new word for homophobia?
Ferg
N.Mitchum <aj...@lafn.org> wrote in message
news:39566C...@lafn.org...
> Gary and Amy wrote:
> -----
> > Every time I see the word "homophobic" used, the
implication is clearly that
> > the person so described dislikes homosexuals, or
disapproves of their
> > behavior, or even hates or despises them.
> > But based on its roots, the word obviously denotes that
homophobes are
> > afraid of homosexuals, which is usually not the case.
Is politics at work
> > here? Are there any other words out there for people
with this affliction?
> >......
>
> Well, I think fear must indeed be behind such an attitude.
If
> straights didn't feel threatened in some way by
homosexuals, why
> would they be so hostile to them? Why the beatings and
murders,
> why the snubbings and malicious jokes?
'coz they're just plain disgusting?
I don't need to be afraid of something to know that it is
undesirable.
I know schizophrenia is undesirable, and I support treatment
for sufferers of this mental illness just as I support
treatment for sufferers of homosexuality.
Just like faggots, many schizophrenics need to be actively
convinced of their need for treatment, and just as with
schizophrenia, homosexuality is a poorly-understood disease
with no known 100% effective treatment, although drugs are
available which will mask the more undesirable behavioural
side-effects of the disease.
Unfortunatley, for political reasons mainly associated with
the homosexual lobby's lust for young boys, treatment has
been withheld from homosexuals, so far.
I mean, if treatment was available, our Dept of Foreign
Affairs might have been able to develop sound policies for
dealing with our neighbouring countries instead of lurching
from one embarrassing disaster to the next while their
employees spend all their time reading interior decorating
magazines and hanging around the toilets.
Ward Stewart
>
>N.Mitchum <aj...@lafn.org> wrote in message
>news:39566C...@lafn.org...
>> Gary and Amy wrote:
>> -----
>> > Every time I see the word "homophobic" used, the
>implication is clearly that
>> > the person so described dislikes homosexuals, or
>disapproves of their
>> > behavior, or even hates or despises them.
>
>> > But based on its roots, the word obviously denotes that
>homophobes are
>> > afraid of homosexuals, which is usually not the case.
>Is politics at work
>> > here? Are there any other words out there for people
>with this affliction?
Once again, the enemies of decency, rationality and human rights
reveal the utter paucity of their wit and the pitiful state of their
understanding of the language (or of much of anything else).
The Greek and Latin based neologisms are NOT to be taken literally,
they do NOT bear direct translation and only the seriously deprived
can possibly think so.
Hydrophobia is an old description of the terrible disease of Rabies.
The unfortunate patient is not in "fear" of water -- quite the
contrary, he needs water, wants water but is unable to drink water.
Agoraphobia is usually expressed in fear of leaving the house, fear of
the street perhaps but NOT of the agora, NOT of Bloomingdales.
ward
You go on --
>
>Just like faggots, many schizophrenics need to be actively
>convinced of their need for treatment, and just as with
>schizophrenia, homosexuality is a poorly-understood disease
>with no known 100% effective treatment, although drugs are
>available which will mask the more undesirable behavioural
>side-effects of the disease.
One must wonder where you have come by this remarkable medical insight
into a condition which the Doctors, both medical and psychiatric, do
NOT consider to be a disease -- do not consider.something to "treat"
or to "change."
Clearly YOU believe that YOU know otherwise -- since you are so
certain, the matter is in your court -- justify yourself.if you can.
YOU may think that posting such stuff is some sort of "lark" or
"tease" or an entertaining "flame."
Let me assure you that it is not and that it is, indeed, symptomatic
of REAL pathology.
ward
----------------------------------------------------
"Homosexuality is assuredly no advantage, but it is
nothing to be ashamed of, no vice, no degradation,
it cannot be classified as an illness; we consider it
to be a variation of the sexual function produced by
a certain arrest of sexual development. Many highly
respectable individuals of ancient and modern times
have been homosexuals, several of the greatest men
among them (Plato,Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, etc.)
. It is a great injustice to persecute homosexuality
as a crime, and cruelty too...."
Sigmund Freud
[from the American Journal of Psychiatry, 1951, 107, 786]
----------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------
. "I regret that my words were taken out of context,
distorted and lied about so people were hurt from the
lies," she says.
"Even now I get hundreds of letters a week from
gays and lesbians who realize the way I'm being
presented is nowhere near the truth."
Dr Laura Schlesinger in an interview with the New York Post
"I'll just bet you do!" -- Ward, on reading the above
-----------------------------------------------------
Cyberus News
Ferg wrote in message <5AB55.228$yS5.5...@news0.optus.net.au>...
>
a big crock of shit.
Where'd this perv come from? Amazes me how they just crop up out of
nowhere, sort of like when you're driving down the road and don't see the
dead skunk until the stench hits you. Anyway that is what opening his post
seemed like to me!
Cheers all,
David Rimmer, in Ottawa
N.Mitchum
------
> Where'd this perv come from? Amazes me how they just crop up out of
> nowhere,
Nowhere? Look at the heading. This thread is crossposted to six
newsgroups, several of them wildly unrelated. Small wonder some
of the posters seem to leap from nowhere.
This seems to descend from a reply I wrote ... despite my having
trimmed the newsgroups to the one among them that I visit! And
yet now I see all six groups are back in place. How did that
happen? Was it deliberately done by someone else?
----NM
Daniel McKeown
>
> Cyberus News wrote:
> ------
> > Where'd this perv come from? Amazes me how they just crop up out of
> > nowhere,
> >.....
>
> Nowhere? Look at the heading. This thread is crossposted to six
> newsgroups, several of them wildly unrelated. Small wonder some
> of the posters seem to leap from nowhere.
>
You are lucky. He's a regular over at aus.politics. There're plenty of
bigots of all types over here ;) They're just about to open another
crate of whiskey, and then their cousins are a-comin' over, wee hah!
--
Daniel
Franc Zabkar
Stewart) put finger to keyboard and composed:
>On Mon, 26 Jun 2000 05:09:21 GMT, "Ferg" <fergu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>N.Mitchum <aj...@lafn.org> wrote in message
>>news:39566C...@lafn.org...
>>> Gary and Amy wrote:
>>> -----
>>> > Every time I see the word "homophobic" used, the
>>implication is clearly that
>>> > the person so described dislikes homosexuals, or
>>disapproves of their
>>> > behavior, or even hates or despises them.
>>
>>> > But based on its roots, the word obviously denotes that
>>homophobes are
>>> > afraid of homosexuals, which is usually not the case.
>>Is politics at work
>>> > here? Are there any other words out there for people
>>with this affliction?
>
>Once again, the enemies of decency, rationality and human rights
>reveal the utter paucity of their wit and the pitiful state of their
>understanding of the language (or of much of anything else).
The enemies of "decency" are those that engage in anal sex, whether it
involve consenting males, or a male and female. "Rationality" would
suggest that inserting one's penis into a septic organ is at the very
least unhealthy. After all, bacteria contribute two-thirds of the
weight of one's faeces. How many cases of food poisoning can be
attributed to food preparers not scrubbing their hands after wiping
their backsides? In fact the septicity of the bowel precludes the
possibility of a bowel transplant, an operation which could have eased
the suffering of my late sister.
>The Greek and Latin based neologisms are NOT to be taken literally,
>they do NOT bear direct translation and only the seriously deprived
>can possibly think so.
I consulted my Concise Oxford Dictionary (dated 1984) and found no
mention of the word "homophobia". It would appear that this word was
coined within the last decade or so, probably by an illiterate PC
advocate, perhaps by the same individual that corrupted the meaning of
the word "gay" (which does appear in the dictionary). In constructing
this new word this person should have at the very least attempted to
understand its structural components. These include "homo" from the
Greek "homos" meaning "same" and "phobos" meaning "fear". "Homo" also
has a Latin root meaning "man" or "mankind". The intended meaning of
the newly coined word appears to have been "a dislike of homosexuals",
yet with the entire English, Latin and Greek languages at his/her
disposal this illiterate person has created a term which translates to
"fear of mankind" or "fear of sameness".
Actually the word that I find most inappropriate in describing a
behavioural aberration is "paedophilia", from the Greek "philos" for
"loving" and "paidos" for "boy, child". A less euphemistic description
would be "child abuser" or "child molester".
I can see the day when, in the same way that the PC brigade is
championing the ridiculous idea of a hereditary predisposition to
homosexuality, a child molester will face society and claim that they
are a victim of their genetic makeup.
>Hydrophobia is an old description of the terrible disease of Rabies.
>The unfortunate patient is not in "fear" of water -- quite the
>contrary, he needs water, wants water but is unable to drink water.
My dictionary gives several definitions for "hydrophobia", one of
which is "morbid dread of water". The fact that this term has come to
be used inappropriately in medicine is neither here nor there.
>Agoraphobia is usually expressed in fear of leaving the house, fear of
>the street perhaps but NOT of the agora, NOT of Bloomingdales.
Agoraphobia - morbid dread of public places or open spaces
agora - place of assembly, marketplace (Greek)
phobos - as above
Seems consistent to me.
>ward
-- Franc Zabkar
Please remove one 'e' from my address when replying by email.
Ferg
Franc Zabkar <franc...@ozeemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:39581127...@news.ozemail.com.au...
You're not asking a pervert to recognise consistency, are
you? What a waste of time.
Cyberus News
Franc Zabkar wrote in message
<39581127...@news.ozemail.com.au>...>>>with this affliction?
>>>The enemies of "decency" are those that engage in anal sex, whether it
>involve consenting males, or a male and female. "Rationality" would
>suggest that inserting one's penis into a septic organ is at the very
>least unhealthy. After all, bacteria contribute two-thirds of the
>weight of one's faeces.
Sorry, not true. most of the weight comes from water, next fibre.
We were also taught in nursing school that the mouth harbours more bacteria
than the bowel, that is in variety not necessarily sheer quantity as the
bowel contains many "good" bacteria necessary for proper digestion.
How many cases of food poisoning can be
>attributed to food preparers not scrubbing their hands after wiping
>their backsides? In fact the septicity of the bowel precludes the
>possibility of a bowel transplant, an operation which could have eased
>the suffering of my late sister.
>
>>The Greek and Latin based neologisms are NOT to be taken literally,
>>they do NOT bear direct translation and only the seriously deprived
>>can possibly think so.
>
>I consulted my Concise Oxford Dictionary (dated 1984) and found no
>mention of the word "homophobia".
Well it does appear in my Concise Oxford Dictionary (dated 1995). I would
suspect your dictionary doesn't include "modem" either, or a definition of
"mouse" which would cover that little thing you use with your computer. The
definition from the 1995 Concise Oxford Dictionary is: homophobia n. a
hatred or fear of homosexuals.
I would suggest you get a more recent dictionary.
It would appear that this word was
>coined within the last decade or so, probably by an illiterate PC
>advocate, perhaps by the same individual that corrupted the meaning of
>the word "gay" (which does appear in the dictionary). In constructing
>this new word this person should have at the very least attempted to
>understand its structural components. These include "homo" from the
>Greek "homos" meaning "same" and "phobos" meaning "fear". "Homo" also
>has a Latin root meaning "man" or "mankind". The intended meaning of
>the newly coined word appears to have been "a dislike of homosexuals",
>yet with the entire English, Latin and Greek languages at his/her
>disposal this illiterate person has created a term which translates to
>"fear of mankind" or "fear of sameness".
>
>Actually the word that I find most inappropriate in describing a
>behavioural aberration is "paedophilia", from the Greek "philos" for
>"loving" and "paidos" for "boy, child". A less euphemistic description
>would be "child abuser" or "child molester".
Very true.
>I can see the day when, in the same way that the PC brigade is
>championing the ridiculous idea of a hereditary predisposition to
>homosexuality,
And in what way is it ridiculous?
a child molester will face society and claim that they
>are a victim of their genetic makeup.
>
>>Hydrophobia is an old description of the terrible disease of Rabies.
>>The unfortunate patient is not in "fear" of water -- quite the
>>contrary, he needs water, wants water but is unable to drink water.
>
>My dictionary gives several definitions for "hydrophobia", one of
>which is "morbid dread of water". The fact that this term has come to
>be used inappropriately in medicine is neither here nor there.
>
>>Agoraphobia is usually expressed in fear of leaving the house, fear of
>>the street perhaps but NOT of the agora, NOT of Bloomingdales.
>
>Agoraphobia - morbid dread of public places or open spaces
>
>agora - place of assembly, marketplace (Greek)
>phobos - as above
>
>Seems consistent to me.
>
>>ward
>
>
>-- Franc Zabkar
>
>Please remove one 'e' from my address when replying by email.
David Rimmer, in Ottawa
fsmith
Sounds like the type that might have a still in the back yard.
--
Fritz..
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The time is now.
The Faerie Godmother
Cyberus News <ston...@cyberus.ca> wrote in message
news:8jadd8$2of5$1...@news2.ottawa.cyberus.ca...
> >I consulted my Concise Oxford Dictionary (dated 1984) and found no
> >mention of the word "homophobia".
>
> Well it does appear in my Concise Oxford Dictionary (dated 1995). I would
> suspect your dictionary doesn't include "modem" either, or a definition of
> "mouse" which would cover that little thing you use with your computer.
The
> definition from the 1995 Concise Oxford Dictionary is: homophobia n. a
> hatred or fear of homosexuals.
>
> I would suggest you get a more recent dictionary.
Some twenty years ago, I wanted a new dictionary for the office, but I was
told that spelling hadn't changed and the old one would suffice. Eventually
I found an entry which did the trick. "Spaceship - an imaginary craft ...".
I have told this story before and been offered money for the offending book.
Unfortunately, I didn't keep it.
Moira, the Faerie Godmother
The Faerie Godmother
Brian Griffin <gry...@ozemail.dotcom.dotau> wrote in message
news:280620000109126172%gry...@ozemail.dotcom.dotau...
> In article <39581127...@news.ozemail.com.au>, Franc Zabkar
> <franc...@ozeemail.com.au> wrote:
>
> > least unhealthy. After all, bacteria contribute two-thirds of the
> > weight of one's faeces.
>
>
> > I can see the day when, in the same way that the PC brigade is
> > championing the ridiculous idea of a hereditary predisposition to
> > are a victim of their genetic makeup.
>
> homosexuality and child molestation, Franc.
>
> Having worked in psychiatry for 14 years, I have met many people who
> have been sexually abused as children. More often than not, this has
> been at the hands of so-called "straight" men, usually married and
> often parents themselves. The next most frequent offenders are those
> who comdemn the deeds loudest - men of the cloth. As dearly as the
> bigots would love to believe otherwise, the incidence of these assaults
> being perpetrated by openly homosexual men is actually quite low.
In a series of lectures on child abuse presented at our church, it was
pointed out that about 2% of ministers of religion are paedophiles and/or
guilty of sexual abuse of children. We were horrified. Our
denominational rate is lower, but only because over 50% of our clergy are
women.
Moira, the Faerie Godmother
Evan Kirshenbaum
> I consulted my Concise Oxford Dictionary (dated 1984) and found no
> mention of the word "homophobia". It would appear that this word was
> coined within the last decade or so,
Merriam-Webster cites it back to 1969. I don't have an older print
copy handy, but it had made it into the dictionary by 1993. It was
certainly current when I was in college in the early/mid-'80s.
Perhaps it took a bit longer to get to Oxfordian shores.
The word was apparently coined by George Weinberg, a (heterosexual)
psychotherapist. Quibbles about the etymology aside, he appears to
have been very deliberate in choosing to call it a "phobia":
After trying to introduce gay friends of mine to heterosexuals in
those days I just almost couldn't make the bridge. They always
found reasons not to invite them to their homes and I realized
that this is a classical phobic revulsion. They exhibited the same
traits as your claustrophobic, your agoraphobic except that they
were traits toward gays.
http://gaytoday.badpuppy.com/garchive/interview/020397in.htm
(Whether he was correct or not in so describing the behavior he saw is
a different question, of course.) Sometime during the '70s, the word
appears to have taken on its current, broader meaning.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |The skinny models whose main job is
1501 Page Mill Road, Building 1U |to display clothes aren't hired for
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |their sex appeal. They're hired
|for their resemblance to a
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |coat-hanger.
(650)857-7572 | Peter Moylan
Brian Griffin
> least unhealthy. After all, bacteria contribute two-thirds of the
> weight of one's faeces.
Oh, really? Where was that one pulled from?
> I can see the day when, in the same way that the PC brigade is
> championing the ridiculous idea of a hereditary predisposition to
> homosexuality, a child molester will face society and claim that they
> are a victim of their genetic makeup.
I don't quite see the connection you're trying to make between
homosexuality and child molestation, Franc.
Having worked in psychiatry for 14 years, I have met many people who
have been sexually abused as children. More often than not, this has
been at the hands of so-called "straight" men, usually married and
often parents themselves. The next most frequent offenders are those
who comdemn the deeds loudest - men of the cloth. As dearly as the
bigots would love to believe otherwise, the incidence of these assaults
being perpetrated by openly homosexual men is actually quite low.
For what it's worth.
Brian.
Ferg
Cyberus News <ston...@cyberus.ca> wrote in message
news:8jadd8$2of5$1...@news2.ottawa.cyberus.ca...
>
> Franc Zabkar wrote in message
> <39581127...@news.ozemail.com.au>...>>>with this
affliction?
>
>
sex, whether it
> >involve consenting males, or a male and female.
"Rationality" would
> >suggest that inserting one's penis into a septic organ is
at the very
two-thirds of the
> >weight of one's faeces.
>
next fibre.
>
> We were also taught in nursing school that the mouth
harbours more bacteria
> than the bowel, that is in variety not necessarily sheer
quantity as the
> bowel contains many "good" bacteria necessary for proper
digestion.
Does it taste good, though?
> >I can see the day when, in the same way that the PC
brigade is
> >championing the ridiculous idea of a hereditary
predisposition to
> >homosexuality,
>
> And in what way is it ridiculous?
er, like homosexuality is hardly a survival of the species
trait, is it? Know anything about Darwin's theories?
Ferg
fsmith <fsm...@bcpl.net> wrote in message
news:3958F12F...@bcpl.net...
...but no stool-smeared willy.
Most homos in fact have under-sized penises.
Ward Stewart
CLEARLY, more than you do -- indeed, my cat has a better grip on
Darwin than you do!
ward
------------------------------------------------------------
"disapproving" of homosexuality is very like disapproving of
Tuesday. An exercise in futility and fatuity. You don't like
it, you think it is wrong and that it should be suppressed
and denied. Yet, every seven days, there it is again."
---------------------------------------------------------
Jowysiren
>trait, is it? Know anything about Darwin's theories?
Then why is it still here? It's been here since the dawn of time, same as
heterosexuality and bisexuality. It's a variation of sexuality that is all.
People gravitate toward who they gravitate to. If it happens to be with someone
of the same sex, then that is who the person will gravitate to. Living is more
important that just survival.
Kania
aa#1755
http://jowysiren.sexsexworld.com
Daniel McKeown
>
> Most homos in fact have under-sized penises.
>
Finally a claim that Ferg probably has 'first hand' knowledge of.
--
Daniel
Ferg
Ward Stewart <wste...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:39616620.8481254@news-server...
species
> >trait, is it? Know anything about Darwin's theories?
> >
grip on
> Darwin than you do!
Well, you obviously have a good grip on something, but it
quite clearly isn't the theory of evolution you're pulling.
Ferg
Daniel McKeown <dan...@surpac.com> wrote in message
news:395995FB...@surpac.com...
No, it;'s just a fairly rational conclusion.
If homos don't root women but root each others' anuses
instead, then it stands to reason that they are too
embarrassed to show their pathetically small willies to any
women (or they have and already been laughed out of bed) and
have found that the much smaller orifice placed for the
ejection of faeces can, if they root it, give them the
illusion of having a bigger dick.
I mean, really, you can't get anything much bigger than a
fairly average-sized carrot to pass the anal sphincter
backwards, can you?
Eric Bohlman
> Most homos in fact have under-sized penises.
It only seems that way to you because your mouth is so big.
Daniel McKeown
Nice one.
--
Daniel
Franc Zabkar
<ston...@cyberus.ca> put finger to keyboard and composed:
>
>Franc Zabkar wrote in message
><39581127...@news.ozemail.com.au>...>>>with this affliction?
>
>
>>>>The enemies of "decency" are those that engage in anal sex, whether it
>>involve consenting males, or a male and female. "Rationality" would
>>suggest that inserting one's penis into a septic organ is at the very
>>least unhealthy. After all, bacteria contribute two-thirds of the
>>weight of one's faeces.
>
>Sorry, not true. most of the weight comes from water, next fibre.
Are you perhaps confusing the material in the bowel with the waste
matter in the rectum? The large intestine absorbs water from the
digested food matter and transfers it to the bloodstream whereupon it
is filtered by the kidneys and excreted by the bladder. The remaining
_solid_ matter passes into the rectum, which is six to eight inches
long ;-)
In mounting a technical argument against buggery I concede that I
should have quoted from a reference. Here it is:
"When the excretion of the bowel is studied with a microscope the
following constituents may be seen or found chemically:
(1) Undigested material such as ligaments of meat or cellulose
from vegetables
(2) undigested material such as fragments of meat, starch, fats ...
(3) unabsorbable material
(4) products of bacterial decomposition
(5) mucus and cells from the intestinal tract
(6) colour or pigment, esp from bile
(7) salts
(8) bacteria - these may make up two thirds of the weight of the
material, and ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
(9) the gases, which arise mainly from bacterial action ..."
- Vol 6, pages 869 and 872, The New Illustrated Medical and Health
Encyclopedia, 1966
>We were also taught in nursing school that the mouth harbours more bacteria
>than the bowel, that is in variety not necessarily sheer quantity as the
>bowel contains many "good" bacteria necessary for proper digestion.
Digestion yes, ingestion no. Furthermore, bacteria and viruses may
enter the bloodstream as a result of trauma during anal intercourse.
> How many cases of food poisoning can be
>>attributed to food preparers not scrubbing their hands after wiping
>>their backsides? In fact the septicity of the bowel precludes the
>>possibility of a bowel transplant, an operation which could have eased
>>the suffering of my late sister.
>>
>>>The Greek and Latin based neologisms are NOT to be taken literally,
>>>they do NOT bear direct translation and only the seriously deprived
>>>can possibly think so.
>>
>>I consulted my Concise Oxford Dictionary (dated 1984) and found no
>>mention of the word "homophobia".
>
>Well it does appear in my Concise Oxford Dictionary (dated 1995). I would
>suspect your dictionary doesn't include "modem" either, or a definition of
>"mouse" which would cover that little thing you use with your computer. The
>definition from the 1995 Concise Oxford Dictionary is: homophobia n. a
>hatred or fear of homosexuals.
>
>I would suggest you get a more recent dictionary.
You missed my point, which was that the word "homophobia" appeared to
be the recent creation of an individual with no understanding of, or
regard for, its structural components. I'm not contesting the actual
meaning attributed to it by common usage, merely its
inappropriateness.
>>I can see the day when, in the same way that the PC brigade is
>>championing the ridiculous idea of a hereditary predisposition to
>>homosexuality,
>
>And in what way is it ridiculous?
In the same way that the notion of hereditary infertility is
ridiculous.
For the sake of argument let's assume that there is a "homosexuality
gene" within the human gene pool. Again for the sake of argument,
let's say that it affects 20% of the population. Now, since
homosexuals by definition are less likely to reproduce, the subsequent
generation's gene pool will witness a dilution of the homosexuality
gene. Assuming once more for the sake of argument that half of the
homosexual population do not reproduce, it is easy to see that the
homosexuality gene will disappear within a very few generations. For
example, 2 raised to the power of 4 equals 16, and 20% divided by 16
equals ... you get the picture. Of course it is by no means as simple
as this, but one of the fundamental tenets of genetics and evolution
is that any trait which is prejudicial to the survival of a species
will quickly disappear. In fact, any trait that threatens the
continuation of the species must be seen as a defect. It is from this
logical standpoint that homosexuality must be seen as unnatural.
Franc Zabkar
<gry...@ozemail.dotcom.dotau> put finger to keyboard and composed:
>In article <39581127...@news.ozemail.com.au>, Franc Zabkar
><franc...@ozeemail.com.au> wrote:
>
>> least unhealthy. After all, bacteria contribute two-thirds of the
>> weight of one's faeces.
>
>Oh, really? Where was that one pulled from?
Vol 6, pages 869 and 872, The New Illustrated Medical and Health
Encyclopedia, 1966
For the details see my other post.
>> I can see the day when, in the same way that the PC brigade is
>> championing the ridiculous idea of a hereditary predisposition to
>> homosexuality, a child molester will face society and claim that they
>> are a victim of their genetic makeup.
>
>I don't quite see the connection you're trying to make between
>homosexuality and child molestation, Franc.
No direct connection was intended, other than that both are
behavioural aberrations which can and should be controlled and for
which no genetic defence is plausible.
>Having worked in psychiatry for 14 years, I have met many people who
>have been sexually abused as children. More often than not, this has
>been at the hands of so-called "straight" men, usually married and
>often parents themselves. The next most frequent offenders are those
>who comdemn the deeds loudest - men of the cloth. As dearly as the
>bigots would love to believe otherwise, the incidence of these assaults
>being perpetrated by openly homosexual men is actually quite low.
I wholeheartedly agree with every word. My own RC (=religiously
correct?) priest went to jail for molesting altar boys.
>For what it's worth.
Actually, this whole question of homosexuality poses great
difficulties for me. On the one hand I feel an overwhelming disgust
for the act of buggery but on the other hand I don't bear any overt
animosity toward homosexuals. This begs the question, how can you
accept an individual when you rightfully despise the things he does?
Scruffy van Piebles
Zabkar) wrote:
>For the sake of argument let's assume that there is a "homosexuality
>gene" within the human gene pool. Again for the sake of argument,
>let's say that it affects 20% of the population. Now, since
>homosexuals by definition are less likely to reproduce, the subsequent
>generation's gene pool will witness a dilution of the homosexuality
>gene.
>
You mean in the same way that the gene pool will witness a dilution of
the gene for blue eyes?
>
> Assuming once more for the sake of argument that half of the
>homosexual population do not reproduce, it is easy to see that the
>homosexuality gene will disappear within a very few generations.
>
Only if the gene exists only in homosexuals. There are lots of
genetic traits that skip generations or are carried by people in whom
they have no effect.
>
> For
>example, 2 raised to the power of 4 equals 16, and 20% divided by 16
>equals ... you get the picture. Of course it is by no means as simple
>as this, but one of the fundamental tenets of genetics and evolution
>is that any trait which is prejudicial to the survival of a species
>will quickly disappear.
>
You're making up your own tenets as you go along. Using your own
numbers, the unlikelihood of ten percent of the population of any
given species, including humans, not reproducing has absolutely no
bearing on the survival or survivability of that species.
>
> In fact, any trait that threatens the
>continuation of the species must be seen as a defect. It is from this
>logical standpoint that homosexuality must be seen as unnatural.
>
The reason you are muddled is because you have started with an
untenable conclusion and attempted to assign a poorly understood
theory to its cause. Let us assume for the sake of argument that
homosexuality is not genetic. We know that homosexuality has existed
in every culture throughout recorded history even if we cannot know
the exact ratio of homosexuality to heterosexuality. We also know of
no population group dying out because only ninety percent of the
population reproduced. Now, if the non-genetic trait of homosexuality
continues to occur from generation to generation, but the species does
not die out then homosexuality as a non-genetic trait cannot be said
to be prejudicial to the survival of the species. If we assume that
the trait is genetic then the same situation applies. Therefore, the
trait is not a danger to the species, regardless of its origin.
What percentage of the world's population would have to be exclusively
homosexual before the human species would die out solely from paucity
of offspring? What would the percentage have to be in order to curb
the mind-boggling current population growth? Obviously, famine and
disease caused by overpopulation is more of a threat to the species
than a low percentage of homosexuality. Can we sign you up today?
SvP
Scruffy van Piebles
Zabkar) wrote:
>Actually, this whole question of homosexuality poses great
>difficulties for me. On the one hand I feel an overwhelming disgust
>for the act of buggery but on the other hand I don't bear any overt
>animosity toward homosexuals. This begs the question, how can you
>accept an individual when you rightfully despise the things he does?
>
Were it really true that you "don't bear any overt animosity toward
homosexuals" then we would never have heard from you in the first
place. The question that is actually being begged here is where you
are getting the moral superiority to "rightfully" despise the actions
of others when those actions do not affect you simply because you
can't imagine doing it yourself. That's called self righteousness.
For my own part, I would never refuse to accept you as an individual
because I "feel an overwhelming disgust" for eating pussy, molesting
little girls and breeding like a cockroach. Why can't you extend the
same courtesy to others?
SvP
Ninure Saunders
<fergu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
- fsmith <fsm...@bcpl.net> wrote in message
- news:3958F12F...@bcpl.net...
- > Daniel McKeown wrote:
- >
- > > "N.Mitchum" wrote:
- > > >
- > > > Cyberus News wrote:
- > > > ------
- > > > > Where'd this perv come from? Amazes me how they
- just crop up out of
- > > > > nowhere,
- > > > >.....
- > > >
- > > > Nowhere? Look at the heading. This thread is
- crossposted to six
- > > > newsgroups, several of them wildly unrelated. Small
- wonder some
- > > > of the posters seem to leap from nowhere.
- > > >
- > >
- > > You are lucky. He's a regular over at aus.politics.
- There're plenty of
- > > bigots of all types over here ;) They're just about to
- open another
- > > crate of whiskey, and then their cousins are a-comin'
- over, wee hah!
- >
- > Sounds like the type that might have a still in the back
- yard.
-
- ...but no stool-smeared willy.
-
- Most homos in fact have under-sized penises.
I just gotta ask,
"Exactly how would YOU know about the sizes penises of Gay men?"
Ninure Saunders aka Rainbow Christian
The Lord is my Shepherd and He knows I'm Gay
http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Heights/1734
-
Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches
http://www.ufmcc.com
Every 3.6 seconds a real person dies from hunger somewhere in the world!!! Feed a hungry person today:
http://www.hungersite.com
To send e-mail, remove nohate from address
Ward Stewart
Zabkar) wrote:
>
>Actually, this whole question of homosexuality poses great
>difficulties for me. On the one hand I feel an overwhelming disgust
>for the act of buggery but on the other hand I don't bear any overt
>animosity toward homosexuals. This begs the question, how can you
>accept an individual when you rightfully despise the things he does?
>-- Franc Zabkar
You would seem to be correct when you observe that the question poses
great difficulties for you. It is manifest that the difficulties have
derailed your thinking in the matter,
You cannot announce that feel "overwhelming disgust" for the actions
of a group of people and then claim no animosity toward them. This
is, at best, an oxymoron.
ward
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
"The default condition for a citizen in our republic is that
he is FREE to act as he will. To lead his life in any harmless
way he sees fit.He is NOT to be restricted by prejudices and
animosity amongst his neighbors -- if THEY wish to restrain
him from his freedom, THEY must demonstrate the public
interest in so restricting him."
Uncle Ward
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Arbub
Ferg wrote in message ...
<snip snip>
>I mean, really, you can't get anything much bigger than a
>fairly average-sized carrot to pass the anal sphincter
>backwards, can you?
Getting off topic a bit, but you should talk to some of the people who work
in Casualty (A&E) departments. You'd be amazed at what can be (and has been)
shoved past an "anal sphincter backwards" - especially at weekends
GT
Hunter
> You cannot announce that feel "overwhelming disgust" for the actions
> of a group of people and then claim no animosity toward them. This
> is, at best, an oxymoron.
A lot of people feel "overwhelming disgust" for the actions of people that
eat black pudding, doesn't mean they feel animosity toward them.
Ferg
Arbub <gta...@btconnect.com> wrote in message
news:g2v65.12756$Hm2.21819@NewsReader...
Yeah, I knew a girl in Sydney who was an emergency nurse -
she used to tell us some pretty amusing gruesome stories
over bucket-bongs on a saturday night.
Ward Stewart
wrote:
>
>Ferg wrote in message ...
><snip snip>
>
>>I mean, really, you can't get anything much bigger than a
>>fairly average-sized carrot to pass the anal sphincter
>>backwards, can you?
>
>
>Getting off topic a bit, but you should talk to some of the people who work
>in Casualty (A&E) departments. You'd be amazed at what can be (and has been)
>shoved past an "anal sphincter backwards" - especially at weekends
>
>GT
BOTH of you should know what will fit up there -- after all that is
where you are keeping your brains.
ward
>
>
-------------------------------------------------
Orohippus, Mesohippus, Miohippus, Protohippus,
Pliohippus, Equus. Evolution is just a theory.
So is gravity.*
-------------------------------------------------
Ward Stewart
wrote:
Nor does it mean that they insist on depriving the eaters of black
pudding their place in society -- their standing as citizens and their
civil rights.
Ferg
Scruffy van Piebles <scruffy_v...@yahoo.com> wrote in
message news:r1qjls00re98hjj2j...@4ax.com...
>
> For my own part, I would never refuse to accept you as an
individual
> because I "feel an overwhelming disgust" for eating pussy,
molesting
> little girls and breeding like a cockroach. Why can't you
extend the
> same courtesy to others?
How does a cockroach breed, and in what way is that more
disgusting than getting sexually-transmitted diseases from
buggering green monkeys?
Ferg
> On Thu, 29 Jun 2000 06:42:00 +0800, Hunter
<hun...@vianet.net.au>
> wrote:
>
> >Ward Stewart wrote:
> >
> >> You cannot announce that feel "overwhelming disgust"
for the actions
> >> of a group of people and then claim no animosity toward
them. This
> >> is, at best, an oxymoron.
> >
> >A lot of people feel "overwhelming disgust" for the
actions of people that
> >eat black pudding, doesn't mean they feel animosity
toward them.
> >
> >
> Nor does it mean that they insist on depriving the eaters
of black
> pudding their place in society -- their standing as
citizens and their
> civil rights.
...it doesn't mean that the eating of black pudding in
public, or the teaching of the eating of black pudding to
schoolchildren need be tolerated by a society that rejects
the eating of black pudding as disgusting and unnatural and
an affront to god.
Scruffy van Piebles
>
>Scruffy van Piebles <scruffy_v...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>message news:r1qjls00re98hjj2j...@4ax.com...
>
>> For my own part, I would never refuse to accept you as an
>individual
>> because I "feel an overwhelming disgust" for eating pussy,
>molesting
>> little girls and breeding like a cockroach. Why can't you
>extend the
>> same courtesy to others?
>
>How does a cockroach breed,
>
Quickly and without regard for the consequences.
>
> and in what way is that more
>disgusting than getting sexually-transmitted diseases from
>buggering green monkeys?
>
Who, besides yourself, is buggering green monkeys?
SvP
Scruffy van Piebles
Ah! I see. So, what you are defending is the right to discriminate
against your fellow citizens on purely irrational grounds. Isn't that
already the status quo?
SvP
Ferg
> On Thu, 29 Jun 2000 00:24:56 GMT, "Ferg"
<fergu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Scruffy van Piebles <scruffy_v...@yahoo.com> wrote
in
> >message
news:r1qjls00re98hjj2j...@4ax.com...
> >
> >> For my own part, I would never refuse to accept you as
an
> >individual
> >> because I "feel an overwhelming disgust" for eating
pussy,
> >molesting
> >> little girls and breeding like a cockroach. Why can't
you
> >extend the
> >> same courtesy to others?
> >
> >How does a cockroach breed,
> >
>
> Quickly and without regard for the consequences.
You're just jealous because your sexual illness which
precludes you from breeding.
> >
> > and in what way is that more
> >disgusting than getting sexually-transmitted diseases
from
> >buggering green monkeys?
> >
>
> Who, besides yourself, is buggering green monkeys?
The latest AIDS-disinformation says "34 million
AIDS-sufferers worldwide", so there are obviously a lot of
people either buggering green monkeys or buggering the
monkey-buggerers or being buggered by monkey-buggerers.
Nikolas Torres
are not familiar with.
It is reprenhensobile that heterosexuals go gay bashing. And not only
that, but that men gang rape a lesbian, to make her a quote, "Real
woman".
Nikolas
Ward Stewart
Less and less so with every passing week -- the pitiful dinosaurs,
howling at each other over the fetid swamp are doomed -- what we are
hearing is their death rattle -- as it happens, a very loud one but
dying all the same.
ward
Scruffy van Piebles
>Scruffy van Piebles <scruffy_v...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>message news:eamllssltfn2ea70u...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 29 Jun 2000 00:24:56 GMT, "Ferg"
><fergu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >Scruffy van Piebles <scruffy_v...@yahoo.com> wrote
>in
>> >message
>news:r1qjls00re98hjj2j...@4ax.com...
>> >
>> >> For my own part, I would never refuse to accept you as
>an
>> >individual
>> >> because I "feel an overwhelming disgust" for eating
>pussy,
>> >molesting
>> >> little girls and breeding like a cockroach. Why can't
>you
>> >extend the
>> >> same courtesy to others?
>> >
>> >How does a cockroach breed,
>> >
>>
>> Quickly and without regard for the consequences.
>
>You're just jealous because your sexual illness which
>precludes you from breeding.
>
Even if what you wrote above was a valid English sentence, the notions
it presents are not.
>
>> > and in what way is that more
>> >disgusting than getting sexually-transmitted diseases
>from
>> >buggering green monkeys?
>>
>> Who, besides yourself, is buggering green monkeys?
>
>The latest AIDS-disinformation says "34 million
>AIDS-sufferers worldwide", so there are obviously a lot of
>people either buggering green monkeys or buggering the
>monkey-buggerers or being buggered by monkey-buggerers.
>
Your fifteen minutes are up, Monkey-boy. Since you prefer a world of
falsehoods and fantasies to the world the rest of us live in, I'm
putting you into a special place where everything is just the way you
imagine it all to be: my twit filter.
SvP
Hunter
> >A lot of people feel "overwhelming disgust" for the actions of people that
> >eat black pudding, doesn't mean they feel animosity toward them.
> >
> >
> Nor does it mean that they insist on depriving the eaters of black
> pudding their place in society -- their standing as citizens and their
> civil rights.
No it doesn't. But there's nothing wrong with being disgusted by actions that
disgust you providing you're willing to live and let live. Some misguided
people would name you a bigot merely because you are disgusted by some people's
actions whereas they would have no problems with you being disgusted by other
people's different actions (hypocrisy incarnate). Everyone is an individual and
will like, dislike, approve of and be disgusted by whatever, no problem with
any of that. The proof in the (black) pudding is how you act. I personally am
sickened by the actions of homosexuals, but I'm sure a lot of them would
probably be sickened by the fact I thrive on black pudding. Is either "disgust"
any worse than the other? And would it be better to deny something that does
disgust you for the sake of being PC?
The Faerie Godmother
Ferg <fergu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:pud65.17$dm4.5...@news0.optus.net.au...
> Most homos in fact have under-sized penises.
We bow, of course, to your vast experience with gay men's penises.
Moira, the Faerie Godmother
Steve
wrote:
>Ward Stewart wrote:
>
>> >A lot of people feel "overwhelming disgust" for the actions of people that
>> >eat black pudding, doesn't mean they feel animosity toward them.
>> >
>> >
>> Nor does it mean that they insist on depriving the eaters of black
>> pudding their place in society -- their standing as citizens and their
>> civil rights.
>
>No it doesn't. But there's nothing wrong with being disgusted by actions that
>disgust you providing you're willing to live and let live.
True enough. A colleague of mine has a weak stomach and is disgusted
when I have a rare steak during a business dinner. I give her the
heads up when I'm going to have a steak so she won't have to sit next
to me. We're best of friends. She doesn't have a shred of bigotry
against meat-eaters. Can you say the same of homosexuals in _your_
live and let live philosophy?
>Some misguided
>people would name you a bigot merely because you are disgusted by some people's
>actions whereas they would have no problems with you being disgusted by other
>people's different actions (hypocrisy incarnate). Everyone is an individual and
>will like, dislike, approve of and be disgusted by whatever, no problem with
>any of that.
I'm curious, what "actions of homosexuals" disgust you? If you're
doing this grand dance of yours to prove you're not a bigot, what
actions disgust you, and why? Do these "actions" include holding hands
and having a mate's picture on the desk?
Is it sex you're hung up on? This makes me wonder what occasions
you've had to witness gay sex to be disgusted. Does this happen to you
frequently?
Perhaps you can explain something to me. I've noticed many 'phobes
seem to be obsessed with gay sex for some reason. They meet a gay
person and apparently start thinking about sex. Why is this the case?
I don't meet straight people and start fantasizing about what they do
in the bedroom. What gives? You'll have to admit that's rather.....
disgusting.
>The proof in the (black) pudding is how you act. I personally am
>sickened by the actions of homosexuals, but I'm sure a lot of them would
>probably be sickened by the fact I thrive on black pudding. Is either "disgust"
>any worse than the other? And would it be better to deny something that does
>disgust you for the sake of being PC?
You're right. The proof is in the pudding. How do you treat
homosexuals? Do you have any gay friends? What do you say to others
when they're out of earshot? Those ACTIONS can pretty well decide
whether someone's a bigot or not. Proof in the pudding indeed!
Steve
"The mind of the bigot is like the pupil of the eye; the more light
you pour upon it, the more it will contract."
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes
L. Michael Roberts
> difficulties for me. On the one hand I feel an overwhelming disgust
> for the act of buggery but on the other hand I don't bear any overt
> animosity toward homosexuals. This begs the question, how can you
> accept an individual when you rightfully despise the things he does?
The questions should pose no problems for you if you are not gay...
after all, you should really not be concerned with other people's
sex lives unless you are a voyeur.
+==================== L. Michael Roberts ======================+
This represents my personal opinion and NOT Company policy
Burlington, Ont, Canada To reply, remove 'SpamSux' from my E-ddress
"Life is a sexually transmitted, terminal, condition"
+==================================================================+
L. Michael Roberts
Ferg wrote:
>
> Scruffy van Piebles <scruffy_v...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> message news:eamllssltfn2ea70u...@4ax.com...
> > On Thu, 29 Jun 2000 00:24:56 GMT, "Ferg"
> <fergu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >Scruffy van Piebles <scruffy_v...@yahoo.com> wrote
> in
> > >message
> news:r1qjls00re98hjj2j...@4ax.com...
> > >
> > >> For my own part, I would never refuse to accept you as
> an
> > >individual
> > >> because I "feel an overwhelming disgust" for eating
> pussy,
> > >molesting
> > >> little girls and breeding like a cockroach. Why can't you
> > >extend the
> > >> same courtesy to others?
> > >
> > >How does a cockroach breed,
> > >
> >
> > Quickly and without regard for the consequences.
>
> You're just jealous because your sexual illness which
> precludes you from breeding.
NEWS FLASH: Homosexuality does NOT cause sterility. Homosexuals
are perfectly able to breed, as witnessed by the many gays who have
children. Gays just prefer not to breed.
<snip 2 end>
L. Michael Roberts
Hunter wrote:
>
> Ward Stewart wrote:
>
> > You cannot announce that feel "overwhelming disgust" for the actions
> > of a group of people and then claim no animosity toward them. This
> > is, at best, an oxymoron.
>
> eat black pudding, doesn't mean they feel animosity toward them.
Yet I don't see anyone proposing legislation to deny or take away
the civil rights of black pudding eaters....
L. Michael Roberts
Ferg wrote:
>
> Cyberus News <ston...@cyberus.ca> wrote in message
> news:8jadd8$2of5$1...@news2.ottawa.cyberus.ca...
> >
> > Franc Zabkar wrote in message
> > <39581127...@news.ozemail.com.au>...>>>with this
> affliction?
> >
> >
> > >>>The enemies of "decency" are those that engage in anal
> sex, whether it
> > >involve consenting males, or a male and female.
> "Rationality" would
> > >suggest that inserting one's penis into a septic organ is
> at the very
> two-thirds of the
> > >weight of one's faeces.
> >
> next fibre.
> >
> harbours more bacteria
> > than the bowel, that is in variety not necessarily sheer
> quantity as the
> > bowel contains many "good" bacteria necessary for proper
> digestion.
>
>
> > >I can see the day when, in the same way that the PC
> brigade is
> > >championing the ridiculous idea of a hereditary
> predisposition to
> > >homosexuality,
> >
>
> trait, is it? Know anything about Darwin's theories?
Apparently you don't! I suggest reading the chapters on inscects
and wolves [most individual of those species do not reproduce] in
"Origin of the Species".
Hunter
> True enough. A colleague of mine has a weak stomach and is disgusted
> when I have a rare steak during a business dinner. I give her the
> heads up when I'm going to have a steak so she won't have to sit next
> to me. We're best of friends. She doesn't have a shred of bigotry
> against meat-eaters. Can you say the same of homosexuals in _your_
> live and let live philosophy?
There are a number of them where I work (fairly large company) and I run into all of
them from time to time doing computer support, some I get along with fine, some I
don't, like anyone else.
> I'm curious, what "actions of homosexuals" disgust you? If you're
> doing this grand dance of yours to prove you're not a bigot, what
> actions disgust you, and why? Do these "actions" include holding hands
> and having a mate's picture on the desk?
Probably bad wording for it but obviously you understood what I meant from your
following comments.
> Is it sex you're hung up on? This makes me wonder what occasions
> you've had to witness gay sex to be disgusted. Does this happen to you
> frequently?
The mere idea of it is enough, much like my black pudding example - most people I
know are sickened by my love of black pudding merely by hearing about it, you don't
have to witness it to have an opinion on it.
> Perhaps you can explain something to me. I've noticed many 'phobes
> seem to be obsessed with gay sex for some reason. They meet a gay
> person and apparently start thinking about sex. Why is this the case?
Wouldn't know, I'm not a "phobe" and I don't start thinking about it. But since
that's pretty much one of the defining differences between a homosexual and a
non-homosexual it'd be pretty stupid to pretend that's something that just
mysteriously gets brought up by people whenever they're talking about gay people.
> I don't meet straight people and start fantasizing about what they do
> in the bedroom. What gives? You'll have to admit that's rather.....
> disgusting.
I'm glad you don't, I'd be rather worried otherwise.
> You're right. The proof is in the pudding. How do you treat
> homosexuals? Do you have any gay friends? What do you say to others
> when they're out of earshot? Those ACTIONS can pretty well decide
> whether someone's a bigot or not. Proof in the pudding indeed!
I don't treat homosexuals any different than anyone else except the ones that shove
it right in your face, and like anyone else that shoves something right in your face
that you're not interested in you tell them to fuck off. Like I said previously
there are a number of homosexuals where I work, I treat them as I would anyone else,
they do the right thing by me, I do the right thing by them. As for the friends with
any part, one of them from work is a colleague and the lot of us in our dept seem to
get along fine. Haven't met a lot socially, but that doesn't mean anything, unless
you're suggesting I actively go hunting for them (which would just be PC lunacy). As
for what is said about them out of earshot, if they're friendly and easy to get
along with absolutely nothing, if they're arseholes they get shat on (like anyone
else).
> "The mind of the bigot is like the pupil of the eye; the more light
> you pour upon it, the more it will contract."
>
> -- Oliver Wendell Holmes
He was very right, I've discovered that many times with the moronic PC Green Left
mob, you grab the flashlight they're vainly trying to flicker at you and turn it
back on them and you find the true home of bigotry.
Robert Serrano
> grip on
> > Darwin than you do!
>
> Well, you obviously have a good grip on something, but it
> quite clearly isn't the theory of evolution you're pulling.
And the exact point is what? To prove how good you are at projection? So,
have you bothered to inform yourself about Darwin, or are you just going to
try to change the subject to one that better hides your intellectual
impotence?
Rob
Robert Serrano
"Ninure Saunders" <goodshepherd...@earthling.net> wrote in message
news:goodshepherdparishno...@1cust201.tnt43.chi5.da.uu.net
...
Don't forget the addendum to that,
"And exactly how are you getting your sample of penises by which you come up
with the measurements of the 'normal-sized' penis?"
Rob
Franc Zabkar
Stewart) put finger to keyboard and composed:
>On Wed, 28 Jun 2000 08:47:38 GMT, franc...@ozeemail.com.au (Franc
>Zabkar) wrote:
>
>>
>>Actually, this whole question of homosexuality poses great
>>difficulties for me. On the one hand I feel an overwhelming disgust
>>for the act of buggery but on the other hand I don't bear any overt
>>animosity toward homosexuals. This begs the question, how can you
>>accept an individual when you rightfully despise the things he does?
>
>>-- Franc Zabkar
>
>You would seem to be correct when you observe that the question poses
>great difficulties for you. It is manifest that the difficulties have
>derailed your thinking in the matter,
I make no apology for not being able to see the beauty in buggery.
After all, when all is said and done, that is the homosexual bottom
line. If that means I have a psychological problem, then I'm proud of
it.
>You cannot announce that feel "overwhelming disgust" for the actions
>of a group of people and then claim no animosity toward them. This
>is, at best, an oxymoron.
What person can find beauty in sodomy? Can you? If you're looking for
an oxymoron you need go no further than "Gay Pride".
I feel overwhelming disgust for nose-pickers, or for people who don't
wash after visiting the toilet, yet I bear no animosity toward them. I
don't shake their hands, though.
The difference is that these people, unlike homosexuals, do not
promote their inappropriate behaviour. They certainly don't take pride
in it, or parade in support of it, or worse still indoctrinate our
children with it. Of course there are other vices which are probably
even more deplorable. Prostitution is one. The big difference,
however, is that it is not promoted as an acceptable alternative
lifestyle. Instead it is merely tolerated and even regulated. And come
this Saturday the government of Australia will be taxing it.
-- Franc Zabkar
Please remove one 'e' from my address when replying by email.
Franc Zabkar
<scruffy_v...@yahoo.com> put finger to keyboard and composed:
>On Wed, 28 Jun 2000 08:47:37 GMT, franc...@ozeemail.com.au (Franc
>Zabkar) wrote:
>
>>For the sake of argument let's assume that there is a "homosexuality
>>gene" within the human gene pool. Again for the sake of argument,
>>let's say that it affects 20% of the population. Now, since
>>homosexuals by definition are less likely to reproduce, the subsequent
>>generation's gene pool will witness a dilution of the homosexuality
>>gene.
>>
>
>You mean in the same way that the gene pool will witness a dilution of
>the gene for blue eyes?
Not at all.
Blue eyes or brown hair are not traits that are prejudicial to the
survival of a species. Unlike the proposed homosexuality gene, which
manifests itself as an aversion to intercourse with the opposite sex,
neither blue eyes nor brown hair have any bearing on the ability of an
individual to reproduce. The gene pool will be homogenised, not
diluted, ie blue genes will remain in the gene pool in the same
numbers, but may be subject to redistribution. See my reasoning below.
>> Assuming once more for the sake of argument that half of the
>>homosexual population do not reproduce, it is easy to see that the
>>homosexuality gene will disappear within a very few generations.
>>
>
>Only if the gene exists only in homosexuals. There are lots of
>genetic traits that skip generations or are carried by people in whom
>they have no effect.
Again, your understanding of genetics is flawed. Any trait, no matter
whether it is dominant or recessive, will disappear from the gene pool
if it is prejudicial to the survival of the species.
>> For
>>example, 2 raised to the power of 4 equals 16, and 20% divided by 16
>>equals ... you get the picture. Of course it is by no means as simple
>>as this, but one of the fundamental tenets of genetics and evolution
>>is that any trait which is prejudicial to the survival of a species
>>will quickly disappear.
>>
>
>You're making up your own tenets as you go along. Using your own
>numbers, the unlikelihood of ten percent of the population of any
>given species, including humans, not reproducing has absolutely no
>bearing on the survival or survivability of that species.
Actual numbers are not important. They merely serve to illustrate an
accepted genetic principle. Feel free to use your own numbers.
>> In fact, any trait that threatens the
>>continuation of the species must be seen as a defect. It is from this
>>logical standpoint that homosexuality must be seen as unnatural.
>>
>
>The reason you are muddled is because you have started with an
>untenable conclusion and attempted to assign a poorly understood
>theory to its cause.
>Let us assume for the sake of argument that
>homosexuality is not genetic. We know that homosexuality has existed
>in every culture throughout recorded history even if we cannot know
>the exact ratio of homosexuality to heterosexuality. We also know of
>no population group dying out because only ninety percent of the
>population reproduced. Now, if the non-genetic trait of homosexuality
>continues to occur from generation to generation, but the species does
>not die out then homosexuality as a non-genetic trait cannot be said
>to be prejudicial to the survival of the species. If we assume that
>the trait is genetic then the same situation applies. Therefore, the
>trait is not a danger to the species, regardless of its origin.
Perhaps I could have explained myself better by saying that the
homosexuality gene would be by its very nature prejudicial to its own
survival, ie homosexuality as a genetic trait would quickly disappear
simply because the trait would not feature as prominently in
reproduction. In a relatively few number of generations (certainly
less than the number since Sodom and Gomorrah) this genetic defect
would become numerically insignificant. That's basic science, whether
you understand it or not.
Let me illustrate.
Assume that there are two traits, H and h, with H being dominant and h
recessive. Let's start with a population where there are two types of
individuals, HH and hh, existing in equal numbers. The very next
generation will then consist of HH, Hh, and hh individuals in the
proportions of 25%, 50%, and 25%. A majority of 75% of individuals
would express the H trait, while only 25% would now show the h trait.
Note that despite this homogenisation there has been no dilution of
the h gene, which still exists in half the individuals. This explains
why blue eyed people will not become extinct. If you doubt the results
then here are the details:
parents --> offspring
HH + HH --> HH
HH + hh --> Hh
hh + hh --> hh
An HH parent will on average produce equal numbers of HH and Hh
offspring, while an hh parent will produce an equal number of hh and
Hh offspring. The first generation will thus consist of twice as many
Hh offspring as both HH and hh.
All succeeding generations will produce offspring in exactly the same
proportions. Again here is my reasoning:
The following table indicates all the possible unions of each parent
statistically weighted according to the availability of each type of
partner.
parent possible unions, including weighting
HH ---> HH+HH x1 + HH+Hh x2 + HH+hh x1
Hh ---> 2x (Hh+HH x1 + Hh+Hh x2 + Hh+hh x1)
hh ---> hh+HH x1 + hh+Hh x2 + hh+hh x1
The following table shows the results of each different union.
parents offspring
HH+HH --> HH + HH + HH + HH = 4HH
HH+Hh --> HH + Hh + HH + Hh = 2HH + 2Hh
HH+hh --> Hh + Hh + Hh + Hh = 4Hh
Hh+Hh --> HH + Hh + hH + hh = HH + 2Hh + hh
Hh+hh --> Hh + Hh + hh + hh = 2Hh + 2hh
hh+hh --> hh + hh + hh + hh = 4hh
The proportions of each type of offspring can be determined by
inputting the values from table 2 into table 1.
For example, HH parents produce offspring of type 4HH x1 + (2HH +
2Hh) x2 + 4Hh x1 = 8HH + 8Hh. Continuing in this way we find that
the relative numbers of offspring are once again in the ratio of 25%,
50%, and 25% (= 16HH : 32Hh : 16hh).
So we've now established that this population reaches a steady state
condition with a stable gene pool, provided that each trait features
equally in the reproductive cycle. As this is not the case with a
would-be homosexuality gene, successive generations would witness a
rapid dilution of this gene. Since this is not evident in practice, it
follows that there is no genetic basis for homosexual behaviour.
>What percentage of the world's population would have to be exclusively
>homosexual before the human species would die out solely from paucity
>of offspring? What would the percentage have to be in order to curb
>the mind-boggling current population growth? Obviously, famine and
>disease caused by overpopulation is more of a threat to the species
>than a low percentage of homosexuality. Can we sign you up today?
Bugger that!
L. Michael Roberts
Franc Zabkar wrote:
>
> On Wed, 28 Jun 2000 07:52:18 -0400, Scruffy van Piebles
> <scruffy_v...@yahoo.com> put finger to keyboard and composed:
>
> >On Wed, 28 Jun 2000 08:47:37 GMT, franc...@ozeemail.com.au (Franc
> >Zabkar) wrote:
<snip 2 the point>
> >Only if the gene exists only in homosexuals. There are lots of
> >genetic traits that skip generations or are carried by people in whom
> >they have no effect.
>
> Again, your understanding of genetics is flawed. Any trait, no matter
> whether it is dominant or recessive, will disappear from the gene pool
> if it is prejudicial to the survival of the species.
Since homosexuality has been around from the dawn of recorded
history... and since it does not appears to be going away any time
soon... I would say you just shot your argument in the foot!
Homosexuality is obviously not prejudicial to the survival of the
species otherwise it would have disappeared centuries ago.
<snip 2 end>
Ward Stewart
Zabkar) wrote:
Scruffy's understanding of genetics is doing very nicely indeed -- it
is you who have made the vaulting, baseless assumption that
homosexuality is "detrimental to the species."
I might just as well assert that xenophobia and irrational hatreds are
detrimental to the species. the problem with my assertion is that you
have somehow survived along with the rest of your Klan.
ward
-------------------------------------------------------------
The 1964 Civil Rights Act is "the single most dangerous piece
of legislation ever introduced in the Congress"
He later opposed a national holiday for that
"pervert" Martin Luther King Jr.
Who but? Jesse Helms
-------------------------------------------------------------
Democracy used to be a good thing, but now it
has gotten into the wrong hands.
Senator Jesse Helms (R.-North Carolina)
----------------------------------------------------
Ferg
> On Thu, 29 Jun 2000 07:17:05 GMT, "Ferg"
<fergu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Scruffy van Piebles <scruffy_v...@yahoo.com> wrote
in
> >message
news:eamllssltfn2ea70u...@4ax.com...
> >> On Thu, 29 Jun 2000 00:24:56 GMT, "Ferg"
> ><fergu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >Scruffy van Piebles <scruffy_v...@yahoo.com>
wrote
> >in
> >> >message
> >news:r1qjls00re98hjj2j...@4ax.com...
> >> >> little girls and breeding like a cockroach. Why
can't
> >you
> >> >extend the
> >> >> same courtesy to others?
> >> >
> >> >How does a cockroach breed,
> >> >
> >>
> >> Quickly and without regard for the consequences.
> >
> >You're just jealous because your sexual illness which
> >precludes you from breeding.
> >
>
> Even if what you wrote above was a valid English sentence,
the notions
> it presents are not.
oooh! Typo-flame! What a big bad bender you are!
> >> > and in what way is that more
> >> >disgusting than getting sexually-transmitted diseases
> >from
> >> >buggering green monkeys?
> >>
> >> Who, besides yourself, is buggering green monkeys?
> >
> >The latest AIDS-disinformation says "34 million
> >AIDS-sufferers worldwide", so there are obviously a lot
of
> >people either buggering green monkeys or buggering the
> >monkey-buggerers or being buggered by monkey-buggerers.
> >
>
> Your fifteen minutes are up, Monkey-boy. Since you prefer
a world of
> falsehoods and fantasies to the world the rest of us live
in, I'm
> putting you into a special place where everything is just
the way you
> imagine it all to be: my twit filter.
Seeya!!!
Ferg
L. Michael Roberts <News...@SpamSux.LaserFX.com> wrote in
message news:395BEF67...@SpamSux.LaserFX.com...
>
> Ferg wrote:
> >
> > Scruffy van Piebles <scruffy_v...@yahoo.com>
wrote in
> > message
news:eamllssltfn2ea70u...@4ax.com...
> > > On Thu, 29 Jun 2000 00:24:56 GMT, "Ferg"
> > <fergu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >Scruffy van Piebles <scruffy_v...@yahoo.com>
wrote
> > in
> > > >message
> > news:r1qjls00re98hjj2j...@4ax.com...
> > > >
as
> > an
> > > >individual
> > pussy,
> > > >molesting
> > > >> little girls and breeding like a cockroach. Why
can't you
> > > >extend the
> > > >> same courtesy to others?
> > > >
> > > >How does a cockroach breed,
> > > >
> > >
> > > Quickly and without regard for the consequences.
> >
> > You're just jealous because your sexual illness which
> > precludes you from breeding.
>
Homosexuals
> are perfectly able to breed, as witnessed by the many gays
who have
> children. Gays just prefer not to breed.
Oh, I see, and what is the breeding average for a poof these
days?
Are you denying that faggotry DOES in fact reduce breeding
potential?
Are you denying that this is a constant source of shame and
disappointment for millions of poofters' mothers, worldwide?
Ferg
The Faerie Godmother <faerieg...@africamail.com> wrote
in message news:8jg6bt$avp$6...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...> news:pud65.17$dm4.5...@news0.optus.net.au...
>
> > Most homos in fact have under-sized penises.
>
penises.
You don't for an instant imagine that my observations are
based on anything but extensive observed fact and
intelligent reasoning, do you?
Ferg
>
> The questions should pose no problems for you if you are
not gay...
> after all, you should really not be concerned with other
people's
> sex lives unless you are a voyeur.
This is not true. Just as the very existence of
concentration camps rocks our naive preconceptions of the
world as a nice place, so too does the disgusting and
perverted behaviour of the international brotherhood of
faggotry shock us in ways otherwise unimaginable.
This disgusting behaviour needs to be addresssed, preferably
by compulsory treatment orders. I want my children, bred
through the utterly natural lovemaking with my female
partner, to grow up in a world where disgusting and perverse
homosexual practices no longer are permitted to take place.
Ferg
>
> Hunter wrote:
> >
> > Ward Stewart wrote:
> >
for the actions
> > > of a group of people and then claim no animosity
toward them. This
> > > is, at best, an oxymoron.
> >
actions of people that
> > eat black pudding, doesn't mean they feel animosity
toward them.
>
> Yet I don't see anyone proposing legislation to deny or
take away
> the civil rights of black pudding eaters....
No, just the right to eat black pudding. It is no affront to
civil rights to stop people from indulging in
self-destructive and disgusting behaviour.
Ferg
inscects
Is that homosexual honeybees, queer queenants, fairy lice,
or paedophile termites?
> and wolves [most individual of those species do not
reproduce] in
> "Origin of the Species".
Because humans are like insects and wolves............how?
Hunter
> Hunter wrote:
> >
> > Ward Stewart wrote:
> >
> > > You cannot announce that feel "overwhelming disgust" for the actions
> > > of a group of people and then claim no animosity toward them. This
> > > is, at best, an oxymoron.
> >
> > A lot of people feel "overwhelming disgust" for the actions of people that
> > eat black pudding, doesn't mean they feel animosity toward them.
>
> Yet I don't see anyone proposing legislation to deny or take away
> the civil rights of black pudding eaters....
Funnily enough that has nothing to do with what I was replying to. I was
replying to the opinion that "you cannot announce that feel "overwhelming
disgust" for the actions of a group of people and then claim no animosity toward
them". This is clearly false, and I said so.
Steve
We're waiting for your explanation of your in-depth knowledge of gay
men's penises in comparison to straight men's penises. Which do you
prefer? Do tell!!
Steve
You couldn't get a clue during the clue mating season in a field full
of horny clues if you smeared your body with clue musk and did the
clue mating dance.
-- Edward Flaherty
Cyberus News
Ferg wrote in message <1c_65.200$1H3.7...@news0.optus.net.au>...>> >
>Because humans are like insects and wolves............how?
Well, if you had been paying attention---one commonality is that it is far
from necessary for all members to breed in order to ensure continuance.
Really, that is not so very hard.
David Rimmer, in Ottawa
>
>
>
Cyberus News
>On Fri, 30 Jun 2000 04:30:50 GMT, franc...@ozeemail.com.au (Franc
>Zabkar) wrote:
>>>>>
>>Again, your understanding of genetics is flawed. Any trait, no matter
>>whether it is dominant or recessive, will disappear from the gene pool
>>if it is prejudicial to the survival of the species.
Er, like diabetes, hemophilia, sickle-cell anemia, Tay-Sachs.......
David Rimmer, in Ottawa
paul draper
>
> >On Fri, 30 Jun 2000 04:30:50 GMT, franc...@ozeemail.com.au (Franc
> >Zabkar) wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>Again, your understanding of genetics is flawed. Any trait, no matter
> >>whether it is dominant or recessive, will disappear from the gene pool
> >>if it is prejudicial to the survival of the species.
>
>
>
pass on the gene.
--
Paul Draper
0207 369 2754
Benjamin Krefetz
> L. Michael Roberts <News...@SpamSux.LaserFX.com> wrote in
> message news:395BEEB2...@SpamSux.LaserFX.com...
You still haven't told us how homosexual behavior affects you. You're
certainly entitled to your opinion that it's disgusting, just as we're all
entitled to our opinion that you're disgusting, but we're not arguing that
your existence should be outlawed.
Ben
Benjamin Krefetz
> Cyberus News <ston...@cyberus.ca> wrote in message
> news:8jiakc$2fsq$1...@news2.ottawa.cyberus.ca...
>>
>> >Zabkar) wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>Again, your understanding of genetics is flawed. Any trait, no matter
>> >>whether it is dominant or recessive, will disappear from the gene pool
>> >>if it is prejudicial to the survival of the species.
>>
>>
>>
> With these conditions the gene-carrier survives long enough to breed and
> pass on the gene.
I don't know where you live that people with sickle-cell anemia or Tay-
Sachs live long enough to reproduce. I'm sure many people would like to
hear about this medical miracle.
Ben
Michael Cargal
>I don't know where you live that people with sickle-cell anemia or Tay-
>Sachs live long enough to reproduce. I'm sure many people would like to
>hear about this medical miracle.
People with one gene for sickle-cell anemia live long enough to
reproduce in places that malaria is endemic, such as parts of Africa
and Saudi Arabia. People with with two genes for it die. People with
no genes for it may well die also, of malaria.
--
Michael Cargal mhca...@home.com
Benjamin Krefetz
So then by the same argument, homosexuality could be the result of having two
copies of a recessive gene where having only one copy of that gene somehow
helps survival. That's how most recessive genes that prevent reproduction
survive.
Ben
Ward Stewart
Homosexuality has been, however sourced, part of the human variation
as far back as history reaches -- as of a month or so ago the
population of the earth reached SIX BILLION.
ward
>>
>>
>>
>
----------------------------------------------------
"If you’re old, rich and dead, they’re with you.
If you’re old, sick and middle class, you’re out
of luck."
Rep. Barney Frank commenting on those who voted for
the repeal of the estate tax.
----------------------------------------------------
ROFLMAO
the dawn of time, and they are still around today! It's called a DEFECT,
not a gene.
~Matthias
"L. Michael Roberts" <News...@SpamSux.LaserFX.com> wrote in message
news:395C45A4...@SpamSux.LaserFX.com...
>
> Franc Zabkar wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 28 Jun 2000 07:52:18 -0400, Scruffy van Piebles
> > <scruffy_v...@yahoo.com> put finger to keyboard and composed:
> >
> > >On Wed, 28 Jun 2000 08:47:37 GMT, franc...@ozeemail.com.au (Franc
> > >Zabkar) wrote:
>
> <snip 2 the point>
>
> > >Only if the gene exists only in homosexuals. There are lots of
> > >genetic traits that skip generations or are carried by people in whom
> > >they have no effect.
> >
> > Again, your understanding of genetics is flawed. Any trait, no matter
> > whether it is dominant or recessive, will disappear from the gene pool
> > if it is prejudicial to the survival of the species.
>
The Faerie Godmother
>
> The Faerie Godmother <faerieg...@africamail.com> wrote
> in message news:8jg6bt$avp$6...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
> >
> > Ferg <fergu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:pud65.17$dm4.5...@news0.optus.net.au...
> >
> > > Most homos in fact have under-sized penises.
> >
> > We bow, of course, to your vast experience with gay men's
> penises.
>
> You don't for an instant imagine that my observations are
> based on anything but extensive observed fact and
> intelligent reasoning, do you?
The "extensive observed fact" part is interesting.
Moira, the Faerie Godmother.
The Faerie Godmother
> This disgusting behaviour needs to be addresssed, preferably
> by compulsory treatment orders. I want my children, bred
> through the utterly natural lovemaking with my female
> partner, to grow up in a world where disgusting and perverse
> homosexual practices no longer are permitted to take place.
Yeah, and I want to live in a world where everyone has a university degree
or two, no-one is ill, no-one is hungry, drama theatres are full, hospital
theatres are empty and I get to drive a Ferrari.
It isn't going to happen. Deal with it.
Moira, the Faerie Godmother
Scruffy van Piebles
Zabkar) wrote:
You seem to be equivocating the survival of a "Gay gene" with the
survival of the species. I don't mean to be picky, but they aren't
the same thing.
>
>>> For
>>>example, 2 raised to the power of 4 equals 16, and 20% divided by 16
>>>equals ... you get the picture. Of course it is by no means as simple
>>>as this, but one of the fundamental tenets of genetics and evolution
>>>is that any trait which is prejudicial to the survival of a species
>>>will quickly disappear.
>>
>>You're making up your own tenets as you go along. Using your own
>>numbers, the unlikelihood of ten percent of the population of any
>>given species, including humans, not reproducing has absolutely no
>>bearing on the survival or survivability of that species.
>
>Actual numbers are not important. They merely serve to illustrate an
>accepted genetic principle. Feel free to use your own numbers.
>
Dismissing your illustrative numbers hardly entitles you to dismiss
the point I have put forth, which is that a small percentage of the
population failing to propagate does not put the survivability of the
human species in any danger. If only two to ten percent of the
population were heterosexual then you would have an argument.
That's wonderful. Now if we could work on some basic logic...
I'm snipping your genetics discourse because I agree with you to the
point that I doubt that homosexuality can be explained by a single,
easily identifiable, pink lambda-shaped gene. However, I'd love to
see you explain this in scientific terms: I am the youngest of three
children. I'm Gay. That's a third of my parents' offspring. My
father has one sibling and she's Gay. My mother has five siblings;
two are Gay. She has two uncles who are Gay. Out of my dozen first
cousins three are Gay and one is thirty-five and never been kissed. I
have a single second cousin in Japan who is Gay. My mother's family
is Catholic and lives in France. We are protestants and live in the
US. I mention location and religion for cultural background. Are you
quite sure there is no genetic component to homosexuality as you have
stated below?
>
>So we've now established that this population reaches a steady state
>condition with a stable gene pool, provided that each trait features
>equally in the reproductive cycle. As this is not the case with a
>would-be homosexuality gene, successive generations would witness a
>rapid dilution of this gene. Since this is not evident in practice, it
>follows that there is no genetic basis for homosexual behaviour.
>
>>What percentage of the world's population would have to be exclusively
>>homosexual before the human species would die out solely from paucity
>>of offspring? What would the percentage have to be in order to curb
>>the mind-boggling current population growth? Obviously, famine and
>>disease caused by overpopulation is more of a threat to the species
>>than a low percentage of homosexuality. Can we sign you up today?
>
>Bugger that!
>
You seem to be good with math. Would you mind answering the two
questions I asked you in the above paragraph? Please.
SvP
Scruffy van Piebles
wrote:
>Cyberus News <ston...@cyberus.ca> wrote in message
>news:8jiakc$2fsq$1...@news2.ottawa.cyberus.ca...
>>
>> >On Fri, 30 Jun 2000 04:30:50 GMT, franc...@ozeemail.com.au (Franc
>> >Zabkar) wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>Again, your understanding of genetics is flawed. Any trait, no matter
>> >>whether it is dominant or recessive, will disappear from the gene pool
>> >>if it is prejudicial to the survival of the species.
>>
>> Er, like diabetes, hemophilia, sickle-cell anemia, Tay-Sachs.......
>>
>With these conditions the gene-carrier survives long enough to breed and
>pass on the gene.
>
Wouldn't that make these genes infinitely more dangerous to the
survival of the species than a gene that prevents only the propagation
of itself?
SvP
Eric Bohlman
: Cyberus News <ston...@cyberus.ca> wrote in message
: news:8jiakc$2fsq$1...@news2.ottawa.cyberus.ca...
: >
: > >Zabkar) wrote:
: > >>>>>
: > >>Again, your understanding of genetics is flawed. Any trait, no matter
: > >>whether it is dominant or recessive, will disappear from the gene pool
: > >>if it is prejudicial to the survival of the species.
: >
: > Er, like diabetes, hemophilia, sickle-cell anemia, Tay-Sachs.......
: >
: With these conditions the gene-carrier survives long enough to breed and
: pass on the gene.
Those are all *recessive* traits, which means that in the overwhelming
majority of cases where the gene is passed on, the carrier *does* *not*
exhibit the symptoms of the condition. If nobody who was, say,
homozygous for the sickle-cell trait (and it's only those, like one of
the members of TLC, who *are* homozygous who actually experience
sickle-cell crises) were to reproduce, the gene would *continue* to
exist in the human gene pool and would *not* go away, because it would
continue to be passed on by those who were heterozygous for the trait,
and those who are heterozygous experience *no* impairments of any sort
(in fact, they're somewhat more resistant to malaria than those without
the trait). In fact, it's only been in the last century or so that
someone with the homozygous sickle-cell trait *could* survive long enough
to reproduce. If only homozygous carriers passed on the gene, it would
have died out centuries ago. But it didn't.
Most laymen have a faulty mental model of how genetics works. Many of its
results are "counter-intuitive" in that they don't fit with that faulty
mental model. But as Heinlein said, reality is that which doesn't go away
when you stop believing it.
The notion that deleterious traits will automatically breed themselves
out of the population, or can be bred out of the population, isn't a
notion of the real science of genetics, it's a notion of the
pseudo-science of eugenics, which hijacks the vocabulary of genetics in
the same way that the pseudo-science of astrology hijacks the vocabulary
of the real science of astronomy. But regardless of what some of the
whackier postmodernists say, a science is more than just a collection of
words.
Mike Oliver
> If nobody who was, say,
> homozygous for the sickle-cell trait [...] were to reproduce, the gene would
> *continue* to exist in the human gene pool and would *not* go away, because
> it would continue to be passed on by those who were heterozygous for the trait,
> and those who are heterozygous experience *no* impairments of any sort [....]
>
> In fact, it's only been in the last century or so that
> someone with the homozygous sickle-cell trait *could* survive long enough
> to reproduce. If only homozygous carriers passed on the gene, it would
> have died out centuries ago. But it didn't.
>
> The notion that deleterious traits will automatically breed themselves
> out of the population, or can be bred out of the population, isn't a
> notion of the real science of genetics, it's a notion of the
> pseudo-science of eugenics, [....]
Now, you're eliding something important here. If being heterozygous for
sickle-cell anemia were a *neutral* thing, then the gene *would* slowly
be bred out of the population (though it might never disappear completely,
it would become very rare, at some point reaching an equilibrium with reintroduction
via sporadic mutation). It's only because it confers an advantage
that this does not happen.
L. Michael Roberts
> >
> > The Faerie Godmother <faerieg...@africamail.com> wrote
> > in message news:8jg6bt$avp$6...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
> > >
> > >
> > > > Most homos in fact have under-sized penises.
> > >
> > > We bow, of course, to your vast experience with gay men's
> > penises.
> >
> > You don't for an instant imagine that my observations are
> > based on anything but extensive observed fact and
> > intelligent reasoning, do you?
>
> The "extensive observed fact" part is interesting.
Yes... it is interesting that an ostensibly heterosexual man would
have such apparently detailed information about the size of gay
men's penises.
L. Michael Roberts
Insects and wolves demonstrate that it is not *required* that every
individual breed in order for the species to survive. The species
survives quite well with only a few breeding. The planet now has
more than six billion inhabitants.... time for the human race to
slow down before it breeds itself out of living space!
Benjamin Krefetz
Well, I've heard a theory that one gene that might contribute to predisposing
homozygous individuals to homosexuality also contributes to making healthier
thyroids in infant boys who are heterozygous for the gene. I believe that
research has shown that the thyroids of gay men tend to be the same size as
women's thyroids, while the thyroids of straight men are larger. On the other
hand, I may be completely misremembering and thinking of the wrong gland.
Ben
ROFLMAO
~Again, please illustraite how bees & woles hump each other.
> The species
> survives quite well with only a few breeding. The planet now has
> more than six billion inhabitants.... time for the human race to
> slow down before it breeds itself out of living space!
~According to your theory, their should have been an increase in
homosexuals.
~Matthias
Mike Oliver
> Well, I've heard a theory that one gene that might contribute to predisposing
> homozygous individuals to homosexuality also contributes to making healthier
> thyroids in infant boys who are heterozygous for the gene. I believe that
> research has shown that the thyroids of gay men tend to be the same size as
> women's thyroids, while the thyroids of straight men are larger. On the other
> hand, I may be completely misremembering and thinking of the wrong gland.
I think you are. There was a big splash made a few years ago by
a researcher named LeVay, if I remember right. He found that a
particular rice-grain-sized section of the *hypothalamus*
(a part of the brain, not a gland) was a different size in gay
men than in straight men. It's not my field, but naively speaking,
I don't see any connection between this and the things you're
talking about.
But I suppose it's possible that you're talking about some entirely
different research, which I just haven't heard of.
Benjamin Krefetz
Thank you. I was, in fact, misremembering the hypothalamus. Shows what happens
when I spend too much time away from biology :)
Ben
fsmith
> > > > Apparently you don't! I suggest reading the chapters on
> > > inscects
> > >
> > > Is that homosexual honeybees, queer queenants, fairy lice,
> > > or paedophile termites?
> > >
> > > > and wolves [most individual of those species do not
> > > reproduce] in
> > > > "Origin of the Species".
> > >
> > > Because humans are like insects and wolves............how?
> >
> > Insects and wolves demonstrate that it is not *required* that every
> > individual breed in order for the species to survive.
>
> ~Again, please illustraite how bees & woles hump each other.
Common sense should tell you that the bee must be on top.
He just crawls into the wolf's vagina and gives the eggs a little sting.
> > The species
> > survives quite well with only a few breeding. The planet now has
> > more than six billion inhabitants.... time for the human race to
> > slow down before it breeds itself out of living space!
>
> ~According to your theory, their should have been an increase in
> homosexuals.
You mean you haven't noticed?
--
Fritz..
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The time is now.
fsmith
> Wrong wrong wrong. Cripples & deformed people have also been with us since
> the dawn of time, and they are still around today! It's called a DEFECT,
> not a gene.
If I read you right, then gays should be included in public accommodation
laws.
Rasmus Neikes
fsmith schrieb:
>
> ROFLMAO wrote:
>
> > Wrong wrong wrong. Cripples & deformed people have also been with us since
> > the dawn of time, and they are still around today! It's called a DEFECT,
> > not a gene.
Of course, the aboe does nothing to demonstrate why we should look at
homosexuality the same way we look at the down syndrome rather than the
same way we look at blond hair.
That aside, I know quite a few peolpe whom you would describe at
"crippled" or "deformed" who are rather important members of their
societies, including surgeons and other doctors. Most people would also
agree that Professor is not of best health, either. Defects?
>
> If I read you right, then gays should be included in public accommodation
> laws.
>
> --
> Fritz..
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> The time is now.
Rasmus.
fsmith
> L. Michael Roberts <News...@SpamSux.LaserFX.com> wrote in
> message news:395BEEB2...@SpamSux.LaserFX.com...
>
> >
> > The questions should pose no problems for you if you are
> not gay...
> > after all, you should really not be concerned with other
> people's
> > sex lives unless you are a voyeur.
>
> This is not true. Just as the very existence of
> concentration camps rocks our naive preconceptions of the
> world as a nice place, so too does the disgusting and
> perverted behaviour of the international brotherhood of
> faggotry shock us in ways otherwise unimaginable.
>
> This disgusting behaviour needs to be addresssed, preferably
> by compulsory treatment orders. I want my children, bred
> through the utterly natural lovemaking with my female
> partner, to grow up in a world where disgusting and perverse
> homosexual practices no longer are permitted to take place.
Thanks for your opinion, but I can tell you right now,
it ain't gonna happen. I only hope your children are able
to overcome your narrow minded view of life, and maybe
grow to be happy and well adjusted.
fsmith
> fsmith <fsm...@bcpl.net> wrote in message
> news:3958F12F...@bcpl.net...
> > Daniel McKeown wrote:
> >
> > > "N.Mitchum" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Cyberus News wrote:
> > > > ------
> > > > > Where'd this perv come from? Amazes me how they
> just crop up out of
> > > > > nowhere,
> > > > >.....
> > > >
> > > > Nowhere? Look at the heading. This thread is
> crossposted to six
> > > > newsgroups, several of them wildly unrelated. Small
> wonder some
> > > > of the posters seem to leap from nowhere.
> > > >
> > >
> > > You are lucky. He's a regular over at aus.politics.
> There're plenty of
> > > bigots of all types over here ;) They're just about to
> open another
> > > crate of whiskey, and then their cousins are a-comin'
> over, wee hah!
> >
> > Sounds like the type that might have a still in the back
> yard.
>
> ...but no stool-smeared willy.
>
> Most homos in fact have under-sized penises.
Is that why you're angry with them?
fsmith
> Eric Bohlman wrote:
> >
> > In alt.politics.homosexuality Ferg <fergu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Most homos in fact have under-sized penises.
> >
> > It only seems that way to you because your mouth is so big.
>
> Nice one.
I was gonna say his ass.
fsmith
> Daniel McKeown <dan...@surpac.com> wrote in message
> news:395995FB...@surpac.com...
> > Ferg wrote:
> > >
> > > Most homos in fact have under-sized penises.
> > >
> >
> > Finally a claim that Ferg probably has 'first hand'
> knowledge of.
>
> No, it;'s just a fairly rational conclusion.
>
> If homos don't root women but root each others' anuses
> instead, then it stands to reason that they are too
> embarrassed to show their pathetically small willies to any
> women (or they have and already been laughed out of bed) and
> have found that the much smaller orifice placed for the
> ejection of faeces can, if they root it, give them the
> illusion of having a bigger dick.
>
> I mean, really, you can't get anything much bigger than a
> fairly average-sized carrot to pass the anal sphincter
> backwards, can you?
Does your mommy know you're playing on the internet with
her computer?
fsmith
> The Faerie Godmother <faerieg...@africamail.com> wrote
> in message news:8jg6bt$avp$6...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
> >
> > Ferg <fergu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:pud65.17$dm4.5...@news0.optus.net.au...
> >
> > > Most homos in fact have under-sized penises.
> >
> > We bow, of course, to your vast experience with gay men's
> penises.
>
> You don't for an instant imagine that my observations are
> based on anything but extensive observed fact and
> intelligent reasoning, do you?
If that's true, then I wouldn't call it "intelligent".
Steve
wrote:
>Steve wrote:
>
>> True enough. A colleague of mine has a weak stomach and is disgusted
>> when I have a rare steak during a business dinner. I give her the
>> heads up when I'm going to have a steak so she won't have to sit next
>> to me. We're best of friends. She doesn't have a shred of bigotry
>> against meat-eaters. Can you say the same of homosexuals in _your_
>> live and let live philosophy?
>
>There are a number of them where I work (fairly large company) and I run into all of
>them from time to time doing computer support, some I get along with fine, some I
>don't, like anyone else.
Your above comment sounds encouraging. Could it be that you understand
gays and lesbians are people, like anyone else?
I slept in a little late today, had a great workout and lunch with
friends. My sweetie's cooking dinner tonight. Nothing terribly
exciting about the day, but it's put me in a great mood - especially
the home-cooked dinner. ;-) We'll probably curl up on his couch
watching a video after dinner. Sounds like a typical weekend, doesn't
it?
I assume you're not disgusted by any of this.
>> I'm curious, what "actions of homosexuals" disgust you? If you're
>> doing this grand dance of yours to prove you're not a bigot, what
>> actions disgust you, and why? Do these "actions" include holding hands
>> and having a mate's picture on the desk?
>
>Probably bad wording for it but obviously you understood what I meant from your
>following comments.
As you said, the wording was somewhat ambiguous. I was trying to not
make an unwarranted assumption.
>> Is it sex you're hung up on? This makes me wonder what occasions
>> you've had to witness gay sex to be disgusted. Does this happen to you
>> frequently?
>
>The mere idea of it is enough, much like my black pudding example - most people I
>know are sickened by my love of black pudding merely by hearing about it, you don't
>have to witness it to have an opinion on it.
I see. It *IS* gay sex you're hung up on. You never did answer my
question. Does this happen to you frequently? How much thought do you
spend on gay sex? You've obviously got a bit of time invested in it by
coming into the newsgroups to let the world know your opinion on the
subject. Why is this?
I must have come into the thread late. What's the deal with black
pudding? Scatological connotation?
>> Perhaps you can explain something to me. I've noticed many 'phobes
>> seem to be obsessed with gay sex for some reason. They meet a gay
>> person and apparently start thinking about sex. Why is this the case?
>
>Wouldn't know, I'm not a "phobe" and I don't start thinking about it. But since
>that's pretty much one of the defining differences between a homosexual and a
>non-homosexual it'd be pretty stupid to pretend that's something that just
>mysteriously gets brought up by people whenever they're talking about gay people.
You don't think about it, but it gets brought up when you talk about
gay people. Am I the only one who sees a conflict in such a statement?
I'm curious. What is your position on gay rights? Do you support
same-sex marriage? What about discrimination based on sexual
orientation?
Just so you know, the gender of the person to whom you're attracted is
the defining difference between a heterosexual and homosexual. There
is a difference between a sexual orientation and a sexual act. I can't
think of a single specific sexual activity gays do that hets don't.
>> I don't meet straight people and start fantasizing about what they do
>> in the bedroom. What gives? You'll have to admit that's rather.....
>> disgusting.
>
>I'm glad you don't, I'd be rather worried otherwise.
No need to worry. I've never been hung up on what other people do in
their bedrooms. I've always considered that to be stupid and rather
disgusting. Don't you agree?
>> You're right. The proof is in the pudding. How do you treat
>> homosexuals? Do you have any gay friends? What do you say to others
>> when they're out of earshot? Those ACTIONS can pretty well decide
>> whether someone's a bigot or not. Proof in the pudding indeed!
>
>I don't treat homosexuals any different than anyone else except the ones that shove
>it right in your face, and like anyone else that shoves something right in your face
>that you're not interested in you tell them to fuck off.
You were doing pretty well until the "shove it right in your face"
remark. What do you consider shoving it in your face? Being openly
gay? Doing the same public behaviors straight counterparts do? I'm
curious, how would you handle the situation if a gay man asked you to
dinner? How about a straight woman you weren't interested in? Would
you tell her to "fuck off"?
>Like I said previously
>there are a number of homosexuals where I work, I treat them as I would anyone else,
>they do the right thing by me, I do the right thing by them.
That encouraging.
>As for the friends with
>any part, one of them from work is a colleague and the lot of us in our dept seem to
>get along fine. Haven't met a lot socially, but that doesn't mean anything, unless
>you're suggesting I actively go hunting for them (which would just be PC lunacy).
Many a gay man can sleep soundly secure in the knowledge that you're
not hunting him. <EG>
All humor aside, could you see yourself having a good friendship with
a gay person? I'd think you could learn a great deal from such a
friendship and probably break several stereotypes.
>As
>for what is said about them out of earshot, if they're friendly and easy to get
>along with absolutely nothing, if they're arseholes they get shat on (like anyone
>else).
Nice 'tude. I'm sure you'll get far in this world with it! :-)
>> "The mind of the bigot is like the pupil of the eye; the more light
>> you pour upon it, the more it will contract."
>>
>> -- Oliver Wendell Holmes
>
>He was very right, I've discovered that many times with the moronic PC Green Left
>mob, you grab the flashlight they're vainly trying to flicker at you and turn it
>back on them and you find the true home of bigotry.
Sorry, but you'll have to troll that bait to someone other than a
socially moderate, fiscal conservative.
Steve
A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely
rearranging their prejudices.
-- Edward R. Murrow
Eric Bohlman
> Daniel McKeown wrote:
>> Eric Bohlman wrote:
>> >
>> > In alt.politics.homosexuality Ferg <fergu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > > Most homos in fact have under-sized penises.
>> >
>> > It only seems that way to you because your mouth is so big.
>>
>> Nice one.
> I was gonna say his ass.
Except that he's so full of shit that even a one-inch penis would feel
enormous up there.
L. Michael Roberts
Ferg wrote:
>
> Robert Serrano <rjse...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:DXS65.19996$_b3.4...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net
> ...
> >
> > "Ninure Saunders" <goodshepherd...@earthling.net>
> wrote in message
> >
> news:goodshepherdparishno...@1cust201.tnt4
> 3.chi5.da.uu.net
> > ...
> > > In article <pud65.17$dm4.5...@news0.optus.net.au>,
> "Ferg"
> > > <fergu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > - fsmith <fsm...@bcpl.net> wrote in message
> > > - news:3958F12F...@bcpl.net...
> > > - > Daniel McKeown wrote:
> > > - >
> > > - > > "N.Mitchum" wrote:
> > > - > > >
> > > - > > > Cyberus News wrote:
<snip>
> > > I just gotta ask,
> > >
> > > "Exactly how would YOU know about the sizes penises of
> Gay men?"
> >
> > Don't forget the addendum to that,
> >
> > "And exactly how are you getting your sample of penises by
> which you come up
> > with the measurements of the 'normal-sized' penis?"
>
> Easy! Compare an anus to a vagina. Apart from the disgusting
> shit-smell, the anus is quite clearly much smaller than the
> vagina, therefore a group that sets itself apart by its
> fetish for anal sex is clearly a group that will have a much
> smaller average penis-size.
Well that's where you are wrong! The anus, when relaxed, is quite
capable of accommodating any size penis that the vagina can
accommodate. Just ask the majority of people who practice anal sex,
HETEROSexuals!
Hunter
> Your above comment sounds encouraging. Could it be that you understand
> gays and lesbians are people, like anyone else?
>
> I slept in a little late today, had a great workout and lunch with
> friends. My sweetie's cooking dinner tonight. Nothing terribly
> exciting about the day, but it's put me in a great mood - especially
> the home-cooked dinner. ;-) We'll probably curl up on his couch
> watching a video after dinner. Sounds like a typical weekend, doesn't
> it?
>
> I assume you're not disgusted by any of this.
Not particularly, I don't have to be there.
> As you said, the wording was somewhat ambiguous. I was trying to not
> make an unwarranted assumption.
Although you did make the obvious assumption.
> I see. It *IS* gay sex you're hung up on.
The obvious assumption. I think you'll find that's what most straight people would rather
not know about.
> You never did answer my
> question.
You made the obvious assumption so what was the point?
> Does this happen to you frequently? How much thought do you
> spend on gay sex?
Sigh... You never did understand my comparison to black pudding did you. You've gone from
"use your brain" mode straight into "narrow minded PC" mode at the mention of gay sex. It
seems you're the one with a hang up, but I'll try to explain it again. Does this happen
frequently? How much thought do I spend on gay sex? Very little, same as people who are
disgusted by me eating black pudding I'm sure don't sit at home and dwell on it night
after night. You seem to have a problem grasping simple concepts when they contradict PC
"thought".
> You've obviously got a bit of time invested in it by
> coming into the newsgroups to let the world know your opinion on the
> subject.
And the PC clouding of reality.... Sad really... I didn't, I jumped in to clear up the
falsehood that someone posted, that "you can't be disgusted by the actions of a group of
people yet hold no animosity towards said group". It's hard to believe anyone would
actually be silly enough to believe that particular line.
> Why is this?
>
> I must have come into the thread late. What's the deal with black
> pudding? Scatological connotation?
Ahhhh I see, you were just inventing your own reality, not clouding it. How about you use
Deja News and try to get your brain into the right gear.
> You don't think about it, but it gets brought up when you talk about
> gay people. Am I the only one who sees a conflict in such a statement?
Probably, it would take the equivalent of 2 year old logic to come up with such a
conflict, as anyone else could see that I entered this thread after some fool basically
said if such actions disgust you then you must hold animosity against those that do it.
Since this is clearly crap I said so. I'm wondering wether you're a> being an idiot
because you truly haven't bothered to read the thread before going off and getting the
wrong end of the stick, b> being an idiot because all that PC thought makes it hard for
you to think and is making you ignore the reality of the situation or c> being an idiot
simply because you are an idiot.
> I'm curious. What is your position on gay rights? Do you support
> same-sex marriage? What about discrimination based on sexual
> orientation?
Same sex marriage is between those getting married, I don't particularly give a shit what
other people do, so no I have no problem with it. Discrimination of any sort (including
so-called "positive" discrimination) also sucks, unless there is a logical valid reason
for such, and I can't actually think of any off the top of my head.
> Just so you know, the gender of the person to whom you're attracted is
> the defining difference between a heterosexual and homosexual. There
> is a difference between a sexual orientation and a sexual act. I can't
> think of a single specific sexual activity gays do that hets don't.
But the whole point of the sexual orientation is that it leads to the sexual act (in
general) so I would consider that as a part of the defining difference just to not be
pedantic about it.
> No need to worry. I've never been hung up on what other people do in
> their bedrooms. I've always considered that to be stupid and rather
> disgusting. Don't you agree?
Depends how you mean. If you sat in the corner just thinking about such things and that
is where it came from I would think that you were rather stupid yes, if people shove said
things in your face in debate then I would consider it quite normal of you to hold an
opinion on them one way or the other, since it's been brought up and put in your face I'd
consider it quite stupid of you to try to pretend it didn't happen.
> You were doing pretty well until the "shove it right in your face"
> remark. What do you consider shoving it in your face? Being openly
> gay?
No, being someone that wont shut up about it, I don't particularly get along with anyone
that has a flag that can't stop ramming up people's noses. And there are gay people that
do it, unionists that do it, all sorts of people, even people I'd normally agree on their
stand, that do it and just make themselves fucking annoying by doing so.
> Doing the same public behaviors straight counterparts do? I'm
> curious, how would you handle the situation if a gay man asked you to
> dinner? How about a straight woman you weren't interested in? Would
> you tell her to "fuck off"?
Wouldn't tell either to fuck off, the gay bloke would know in 5 secs not to bother
though.
> That encouraging.
That's just normal.
> Many a gay man can sleep soundly secure in the knowledge that you're
> not hunting him. <EG>
>
> All humor aside, could you see yourself having a good friendship with
> a gay person? I'd think you could learn a great deal from such a
> friendship and probably break several stereotypes.
I don't generally go for stereotypes. Which ones do you think I suffer from?
As for a good friendship, within reason. For instance I wouldn't see a gay person coming
on any of our Friday night boy's night out pissups as they invariably end at the strip
shows, although I spose they could sit there bored shitless.
> Nice 'tude. I'm sure you'll get far in this world with it! :-)
99.9% of the world lives that way, wether they're honest about it or not.
> Sorry, but you'll have to troll that bait to someone other than a
> socially moderate, fiscal conservative.
No trolling involved, it's something I've seen in this newsgroup many times.
Ferg
Benjamin Krefetz <kre...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote in message
news:8jikof$bjl$3...@news.fas.harvard.edu...
you. You're
> certainly entitled to your opinion that it's disgusting,
just as we're all
> entitled to our opinion that you're disgusting, but we're
not arguing that
> your existence should be outlawed.
That's because I'm normal, and you're sick.
Ferg
> it ain't gonna happen. I only hope your children are able
> to overcome your narrow minded view of life, and maybe
> grow to be happy and well adjusted.
You mean heterosexual? Yes, I hope so too, just like your
mother no doubt did also hope for you.
Ferg
Ward Stewart <wste...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3961ffc0.5858351@news-server...
> On Fri, 30 Jun 2000 10:24:53 -0400, "Cyberus News"
> <ston...@cyberus.ca> wrote:
>
> >
> >Ferg wrote in message
<1c_65.200$1H3.7...@news0.optus.net.au>...>> >
> >>Because humans are like insects and
wolves............how?
> >
is that it is far
> >from necessary for all members to breed in order to
ensure continuance.
> >Really, that is not so very hard.
> >
> >David Rimmer, in Ottawa
>
>
> Homosexuality has been, however sourced, part of the human
variation
> as far back as history reaches -- as of a month or so ago
the
> population of the earth reached SIX BILLION.
So has murder, rape, and cancer. Doesn't *prove* it is a
survival trait, or even a desirable trait in any sense
whatsoever.
Ferg
>
> Ferg wrote in message
<1c_65.200$1H3.7...@news0.optus.net.au>...>> >
> >Because humans are like insects and
wolves............how?
>
> Well, if you had been paying attention---one commonality
is that it is far
> from necessary for all members to breed in order to ensure
continuance.
> Really, that is not so very hard.
And this relates to human natural selection - how?