REMARKABLE ACADEMICS ARE CLUELESS (OPINION) AS TO WHY LEFT-HANDEDNESS IS MORE COMMON TODAY (CORRECTED)
witchdoctorwithdogma
Homosexuality is linked to left-handedness.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/07/000710071931.htm
Our religions have caused the propagation of gays.
The more someone is caught up in a community or political
movement conducting an inquisition against gays, the likelier
it is he/she carries the gay gene as such an inquisiton will
chase the gene into heterosexual relationships.
Scapegoating gays is intended to make straight guys afraid of being
wrongly ferreted out as gay
so as to induce population growth (originally allowed ancient despots
to rumble.)
This hypocritically led to the propagation of gays.
As the gay gene only passes maternally, there are in religious
communities 3 of them per male gay, but they enjoy a holier than thou
existence as the men are the scapegoats of their own religion.
7/16/93, " N.Y.Times ," Though psychiatrists previously considered
man-
hating mother
the primary cause of male homosexuality, the N.I.H.'s Dean Hamer
discovers the gay gene
only passes maternally by way of an overwhelming statistical proof.
2) U.C. Berkeley's Breedlove discovers (later imitated at
Northwestern, reported on by
Leslie Stahl,) 3/30/2000, discovers later born males have increased
likelihood to be gay,
and he adds that it appears to be a statistical result reflecting
another influencing factor.
3) That factor is discovered, and it as well answers the issue
(Wade's column, citing Helen Fisher (Rutgers,)
of how gay males can perpetuate themselves if it's genetic:
Andrea Camperio-Ciani of the University of Padua. The same factor
that influences sexual orientation in males promotes higher fecundity
(having babies) in
females. "
The Italian study says lesbians who do have children are
genetically inclined to have MANY children. Lesbians can marry
heterosexually
to avoid inquisition, for economic support, or out of lack of self-
recognition
(Carren Strock, "A Painful Discovery.:" many, many lesbians not self-
aware until
after marrried, have children.)
A national survey has found the percentage of US women who say they
recently had gay sex has increased 15-fold from 1988 to 1998
SOURCE: Journal of Sex Research 2001;37:333-343--
(By Suzanne Rostler and E. J. Mundell
3-15-1) implies the double X-s do not cancel out as to the
X (female chromosome-based) gay gene, as it has found not
to cancel out in other genes.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/1...
CBS News: 1/16/2007:
Analysis Finds 51% Of Women Were Single In 2005
http://historyoffear.tripod.com #science
http://historyoffear.tripod.com #apps
HITLER WAS A FEMININE MAN. The scapegoating of gays preceded and
facilitated the Holocaust, and the fact of Hitler's femininity is
emblematic of
the process' hypocrisy and actual causation of homosexuality. HITLER
WAS A FEMININE MAN. The scapegoating of gays preceded and
facilitated the Holocaust, and the fact of Hitler's femininity is
emblematic of
the process' hypocrisy and actual causation of homosexuality.
All the above used scapegoating the gays to give a license to
scapegoat others, including, for instance, the Mexicans in the U.S.
today.
But it served to license judgementalism, scapegoating AND CAUSED THE
PROPAGATION OF GAYS.
KPBS, "Mexico:" A Mexican guy interviewed says "He makes as many
children as possible to prove his masculinity.
historyoffear.tripod.com
historyoffear.tripod.com#science
historyoffear.tripod.com#apps
historyoffear.tripod.com#sum
historyoffear.tripod.com#paranoia
Knowledge
Not only does religion condemn homosexuality, but if you take a look
at other animals in the animal kingdom, you can instantly see that it
is almost nonexistent there. If you study cultural anthropology, you
will find that it is only the decadent Caucasian dominated countries,
for the most part that are trying to legalize this filthy behavior.
Most wise countries tolerate it at best as it should be.
Also in science when you place two positive charges in close
proximity, they violently repel each other. So do two negative
charges. Whereas a negative and positive charge come together quickly.
Homosexuals and their brain damaged supporters can only give their
opinions as to this being a positive lifestyle. They cannot present
any credible evidence that this perverted lifestyle is something that
is good for humanity in general.
It would make a lot more sense to legalize adultery before legalizing
homosexuality.
Remember "Everything that feels good to you is not necessarily good
for you"
http://www.telebay.com/7777/packet8.html
http://www.prepaidlegal.com/hub/cgb
Don't buy "Beringer wines. From my viewpoint only, they are using extremely lax quality
control procedures. Their wine kind of reminds me of Chinese products.
Mitchell Holman
news:79hmh39r5ff9sf2db...@4ax.com:
In what civilized country is homosexuality not legalized?
Bret Cahill
> proximity, they violently repel each other. So do two negative
> charges. Whereas a negative and positive charge come together quickly.
Sounds like an argument for multiculturalism.
Bret Cahill
ZerkonX
> if you take a look
> at other animals in the animal kingdom, you can instantly see that it
> is almost nonexistent there.
Wrong.
pico
news:pan.2007.10.21....@zerkonx.net...
Indeed it is wrong. Knowledge has none.
Bret Cahill
> at other animals in the animal kingdom, you can instantly see that it
> is almost nonexistent there.
How do you know the animal kingdom isn't like the GOP?
Bret Cahill
Mich...@gmail.com
Please do not misunderstand. I think that the practice of
homosexuality is wrong. I also thing smoking is wrong. I personally
would not willing participate in either. I think humans do lots of
things with and to their bodies that are mentally\physically\socially
inappropriate and potentially harmful. However, my moral judgment
(i.e. the process whereby I make judgments with regards to these
behaviors) come from my belief system not pseudo science. Trying to
judge these things based off of the actions of other species is rather
silly.
Also implied value judgments (i.e. I'm better then you because I'm
straight) are also silly. Everybody has faults. Who is to judge
which faults are worse then others?
Note: Obviously most homosexuals would not view their behavior as
wrong. That is their choice. Don't ask me to condone your behavior
and I wont judge you by just that one aspect of your behavior.
Mich...@gmail.com
Please do not misunderstand. I think that the practice of
tg
Why isn't you belief system pseudo-science? How is it different?
-tg
Mich...@gmail.com
If I say I like chocolate cake or hate green beans, these are value
judgments on my part. If I attempt to present a scientific reason
based upon some arrangements of taste buds why chocolate cake taste
good and green beans taste bad, I am over complicating the issue and I
am diminishing the individual right I have to make a value statement
with regards to some issue.
I can chose to dislike the practice of homosexuality in the same
manner that someone else can chose to like it. I can have reasons for
why I dislike it (in my case they are based upon my belief system).
However, if I attempt to show that all of mankind must be against
homosexuality and that it should be abolished, I need to come armed
with more then just an argument based upon the behavior of other
species. In my opinion this is a weak argument.
This does not mean that society should not be able to ban some
behaviors based upon value judgments. It can and does. However,
there is a fine line between what is legally acceptable and morally
acceptable. For the most part I want the government to play a
diminished role in these issues and essentially only step in where the
rights of "weak" party are being infringe upon.
tg
I'm afraid that you are once again just throwing words around in ways
that only you understand.
'Junk science' or 'pseudoscience' are terms which have a specific
meaning and application---they do not mean "research that Michael
thinks is over-complicated". You don't seem to be aware that food
companies spend millions of dollars on research into exactly why
chocolate cake tastes good or not, and the people who do that work are
real scientists who worked long and hard to learn their business. Do
you think the CEOs of those companies are crazy?
> I can chose to dislike the practice of homosexuality in the same
> manner that someone else can chose to like it.
You mean that you've tried it and don't like it? If you are making an
analogy with ice cream and green beans, then I assume you tried those
before deciding whether you liked them or not, right?
-tg
Wexford
>
>
>
>
> <witchdoctorwithdo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/numberofleftiesbouncesback
>
> >Homosexuality is linked to left-handedness.
>
> >http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/07/000710071931.htm
>
> >Our religions have caused the propagation of gays.
Crapola snipped
?????????
>
> Not only does religion condemn homosexuality, but if you take a look
> at other animals in the animal kingdom, you can instantly see that it
> is almost nonexistent there.
"Homosexual" behavior has been witnessed in all sorts of mammals,
including rats and dogs.
> If you study cultural anthropology, you
> will find that it is only the decadent Caucasian dominated countries,
> for the most part that are trying to legalize this filthy behavior.
If you study cultural anthropology, which you obviously haven't, or
you just bothered to read the literature and history of people, you'd
discover that homosexual behavior is common everywhere. The Japanese
Samurai extolled the practice as "manly love." It's found in Chinese
writing, and among Middle Easterners, homosexual practices are
embedded in the culture. Just what do you think Turks do in the
Turkish bath?
> Most wise countries tolerate it at best as it should be.
No. Some rather stupid countries tolerate it as well. Some do it and
condemn it. Some condone practices that we would find replusive,
abusive and illegal.
> Also in science when you place two positive charges in close
> proximity, they violently repel each other. So do two negative
> charges. Whereas a negative and positive charge come together quickly.
So what?
>
> Homosexuals and their brain damaged supporters can only give their
> opinions as to this being a positive lifestyle. They cannot present
> any credible evidence that this perverted lifestyle is something that
> is good for humanity in general.
Gee.. is coca-cola "good for humanity in general?" How about plastic
pink flamigoes? Football? Rush Limbaugh? You?
> It would make a lot more sense to legalize adultery before legalizing
> homosexuality.
Where is adultry illegal and the law actually enforced? These days,
the only countries in which adultry laws are enforced are places where
women go veiled.
> Remember "Everything that feels good to you is not necessarily good
> for you"
Uh.. yeah? So what? A lot of things that feel good are neither good
nor bad for you as well.
Mich...@gmail.com
You may be right. It is hard to tell if my words are clear or not.
My disdain with the practice of homosexuality is for none of the
reasons that Knowledge mentioned in the original post. All of those
reasons were foolish. I would challenge you defend them.
However, as I was trying to state, I can morally object to a behavior
for reasons outside of science. People have and will continue to make
value judgments about things without or in spite of scientific facts
to back up those objections. And yes I can make value judgments on
things that I have never tried. I can think that "dried monkey turds"
taste bad without ever having tasted a dried monkey turd. This does
not imply that nobody else has tried them or that nobody has done
scientific studies to judge their tastiness. It just means that I
don't need either of these things to have happened before I can form
an opinion on the subject.
When someone attacks homosexuality using bad science or wrong
historical references, it should be refuted by both sides.
Scot
news:79hmh39r5ff9sf2db...@4ax.com...
> Not only does religion condemn homosexuality, but if you take a look
> at other animals in the animal kingdom, you can instantly see that it
> is almost nonexistent there.
Quote 1:
Homosexual (as well as bisexual) behavior is widespread in the animal
kingdom.
Gordon, Dr Dennis (10 April 2007). 'Catalogue of Life' reaches one million
species. National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research.
Quote 2:
"No species has been found in which homosexual behaviour has not been shown
to exist, with the exception of species that never have sex at all, such as
sea urchins and aphis. Moreover, a part of the animal kingdom is
hermaphroditic, truly bisexual. For them, homosexuality is not an issue."
1,500 Animal Species Practice Homosexuality. News-medical.net (2006-10-23).
tg
Since he/she is even more difficult to understand than your are, no
way......
>
> However, as I was trying to state, I can morally object to a behavior
> for reasons outside of science.
You can't morally object for reasons *within* science, since morality
has nothing to do with science.
> People have and will continue to make
> value judgments about things without or in spite of scientific facts
> to back up those objections. And yes I can make value judgments on
> things that I have never tried. I can think that "dried monkey turds"
> taste bad without ever having tasted a dried monkey turd.
But this is the behavior of a child, don't you think? The finicky
eater will often later find the monkey-turd a gourmet treat.
> This does
> not imply that nobody else has tried them or that nobody has done
> scientific studies to judge their tastiness. It just means that I
> don't need either of these things to have happened before I can form
> an opinion on the subject.
>
Correct, that's exactly what children do---they form opinions without
the benefit of direct or indirect information.
> When someone attacks homosexuality using bad science or wrong
> historical references, it should be refuted by both sides.
What sides are you talking about?
-tg
KLM
ZerkonX wrote:
You are totally correct -
KLM
Mich...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Please do not misunderstand. I think that the practice of
> homosexuality is wrong.
Wrong? Is day vs night "wrong"? On what basis do you
judge Nature? Do you think Nature is listening? Do you
think gravity is listening? The sun and moon and stars?
The Higgs Boson?