor
> Here's a scary thought; What if he had been gay?
>
>
> http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1042839.cms
>
>
--
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
____________________________________________________________________
Rev. Karl E. Taylor ktay...@getnet.net
A.A #1143 PLONKED by Bob
Apostle of Dr. Lao EAC: Virgin Conversion Unit Director
____________________________________________________________________
Andrealphus
Obviously Young hadn't thought that through. Just because only one set of
fossilized remains were found, doesn't mean their was only one of them. In
all probability, a certain portion of them were gay, or prehaps the entire
population of them were bisexual. The world may never know.
--
"Only Buddhism is compatible with science. It covers the smallest
particles to the largest creations of the cosmos. It is the only
religion capable of scientific truth."
Albert Einstein
Brian E. Clark
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, J Young said...
> Here's a scary thought; What if he had been gay?
How do you know he wasn't?
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
james g. keegan jr.
> On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 02:31:55 GMT, "Andrealphus"
> <OHNOL...@NARNIA.WHOCARES_4> wrote:
>
> >james g. keegan jr. <jgke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> J Young wrote:
> >>> Here's a scary thought; What if he had been gay?
> >>
> >> your obsession with gay males is growing, isn't it?
> >
> >Obviously Young hadn't thought that through. Just because
> >only one set of fossilized remains were found, doesn't mean
> >their was only one of them. In all probability, a certain
> >portion of them were gay, or prehaps the entire
> >population of them were bisexual. The world may never know.
>
>
> all have been wiped out by AIDS before they had time to reproduce in
> sufficient numbers to sustain the species.
realy? what studies can you cite to support this claim? were these
studies peer reviewed?
james g. keegan jr.
> On Sun, 6 Mar 2005 22:56:48 -0500, Brian E. Clark
> <re...@newsgroup.only.please> wrote:
>
> >In article <1110160891.314563.73140
> >@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, J Young said...
> >
> >> Here's a scary thought; What if he had been gay?
> >
> >How do you know he wasn't?
>
really? what tests were performed to determine this? where were these
results published?
no need for a response if you made it up.
Ray Fischer
> "Andrealphus"
>>james g. keegan jr. <jgke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> J Young wrote:
>>>> Here's a scary thought; What if he had been gay?
>>>
>>> your obsession with gay males is growing, isn't it?
>>
>>Obviously Young hadn't thought that through. Just because only one set of
>>fossilized remains were found, doesn't mean their was only one of them. In
>>all probability, a certain portion of them were gay, or prehaps the entire
>>population of them were bisexual. The world may never know.
>
>all have been wiped out by AIDS before they had time to reproduce in
>sufficient numbers to sustain the species.
How impressively stupid. 1) AIDS hasn't been around for even 100
years yet. 2) Humans adapt to diseases. For example syphillis.
500 years ago it was a serious disease that caused the near
extermination of native peoples in the America. Now, even without
treatment, people can cope with the disease.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Andrealphus
"james g. keegan jr." <jgke...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1110169521.8...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
LOL! Why do you even respond to Taylor? He's a moron, not even fit for the
discussion. He hasn't said a single intelligent thing since he started
posting and he's not likely to start any time soon.
Douglas Berry
leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the
following
>On Sun, 6 Mar 2005 22:56:48 -0500, Brian E. Clark
><re...@newsgroup.only.please> wrote:
>
>>@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, J Young said...
>>
>>> Here's a scary thought; What if he had been gay?
>>
>>How do you know he wasn't?
>
"Patient Zero" was infected in the late 1970s, about 35-40 years ago.
That is the first known case of AIDS.
This being lived 4,000,000 years ago. So I think we can rule AIDS
out.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
Clayton: The Reason The Housewives Are Desperate!
>
> J Young wrote:
> > Here's a scary thought; What if he had been gay?
>
> your obsession with gay males is growing, isn't it?
>
The idea of gobbling a knob occupies his every thought 24/7....he needs to
go out and get some big sweaty stud to fuck him until his eyes roll
back...until then he'll just keep pissing and moaning and waving his book of
fairy tales!
Andrealphus
> On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 04:12:34 GMT, w...@privacy.net drained his beer,
> leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the
> following
>> On Sun, 6 Mar 2005 22:56:48 -0500, Brian E. Clark
>> <re...@newsgroup.only.please> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <1110160891.314563.73140
>>> @f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, J Young said...
>>>
>>>> Here's a scary thought; What if he had been gay?
>>>
>>> How do you know he wasn't?
>>
>> He didn't die of AIDS.
>
> "Patient Zero" was infected in the late 1970s, about 35-40 years ago.
> That is the first known case of AIDS.
>
Not true. It was the first case that they could trace back to. They have
since found medical records of cases dating back to the 1950's.
> This being lived 4,000,000 years ago. So I think we can rule AIDS
> out.
--
Pat Winstanley
youngo...@aol.com says...
> Here's a scary thought; What if he had been gay?
>
What if he was?
How do you know whether or not he was?
How do you know whether or not the first one to (principally, rather
than partially) walk upright was male rather than female?
Why don't you understand the way evolution works?
Who cares what you think/know/believe given that it rarely accords with
facts anyway?
R?ain - ריעין
"Pat Winstanley" <boredof...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c964c793...@news.uni-berlin.de...
: In article <1110160891....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
Sylvia Beach
w...@privacy.net wrote:
>
> On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 02:31:55 GMT, "Andrealphus"
> <OHNOL...@NARNIA.WHOCARES_4> wrote:
>
> >james g. keegan jr. <jgke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> J Young wrote:
> >>> Here's a scary thought; What if he had been gay?
> >>
> >> your obsession with gay males is growing, isn't it?
> >
> >Obviously Young hadn't thought that through. Just because only one set of
> >fossilized remains were found, doesn't mean their was only one of them. In
> >all probability, a certain portion of them were gay, or prehaps the entire
> >population of them were bisexual. The world may never know.
>
> Impossible. If they had been homosexuals or even bisexual they would
> all have been wiped out by AIDS before they had time to reproduce in
> sufficient numbers to sustain the species.
The cave paintings in france were clearly done by a gay man, the quality
is too good for a straight artist
--
Sylvia Beach
Shakespeare & Co., Booksellers
12 Rue de l'Odeon
Paris, France
....A slender body, hands soft and white
For the service of my delight.
Two sprouting breasts
Round and sweet
Invite my hungry mouth to eat.
From whence two nipples firm and pink
Persuade my thirsty soul to drink
And lower still a secret place
Where I'd fain hide my loving face....."
Isadora Duncan
James Riske
> james g. keegan jr. <jgke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>J Young wrote:
>>
>>>Here's a scary thought; What if he had been gay?
>>
>>your obsession with gay males is growing, isn't it?
>
>
> Obviously Young hadn't thought that through. Just because only one set of
> fossilized remains were found, doesn't mean their was only one of them. In
> all probability, a certain portion of them were gay, or prehaps the entire
> population of them were bisexual. The world may never know.
>
Nobody is born a faggot.
--
"The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do
nothing."--Edmund Burke
James Riske
It's always fun watching faggots make fools of themselves on usenet,
simply because someone despises faggots doesn't make that person a
faggot just like someone who despises pedophiles isn't a closet pedophile.
Stay stupid
Cary Kittrell
>
>
> w...@privacy.net wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 02:31:55 GMT, "Andrealphus"
> > <OHNOL...@NARNIA.WHOCARES_4> wrote:
> >
> > >james g. keegan jr. <jgke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> J Young wrote:
> > >>> Here's a scary thought; What if he had been gay?
> > >>
> > >> your obsession with gay males is growing, isn't it?
> > >
> > >Obviously Young hadn't thought that through. Just because only one set of
> > >fossilized remains were found, doesn't mean their was only one of them. In
> > >all probability, a certain portion of them were gay, or prehaps the entire
> > >population of them were bisexual. The world may never know.
> >
> > Impossible. If they had been homosexuals or even bisexual they would
> > all have been wiped out by AIDS before they had time to reproduce in
> > sufficient numbers to sustain the species.
>
> The cave paintings in france were clearly done by a gay man, the quality
> is too good for a straight artist
>
Were they cave paintings, or were they ... interior decorating?
-- cary
Cary Kittrell
>
> On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 13:00:56 GMT, Sylvia Beach
> <Bea...@ShakespeareCoBookseller.fr> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >w...@privacy.net wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 02:31:55 GMT, "Andrealphus"
> >> <OHNOL...@NARNIA.WHOCARES_4> wrote:
> >>
> >> >james g. keegan jr. <jgke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> J Young wrote:
> >> >>> Here's a scary thought; What if he had been gay?
> >> >>
> >> >> your obsession with gay males is growing, isn't it?
> >> >
> >> >Obviously Young hadn't thought that through. Just because only one set of
> >> >fossilized remains were found, doesn't mean their was only one of them. In
> >> >all probability, a certain portion of them were gay, or prehaps the entire
> >> >population of them were bisexual. The world may never know.
> >>
> >> Impossible. If they had been homosexuals or even bisexual they would
> >> all have been wiped out by AIDS before they had time to reproduce in
> >> sufficient numbers to sustain the species.
> >
> >The cave paintings in france were clearly done by a gay man, the quality
> >is too good for a straight artist
>
>
> permitted it.
Well, that certainly explains why that Michaelangelo guy was
such a hack.
-- cary
Frank J Warner
Young <youngo...@aol.com> wrote:
> Here's a scary thought; What if he had been gay?
You would probably have liked him a lot better then, wouldn't you?
-Frank
--
fwarner1-at-franksknives-dot-com
Here's some of my work:
http://www.franksknives.com/
Douglas Berry
leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the
following
>>> This being lived 4,000,000 years ago. So I think we can rule AIDS
>>> out.
>
>OK, then we can rule homosexuality out too.
No since homosexuality occurs in all primates, at similar rates, logic
suggests that the early hominids also had exclusively gay members.
Douglas Berry
leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the
following
>>The cave paintings in france were clearly done by a gay man, the quality
>>is too good for a straight artist
>
>Impossible. Their AIDS addled homosexual brains would never have
>permitted it.
Ever hear of Michelangelo? Leonardo da Vinci?
R?ain - ריעין
"James Riske" <james...@h0tmail.com> wrote in message
news:d0hq8k$kj4$2...@pita.alt.net...
:
: Nobody is born a faggot.
Matty
> Andrealphus wrote:
>> james g. keegan jr. <jgke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> J Young wrote:
>>>
>>>> Here's a scary thought; What if he had been gay?
>>>
>>> your obsession with gay males is growing, isn't it?
>>
>>
>> Obviously Young hadn't thought that through. Just because only one set of
>> fossilized remains were found, doesn't mean their was only one of them. In
>> all probability, a certain portion of them were gay, or prehaps the entire
>> population of them were bisexual. The world may never know.
>>
>
>
> Nobody is born a faggot.
How then can we explain you?
Matt
Patrick Lee Humphrey
>On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 00:43:18 GMT, Douglas Berry
><pengu...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
>>No since homosexuality occurs in all primates, at similar rates, logic
>>suggests that the early hominids also had exclusively gay members.
>Proof...
Your proof is a number around 120, and comes in a bottle.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2004-05 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Houston 3, Grand Rapids 1 (March 7)
NEXT GAME: Wednesday, March 9 at Chicago, 7:05
L. Michael Roberts
Douglas Berry wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 19:25:09 GMT, w...@privacy.net drained his beer,
> leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the
> following
>
>
>>>The cave paintings in france were clearly done by a gay man, the quality
>>>is too good for a straight artist
>>
>>Impossible. Their AIDS addled homosexual brains would never have
>>permitted it.
>
>
> Ever hear of Michelangelo? Leonardo da Vinci?
Van Gogh?
--
+==================== L. Michael Roberts ======================+
This represents my personal opinion and NOT Company policy
Goderich, Ont, Canada. To reply, post a request for my valid E-mail
"Life is a sexually transmitted, terminal, condition"
+================================================================+
R?ain - ריעין
Michelangelo 1475 - 1564
Some of the most famous sculpture, painting and architecture in the
world was created by Michelangelo, who spent most of his lengthy career
creating monumental works of art for seven consecutive Popes. Regarded
as the greatest living artist of his day, he remains one of the greatest
artists of all time.
A hot-tempered guy, Michelangelo got his nose broken in a fistfight with
another sculptor. He didn't wash, slept in his studio alongside his
work, and though he became wealthy, ate and dressed like a pauper and
worked like a dog. His homosexuality and religious fervor generated
great conflict within him, and one self-portrait shows him as the flayed
skin of St. Bartholomew (above right). When he was older, a much
healthier self-portrait portrays him as Joseph of Aramathea (above
left).
How do we know Michelangelo was gay?
When the contemporary sculptor Cellini was accused of "sodomy" by a
rival, he retorted "Oh, fool, you're wrong [he lied!]: but would God I
knew how to practice such a noble art, since one reads that Jove used it
with Ganymede in paradise." So knowing that, as educated people did back
then, if a guy you'd just met made drawings like these for you, would
you think he was gay? Jove in the form of an eagle seems to be
copulating with Ganymede, right. The drawings, with legs spread wide and
thighs for days, were for Tommaso De'Cavalieri, a handsome young
nobleman. Tommaso responded in kind, and the two men were friends for
over thirty years.
In his poetry also,
Michelangelo's passion for Cavalieri resounds:
If I must be defeated to be blessed,
Don't marvel that one, naked and alone,
should prove a prisoner of an armored knight.
The name Cavalieri of course means "knight". Michelangelo also wrote:
The love I speak of aspires to the heights;
woman is too dissimilar, and it ill becomes
a wise and manly heart to burn for her.
It's true that Michelangelo seems more inhibited about his sexuality
than was Leonardo da Vinci, but Leonardo lived in Florence and
Michelangelo in Rome, a generation later -- the time and place were not
as permissive.
There can be no doubt Michelangelo fell erotically and romantically for
Tommaso, even if some people don't think they expressed it physically.
You don't have to get laid to be gay (but it helps!).
BUT don't just take MY word for it....
From Serge Bramly, Leonardo: Discovering the Life of Leonardo Da Vinci
(1991):
About Michelangelo, Bramly writes "A homosexual, he was torn between
his passions and his religion." p. 344
From Michael White, Leonardo, The First Scientist (2000):
In describing Leonardo da Vinci's relationship with Lorenzo de Medici,
White writes:
"Lorenzo was heterosexual, later described by Machiavelli as
"incredibly given to the pleasures of Venus". Leonardo was homosexual
with a very public sodomy trial behind him. However, it is certain the
different sexual tastes of the two men would not have been a major
factor in the progress of their relationship. After all, Lorenzo
actively encouraged at least one other homosexual artist, Michelangelo,
giving him a string of commissions and even opening his homes to him,
treating him almost as a social equal." p. 83-84
<w...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:ndbq21hmcprussor1...@4ax.com...
: On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 00:44:35 GMT, Douglas Berry
: <pengu...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
:
: >On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 19:25:09 GMT, w...@privacy.net drained his beer,
: >leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the
: >following
: >
: >>>The cave paintings in france were clearly done by a gay man, the
quality
: >>>is too good for a straight artist
: >>
: >>Impossible. Their AIDS addled homosexual brains would never have
: >>permitted it.
: >
: >Ever hear of Michelangelo? Leonardo da Vinci?
:
: Yes, and I heard the lies that they were homosexuals. Have you some
: undisputable proof that they were, if not I suggest that you don't
: even consider going down that road.
R?ain - ריעין
The ultimate renaissance man, Leonardo was felt to represent not only
humanity but also divinity itself. His famous drawing of Vitruvius Man
demonstrates the perfection of the proportions of the human figure.
Besides his amazing notebooks, he created the most famous religious
painting in the world and, of course, the most famous portrait ever.
We always think of Leonardo like this famous self-portrait, but you
figure he must've been young once.
The following is from Serge Bramly's great book about him:
No other personality was so intimidating, no other career so difficult
to encompass, so biographers often resort to the assumption that
Leonardo embodied some superhuman quality: "il divino". Vasari (a
contemporary biographer of Leonardo) writes "there is something
supernatural in the accumulation in one individual of so much beauty,
grace, and might. With his right hand he could twist an iron horseshoe
as if it were made of lead. In his liberality, he welcomed and gave food
to any friend, rich or poor." His kindness, his sweet nature, his
eloquence ("his speech could bend in any direction the most obdurate of
wills") his regal magnanimity, his sense of humor, his love of wild
creatures, his "terrible strength in argument, sustained by intelligence
and memory," the subtlety of his mind "which never ceased to devise
inventions," his aptitude for mathematics, science, music, poetry.
What's more, Leonardo was a man of "physical beauty beyond compare."
How do we know Leonardo was gay?
When he was twenty-four years old, Leonardo was arrested, along with
several young companions, on the charge of sodomy.
No witnesses appeared against them and eventually the charges were
dropped. It must be said that often anonymous charges like this were
brought against people just for a nuisance. Renaissance Florentines
didn't make the distinctions we make about sexuality today and
apparently it was common for young men to get into sexual relationships;
in fact, the word "Florenzer" was German slang for "homosexual".
Leonardo had no relationships with women, never married, had no
children, and raised many young prot?g?s, including one nicknamed
"Salai" which means "offspring of Satan", sketches of whom are shown
above. Salai stole things, broke things, lied, and was generally a,
well, devil; if he were a mere student or servant he would have been
sacked. It's not hard for me to see how this imp would be attractive to
Leonardo (or to me, now that I mention it). He stayed with Leonardo for
over twenty years, and appears many times in Leonardo's sketchbooks.
But don't just take MY word for it....
From Serge Bramly, Leonardo: Discovering the Life of Leonardo Da Vinci
(1991):
Among several citations under "Homosexuality" in the index are the
following:
"Yet while no definite proof exists of Leonardo's homosexuality. there
are plenty of indicatons, in his drawings as well as in his writings,
that he was attracted to males, and, as Freud puts it, 'doubtful whether
he ever embraced a woman with love'." p. 119
"There is no record of any woman in his life -- not even a female
friendship. On the other hand, he was soon surrounding himself with a
constantly renewed court of remarkably beautiful young men." p. 119
There follows six pages on Salai, one of Leonardo's "remarkably
beautiful young men", starting at p. 223.
So there is no doubt that Mr. Bramly thinks, even though he admits
there's no "proof", that Leonardo was gay.
From Michael White, Leonardo, The First Scientist (2000):
"He [Leonardo] was a homosexual vegetarian born out of wedlock who
received very little formal education and was excluded by birthright
from almost all professions." p. 7
About the sodomy accusation, he writes:
"It is possible that up to this time he had felt no real guilt about his
homosexuality, that it had either been natural to him, or else he
accepted it as part of his self-image; after all, there were certainly
plenty of role models [in other Florentine painters] for him." p. 72
In describing Leonardo's relationship with Lorenzo de Medici. White
writes:
"Lorenzo was heterosexual, later described by Machiavelli as "incredibly
given to the pleasures of Venus". Leonardo was homosexual with a very
public sodomy trial behind him. However, it is certain the different
sexual tastes of the two men would not have been a major factor in the
progress of their relationship. After all, Lorenzo actively encouraged
at least one other homosexual artist, Michelangelo, giving him a string
of commissions and even opening his homes to him, treating him almost as
a social equal." p. 83-84
Then, writing about Salai, White says:
"Biographers have skirted the issue of Leonardo's relationship with
Salai because it has been a subject too sensitive to investigate
candidly. Kenneth Clark, writing in the 1930s, simply refers to the
relationship by saying "these facts... inevitably suggest that his
relationship with the master was of a kind honored in classical times,
and partly tolerated in the renaissance, in spite of the censure of the
Church." p. 137
"... Giacomo [Salai's real name] soon became a fixture in his life and
was hardly to leave his side fo the next three decades. From his actions
and the way Leonardo treated him, Salai played the role of son, friend,
helper, and quite possibly, lover." p. 137
So there is no doubt that, like Mr. Bramly, Mr. White thinks, even
though he also admits there's no "proof", that both Leonardo and
Michelangelo were gay. So if you include Kenneth Clark, the British art
historian whom White quotes, there's three experts right there who think
Leonardo was gay.
Have you heard of Sister Wendy? She is an English nun who became an art
expert and made several BBC TV shows. Sister Wendy attributes the
knowing smile of the Mona Lisa to the subject's sharing of a private
joke with the artist: they both know he is gay. She says something like,
here this beautiful noblewoman was sitting for her wedding portrait, and
she and the artist both knew getting married was something Leonardo
would never do, because he was gay, and they both saw the humor and
irony in it, hence the mysterious smile. Get Sister Wendy Beckett on
video or DVD and hear her discuss the Mona Lisa.
Leonardo's friend Machiavelli, the Florentine statesman who is famous
for his advocacy of unscrupulous political opportunism, had a son,
Ludovico, who apparently had a boyfriend. Machiavelli wrote to a friend
to ask what he should do about it. The friend, who was Florence's
ambassador to the Papal Court, replied:
"Since we are verging on old age, we might be severe and overly
scrupulous, and we do not remember what we did as adolescents. So
Ludovico has a boy with him, with whom he amuses himself, jests, takes
walks, growls in his ear, goes to bed together. What then? Even in these
things perhaps there is nothing bad."
<w...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:ndbq21hmcprussor1...@4ax.com...
: On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 00:44:35 GMT, Douglas Berry
: <pengu...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
:
: >On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 19:25:09 GMT, w...@privacy.net drained his beer,
: >leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the
: >following
: >
: >>>The cave paintings in france were clearly done by a gay man, the
quality
: >>>is too good for a straight artist
: >>
: >>Impossible. Their AIDS addled homosexual brains would never have
: >>permitted it.
: >
: >Ever hear of Michelangelo? Leonardo da Vinci?
R?ain - ריעין
Homosexuality in Non-Human Species
Lacey Bousquet
University of New Hampshire
The whispers can be heard in every corner of the world today from the
chilled terrain of Alaska to the sweltering Sahara Desert. The word is
out on homosexuality. Homosexuality is here, is real, and the topic
begs for discussion. Scrambling scientists search for answers to the
questions: Why homosexuality? What is homosexuality? Where can it be
found? Heated arguments continue to rise about these issues. People
struggle between the ideas of homosexuality being okay and natural, or
disgusting and immoral. In the midst of these struggles the voices of
religious figures, conservatives, and our forefathers ring in the ears
of all. Scholars try to resist these voices and through research and
observation explore the extent of sexual diversity in all animals.
First scientists defined the different types of sexual diversity
consisting of transgender, hermaphrodites, parthenogenesis, and
homosexuality. By studying these types they realized homosexuality
occurs all over the globe in species of rodents, cetaceans, primates and
others. Now more than 450 different species have been recorded to
engage in homosexual acts including courtship, affection, and sex
(Kluger, 1999). After learning about the wide distribution of homosexual
creatures many theories erupted of why homosexuality exists. Perhaps
the purpose is to show dominance, create stronger social bonds, or to
decrease aggression. The truth is, no one knows why homosexuality is so
wide spread or what causes it, and this lack of knowledge only sparks
more interest.
Sexual diversity is widely misunderstood. There are an
incredible amount of interchangeable vague terms. What is homosexuality
anyway? Homosexuality is just one of the many forms of sexuality
commonly found in species across the globe. The word homosexual
pertains to an individual who has an attraction, (either physical,
emotional or both,) to another individual of the same biological sex.
Exclusive homosexuality has been found between two male Humboldt
Penguins, which were recorded to stay mated for up to six years, and
Greyleg Geese for up to 15 years!
Of course, if you ask any person who has experienced homosexuality in
some way, they would tell you it is not quite so black and white.
Sexuality is a fluid continuum with many shades of gray. Besides
homosexuality, there is also bisexuality where an individual is
attracted to both sexes. This is the most widely found form of
sexuality, seen in Japanese Macaques, dolphins, birds, rodents, etc
(Bagemihl, 1999). Of course there is also heterosexuality where an
individual is only attracted to an individual of the opposite sex.
The less common, but still present sexualities are a bit harder to
understand. Transgendered creatures are animals that cross all the
gender and sex boundaries. Transvestites, transsexuals, and
intersexuals fall under this category. Transvestites imitate the
opposite sex, which can be compared to many drag queens in humans today.
Lower ranking rams, for another example, will live with the ewes and
imitate their actions even in following around the dominant ram and
resisting his attempts to mount (Bama, 2002). Transsexuals physically
become the opposite sex, which is comparable to humans who get a sex
change. In non-human species, some actually undergo complete genital
reversal like some individuals of angelfish, groupers, parrotfish,
shrimp, and oysters whose genitalia changes from one sex to another
after they reach a certain age (Bagemihl, 1999). Intersexed beings have
the physical characteristics of both sexes, which was found in a few
Eastern Gray kangaroos that had both a penis and pouch, (normally found
only in females) (Bagemihl, 1999). There are also hermaphrodites like
the earthworm, where each individual has both male and female sex organs
and when two mate, they impregnate each other. Then there is the simple
form of asexual reproduction, otherwise called parthenogenesis where a
population is all female and no sexual activities occur to procreate, as
in Daphnia (also known as “water fleas”).
It was first thought by many scholars that homosexuality did
not exist in non-human species. Like Anne Dagg said, “Homosexual human
couples who remain together throughout their adult life have few, if
any, counterparts in wild mammals as far as is known at present”
(Bagemihl, 1999). A large range of animals exhibits each of the many
types of sexual diversity. Though exclusive homosexuality is rare in
nature, it is still evident. Silver gulls have been the only species so
far to be observed extensively for evidence of exclusive homosexuality.
In a recent study done by Mills in 1991 it was observed that silver gull
males actually have many same sex partners during their lifespan through
“divorce” or because their partners died (Bagemihl, 1999). Exclusive
homosexuality is documented mainly in bird species at this time.
However, bisexuality is found in almost every animal society studied.
Hoofed mammals are popular study subjects for sexual diversity. Deer,
goats, sheep, caribou, giraffes, zebra, warthogs, elephants, and many
more have been documented in homosexual acts such as pair bonding,
mutual masturbation, courtship, parenting, and sex. Male-to-male and
female-to-female mounting is seen across all species studied so far.
Some say this is just because the animals get confused and mistake one
for the opposite sex, but it is fairly difficult to mistake a female
white-tailed deer for a male white-tailed deer when the males have large
antlers (Bagemihl, 1999).
Besides same sex mounting, courtship is also seen. In many species,
same sex courting occurs in the exact way that opposite sex courting
happens in that species. For example, in Japanese macaques the sounds
made during copulation ceremonies in opposite sex courting and mating
are the same noises made in same sex ceremonies. Sexual diversity also
occurs among many marine mammals. Dolphins, Killer Whales, Gray Whales,
Right Whales, seals, manatees, and walruses all participate in same sex
interactions like blowhole penetration and pair-rolling (Bagemihl,
1999).
Many scholars believed and still believe that homosexuality does not
occur in any of the higher species on the evolutionary scale (Bagemihl,
1999). Some admit that maybe homosexual activity is found in rodents
and birds but never in species of primates. Contrary to this belief,
several species of primates are documented to regularly participate in
homosexual acts. In fact the Pygmy Chimp, (otherwise known as the
Bonobo,) is well known solely for its homosexual consorts. Rump
rubbing, genital rubbing, mounting, affectionate behavior, courtship,
and pair bonding have been observed in many primate species from the
large gorillas to the tiny macaques (Bagemihl, 1999).
Paul Vasey, Bernard Chapais, and Carole Gauthier from the University of
Montreal extensively studied the Japanese Macaques. They found that up
to nine percent of Macaque population is exclusively homosexual (mostly
all females), 56 percent is bisexual, and 35 percent is exclusively
heterosexual (Bagemihl, 1999). Vasey et al. studied the Macaques to
figure out why homosexuality occurs so widely among species. They
observed a group of 37 individuals from all different ages and sexes
mixed to specifically test the Rank Demonstration Hypothesis (Vasey,
Chapais, Gauthier, 1998). The Rank Demonstration Hypothesis included
two predictions: same sex mounting is an expression of dominance and
allowing oneself to be mounted showed subordination, and same sex
mounting was used to decrease the severity of aggression (Vasey et al.,
1998).
Japanese Macaques are a special species in that the females regularly
form “homosexual consorts” in whom groups of females seclude themselves
from the rest of the group and pair off in homosexual couples that
participate in huddling, sex, and other affectionate activities. These
consortships usually occur within the mating season and through them,
the Macaques form strong alliances that can last far past the end of the
mating season. These pairs are so strongly bonded that even when a male
tried to come into the group and steal away a female, the females would
protect each other and chase off the male. During sexual exchanges, it
was observed that the females would be “in heat” because of reddening
and swelling of their faces and genital areas (Bagemihl, 1999). The
Macaques have many different positions during sexual exchanges that seem
to maximize sexual pleasure for the mounting monkey, though the mounted
one also participated as well (Vasey et al.). During the exchanges
there was often clitoris stimulation, contact with the perineum and
groin, noises made only during copulation like screaming, and pushing,
grabbing, lip quivering, and intense eye contact which supports the idea
that the purpose of homosexual activity is for sexual pleasure, among
other things (Vasey et al.).
Many suggestions have been made as to why homosexuality actually exists.
The main ideas are based on the fact that if homosexuality was not
biologically adaptive then it should be selected against and not be
present any longer. The fact that homosexuality is consistently found
across species means that it is a phenomenon that is too common to just
be a genetic mutation, but still must be genetic and not cultural since
it is seen over so many species (Bagemihl, 1999). Simon LeVay believed
that there was a biological reason for homosexuality and did a study on
gay men. He found that there were anatomical differences between gay
and straight men in the hypothalamus, the region of the brain thought to
control sexual behavior. He discovered that the gay men had a smaller
hypothalamus, (equal size to a females,) than straight men. The problem
with his study was that all of his subjects died of AIDS, which could
have contributed to the results (Weiten, 2001).
A similar study was done by Kay Larkin from Oregon Health and Science
University on gay sheep and strangely enough found close to same results
as LeVay. Larkin found that gay rams that preferred male sexual
partners had a small difference in the preoptic nucleus (PN) of the
hypothalamus. The PN is usually twice as big in rams as ewes but in gay
rams the PN was equal in size to straight ewes. Also in the
hypothalamus of gay rams Larkin found a large abundance of Aromatase,
which is an enzyme that converts testosterone into estrogen (Phillips,
2002). In theory, this may mean that homosexuality is indeed genetic or
at least caused by some biological composition. There is also a theory
that stated the idea of a gay gene, where one (dominant) allele could be
for heterosexuality and one (recessive) allele could be for
homosexuality, and if an animal has both genes this would mean it is
bisexual. This theory is untested as of now (Bagemihl, 1999).
If homosexuality is genetic, what is its evolutionary value? In other
words, why would such sexual diversity still be around and was not
selected against? There are many ideas of why homosexuality is still
around. Some scholars believe that same sex mounting is solely to show
dominance over another. Some think that decreasing aggression through
social bonding and group cohesion is the reason. Others consider the
sexual pleasure aspects, altruistic roles where the gay animals just
help out raising nieces and nephews, or even to attract the opposite sex
(Bagemihl, 1999). Perhaps homosexuality is used for population control,
or maybe bisexuals are better at raising young so their genes are passed
on through healthier young. All of these ideas have been partially
tested but none have been supported enough through testing to rid
scholars of reasonable doubt. The study done of Japanese Macaques
mentioned earlier is the first step in showing that homosexuality is not
solely for dominance purposes, but it may actually be done for several
reasons. As of now, no one really knows the right answers.
There is plenty of skepticism still looming over the concept of
homosexuality in non-human species. Perhaps a lot of this skepticism
stems from humans own fear and lack of understanding of our own species.
The arguments still revolve around the idea that homosexuality is “not
natural” though this is clearly refuted in these documentations.
Perhaps the skepticism stems from our culture and taboos. Strangely
enough some primates like the Japanese Macaques also have taboos like
not participating in sexual activities with sisters, mothers, or other
close relatives (Bagemihl, 1999). They too have their own culture.
Something in the human psyche is fighting the ideas of homosexuality in
animals, including ourselves. This type of non-acceptance is not found
in any other species than humans. All other species have fully
integrated homosexuals, and many times heterosexual members of the group
watch the gay individuals with much interest (Bagemihl, 1999).
Homosexuality is just another aspect amidst a range of diverse sexual
orientations. It is found in many species all over the globe. Rodents,
sea going creatures, birds, marsupials, and primates all take part in
homosexual acts. Whether or not homosexuality is genetic or learned,
for dominance or pleasure is not known yet. The bottom line is,
“mammals are simply sexual” (Bagemihl, 1999). There are so many
questions left unasked and unanswered. Be sure that this topic will
remain hot and in the spotlight for some time, and will continue to make
waves and raise eyebrows.
References
Bagemihl, B. (1999). Biological exuberance: animal homosexuality and
natural
diversity. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press
Bama, L. (1997, February). Macho rams “take a walk on the wild side”.
High Country News, 29, 2.
Kluger, J. (1999, April). The gay side of nature. Time Magazine, 25-27.
Phillips, H. (2002). Homosexuality is biological, suggests gay sheep
study. Retrieved April 2,
2003, from http://www.newscientist.com/news
Vasey, P.L., Chapais, B., & Gathier, C. (1998). Mounting interactions
between female
Japanese Macaques: testing the influence of dominance and aggression.
Ethology, 104, 387-398.
Weiten, W. (2001). Psychology themes and variations (5th ed.). United
States: Thompson
Learning, Inc.
<w...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:pcbq21590vchj62kb...@4ax.com...
: On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 00:43:18 GMT, Douglas Berry
: <pengu...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
:
: >No since homosexuality occurs in all primates, at similar rates,
logic
: >suggests that the early hominids also had exclusively gay members.
:
: Proof...
R?ain - ריעין
Birds Do It, Bees Do It:
Homosexuality in the Queendom of Nature
It seems that every day some prudish assumption about gender and
sexuality is overturned by reality, and reality is that animals have
diverse, even homo-sexualities:
The world is, indeed, teeming with homosexual, bisexual, and
transgendered creatures of every stripe and feather. From the
Southeastern Blueberry Bee of the United States, to more than 125
different bird species worldwide, the "birds and the bees," literally,
are queer.1
They've been keeping it from us: There are homosexual and bisexual
animals, ranging from charismatic megafauna like mountain gorillas to
cats, dogs, and guinea pigs. There are transgendered animals,
transvestite animals (who adopt the behavior of the other gender but
don't have sex with their own), and animals who live in bisexual triads
and quartets.2
On every continent, animals of the same sex seek each other out and have
probably been doing so for millions of years. They court each other,
using intricate and beautiful mating dances that are the result of eons
of evolution. Males caress and kiss each other, showing tenderness and
affection toward one another rather than jus hostility and aggression.
Females form long-lasting pair bonds—or maybe just meet briefly for sex,
rolling in passionate embraces or mounting one another. Animals of the
same sex build nests and homes together, and many homosexual pairs raise
young without members of the opposite sex.1
Homosexual behavior occurs in more than 450 different kinds of animals
worldwide, and is found in every major geographic region and every major
animal group.1
Some homosexual animals have one-night stands and some have long
marriages. Gay and lesbian geese stay together year after year.
Bottlenose dolphins don't form male-female couples, but males often form
lifelong pairs with other males. Some are interested only in males, but
others are bisexual and happily indulge in beak-genital propulsion and
more with male or female alike.2
Homosexual behavior is seen in animals as far removed from homosapiens
as seagulls and elephants.3 (Human Nature)
Homosexual behavior occurs in most birds and mammals, including all our
immediate primate relatives.4
Yet now we find that many a zoologist turned away in shame or disbelief
and did not forward mother nature's liberal message. The knowledge that
animals are frequently homosexual or bisexual has been suppressed by a
conservative branch of scholars...how unscientific.
"Zoology is a very conservative profession," and focusing on animal
homosexuality is not the road to success. One researcher documented
homosexuality in sheep, but didn't publish until she got tenure.2
(Salon)
Apparently researchers have been cloaking their observations in academic
terms that disguise the reality of gay animal sex:
A female ape wraps her legs around another female, "rubbing her own
clitoris against her partner's while emitting screams of enjoyment." The
researcher explains: It's a form of greeting behavior. Or
reconciliation. Possibly food-exchange behavior. It's certainly not
sex., Not lesbian sex. Not hot lesbian sex.
Six bighorn rams cluster, rubbing, nuzzling and mounting each other.
"Aggressosexual behavior," the biologist explains. A way of establishing
dominance.2
At times, the very word "dominance" itself becomes simply code for
"homosexual mounting," repeated mantralike until it finally loses what
little meaning it had to begin with.2
Of course underestimating animal intelligence is an easy way out:
The idea that animals can't tell each other's gender and accidentally
have sex or form homosexual pairs has the age-old appeal of making
animals look really, really dumb, but doesn't hold up in the face of
evidence that animals know quite well who they're hitting on.2
And let's not overlook plain old omission:
Sometimes it just seems better not to bring it up. One researcher
discovered homosexual mounting in white-tailed deer, yet when an
800-page book on white-tails was published, the researcher co-wrote the
chapter on behavior with no mention of it.
A report on killer whale behavior that described homosexuality in male
orcas was reissued as a government document for the U.S. Marine Mammal
Commission with those passages -- and only those passages -- deleted.2
So what has been omitted? Hot animal sex! For example:
The actual type of genital contact varies widely. Full penetration in
male anal intercourse occurs in some species (for example, Orang-utans,
Rhesus Macaques, Bison, and Bighorn rams), while female penetration of
various types occurs during lesbian interactions in Orangutans
(insertion of the finger into the vagina), Bonobos (insertion of the
erect clitoris into the vulva), and Bottlenose and Spinner Dolphins
(insertion of a fin or tail fluke into the female's genital slit).1
Oral sex of various kinds also occurs in a number of species.1
Male Stumptail Macaques even perform mutual fellatio in a sixty-nine
position.1
Males also perform so-called penis-fencing: in this rare behavior, thus
far observed only in the field, two males hang face to face from a
branch while rubbing their erect penises together as if crossing swords.
The sheer variety of sexual and erotic contacts in bonobos is
impressive, especially if we include sporadic oral sex, massage of
another individual's genitals, and tongue-kissing.5
And homosexual couples make great parents.
In a detailed study of parental behavior by female pairs of Ring-billed
Gulls, scientists found no significant differences in quality of care
provided by homosexual as opposed to heterosexual parents. They
concluded that there was not anything that male Ring-billed Gull parents
provided that two females could not offer equally well. This case is not
exceptional: homosexual parents are generally as good at parenting as
heterosexual ones. Examples of same-sex pairs successfully raising young
have been documented in at least 20 species, and in a few cases,
homosexual couples actually appear to have an advantage over
heterosexual ones. Pairs of male Black Swans, for example, are often
able to acquire the largest and best-quality territories for raising
young because of their combined strength. Such fathers--dubbed
"formidable" adversaries by one scientist--consequently tend to be more
successful at raising offspring than most heterosexual pairs.1
Even the notion that we are neatly divided into females and males turns
out to be something of a fairy tale:
The traditional view of the animal kingdom--what one might call the
Noah's ark view--is that biology revolves around two sexes, male and
female, with one of each to a pair. The range of genders and sexualities
actually found in the animal world, however, is considerably richer than
this. Animals with females that become males, animals with no males at
all, animals that are both male and female simultaneously, animals where
males resemble females, animals where females court other females and
males court other males--Noah's ark was never quite like this!
Homosexuality represents but one of a wide variety of alternative
sexualities and genders.1
And it gets weirder...
Many animals live without two distinct genders, or with multiple
genders. In hermaphrodite species, for instance, all individuals are
both male and female simultaneously, and hence there are not really two
separate sexes; in parthenogenetic species, all individuals are female
and they reproduce by virgin birth. A number of other phenomena in the
animal kingdom—for which we will use the cover term
"transgender"—involve the crossing or traversing of existing gender
categories: for example, transvestitism (imitating the opposite sex,
either behaviorally, visually, or chemically), transsexuality
(physically becoming the opposite sex), and intersexuality (combining
physical characteristics of both sexes).1
Transsexuality or sex change is a routine aspect of many animals' lives,
especially in invertebrates: shrimp, oysters, and sow bugs, for example,
all undergo complete reversals of their sex at some stage in their
lives.1
Ironically, one need not look into the future or on alien worlds to find
appropriate models: shape-shifting and morphing creatures are not merely
the stuff of fantasy. The animal world--right now, here on earth--is
brimming with countless gender variations and shimmering sexual
possibilities: entire lizard species that consist only of females who
reproduce by virgin birth and also have sex with each other; or the
multigendered society of the Ruff, with four distinct categories of male
birds, some of whom court and mate with one another.1
But why? If the biological goal of living creatures is to reproduce, how
does homosexuality fit into the evolutionary picture? Diversity as a
survival strategy is just one of many answers:
Successful life forms are characterized by diversity, so changing
environments don't wipe them out. That diversity often extends to
sexuality. Thus bisexuality and homosexuality are characteristics not of
twisted nature, but of generous nature.2
If homosexuality has any genetic component at all, why is there so much
of it? Why was it not edited out by natural selection? Several
compensating advantages have been suggested. Perhaps gays benefit their
immediate kin. A family with nonreproductive adults who are splendid
uncles and aunts may do significantly better than a family without.
Another explanation is that many gays do have children... [I]n a more
tolerant culture, many people now living as straights would also be
bisexual.... If pure homosexuality is one end of a continuum, possibly
with multiple genetic as well as multiple environmental causes, there
may also be multiple advantages to having some of those genes: for
oneself, one's offspring, one's family, and even one's group. After all,
according to the ancient Greeks, a soldier could hardly be expected to
die for his fellow men if he was not also capable of loving them.4
Bruce Bagemihl coined the phrase biological exuberance for his theory of
diverse animal sexualities, and for the title of his amazing book:
Bagemihl formulates the charmingly named theory of biological
exuberance, of which homosexuality is one manifestation. He wants to
unlink biological analysis from the idea that reproduction--and hence,
heterosexuality--is all. Biology must accept the apparent
purposelessness of sexualities, he argues. Sexual pleasure is
"inherently valuable" and "requires no further justification."2
Bagemihl closes his book with a reminder that societies have not always
been so narrow minded:
Ultimately, the synthesis of scientific views represented by Biological
Exuberance brings us full circle--back to a way of looking at the world
that is in accordance with some of the most ancient indigenous
conceptions of animal (and human) sexual and gender variability. This
perspective dissolves binary oppositions, uniting dualities while
simultaneously cherishing unlikeness. It suffers difference, honoring
the "anomalous" and the "irregular" without reducing them to something
familiar or "manageable." And it embraces paradox, recognizing the
coexistence of contradictory and seemingly incompatible phenomena. It is
about the unspeakable inexplicability of earth's mysteries, which are as
immediate as the next heartbeat. Biological exuberance is, above all, an
affirmation of life's vitality and infinite possibilities: a worldview
that is at once primordial and futuristic, in which gender is
kaleidoscopic, sexualities are multiple, and the categories of male and
female are fluid and transmutable. A world, in short, exactly like the
one we inhabit.1
1. Biological Exuberance : Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity by
Bruce Bagemihl, 1999
2. "The fabulous kingdom of gay animals", by Susan McCarthy (Salon.com),
1999
3. Lucy's Legacy: Sex and Intelligence in Human Evolution. Jolley,
Allison
4. Tree of Origin: What primate behavior can tell us about social
evolution. Frans B.M. de Waal, editor
5. Human Natures: Genes, Cultures, and the Human Prospect. Ehrlich, Paul
R. (pp.69, 86, 207)
<w...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:pcbq21590vchj62kb...@4ax.com...
: On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 00:43:18 GMT, Douglas Berry
: <pengu...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
:
: >No since homosexuality occurs in all primates, at similar rates,
logic
: >suggests that the early hominids also had exclusively gay members.
:
: Proof...
R?ain - ריעין
The Early Years
W hat were people like at the dawn of humanity? One way to make an
educated guess is to observe the behavior of other primates,
particularly chimpanzees and bonobos who share almost 99% of our DNA.
More closely related to us than they are to gorillas, chimps and bonobos
are our closest living relatives.
Bonobos, also known as pigmy chimps, are so similar to chimpanzees
that it was not until the 1920's that they were recognized as a separate
species. And as similar as the two species are, it is bonobos who most
resemble the body shape of "Lucy" the australopithecine, our probable
ancestor of 3.5 million years ago.
Yet despite the fact that bonobos are as closely related to us as
chimps, it was the more popular, and more warlike chimpanzee who, until
recently, dominated theories about early human culture and social
evolution.
"Even though bonobos are as close to us as chimpanzees, the species is
less well known both to science and to the general public. These 'make
love, not war' primates have evolved peaceful societies with female
bonding and female dominance. As such, bonobos challenge traditional
assumptions about human social evolution." 2
"Had the bonobo been known to science first and the chimpanzees
second, we might have different ideas about the inevitability of
violence in human society, about male dominance and male bonding in
hunting and warfare, about the role of technology, and about the social
significance of sex. Inasmuch as the bonobo fails to support male-biased
evolutionary scenarios (summarized in dramatic titles such as Man the
Hunter, Man the Tool-Maker, Men in Groups, demonic males, The Imperial
Animal, and so on), these scenarios might not have become nearly as
popular as they are. Not that the bonobo would have inspired more
accurate reconstructions of the human past than the chimpanzee--at this
point we are unable to tell--but in the bonobo we do have a
female-centered and relatively peaceful close relative." 2
"Early reports about bonobos sounded like feminist flights of fancy.
In addition to their free-wheeling sexual ways, females have feeding
priority, and may share food they obtain with the offspring of female
friends." 4
"...our closest relatives in terms of physical and behavioral
attributes are probably the bonobos, not the common chimps. Bonobos are
more slender than chimps and more frequently stand upright; they have
shorter arms compared with their legs, smaller skulls, and smaller
teeth; and there is less size difference between the sexes...If nothing
else they resemble us in being continually interested in sex... bonobos,
perhaps not coincidentally, are also more bipedal and more peaceful than
chimps" 3
One outstanding difference between chimps and bonobos is their sexual
behavior. For bonobos, sex is a social tool . Not only do they use sex
to smooth within-group tensions, but even to ease relations between
different groups. This is in stark contrast to chimpanzees whose males
are more likely to attack their neighbors than to have an orgy with
them.
"The very first suggestions that the sexual behavior of bonobos might
differ from that of chimpanzees came from observations at European zoos.
Wrapping their shocking findings in Latin, two German scientists, Eduard
Tratz and Heinz Heck, reported that chimpanzees mate more canum (like
dogs) and bonobos more hominum (like people)." 2
Bonobos are undeniably the sexiest of primates. We used to think that
humans were, but bonobos have taken on sexual contact as a way of life,
especially when there is any tension in the group that needs defusing.
Or indeed any play going on. Or when waking up, or meeting again, or
consoling an infant, or some other excuse. Males mount and intromit
females. Two females rapidly rub their clitorises.1
"Film crews have traveled all the way to Africa to film bonobos, only
to turn off their cameras in embarrassment during sexual scenes;
general-interest magazines have strenuously looked for euphemisms (such
as 'very affectionate') to describe bonobo relations; some scientists
have selectively ignored sex with same-sex partners, discussing only
heterosexual sex when comparing bonobos and chimpanzees. Of course,
since the news about bonobos did hit the media, the disadvantage of
their eroticism quickly turned into an attention grabber. Initially,
however, this was not the case, and the species remained obscure far
longer than necessary." 2
And while chimpanzees have a reputation for being warlike, we should
remember that during the last few decades when many chimps have been
observed as "wild," their habitat was being destroyed around them.
"... it is not clear how widespread such nasty, aggressive behavior
has really been in chimp groups in the wild...In 1960 when Jane Goodall
first started her pioneering work at Gombe Stream, the forest stretched
unbroken some 60 miles back from the shores of Lake Tanganyika. About 10
years later it extended only about 2 miles...and most of the forest
beyond the ridge had been cleared for cultivation. That drastic
environmental change, conceivably leading to unusual crowding or
resource shortage, may have been a factor in generating the intergroup
strife at Gombe Stream." 3
Fortunately, despite our conflicts, we see that primates, chimps and
humans included, have a highly developed ability to get along...
"Primates do love, support, cooperate, and reconcile after fights. In
spite of all the rivalries, these animals must live together, and have
evolved the wish to do so. Reconciliation between former enemies has not
been seen as much in lemurs, but seems to exist to some extent in all
monkeys and apes." 1
"Humans have a truly remarkable ability for peaceful coexistence,
amply demonstrated in an ever more crowded and urbanized world. This is
part of our primate heritage. We know now that the connection between
crowding and aggression, initially demonstrated ion rodents, fails to
hold in monkeys and apes. Under crowded conditions these animals
increase appeasement signals and grooming contact, thus managing social
tensions so effectively that in some species aggression levels are
virtually independent of population density." 2
...and to make up after fighting
"One mechanism that has received much attention is reconciliation. The
Principle is simple: shortly after a fight between two individuals,
these same individuals come together to engage in positive contact, such
as kissing and embracing (in chimpanzees), or hand-holding, mounting,
grooming, or clasping in other species. 2
"Chimps are also quite adept at making up after fights. A short time
after two males have had a screaming, rock- and stick-throwing
display-battle, one may extend the hand of peace to the other, leading
to a big hug and a peace sealed with a kiss." 3
1. Lucy's Legacy: Sex and Intelligence in Human Evolution. Jolley,
Allison
2. Tree of Origin: What primate behavior can tell us about social
evolution. Frans B.M. de Waal, editor
3. Human Natures: Genes, Cultures, and the Human Prospect. Ehrlich, Paul
R. (pp.69, 86, 207)
4. Mother Nature: Maternal Instincts and How They Shape the human
Species. Blaffer Hrdy, Sarah
<w...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:pcbq21590vchj62kb...@4ax.com...
: On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 00:43:18 GMT, Douglas Berry
: <pengu...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
:
: >No since homosexuality occurs in all primates, at similar rates,
logic
: >suggests that the early hominids also had exclusively gay members.
:
: Proof...
R?ain - ריעין
SEX EDUCATION FOR THE BIBLICALLY-IMPAIRED
"Hey you guys, I have a question. But it's kind of gross."
"Shoot, Frenchy."
"Are there any cases of animal homosexuality? I mean specifically male
animals who engage in the act of sodomy?"
"Not a problem," replied LoveCub, the Internet Chat channel's resident
flaming, raging, in-your-face homosexual. "Check out the following web
site for references to gay animals."
I already knew there was animal homosexuality-having just read about
such behavior in primates in a new book out called "Demonic Males: Apes
and the Origins of Human Violence"-but I wanted some hard-core-if you'll
pardon the expression-material. Just which one of our perverted
quadruped brethren engaged in the sort of behavior that one ordinarily
associates with a fire-and-brimstone hail from a wrathful god?
According to a 1980 study on animal behavior, "Frequent homosexual
activity has been described for all species of mammals of which careful
observations have been made. This behavior is so common in domestic
stock as to attract little notice from the husbandman, unless he chooses
to use it for some specific purpose. Cows in heat so frequently mount
other cows that the behavior is considered diagnostic of the estrous
condition. Young bulls or steers are often used as "teasers" to arouse
mature bulls in preparation for the collection of ejaculates for use in
artificial insemination."
After reading J.C.'s most recent baseless assertion, that homosexuality
does not exist in the animal kingdom, I had to conclude a number of
things. 1) J. reads no other book than the Bible, which explains his
regular baseless assertions about practically anything outside that
particular narrow purview. 2) J. has never been a farmer. 3) J. has
never been to the zoo.
According to Dr. June M. Reinisch, Ph.D., and director of the Kinsey
Institute for Research in Sex, Gender, and Reproduction, Indiana
University, "Sexual behavior between animals of the same sex has been
found in invertebrates (fruit flies); birds (certain gulls, geese,
ducks, turkeys); (domestic or held captive) mammals (bulls, cows,
horses, antelopes, boars, rams, sheep, dogs, cats); and primates
(stumptail macaque, pigtail macaque, rhesus monkeys, Catarrhine monkeys,
Japanese macaques, Hanuman langurs, vervets, squirrel monkeys,
chimpanzees, pygmy chimpanzees and mountain gorillas). Keep in mind that
this is just a partial list."
So that's my (thankless) part for helping to educate the
Biblically-impaired. Yes, Virginia, homosexual behavior is known
throughout the animal kingdom, despite the protestations of a clueless
conservative Christian in the northeast corner of Connecticut. Once
again, Mr. C. finds himself refuted with the facts. Business as usual!
Dr. Reinisch went on to point out that "homosexuality" in humans was a
sexual orientation and not a description of a type of behavior. Apart
from A.T.'s example of the lesbian seagulls, I know of no actual case of
sustained homosexual behavior in animals. Of course, the sexual acts
themselves are quite common. Dr. Reinisch also pointed out that "As far
as we know, non-human animals do not fall in love or experience passion.
Their sexual behavior, which is almost entirely hormonally induced and
occurs during very brief periods in most species, is linked to their
fertility cycles."
I don't know if J. thought I was pulling these stories out of my hat
when I wrote my piece, "Help Us Fight Gay Animals For Gawwwd!", but I
sure as hell wasn't making them up. In fact, it was my l'il chat buddy
JJ, on my favorite Internet chat channel, who began ranting like a
flamin' fundamentalist Southern Baptist televangelist one night about
the "eeeeevulls of animal homoSECKshualls and how we needed to "protect
the CHIIIIIIILdren from these beastly acts!" And hey, the seed of yet
another incredibly annoying Voice article was born in my heretical
little brain.
A.T. takes exception to my use of a somewhat uneducated Southern accent
throughout-and he is certainly correct in stating that such belief
systems are to be found all across the country, not just in some inbred
corner of the Ozarks-but you can blame that on my two summers in college
interning at a fundamentalist Christian TV station, where I was
subjected to a total of eight hellish months listening to fundamentalist
Christian nuttiness, mostly involving sexuality of any sort since
fundamentalist Christians-or at least the Southern-accented preachers I
was listening to all day long-seemed unnaturally preoccupied with
whether other people, regardless of sexual orientation, were getting
laid or not.
It would be only a few years later that I would find that most of
them-namely J. Bakker, J.my Swaggart, and Marvin Gorman-were catching
quite a bit of extramarital nooky on the side themselves. Gorman was the
only Southern preacher to be getting what some folks would call "normal"
sex-consensual sex with a woman. While Brothah Bakker was drugging and
raping a church secretary, he was alleged to have gotten it on with a
few dudes in the sauna as well-and as for Brothah Swaggart, well, I
think we all know what kind of perverted shenanigans were going on in
that motel room with a common prostitute!
But no matter. Since fundamentalist Christianity seems to be heaviest in
the South-at least according to a newly published book called
"Evangelicals At The Ballot Box"-and since the South traditionally has
had the worst educational system in the country, (which explains a
lot)-I thought the Southern accent was more than appropriate. After all,
it wouldn't have sounded quite the same if I'd tried to do a New England
preacher. "Ahsk not what your God cahn do for you, but rawthuh, ahsk
what you can do for your God! Ayup."
The point of my article-which apparently J. got-was that homosexual acts
are part of the animal kingdom, and like it or not, J.-we share plenty
in common with them. For starters, we are closer genetically to
chimpanzees than any other primate. That's right-we share a whopping
99.6% of their genetic material! That's why they're so popular with
research scientists for medical research. And check this out-chimpanzees
are closer to us genetically than their next closest cousin, the
gorilla!
(Side note: The preceding paragraph is of little interest to good
Christians who don't believe in evolutionary biology, and will only be
of interest to anyone living in the real world. Christian or otherwise.)
When I read the "Demonic Males" book I was amazed at how similar primate
life-not just the chimps but all the primates-were to human society.
Just a decade or two ago it was accepted that man was the only animal
capable of violence without reason-i.e., that only humans raped and
abused and killed each other for reasons other than for food or to
protect themselves or their young. That behaviorist myth has been
destroyed by studies and observations that show that in the primate
world, chimps and gorillas and orangatans and many species of monkeys
engage in almost all of the sort of behavior that is described among
humans as being either "immoral", "anti-social", or "criminal."
All primates are famous for engaging in sexual behavior apart from the
estrus cycle, and young orangatan males will physically knock down and
rape a female (there is even one documented case of an orangatan raping
a human female.) Chimpanzees, on the other hand, bully females into
sexual submission with threats of violence and weapons, much like many
human men do today to women with low self-esteem. They also engage in
raids on neighboring chimp communities for no apparent purpose, brutally
beating and dismembering other chimps without provocation. They engage
in infanticide as well, as do their gorilla cousins. In fact, some
behaviorists and scientists speculate that there may be a link between
lower primates who murder a female's existing children so that she'll go
into estrus and he can impregnate her, to human stepfathers and
boyfriends who murder children not their own in far greater quantities
than men who murder their own. The sad fact is-even for the Biblically
impaired who deny evolutionary biology-that we are just like our ape
cousins.
Almost all other primates engage in similar human behaviors. By and
large, apes are sexually jealous, guarding the female(s) they impregnate
and beating the transgressor who "cheats" on him with another male.
Gorillas have harems, and battering of females is common among all the
primates, including humans, and there is no "rule of thumb" to offer
nominal protection to the ladies. The one exception is the bonobo.
Ever heard of a bonobo, J.? Neither did I, until I read "Demonic Males."
The bonobo is a class of primate that looks remarkably like a chimp but
is not-for one thing, it's smaller than a chimp. But it appears to be
the only primate group where they've actually managed to evolve past the
cultural male violence that mars all other primate groups, including our
own.
Bonobo males are larger than females, and could, if they wanted to,
dominate them through sheer size and strength. But bonobo society is a
conservative Christian's worst nightmare-for it's a social structure
where females can engage in indiscriminate sexual behavior with whoever
they want, including other females, without fear of repercussion-because
they punish the males who bully them!
Bonobo females freely and openly copulate with any male they fancy in
full view of the other males, who watch passively if at all. This is
unheard of in other primate societies, where the other males become
angry and jealous and try to break up the union. The females also engage
in loud, raucous lesbian activity several times a day whereby they rub
their private parts together and appear to climax.
How dare these carnal witches engage in sexual freedom without paying
the price for it! How dare they claim the privilege formerly exclusively
for the male! How do they get away with this?
It appears that feminism has put the skids on male violence for the
bonobo female. They are the only primate known to offer violent
repercussions to any male who tries to get out of line.
When a bonobo male tries to force his sexual attentions on a female or
get violent in any other way, the female chatters loudly and alerts the
other females in the vicinity. In short, the chicks come running and
they gang up on the dumb boob until he turns tail and runs. Can you
imagine what human society would be like if women banded together to
stop male violence? If when a woman screamed "Rape!" women from all over
the building came running and beat the crap out of the perpetrator until
he ran away instead of pretending they didn't hear anything? Of course,
bonobo males don't usually possess guns or knives so that may be one
reason why we haven't yet evolved as far as the bonobos.
The lesson to be learned from the animal kingdom is not moral behavior,
but recognition that defining behavior as moral or immoral is uniquely
human. The lesson to be learned is that our violence-which we'd like to
blame on a story of disobedience in a garden eons ago-is actually a part
of us, just as our opposable thumbs and our superior brains are a part
of us-and that we can consciously decide to change our behavior instead
of slavishly following our evolutionary instincts. Do we have to live
forever with the notion that violent "boys will be boys" or can we say
no, we're not like the chimps and the gorillas, we can take a lesson
from the bonobos and punish people who try to hurt others for their own
selfish desires? Can we get over the idea that homosexual behavior is
hardly an anomaly, that it hurts no one who's a consenting adult, and
that the Bible, while it might not be infallible and inerrant, still has
a lot to offer the world, regardless of what the "fundamentalist
atheists" think?
In other words, can we finally evolve and grow up?
<w...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:pcbq21590vchj62kb...@4ax.com...
: On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 00:43:18 GMT, Douglas Berry
: <pengu...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
:
: >No since homosexuality occurs in all primates, at similar rates,
logic
: >suggests that the early hominids also had exclusively gay members.
:
: Proof...
R?ain - ריעין
Homosexuality in Nature
(from Jim's July 18, 2004 Newsletter)
The other day one of my favorite local folks dropped by to share
some of his delicious blueberries, and to chat for a bit. This time his
remark that got me going was that I knew how progressive he was on
matters BUT, when it came to gay marriages, he just couldn't take it,
and surely nature doesn't put up with things such as that.
My first impulse was to not even react, for to do so would have
been to walk into the trap set by the Bush Administration, the goal of
which is to stir up fear and hatred among a certain sector of the
electorate, to distract them from the fact that they are being asked to
vote against their own economic interests.
However, I couldn't ignore my friend's assertion that nature
doesn't put up with such things as homosexuality.
For, nothing is more experimental and broad-minded than Mother
Nature. When you look at the Creation you clearly see that the Creator's
plan is to create diversity at all levels of reality, and to evolve that
diversity to ever higher levels of sophistication -- whether it's
forming galaxies from hydrogen gas, or evolving life on Earth. Moreover,
just about any strategy furthering those blossomings is acceptable.
Among plants, sometimes flowers possess both male and female sex
organs, sometimes they are unisexual and on different plants, sometimes
unisexual and on the same plants, sometimes flowers are designed so they
can't self-pollinate, other times they have to pollinate themselves, and
some plants skip the sex scene altogether by reproducing vegetatively.
Among animals we find everything from the male seahorse who
carries the eggs, hatches them and takes care of the young, to the
"polyandrous" Spotted Sandpiper whose females may lay up to four nests
in a season, each equipped with a different male incubating the eggs. Of
course the common earthworm is both male and female, and some snails
sometimes mate with themselves, producing offspring.
The higher up the evolutionary scale you go, the kinkier it all
gets. Among communities of mice and other mammals, when population
density reaches a certain high level where diseases and famine threaten,
not only does homosexual behavior appear but also parents begin killing
their own offspring. It's always the case that the Creator chooses the
welfare of the community over that of the individual. If you'd like to
review online notes of a series of university lectures dealing with
parent-offspring conflict, including infanticide and the effects of high
population densities on higher mammals, go to
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~phyl/weektwelve.html
If you have access to a science library or can use a search engine
artfully, references to technical, academic papers detailing homosexual
behaviors in a wide variety of primates, from langurs to orangutans to
pit-tailed macaques can be accessed at
www.androphile.org/preview/Library/Articles/Werner/Werner20.24.htm
Among human populations, homosexuality occurs at a certain rate in
all populations. Thus homosexuality is natural and inevitable. Data
suggests that homosexuality may be at least partly genetically
determined. A semi-technical paper at the University of Texas with the
title "Biological Correlates of being Gay - Biological Determinism?" is
available at www.utexas.edu/courses/bio301d/Topics/Gay/Text.html
In short, it's simply wrong to say that homosexual behavior is
never natural.
Why would the Creator create this state of affairs among humans? I
don't know, but my own experience with human gays is that, on the
average, they are more sensitive, insightful and caring than the rest of
us, so maybe that's enough of an answer right there.
With regard to the morality of it all, I would say that at this
time when so many young people desperately need love and care, and so
many gay couples want to provide stable family structures for providing
that love and care, the Bush doctrine of institutionalizing laws to
prevent gay couples from enjoying the kind of legal and social support
non-gay families already have, is immoral.
Moreover, since the Creator has made it so that among higher
mammals homosexual behavior increases in populations under stress, and
humanity right now, because of overpopulation and inequitable
distribution of resources, is under enormous stress, the phenomenon of
gays suddenly stepping forth to demand their right to establish stable
family units while not themselves contributing to even greater
overpopulation, can be seen to be not only natural but also, literally,
a godsend.
<w...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:pcbq21590vchj62kb...@4ax.com...
: On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 00:43:18 GMT, Douglas Berry
: <pengu...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
:
: >No since homosexuality occurs in all primates, at similar rates,
logic
: >suggests that the early hominids also had exclusively gay members.
:
: Proof...
Ray Fischer
>On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 00:44:35 GMT, Douglas Berry
><pengu...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 19:25:09 GMT, w...@privacy.net drained his beer,
>>leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the
>>following
>>
>>>>The cave paintings in france were clearly done by a gay man, the quality
>>>>is too good for a straight artist
>>>
>>>Impossible. Their AIDS addled homosexual brains would never have
>>>permitted it.
>>
>>Ever hear of Michelangelo? Leonardo da Vinci?
>
Alan Turing.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
No One
> On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 00:44:35 GMT, Douglas Berry
> <pengu...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
> >Ever hear of Michelangelo? Leonardo da Vinci?
>
> Yes, and I heard the lies that they were homosexuals. Have you some
> undisputable proof that they were, if not I suggest that you don't
> even consider going down that road.
See
<http://www.pugzine.com/pug4/michelangelo.html>
and
<http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?endeca=1&isbn=0786704233&itm=61>
and explain what you think is wrong.
Patrick Lee Humphrey
>Andrealphus wrote:
>> james g. keegan jr. <jgke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>J Young wrote:
>>>>Here's a scary thought; What if he had been gay?
>>>your obsession with gay males is growing, isn't it?
>> Obviously Young hadn't thought that through. Just because only one set of
>> fossilized remains were found, doesn't mean their was only one of them. In
>> all probability, a certain portion of them were gay, or prehaps the entire
>> population of them were bisexual. The world may never know.
>Nobody is born a faggot.
So, why is it I never made a choice to be a heterosexual? It's the way I was
born, and have been ever since.
Patrick Lee Humphrey
>On Mon, 7 Mar 2005 11:33:55 -0000, Pat Winstanley
><boredof...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>In article <1110160891....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
>>youngo...@aol.com says...
>>> Here's a scary thought; What if he had been gay?
>>What if he was?
>>How do you know whether or not he was?
>>How do you know whether or not the first one to (principally, rather
>>than partially) walk upright was male rather than female?
>>Why don't you understand the way evolution works?
>>Who cares what you think/know/believe given that it rarely accords with
>>facts anyway?
>And you, on the other hand, are the fountain of all knowledge. FUCK OFF!
Compared to you, she's Einstein. Need help in finding some sane adult to
teach you how to operate your newsreader so you're not forced to read anything
she posts?
Ray Fischer
>Nobody is born a faggot.
You're just as much turned on by the sight of a naked guy as by a
naked babe, and it's only conscious choice that keeps you from having
sex with the guy.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
James Riske
> Please prove this.
>
Mankind would not even be here since faggots can't procreate.
Also, if you believe people are really born as faggots then I am sure
you have a verifiable citation that proves it, right?
--
"The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do
nothing."--Edmund Burke
James Riske
> James Riske <james...@h0tmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Nobody is born a faggot.
>
>
> You're just as much turned on by the sight of a naked guy as by a
> naked babe, and it's only conscious choice that keeps you from having
> sex with the guy.
>
People who despise faggots are not faggots just as people who despise
pedophiles are not pedophiles.
Stay stupid.
James Riske
> James Riske <james...@h0tmail.com> writes:
>
>
>>Andrealphus wrote:
>>
>>>james g. keegan jr. <jgke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>>J Young wrote:
>
>
>>>>>Here's a scary thought; What if he had been gay?
>
>
>>>>your obsession with gay males is growing, isn't it?
>
>
>>>Obviously Young hadn't thought that through. Just because only one set of
>>>fossilized remains were found, doesn't mean their was only one of them. In
>>>all probability, a certain portion of them were gay, or prehaps the entire
>>>population of them were bisexual. The world may never know.
>
>
>>Nobody is born a faggot.
>
>
> So, why is it I never made a choice to be a heterosexual? It's the way I was
> born, and have been ever since.
>
Faggots choose to be what they are, just because you can't remember
making the choice doesn't mean you didn't make one.
Somewriter
<james...@h0tmail.com> wrote:
>Andrealphus wrote:
>> james g. keegan jr. <jgke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>J Young wrote:
>>>
>>>>Here's a scary thought; What if he had been gay?
>>>
>>>your obsession with gay males is growing, isn't it?
>>
>>
>> Obviously Young hadn't thought that through. Just because only one set of
>> fossilized remains were found, doesn't mean their was only one of them. In
>> all probability, a certain portion of them were gay, or prehaps the entire
>> population of them were bisexual. The world may never know.
>>
>
>
>Nobody is born a faggot.
--except for you, Nobody.
Somewriter
<james...@h0tmail.com> wrote:
[...]
>[Homosexuals] choose to be what they are...
No, they don't.
But morons like you choose to remain stupid.
Sir Marksman
"Somewriter" <sappy...@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:rh5r21l8slt27ud0m...@4ax.com...>> Faggots choose to be what they are...
>
> No, they don't.
>
Yes, they do choose to be what they are.
Sergeant America
>
> James Riske <james...@h0tmail.com> wrote:
> >Nobody is born a faggot.
>
> You're just as much turned on by the sight of a naked guy as by a
> naked babe, and it's only conscious choice that keeps you from having
> sex with the guy.
ROTFL!! How do *you* know, Ray Fischer?
Somewriter
<8...@54545465465454654.com> wrote:
>
>"Somewriter" <sappy...@poetic.com> wrote in message
>news:rh5r21l8slt27ud0m...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 06:52:06 -0500, James Riske
>> <james...@h0tmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> Faggots choose to be what they are...
>>
>> No, they don't.
>>But morons like you choose to remain stupid.
>
>Yes...
Indeed.
Sir Marksman
>
> Indeed.
Glad you agree!
Somewriter
<8...@54545465465454654.com> wrote:
>
>"Somewriter" <sappy...@poetic.com> wrote in message
>news:sq7r21hre8lvb1qn4...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 12:23:02 GMT, "Sir Marksman"
>> <8...@54545465465454654.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Somewriter" <sappy...@poetic.com> wrote in message
>>>news:rh5r21l8slt27ud0m...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 06:52:06 -0500, James Riske
>>>> <james...@h0tmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>> Faggots choose to be what they are...
>>>>
>>>> No, they don't.
>>>>But morons like you choose to remain stupid.
>>>
>>>Yes...
>>
>> Indeed.
>
>Glad you agree!
I do.
Sir Marksman
FORGER "Somewriter" <sappy...@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:1a9r21da0cqsmh8jb...@4ax.com...>>FORGER "Somewriter" <sappy...@poetic.com> wrote in message
>>news:sq7r21hre8lvb1qn4...@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 12:23:02 GMT, "Sir Marksman"
>>> <8...@54545465465454654.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>news:rh5r21l8slt27ud0m...@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 06:52:06 -0500, James Riske
>>>>> <james...@h0tmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>>> Faggots choose to be what they are...
>>>>>
>>>>> No, they don't.
>>>>>But morons like you choose to remain stupid.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Indeed.
>>
>>Glad you agree!
>
> I do.
>
Glad you agree!
Somewriter
<8...@54545465465454654.com> wrote:
>
> "Somewriter" <sappy...@poetic.com> wrote in message
>news:1a9r21da0cqsmh8jb...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 12:54:02 GMT, "Sir Marksman"
>> <8...@54545465465454654.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Somewriter" <sappy...@poetic.com> wrote in message
>>>news:sq7r21hre8lvb1qn4...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 12:23:02 GMT, "Sir Marksman"
>>>> <8...@54545465465454654.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Somewriter" <sappy...@poetic.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:rh5r21l8slt27ud0m...@4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 06:52:06 -0500, James Riske
>>>>>> <james...@h0tmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Faggots choose to be what they are...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, they don't.
>>>>>>But morons like you choose to remain stupid.
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes...
Pat Winstanley
says...
> On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 00:43:18 GMT, Douglas Berry
> <pengu...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
>
> >No since homosexuality occurs in all primates, at similar rates, logic
> >suggests that the early hominids also had exclusively gay members.
>
> Proof...
>
Here's a documented instance for starters... given that it was in the
news just in the last week or so (even here in the UK), how did you miss
it?
http://www.jrn.columbia.edu/studentwork/cns/2002-06-10/591.asp
Sir Marksman
FORGER "Somewriter" <sappy...@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:sm9r21dqakra82gnf...@4ax.com...>>FORGER "Somewriter" <sappy...@poetic.com> wrote in message
>>> On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 12:54:02 GMT, "Sir Marksman"
>>> <8...@54545465465454654.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>news:sq7r21hre8lvb1qn4...@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 12:23:02 GMT, "Sir Marksman"
>>>>> <8...@54545465465454654.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>news:rh5r21l8slt27ud0m...@4ax.com...
>>>>>>> On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 06:52:06 -0500, James Riske
>>>>>>> <james...@h0tmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Faggots choose to be what they are...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, they don't.
>>>>>>>But morons like you choose to remain stupid.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Indeed.
>>>>
>>>>Glad you agree!
>>>
>>> I do.
>>>
>>
>>Glad you agree!
>>
Glad you agree!
Pat Winstanley
> R?ain - ריעין wrote:
[Regarding the remark, "nobody is born a faggot"]
> > Please prove this.
> >
>
Strictly speaking it's true - people aren't born as bunches of firewood!
:-))
However, assuming that the word 'faggot' is being used in the context of
an abusive term for 'homosexual' then clearly the following isn't a
logical argumant at all...
> Mankind would not even be here since faggots can't procreate.
1. It would only take *one* each of a male heterosexual or bisexual and
a female heterosexual or bisexual for the human race to continue at
least until the next generation.
2. It is estimated that about 10% of the human race are homosexual
(rather than bisexual or heterosexual), thus if about 10% of babies were
intrinsically homosexual, there would still be about 90% who were
intrisically bi or heterosexual and thus likely to mate at some stage of
their lives with a member of the opposite sex and same or compatible
sexual orientation. Thus the race would continue.
3. Even those who are otherwise completely homosexual or heterosexual by
'desire' (ie. which sex turns them on) *can* mate with a member of the
opposite sex, and vice versa. There are many examples of both male and
female homosexuals who have married a member of the opposite sex, and
had and raised their biological children.
In other words, there is no reason to think that the human race could
not or would not continue in the situation where those members of the
species who are homosexual were born that way.
Pat Winstanley
says...
> On Mon, 7 Mar 2005 21:36:47 -0000, Pat Winstanley
> <boredof...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >In article <qlap215lu0se9o85t...@4ax.com>, w...@privacy.net
> >says...
> >> On Mon, 7 Mar 2005 11:33:55 -0000, Pat Winstanley
> >> <boredof...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <1110160891....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> >> >youngo...@aol.com says...
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >How do you know whether or not he was?
> >> >
> >> >How do you know whether or not the first one to (principally, rather
> >> >than partially) walk upright was male rather than female?
> >> >
> >> >Why don't you understand the way evolution works?
> >> >
> >> >Who cares what you think/know/believe given that it rarely accords with
> >> >facts anyway?
> >>
> >> And you, on the other hand, are the fountain of all knowledge.
> >
> >
> >unknown... :-))
> >
> >> FUCK OFF!
> >>
> >
> >Rattled you? :-))
>
> No, rattled you, dear.
Are you? ROFL!!
>
> BTW -- Are you really that fat?
>
Are you? ROFL!!
Ray Fischer
Ray Fischer
>Ray Fischer wrote:
>> James Riske <james...@h0tmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Nobody is born a faggot.
>>
>>
>> You're just as much turned on by the sight of a naked guy as by a
>> naked babe, and it's only conscious choice that keeps you from having
>> sex with the guy.
>
>People who despise faggots are not faggots just as people who despise
>pedophiles are not pedophiles.
You say that sexuality is a choice. That means that you could be
turned on by naked guys just as easily as by naked women and it's only
your choice that makes any difference.
You're a closet fag.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Sir Marksman
"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:d0kb5p$ht9$1...@bolt.sonic.net...
> James Riske <james...@h0tmail.com> wrote:
>>Ray Fischer wrote:
>>> James Riske <james...@h0tmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Nobody is born a faggot.
>>>
>>>
>>> You're just as much turned on by the sight of a naked guy as by a
>>> naked babe, and it's only conscious choice that keeps you from having
>>> sex with the guy.
>>
>>People who despise faggots are not faggots just as people who despise
>>pedophiles are not pedophiles.
>
> You say that sexuality is a choice.
It is.
> That means that you could be
> turned on by naked guys just as easily as by naked women and it's only
> your choice that makes any difference.
>
Illogical assertion.
Sir Marksman
You don't understand logic.
Ray Fischer
>"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
>>>Ray Fischer wrote:
>>>> James Riske <james...@h0tmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>Nobody is born a faggot.
>>>>
>>>> You're just as much turned on by the sight of a naked guy as by a
>>>> naked babe, and it's only conscious choice that keeps you from having
>>>> sex with the guy.
>>>
>>>People who despise faggots are not faggots just as people who despise
>>>pedophiles are not pedophiles.
>>
>> You say that sexuality is a choice.
>
>It is.
Therefore you could choose to be homosexual.
>> That means that you could be
>> turned on by naked guys just as easily as by naked women and it's only
>> your choice that makes any difference.
>>
>
>Illogical assertion.
Chickenshit evasion.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Sir Marksman
> Sir Marksman <54654...@4454564654654.com> wrote:
>>"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
>>> James Riske <james...@h0tmail.com> wrote:
>>>>Ray Fischer wrote:
>>>>> James Riske <james...@h0tmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>>Nobody is born a faggot.
>>>>>
>>>>> You're just as much turned on by the sight of a naked guy as by a
>>>>> naked babe, and it's only conscious choice that keeps you from having
>>>>> sex with the guy.
>>>>
>>>>People who despise faggots are not faggots just as people who despise
>>>>pedophiles are not pedophiles.
>>>
>>> You say that sexuality is a choice.
>>
>>It is.
>
> Therefore you could choose to be homosexual.
Anyone can *choose* to be homosexual, bi-sexual or hetrosexual.
>
>>> That means that you could be
>>> turned on by naked guys just as easily as by naked women and it's only
>>> your choice that makes any difference.
>>>
>>
>>Illogical assertion.
>
> Chickenshit evasion.
>
Classic invective, as expected from one who lacks a logical argument.
Ray Fischer
>"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
>> Sir Marksman <54654...@4454564654654.com> wrote:
>>>"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
>>>> James Riske <james...@h0tmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>Ray Fischer wrote:
>>>>>> James Riske <james...@h0tmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>Nobody is born a faggot.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You're just as much turned on by the sight of a naked guy as by a
>>>>>> naked babe, and it's only conscious choice that keeps you from having
>>>>>> sex with the guy.
>>>>>
>>>>>People who despise faggots are not faggots just as people who despise
>>>>>pedophiles are not pedophiles.
>>>>
>>>> You say that sexuality is a choice.
>>>
>>>It is.
>>
>> Therefore you could choose to be homosexual.
>
>Anyone can *choose* to be homosexual, bi-sexual or hetrosexual.
I can't. I'm heterosexual. No interest in guys.
That you think that YOU can only proves that you're a
Sir Marksman
> Sir Marksman <54654...@4454564654654.com> wrote:
>>"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
>>> Sir Marksman <54654...@4454564654654.com> wrote:
>>>>"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
>>>>> James Riske <james...@h0tmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>Ray Fischer wrote:
>>>>>>> James Riske <james...@h0tmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>>Nobody is born a faggot.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You're just as much turned on by the sight of a naked guy as by a
>>>>>>> naked babe, and it's only conscious choice that keeps you from
>>>>>>> having
>>>>>>> sex with the guy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>People who despise faggots are not faggots just as people who despise
>>>>>>pedophiles are not pedophiles.
>>>>>
>>>>> You say that sexuality is a choice.
>>>>
>>>>It is.
>>>
>>> Therefore you could choose to be homosexual.
>>
>>Anyone can *choose* to be homosexual, bi-sexual or hetrosexual.
>
> I can't. I'm heterosexual. No interest in guys.
No, you are gay.
J Young
>
You'll know that Ray has conceded that he is wrong when he accuses you
of being a "hate-monger", or something equal.
Sir Marksman
"J Young" <youngo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1110294380.9...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
"The modern definition of a racist: someone who is winning an
argument with a liberal."
Peter Brimelow, Alien Nation (1996)
Cary Kittrell
Interesting. Do you remember when you chose? Do you remember
why you made the choice you did? And most interestingly
of all: could you change your mind today? If you wanted to,
could you just sit down this moment and decide that from now on,
you're going have Ben Affleck and Brad Pitt give you those same warm
funny stirrings down in your crotch that, say, Jennifer
Garner and Halle Barry were giving you up til today?
And if you so decided -- just as an experiment, say -- do you think
it would work?
-- cary
Douglas Berry
<L_Michae...@nospam.com> drained his beer, leaned back in the
alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the following
>
>
>Douglas Berry wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 19:25:09 GMT, w...@privacy.net drained his beer,
>> leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the
>> following
>>
>>
>>>>The cave paintings in france were clearly done by a gay man, the quality
>>>>is too good for a straight artist
>>>
>>>Impossible. Their AIDS addled homosexual brains would never have
>>>permitted it.
>>
>>
>> Ever hear of Michelangelo? Leonardo da Vinci?
>
> Van Gogh?
He was straight.
Weird, but straight.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
james g. keegan jr.
speaking from first-hand knowledge?
james g. keegan jr.
> Mankind would not even be here since faggots can't procreate.
really?
can you share cites to the peer reviewed studies you are referencing?
R?ain - ריעין
You are a complete ignorant cunt.
Based on your premise all books are only speculation, and there is no
proof for anything, including the Bible, History books, Algebra books,
Science books, and so on.
You are so stupid you cannot even see what you wrote is a complete
fallacy!
<w...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:sgtq215u5msb42alk...@4ax.com...
: On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 05:47:47 GMT, No One <no...@nospam.pacbell.net>
: wrote:
:
: >w...@privacy.net writes:
: >
: >> On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 00:44:35 GMT, Douglas Berry
: >> <pengu...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
: >
: >> >Ever hear of Michelangelo? Leonardo da Vinci?
: >>
: >> Yes, and I heard the lies that they were homosexuals. Have you some
: >> undisputable proof that they were, if not I suggest that you don't
: >> even consider going down that road.
: >
: >See
: ><http://www.pugzine.com/pug4/michelangelo.html>
: >and
:
><http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?endeca=1&isbn=0786704233&itm=61>
: >and explain what you think is wrong.
:
: These are simply books by ordinary people. There is no proof in them
: only wild speculation and Non-SWAGing. How weak of you.
R?ain - ריעין
He said if people are not born with A sexual orientation and it is all
choice, then we are equal in the sexuality department, which means
everyone is turned on by everyone, but everyone then makes a choice as
to who they wish to have sex with.
FOR FUCK'S SAKE GET A BRAIN!
"James Riske" <james...@h0tmail.com> wrote in message
news:d0k3m3$lir$4...@pita.alt.net...
: Ray Fischer wrote:
: > James Riske <james...@h0tmail.com> wrote:
: >
: >>Nobody is born a faggot.
: >
: >
: > You're just as much turned on by the sight of a naked guy as by a
: > naked babe, and it's only conscious choice that keeps you from
having
: > sex with the guy.
: >
:
: People who despise faggots are not faggots just as people who despise
: pedophiles are not pedophiles.
:
: Stay stupid.
:
:
:
: --
: "The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do
: nothing."--Edmund Burke
R?ain - ריעין
"James Riske" <james...@h0tmail.com> wrote in message
news:d0k3kp$lir$3...@pita.alt.net...
: Patrick Lee Humphrey wrote:
: > James Riske <james...@h0tmail.com> writes:
: >
: >
: >>Andrealphus wrote:
: >>
: >>>james g. keegan jr. <jgke...@gmail.com> wrote:
: >
: >
: >>>>J Young wrote:
: >
: >
: >>>>>Here's a scary thought; What if he had been gay?
: >
: >
: >>>>your obsession with gay males is growing, isn't it?
: >
: >
: >>>Obviously Young hadn't thought that through. Just because only one
set of
: >>>fossilized remains were found, doesn't mean their was only one of
them. In
: >>>all probability, a certain portion of them were gay, or prehaps the
entire
: >>>population of them were bisexual. The world may never know.
: >
: >
: >>Nobody is born a faggot.
: >
: >
: > So, why is it I never made a choice to be a heterosexual? It's the
way I was
: > born, and have been ever since.
: >
:
: Faggots choose to be what they are, just because you can't remember
: making the choice doesn't mean you didn't make one.
R?ain - ריעין
sperm, and are more than capable of fucking a woman.
"James Riske" <james...@h0tmail.com> wrote in message
news:d0k3i6$lir$2...@pita.alt.net...
: R?ain - ריעין wrote:
: > Please prove this.
: >
:
: Mankind would not even be here since faggots can't procreate.
:
: Also, if you believe people are really born as faggots then I am sure
: you have a verifiable citation that proves it, right?
Brent Norman
w...@privacy.net wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 10:01:41 -0500, James Riske
> <james...@h0tmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Clayton: The Reason The Housewives Are Desperate! wrote:
> >> "james g. keegan jr." <jgke...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1110161719.9...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >>
> >>>J Young wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>Here's a scary thought; What if he had been gay?
> >>>
> >>>your obsession with gay males is growing, isn't it?
> >>>
> >>
> >>
needs to
> >> go out and get some big sweaty stud to fuck him until his eyes
roll
> >> back...until then he'll just keep pissing and moaning and waving
his book of
> >> fairy tales!
> >
> >It's always fun watching faggots make fools of themselves on usenet,
> >simply because someone despises faggots doesn't make that person a
> >faggot just like someone who despises pedophiles isn't a closet
pedophile.
>
> It's especially entertaining to see a homosexual try to insult a
> heterosexual by calling him/her what they are. Speaks volumes about
> homosexual self-esteem.
It more speaks to the self-esteem of the homo-hater than the homo. The
out and proud homo knows who he is. The homo hater does not. He only
defines himself in terms of how much he appears to hate homos. To call
a homo-hater the very thing he appears to despise is the ultimate
insult to the homo-hater. A well-adjusted average person (hetero or
homo) couldn't care less if they were called a homo.
However, on the other hand, a homo-hater with internalized homophobia
would get paranoid and defensive if he were called a homo, because he
would be afraid that people have him figured out.
Brent Norman
w...@privacy.net wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 10:50:18 GMT, "Andrealphus"
> <OHNOL...@NARNIA.WHOCARES_4> wrote:
>
> >Douglas Berry <pengu...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 04:12:34 GMT, w...@privacy.net drained his
beer,
> >> leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed
the
> >> following
> >>> <re...@newsgroup.only.please> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> In article <1110160891.314563.73140
> >>>> @f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, J Young said...
> >>>>
> >>>>> Here's a scary thought; What if he had been gay?
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> He didn't die of AIDS.
> >>
> >> "Patient Zero" was infected in the late 1970s, about 35-40 years
ago.
> >> That is the first known case of AIDS.
> >>
> >
> >Not true. It was the first case that they could trace back to.
They have
> >since found medical records of cases dating back to the 1950's.
> >
> >
> >> This being lived 4,000,000 years ago. So I think we can rule AIDS
> >> out.
>
> OK, then we can rule homosexuality out too.
Since homosexuality does not require AIDS, nor does AIDS require
homosexuality, and the fact that AIDS was not around prior to the 20th
Century, your statement is unfounded.
Sir Marksman
"james g. keegan jr." <kee...@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.03.08....@nycap.rr.com...
Classic invective, as expected from one who lacks a logical argument.
Brent Norman
Sir Marksman wrote:
> "Ray Fischer" <rfis...@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
> news:d0kb5p$ht9$1...@bolt.sonic.net...
> > James Riske <james...@h0tmail.com> wrote:
> >>Ray Fischer wrote:
> >>> James Riske <james...@h0tmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>Nobody is born a faggot.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> You're just as much turned on by the sight of a naked guy as by a
> >>> naked babe, and it's only conscious choice that keeps you from
having
> >>> sex with the guy.
> >>
> >>People who despise faggots are not faggots just as people who
despise
> >>pedophiles are not pedophiles.
> >
> > You say that sexuality is a choice.
>
> It is.
For some it may be.
>
> > That means that you could be
> > turned on by naked guys just as easily as by naked women and it's
only
> > your choice that makes any difference.
> >
>
> Illogical assertion.
Why? If sexual orientation is a choice, in order for that to be true,
one would have to assume that one's attractions must be a choice. It
would mean that people by default, are sexually and romantically
attracted to both genders equally, yet *choose* one in order to become
heterosexual or homosexual.
I've never come across a real heterosexual man that had any feelings of
sexual attraction to men at all, not even in the back of their minds..
And I've yet to find any homosexual man that had any feelings of sexual
attraction to women at all, not even in the back of their minds.
The concept of choice means the possibility of both options being
available. If you lack the attraction to the other gender (or the same
gender), then the option is not available.
Brian E. Clark
said...
> These are simply books by ordinary people
What's that you say? Sorry, we can't hear you, because your
cowardice is roaring like a volcano.
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
Sir Marksman
"Brent Norman" <nellig...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1110313301.4...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Not at all.
> yet *choose* one in order to become
> heterosexual or homosexual.
>
> I've never come across a real heterosexual man that had any feelings of
> sexual attraction to men at all, not even in the back of their minds..
I would assume most don't.
> And I've yet to find any homosexual man that had any feelings of sexual
> attraction to women at all, not even in the back of their minds.
I have met many that do.
>
> The concept of choice means the possibility of both options being
> available. If you lack the attraction to the other gender (or the same
> gender), then the option is not available.
>
It is a choice early in life.
Brent Norman
I'm sure you are mistaking admiration and adoration for lust.
Otherwise, why do you think women feel generally feel comfortable
around gay men? If they are *sexually* attracted to women, they
wouldn't be homosexual at all, now would they?
If your statement is true, then that means that that many people are
attracted sexually to both genders, but favour one. Why would someone
choose to be ostracized and outcast when it is as simple as favouring
Josephine over Joseph?
Do you actually choose your attractions? Tell me about your ideal
woman. How much choice do you have in that? You just have a feeling
about what this ideal is, you didn't choose it. Some straight guys
like busty blondes. Some straight guys don't. Did they choose that?
I doubt it.. It just IS. And that's a subset WITHIN heterosexuality.
Just lika mong gay men. Some gay men like big men with broad shoulders.
Some gay men like slim toned men. Some straight men like athletic
headstrong women. Some straight men like submissive delicate women.
They don't choose those characteristics any more than they *choose*
gender to which they are attracted to.
> >
> > The concept of choice means the possibility of both options being
> > available. If you lack the attraction to the other gender (or the
same
> > gender), then the option is not available.
> >
>
> It is a choice early in life.
How so? Do you *consciously* remember when you simply evaluated the
pros and cons of guys vs girls and chose to find only females sexually
attractive? How absurd.
Sir Marksman
I do not believe so.
> Otherwise, why do you think women feel generally feel comfortable
> around gay men? If they are *sexually* attracted to women, they
> wouldn't be homosexual at all, now would they?
I didn't say all. I said I have met many that do.
>
> If your statement is true, then that means that that many people are
> attracted sexually to both genders, but favour one.
yup.
> Why would someone
> choose to be ostracized and outcast when it is as simple as favouring
> Josephine over Joseph?
You'd have to ask them.
>
> Do you actually choose your attractions?
Yes, I do.
> Tell me about your ideal
> woman. How much choice do you have in that?
Yes.
> You just have a feeling
> about what this ideal is, you didn't choose it. Some straight guys
> like busty blondes. Some straight guys don't. Did they choose that?
I believe so.
> I doubt it.. It just IS. And that's a subset WITHIN heterosexuality.
> Just lika mong gay men. Some gay men like big men with broad shoulders.
> Some gay men like slim toned men. Some straight men like athletic
> headstrong women. Some straight men like submissive delicate women.
> They don't choose those characteristics any more than they *choose*
> gender to which they are attracted to.
One *chooses* the gender they are attracted to.
>
>
>
>> >
>> > The concept of choice means the possibility of both options being
>> > available. If you lack the attraction to the other gender (or the
> same
>> > gender), then the option is not available.
>> >
>>
>> It is a choice early in life.
>
> How so? Do you *consciously* remember when you simply evaluated the
> pros and cons of guys vs girls and chose to find only females sexually
> attractive?
I was 4, and I remember it well.
> How absurd.
Absurd to the unenlightened.
james g. keegan jr.
@twister.nyroc.rr.com:
>
> "james g. keegan jr." <kee...@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:pan.2005.03.08....@nycap.rr.com...
>> On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 12:23:02 +0000, Sir Marksman wrote:
>>
>>> "Somewriter" <sappy...@poetic.com> wrote in message
>>> news:rh5r21l8slt27ud0m...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 06:52:06 -0500, James Riske
>>>> <james...@h0tmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>> Faggots choose to be what they are...
>>>>
>>>> No, they don't.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Yes, they do choose to be what they are.
>>
>> speaking from first-hand knowledge?
>>
>
> Classic
:-)
james g. keegan jr.
@pita.alt.net:
> People who despise faggots are not faggots just as people who despise
> pedophiles are not pedophiles.
really?
that you don't recognize the differences explains some of the ignorance
implicit in your posts.
Sir Marksman
>
>
Glad you agree!
rightw...@hotmail.com
trees.....
"damn trees are making global warming"
love
hank
..............................
Rush Laughballs
<rightw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1110329195.2...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Bush is on the level of a 4 million year old baboon.
Ray Fischer
>"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
>>>"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
>>>>>"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>Ray Fischer wrote:
>>>>>>>> James Riske <james...@h0tmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Nobody is born a faggot.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You're just as much turned on by the sight of a naked guy as by a
>>>>>>>> naked babe, and it's only conscious choice that keeps you from
>>>>>>>> having
>>>>>>>> sex with the guy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>pedophiles are not pedophiles.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>It is.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Anyone can *choose* to be homosexual, bi-sexual or hetrosexual.
>>
>> I can't. I'm heterosexual. No interest in guys.
>
>No, you are gay.
Wishful thinking on your part. Sorry, you're not my type.
>>>> That means that you could be
>>>> turned on by naked guys just as easily as by naked women and it's only
>>>> your choice that makes any difference.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Illogical assertion.
>>
>> Chickenshit evasion.
>
>Classic invective,
Another evasion.
Maybe you should just come out of the closet.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Brent Norman
w...@privacy.net wrote:
> On 8 Mar 2005 11:38:02 -0800, "Brent Norman"
> prior to the 20th Century."
Simple. There have been no documented cases prior to the 20th Century,
much less 4 million years ago.
> Perhaps you're working on the assumption
> that since hundreds of thousands of homosexuals weren't dying from it
> (yet) it just didn't exist on the face of the earth.
HIV, the virus related to the condition AIDS, is the human "version" of
SIV, which is not a human virus, but a simian virus. Viruses mutate and
change over time, and sometimes jump species. There are so many
factors involved.
In any case, It would have been affecting hundreds of thousands of
heterosexuals before it would have been able to affect hundreds of
thousands of homosexuals anyway. If AIDS was only an American
condition, then perhaps your assumption could have a chance of being
true. But worldwide, it is primarily heterosexual in nature.