ncurran said on July 12, 2005 16:14:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7-1689843,00.html

Born gay or made gay: which camp are you in?
Anjana Ahuja
Sexual orientation is fixed at birth, a challenging new book claims. Our correspondent reports on its theories
THERE ARE people who can “cure” you of your sexual orientation. If you are a woman, your eyes will no longer linger on tall, dark, musclebound Lotharios. If you are a man, your heart will no longer flutter at the sight of a plunging cleavage or a smooth thigh — instead it will thump into action at the glimpse of a broad, taut torso or a neatly trimmed moustache.

To at least 96 per cent of readers — the heterosexuals — the idea that we can be persuaded to change something as fundamental as sexual orientation seems ridiculous. So it is to homosexuals, who make up the remaining 4 per cent and who are often told that their “deviant” behaviour is a lifestyle choice.

Science has so far trodden carefully in the controversial debate about whether gays are born or made. Disparate pieces of evidence — such as homosexuality running in families, and identical twins having more similar sexual preferences than ordinary siblings — have long suggested that biology rather than upbringing shapes sexual preference. Now two researchers are throwing out the caveats in an attempt to “out” the bald scientific truth: we are born either straight or gay and nothing can be done to make us otherwise.

In Born Gay, Dr Glenn Wilson, reader in personality at the Institute of Psychiatry in London, and Dr Qazi Rahman, a psychobiologist at the University of East London, declare that “the accumulation of evidence from independent laboratories across the world has shown that the biological differences between gay and straight people cannot be ignored . . . our sexual preference is a fundamental and immutable component of our human nature”. Wilson and Rahman ’s account goes beyond whether there is a gay gene — there is no single gay gene but genes do contribute — and considers the effect of sex hormones to which foetuses are exposed in the womb.

The boldly titled book says the research leaves absolutely no room for parental or societal influence on this intimate trait. Children cannot be seduced or otherwise led into homosexuality — which makes a nonsense of Clause 28, the law banning the promotion of homosexuality — and, however overbearing the mother or absent the father, no amount of poor parenting can waylay a child born to walk the path of heterosexuality. No serious, evidence-based scientist, they charge, would deny that sexual orientation is fixed at birth. The authors also speculate that we face an evolutionary future in which homosexuals become more prevalent. The genes that are implicated in gayness do not just influence sexual orientation — in low doses, they might confer personality advantages to heterosexual men (such as making them loyal, empathic and considerate), turning them into attractive mates and thus propagating those genes further.

Rahman says that his view of corrective therapies designed to turn gay men straight is simple — they will never work: “You just can’t do it. If people suggest they can, I ask them, ‘Can you turn someone from straight to gay? Show me the evidence.’ But it’s never going to happen, is it?”

Andy Forrest, communications officer for Stonewall, a charity that campaigns for gay equality, says the book’s central message rings true for most gays. “Most people I’ve come across say they’ve always been gay and that their upbringing has played no part in whether they are gay or not. They would say it’s an innate part of who they are, not something they need to be ‘cured’ of.”

According to Wilson and Rahman, the biological origin of sexual orientation means that discriminating against gays and lesbians is as justifiable as discriminating on the basis of eye colour or ethnicity. The authors have declined to reveal their own sexual orientation.

So, why are some men born gay? Homosexuality tends to run in families, which has prompted a search for the so-called gay gene. Last month, biologists in Austria discovered that fruit flies can be turned gay by altering a single gene. It is almost impossible that a single gene determining human sexual orientation exists: identical twins, who have identical genes, do not always have the same sexual preferences. But it does point to genetic influence. “Gay men tend to have more gay brothers than straight men,” Rahman says. “Heritability is thought to be around 30 to 40 per cent, which means that around 30 to 40 per cent of the variation in homosexuality is down to genes. Strictly speaking, it’s better than zero (which would imply no role for genes) but that shows there’s significant environmental variance.”

And this, Rahman says, is where a “massive misunderstanding of the concept of environment” comes into play. Studies have shown that the popular idea of environment — parental upbringing, peer norms, the family home, schooling — have no effect whatsoever. For example, the psychoanalytical idea that distant fathers or overbearing mothers sabotage their sons’ sexual development is not borne out by evidence. Wilson and Rahman dismiss such theories as “ beyond the pale of science”. In conversation, Rahman is more brutal, dismissing “95 per cent of psychology as rubbish”.

Initial sexual experiences do not appear influential — one study showed that boys educated at single-sex boarding schools, where early same-sex experiences are relatively commonplace, are no more likely to become gay than other boys. What about the seduction hypothesis? Men who, as boys, had gay encounters with older men have reported that they already knew they were gay before the encounter. Adopted children of gay and lesbian parents are predominantly heterosexual. The missing environmental link, the authors argue, is the womb. This would fit with findings in the early Nineties that the brains of gay and straight men differ slightly. Rahman explains: “We argue that genes produce differences in the brains of pre-straight and pre-gay foetuses and those differences might affect certain receptors in the brain that influence the activity of male sex hormones.”

Put simply, Wilson and Rahman suspect that some male foetuses absorb low amounts of testosterone in certain parts of the brain; full absorption is needed for full masculinisation. “In a foetus which has a genetic predisposition to be gay, these receptors are not as effective at soaking up testosterone. The result is that this slightly insensitive part of the brain follows the default development route, which is female.”

In other words, the neural circuit that promotes sexual desire towards women is never laid down; the result is a male who is attracted to other men. This also explains, the authors claim, why gay men show a “mosaic” of female-like and male-like cognitive traits. In their handling of language and in their spatial awareness, for example, gay men are more similar to women than to heterosexual men. As Rahman puts it, this makes gayness just one item in a package of traits that are hewn in the womb. In 2003 he showed that the startle response — how people respond to sudden noises — was different in gay and straight men. As this response is instinctive and cannot be learnt, it was viewed as further evidence that gay and straight men are neurologically different.

Why should some male foetuses absorb less testosterone than others? They might produce less in the first place, but this deficiency would also have a genetic origin. It is possible, the researchers say, that there is a chemical battle between the mother and her foetus, much like the clash of blood types that can cause a mother to develop antibodies to her unborn child. The antibodies can stay in the blood and threaten future pregnancies. The idea that the womb environment may have consequences for future siblings is interesting because researchers have noted a sibling pattern among gay men, called the “big brother effect”. The more older brothers a man has, the more likely he is to be gay. It is possible that maternal antibodies developed in early pregnancies may cross the placenta in later pregnancies to disrupt testosterone absorption.

Lesbianism may also be due to hormonal conditions in the womb (although scientists stress that lesbianism cannot always be examined as a direct parallel of male homosexuality — there is no “big sister effect”, for example). “There’s a protein in the womb that protects female foetuses from excessive exposure to male sex hormones,” Rahman says. “Perhaps this protein doesn’t kick in early enough in lesbians.” Some brain circuits then follow the male development; a sexual preference for women may be a consequence. Lesbians show more male-like language production, which strengthens the theory of “neural sexual mosaicism” first put forward by the Canadian neuroscientist Sandra Witelson. As for bisexuality, there is no biological evidence that some people are turned on equally by both sexes. Physiological studies show that self-declared bisexuals exposed to straight and gay erotica are aroused by either one or the other but not both. Academics suggest that bisexuals may be omnisexuals with libidos so high that the gender of the target doesn’t matter.

Homosexuality does not promote reproduction (for every gay father, there are between five and ten straight fathers). So why haven’t the relevant genes vanished from the human gene pool? The most obvious scientific explanation is that genes implicated in homosexuality — let’s call them gay genes, for short, although they don’t necessarily make their carriers gay — offered some other evolutionary advantage in our past. Geneticists know this kind of biological trade-off happens elsewhere on the double helix — the gene that predisposes African and Asian populations to sickle-cell anaemia also protects them from malaria. The benefit doesn’t necessarily accrue to the carrier but to relatives. One suggestion is that, on the ancestral plains, same-sex social bonding — for both men and women — was necessary to reduce aggression within societies and encourage the sharing of resources. Bonobos, the closest primate species to humans, engage in homosexual behaviour for social purposes. Genes promoting same-sex bonds became favoured — homosexuality is an unusual but tolerable evolutionary consequence, because the sharing of resources promoted by the gay genes enabled the reproduction rate to remain high.

A study at the University of Padua found that the female relatives of gay men have more children than the female relatives of straight men — the implication is that the genetic package responsible for male homosexuality may enhance the fertility of female relatives, or improve the quality of child-rearing in the household.

Another intriguing theory is that gay genes feminise men just enough to make them attractive as potential fathers. “You have these very nice heterosexual men who are ‘gay-enabled’, who have a low dose of the gay gene,” Rahman says. “It might make them more committed, more empathic, more charming and more attractive to women.” The benefits of having empathic men would stop gay genes being weeded out of the gene pool — and thus maintain a gay population.

In fact, Rahman suggests, modern women may be altering their ideal of the perfect partner enough to influence evolution: “These days, women may not want these big guys to protect them — they’re not necessarily looking for the macho type. We might even see homosexuality go up. It’s an idea that Glenn and I have talked about. There’s no reason to think that evolution won’t change the goalposts — evolution changes us all the time.”

Born Gay: The Psychobiology of Sex Orientation, by Glenn Wilson and Qazi Rahman, is published by Peter Owen at £13.95

ally77 said on July 12, 2005 16:20:

Genes?

on_a_mission said on July 12, 2005 21:20:

why not? Not being gay, I don’t know really. If people protest they are born straight, then why can’t others be born gay?

The article promotes an interesting theory.

Anarem said on July 12, 2005 22:27:

I’d rather not know what causes homosexuality. Because if scientists *could* find this gay gene, then they would be able to eliminate it or “fix it”. I like myself the way I am, thanks. :-)

Anarem said on July 12, 2005 23:07:

@ncurran:

Sure, I would like to know why my brain is wired the way it is, but I’d hate for the research findings to be used against us one day, or worse, be used as part of the screening process for birth defects and other problems. If some people in the world are willing to abort a fetus because of its gender, why would they stop at sexual orientation? That scenario is just too frightening to me.

ally77 said on July 13, 2005 07:12:

I think it is in your genes, I had a friend exactly a year old, so we did a lot of stuff togeather, I always knew he was different, and it was only when I was in my teens I thought that I thought he was Gay, we never discussed it or anything, it was something that I thought he would raise as and when he felt like it..... we kinda lost contact when we became adults, but I was not surprised to hear he finally told his parents he was gay when he was 22 some 8 years ago now, and he’s happy in Manchester living with his partner....

There’s a little boy who I guess is around 8 on my street, he reminds me so much of this old friend, I am convinced he is gay! Even my mum says he is so like Steven was...

rox-kuryliw said on July 13, 2005 08:04:

playing god is no good ! Its dangerious manipulating people to be the way they others want ,they did ethnic cleansing still do, now they could be homo cleansing (i bet US is first to do it) , is they anything wrong with being gay im mean really, apart from tackling other peoples predjudice’s ? ! shouldnt we just be able to live the way people are than correct something that came naturally, then they is the positive thing saying its totally natural to be gay if this is evidence that gay people should / have ever right as anyone else !

LaMan said on July 13, 2005 09:02:

believe me theres no “born gay”. It´s just gay propaganda. It happens in the childhood what is going to be your sexuality. ( I know, I know, my English is not perfect).

Gays say they are BORN GAY to feel less bad and less”different”.

Talking about that bomb thing it was a bad joke from me.

LaMan said on July 13, 2005 09:12:

why can´t you accept theres no gay gene or you are not “born gay”? That doesnt make you less valuable as a person.

ncurran said on July 13, 2005 09:18:

Because nothing has been proven. How can I accept something, when noone has given me the answer. Why should I accept the word of the almighty LaMan? For God sake, did you even read the article?

Its not about questioning my value as a person, its about curiousity

carbon_boy said on July 13, 2005 10:37:

@LaMan: I dont consider your “bomb” comment a joke. And secondly, how do YOU know that people aren’t born gay? Don’t speak of things you know nothing about. Rather keep quiet and let the people think you’re and idiot, than open your mouth and prove you’re one!

Cheers

ncurran said on July 13, 2005 11:01:

LaMan, instead of throwing insults, can you please argue your point? Why are you so sure that noone is born gay? Give me some hard evidence please. Educate me.
Edit: Oh i see LaMan has removed his insult

rox-kuryliw said on July 13, 2005 13:18:

Its a shame you have possibly hundreds in uk and thousands /millions of people worldwide trying to deal with being gay and you get some people trying to put them down saying its there fault in to many words, its a natural as blonde hair , freckles, brown eyes.
It shittly ironic that someone in support of greenpeace and nature is so against and denial of nature of people themselves ! Maybe them themselves have gay issues to sort out and the own fellings they fear for there own sex ! plus im 100% sure its natural to be gay, not man made its makes no sence or is backed up at all !

Laman Maybe, is its lack of education, Wasnt you taught manners when you was young now that you can learn must have missed you, could be worse you could have been taught how to be gay LOL ( huge sarcasm alert !) ? seems like no correct social interaction with different cultures with no empathy or understand but just undermining of other groups social circles even if its a country or certain groups of people, seems you do so to make you feel confident and more comfortable with your own opinions to express what you know nothing about and you call that freedom of speech , freedom of speech is not to offend or hurt others just remember that next time you have a feedom of speech.

ally77 said on July 13, 2005 14:07:

I am getting the impression recently LaMan’s comment are just being written to wind us up.... I suggest we ignore him...

LaMan said on July 13, 2005 14:24:

why should someone born gay?? whats the point?
Believe me it´s the childhood.
Nothing wrong with that. We are all individuals.
but pls stop that useless propaganda! There´s no any proof for “born gay” yet.

ncurran said on July 13, 2005 14:35:

LaMan, I’ll ask you again nicely. Please back up your opinion with some facts. You still havent stated WHY you believe it is not genetic.

Oldag75 said on July 13, 2005 16:50:

Everyone begins in the womb as a female. A series of hormonal actions convert about half of us to male, depending upon the nature of the definitive chromosome that was acquired from the father’s gamete. As with any other process, the hormonal changes at any point may deviate from the overwhelming majority, to yield minority results... varying “degrees” of a female with components of brain or body that did not get completely converted to male. In other words, yes, natural homosexuality is present at birth – one can be born gay. Additionally, someone who is heterosexual may, for whatever reason, choose to pursue a gay lifestyle. I just wish there had been a lot more gay guys in high school, so that the competition for dates with hetero girls would not have been so tough.

pwbbounce (moderator) said on July 13, 2005 18:03:

Well put Oldag!! Wonder what laman will say to that!!

Anarem said on July 13, 2005 22:58:

@LaMan: Do you have any gay friends? If you did, you wouldn’t think the way you do.

ally77 said on July 14, 2005 06:35:

lol, I suppose I could almost say the same, I may be female but I am not into a lot of the girlie stuff some of the people at work are.....

although I am attempting to grow my hair for around the first time in 15 / 16 years....

coyboyusa said on July 14, 2005 14:10:

laman so people can’t be born gay then explain to me what exactly in childhood causes someone to be gay.

let go through all the rhetoric anti gay hater claim

1.) sexual abuse: i was never ever molested by any man ever and i am gay so you lose on that one

2.) exposure to male nudity or pornography at an early age: my parents were never nude around me, the first person i saw in underwear was in high school, and i wasn’t exposed to gay porn until i moved out of my parents house when i was 21 , so you loose there too

3.) exposure to homosexuals: well lets see my father told me all homosexuals were child molesters so i was kept away from anyone who show the slightest hint of being a ” fag or fruit” so try again

4.) being allowed to play with femenine toys: the only dolls i had per say were full scale gi joes...the epitome of macho america so you lose there again

5.) being kept out of sports: i ran track for 2 years, played baseball, soccer and volley ball and tennis...so try again

6.) a domineering mother: i had 2 very uninvolved parents so try again

i coudl go on forever but i am sure you get the point, things liek a religious beleief are choice, sexual preference isnt, so go back into your cave with osama please

carbon_boy said on July 14, 2005 14:49:

@Coyboy: LMAO! Well said.

ATLTK said on July 15, 2005 13:02:

hmm I´m gay but I dont have brothers so does I still have that gene? “havent read the artcile in full”

rox-kuryliw said on July 15, 2005 14:13:

again LOL

rox-kuryliw said on July 15, 2005 15:08:

mine are same length, if any thing index finger slightly ahead . whats that say ?

ncurran said on July 15, 2005 18:48:

And heres another article on the whole issue, this time from america

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002340883_gayscience19m...

ncurran said on July 15, 2005 20:50:

Well on one hand mine are the same length, and on the other the 4th finger is about 1cm longer. Does that make me bi? :P

LittleSpooky said on July 16, 2005 08:13:

According to the site that ncurran posted:

HOT SHIT I’M A MACHO MAN!!!

*looks down*.... Uhm... there’s something wrong here...

Breasts... uhm... well.... yeah

Mitya said on July 20, 2005 05:26:

Hey!
I‘ve recently read a very interesting article proposing a new method of identifying one‘s sexual orientation. It was said there that British scientists are sure one‘s sexual orientation can be identified by measuring one‘s hand fingers.

Measure your forefinger‘s length and divide it by your fourth finger‘s length.

If one is a man and has this coefficient of less than 0.97 he is an active gay. If one is a woman with coefficient less than 0.97 she is a passive lesbian.

A man with a coefficient from 0.97 to 0.99 is a 100% macho, 0.97 - 0.99 for women “is also not bad, it testifies that everything is normal with sexual orientation of this representative of the fair sex, but she is hardly capable of any outstanding success in bed.”

“If a woman gets a coefficient from 0.99 to 1.1, other women must envy her - she is a titbit for any man. But men with this coefficient can hardly impress anyone sexually.”

“People with coefficient of more than 1.1 are surely homosexuals.” Women are active lesbians, men are passive gays.

“These sensational conclusions are presented in a paper by John Menning, Doctor of Psychology, from Lancashire University. The results of his investigations are confirmed by other scientists. All in all , they examined more than 10 thousand men and women.
The finger proportions are formed in the mother‘s woms when foetus is approx. 3 months old. The forefinger grows due to the male hormone testosterone, while the fourth finger is formed due to the female hormone estrogene. When chemichal balance is correct the finger proportions will be normal. When it is distorted, there will be deviation.
An overplus of testosterone in a mother‘s organism takes place when the pregnant woman is not satisfied sexually...But excesive sexual activity can also turn a to be girl into a passive lesbian and a boy into a gay.”

LittleSpooky said on July 20, 2005 07:56:

“Measure your forefinger‘s length and divide it by your fourth finger‘s length.

If one is a man and has this coefficient of less than 0.97 he is an active gay. If one is a woman with coefficient less than 0.97 she is a passive lesbian.

A man with a coefficient from 0.97 to 0.99 is a 100% macho, 0.97 - 0.99 for women “is also not bad, it testifies that everything is normal with sexual orientation of this representative of the fair sex, but she is hardly capable of any outstanding success in bed.”

“If a woman gets a coefficient from 0.99 to 1.1, other women must envy her - she is a titbit for any man. But men with this coefficient can hardly impress anyone sexually.”

“People with coefficient of more than 1.1 are surely homosexuals.” Women are active lesbians, men are passive gays.

“These sensational conclusions are presented in a paper by John Menning, Doctor of Psychology, from Lancashire University. The results of his investigations are confirmed by other scientists. All in all , they examined more than 10 thousand men and women.
The finger proportions are formed in the mother‘s woms when foetus is approx. 3 months old. The forefinger grows due to the male hormone testosterone, while the fourth finger is formed due to the female hormone estrogene. When chemichal balance is correct the finger proportions will be normal. When it is distorted, there will be deviation.
An overplus of testosterone in a mother‘s organism takes place when the pregnant woman is not satisfied sexually...But excesive sexual activity can also turn a to be girl into a passive lesbian and a boy into a gay.” - End quote
————————————————————————————————————————

Well... ... let’s see... *grabs a ruler and measures* Take this, divide by this, carry the one... E=mc2, The speed of light is 186,000 MILES (changed for Santi) per second, the USS Enterprise NCC-1701-E is the sixth ship to carry such a designation and is a Soverign Class Starship, as NCC-1701-D was a Galaxy Class Starship. No matter where you go, there you are.... honest, it is only A THREE HOUR TOUR. The Truth Is Out There. Trust No One. I Believe.... You most certainly are blended.... Perhaps you are familiar with the Russian Epic, Cinderella.... CRY HAVOC!!!! AND UNLEASH THE DOGS OF WAR!!!

It’s official.... I PREFER MEN!

And I’m a geek.

coyboyusa said on July 20, 2005 13:38:

snti the key words r born gay, it still certifies the concept that sexuality has a major genetic component

Santi said on July 20, 2005 15:09:

@LS: Sorry, I couldn’t resist! :P And NASA is too much on my head lately since they’re re-taking the Shuttle program :)

@coyboyusa: I know, but it’s important not to interpret what they say in a wrong way. A “gay gene” wouldn’t make sense, since it would not propagate, because the reproduction fails if you’re not likely to ever be with someone of the opposite sex. I don’t deny what they say or that homosexuality may be a genetic predisposition, but if you misunderstand the concept, you’re defending your point with a plainly wrong argument, and seriously you don’t need to be a rocket scientist to get the picture right, do you?

ncurran said on July 20, 2005 23:06:

I read today about 2 young gay men who were sentenced to death and were hung yesterday in Iran. Kind of puts into perspective our struggle for equal rights compared to them

Kathrin said on July 21, 2005 17:54:

Yeah! Ncurran is right!

coyboyusa said on July 23, 2005 14:41:

santi i undersdtand what you’re talking about, but there are many recessive genetic traits that propogate through reprodouction that don’t necessairly benefit the propogation of the species. being left handed, being blue eyes, being albino, even the existence of the appendix. A gay gene would actoually bolster the concept that homosexuality was primordial natures way of enacting population control, but then again, i knwo alot of gay men and women that want to have children, so gays and lesbains still posess the desire to propogate, so its not too hard to fathom the existence of a gay gene because you can’t subjugate the existence of a geneg based solely on propogation

ncurran said on July 26, 2005 11:29:

You can read more about the hangings of the gay teenagers here. It also has some links where you can voice your objection with your iranien embassy.

http://www.beirut.indymedia.org/ar/2005/07/2999.shtml

http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=2955

the website Iran Focus not only confirms the story but provides more details, reporting that “Members of Iran’s parliament from the north-eastern city of Mashad, where a minor and an 18-year-old man were publicly hanged yesterday, vented their anger on Wednesday on foreign and domestic news outlets for reporting the ages of hanged prisoners...Ultra-conservative deputy Ali Asgari said that the two deserved to be hanged in public, adding, ’Whatever sentence is decreed by an Islamic penal system must be approved, unless proven otherwise.’ Asgari complained of foreign and domestic reporting that the two were mere boys. ’Instead of paying tribute to the action of the judiciary, the media are mentioning the age of the hanged criminals and creating a commotion that harms the interests of the state,’ the member of the Majlis Legal Affairs Committee said. ’Even if certain websites made a reference to their age, journalists should not pursue this. These individuals were corrupt. Their sentence was carried out with the approval of the judiciary and it served them right.’ “

Consensual gay sex in any form is punishable by death in the Islamic Republic of Iran. According to the website Age of Consent, which monitors such laws around the world, in Iran “Homosexuality is illegal, those charged with love-making are given a choice of four deathstyles: being hanged, stoned, halved by a sword, or dropped from the highest perch. According to Article 152, if two men not related by blood are discovered naked under one cover without good reason, both will be punished at a judge’s discretion. Gay teens (Article 144) are also punished at a judge’s discretion. Rubbing one’s penis between the thighs without penetration (tafheed) shall be punished by 100 lashes for each offender. This act, known to the English-speaking world as ’frottage,’ is punishable by death if the ’offender’ is a non-Muslim. If frottage is thrice repeated and penalty-lashes have failed to stop such repetitions, upon the fourth ’offense’ both men will be put to death. According to Article 156, a person who repents and confesses his gay behavior prior to his identification by four witnesses, may be pardoned. Even kissing ’with lust’ (Article 155) is forbidden. This bizarre law works to eliminate old Persian male-bonding customs, including common kissing and holding hands in public.” And Outrage, in its release about the gay teens’ execution, noted that, “according to Iranian human rights campaigners, over 4000 lesbians and gay men have been executed since the Ayatollahs seized power in 1979. Last August, a 16-year-old girl , [Atefeh Rajabi] was hanged [in the Caspian port of Neka] for ’acts incompatible with chastity,’ [i.e., sex before marriage].”

In the case of the two teens hanged in Mashhad, “They admitted having gay sex (probably under torture) but claimed in their defense that most young boys had sex with each other and tdhat they were not aware that homosexuality was punishable by death,” according to the ISNA report as translated by OutRage. “Prior to their execution, the gay teenagers were held in prison for 14 months and severely beaten with 228 lashes. The length of their detention suggests that they committed the so-called offenses more than a year earlier, when they were possibly around the age of 16.”

coyboyusa said on July 27, 2005 14:10:

this is why radical islam needs to be incinerated!

ncurran said on August 5, 2005 18:12:

Oh here we go, typical response from a born again christian. You know nothing about being gay, so dont come and preach to me. Christians just dont want to believe that someone is born gay, because that means that it is a lifestyle that they dont choose and cant change, which would blow all their biblical theories out the water.
This is 2005. If you have any sense, stop living your life by a book that was written by men to control society thousands of years ago.

Roxfever said on August 5, 2005 20:08:

“1. God created the world, everything in it, and all of us, and he created Man, bla bla, then he created the woman, to be with the man, therefore he created all people and so on..”
This “argument” is one of the reasons why the church discrimintated women for hundreds of years (first he created the man then the woman... the woman has to do what the man tells her to do....) and it still seems to work today and in addition to that is misused as an argument against homosexualty. I’m Christian too and maybe a “half-believer” or something like that ;-) so I don’ have anything against Christianity, the church, etc. But: it’s quite an old fashioned view to you take this text literally and preach what it says without thinking about its meaning for a second. I took (had to take ;-)) some seminars in theology at university and you wouldn’t meet one single lecturer (at least no Protestant) who would agree that this text says anything against homosexuality, that you are not born gay or against women. One problem is that many bibles have a wrong translation of the word “man”, at least the German ones, don’t know how it was translated in other languages. There it says “Mann” which means the male man. (Luther made this mistake). The original word (the Hebrew word) is “ha adam”, meaning the human kind not the male man. (ha adam is made of “adamah” which means something like soil, dust,...so there’s a connection between the words). There are many texts in the bible in which we find the word “ha adam” and in which it has been translated correctly as man in the sense of human being. But it wasn’t in this text.
When God creates “the woman” he does so because he doesn’t want “ha adam” to be alone. As we all know, we need other people, partners, friends, etc. otherwise we are lonely and this is one of the saddest things that can happen, isn’t it?. He made ha adam a partner, a helper because he found out that animals aren’t a propper partner for human beings. This is not meant as a discrimination of animals but we need other people to communicate, to live, to share our lives with them, etc. Animals can be and are our friends but don’t substitue other human beings. After (not before) the woman is created there are two genders (isch = man, ischa = woman)) but what else do we expect in a text written thousands of years ago but a woman and a man? A gay couple sitting in Eden eating apples? ;-) Of course not! But whatever gender those human beings have, they are made as partners because they need each other not on a sexual basis but as human beings. Maybe one day the people who think this text in the bible is the justification for the discrimination of homosexuality and/or women will realize that it’s not about sexuality. It’s up to eveyone to choose his / her sexual partner. Reading an analysis of it written by theologian who doesn’t live in the 4th century wouldn’t harm either. It shouldn’t be written by the pope though, we all know why (nothing against Catholics ;-)).

Oldag75 said on August 5, 2005 22:51:

My best friend is a gay dude, and Sunday he’s hosting his annual Leo Birthday Pool Party. My wife and I always attend – we serve as the token heteros – and we always quietly depart, after the guys have had a bit too much to drink and start swimming nude in the pool. My friend’s partner is a top-tier chef, and the food he prepares for these parties is indescribably superb (however, one year, something got fouled up in the planning, and all there was to consume was a huge roasted pig and beer... no vegetables, desserts, nothing else, just meat and beer; oh, well).

My friend advises that he had invited at least 10 additional hetero people this year. He says he is absolutely sick of gay guys getting together, eating and drinking, then lapsing into the same old discussions about being gay, hashing and re-hashing the same old stuff. He wants to have a boisterous, happy, guys-and-girls DANCING party, this year.

I don’t think it’s a gene, folks – I think it’s a random, albeit minority, occurrence of hormonal influences while one is in the womb. It’s like the difference between brown eyes or blue. Get over it. Incidentally, I have beautiful blue eyes (damned Germans in my ancestry somewhere!).

Oldag75 said on August 5, 2005 22:51:

computer entered my post multiple times

LittleSpooky said on August 5, 2005 22:56:

Someone wanna remove half of Oldag’s posts there? He got a case of the stutters! O_O

coyboyusa said on August 6, 2005 14:24:

to the born again cjristian, there are many many holes to the concept of creation even with mans divine creations of man. if you follow the bible and genesis, the only way humanity came is out of incest because god creat adam and eve and kane and able, 1 sister and 3 brothers, so all of humnaity came out of incest. And since your claiming that being gay can be taught find me the study find me the proof. If that were the case ever child that was adopted by gay parents would be gay, ever child who watched queer as folk would be gay, and guess what they aren’t. This is why religion should be outlawed in education and government, its based on so many flasehoods that it divides and derides commonsense and the peopel until it creates animosity and hatred and violence. As a born again christian who upholds christ as the true son of god then you shoudl follow his teachings. he comisserated with harlots and ” deviants”. its why he was murdered, he knew that gays and lesbains and people who supposedly inhabit the ” fringe” of society are the true ” children of god” and not the prejudicial jealots liek yourself that just serve to make the world a miserable place

pwbbounce (moderator) said on August 6, 2005 15:31:

Just found out that my friend has deleted it!! I used their PC last night, and must have left it on.

I have since changed my password!!!

Why can’t people leave things alone?!?!?

Can’t remember what they said though?

Anarem said on August 7, 2005 03:54:

So, in a nutshell, the Bible endorses:

1. Not touching a woman during her “unclean” time of the month

2. Incest (check out the story about Lot and his daughters)

3. Polygamy (this includes concubines)

4. Slavery

5. Misogyny

6. Not having dinner at the Red Lobster

7. Wearing polester-cotton blends (you’d best burn those flimsy Roxette Join The Joyride t-shirts from 1992, y’hear?)

LittleSpooky said on August 7, 2005 19:53:

Anarem: I’m still laughing my butt off at that post. I wonder how Dr. Laura replied ;o)

Anarem said on August 8, 2005 01:39:

I’d like a slave or two, myself. But up here in Canada, the only neighbouring state is the US... somehow I don’t think the average American would take too kindly to mowing my lawn, trimming my hedges and tending to my bison herd without pay. :-)

Now... if Hans Island in the Far North really does belong to Denmark, then that would mean Denmark is also our neighbour! Whoo hoo! Send over that chick from Aqua and Connie Nielsen, quick!

nodule said on August 10, 2005 03:13:

OK, lets get a grip on the science. The finger length is not a one to one corespondence - it’s just a correlation. You can’t tell if someone is gay or straight by measuring their fingers (or anything else). A higher percentage of gay people will have this trait than straight people, that’s all. Same thing with number of brothers.

But it’s important becuase it corelates sexual oreintation to something genetic - providing evidence (not proof, mind you, but evidence) that oreintation could be genetic. (This kind of evidence is mounting, by the way, and proof may well be on the way.

And that’s important because the right wing fanatics, who want to take away what rights I have, here in the U.S. (and who just might succede in doing it), are pushing the absurd notion that homsexuality is a “choice”. They are doing that becuase, if it was a choice, we could just choose to be different (and then everything would be OK, of course). They are confusing behavior with orientation, and twisting the scientific debate (which is actually “genetic or environment”) into “gentetic or choice”. They are swaying public opinion and electing people to office with a load of nonsense.

That’s why the actual science is important.

ally77 said on August 10, 2005 11:27:

agrees with LS on this one....

carbon_boy said on August 10, 2005 15:19:

@ Coyboy: In Tev’s words - “High Five!”

pwbbounce (moderator) said on August 10, 2005 20:19:

Well said neil. There are definately people who are bi-sexual. I know a couple and they don’t care about the whole gay stigma, and are very happy being bi-sexual. There’s no difference between gay, bi & straight. I think it’s stupid when people critisise others not knowing how the other person is feeling, if you know what I mean.

Anarem said on August 13, 2005 22:32:

@ianukfan:

I don’t need you to pray for me, I’m already saved.

P.S. But thanks anyway! :-)

rox-kuryliw said on August 14, 2005 14:33:

wow this topic still going LOL

rox-kuryliw said on August 14, 2005 19:35:

i agree spook, Iv know ALOT of heterophonics as i call them since iv just started to go out on the gay seen, i just find it sad and they MUST of had bad experiences with someone non gay towards them i think. Just a bad circle.
I believe bi sexual is great me and whats wrong with it ? as long as no one is hurt WE dont need ”groups” to put people in cant group me lol, i think america does that far to often and its seems to spread although thank god its really not like that in england from my experiences we never had jocks, geeks ,gays , freaks, goths ect ect at school collage/ uni/ work . I think i am still abit bi , if a women was wearing an oliva newton john leather number with short blonde spiky hair and red lipsick i couldnt say no and im a gay man LOL.

Anarem said on August 15, 2005 05:17:

coy– I know where you’re coming from– I’ve been burned by bisexual babes before (ooh, alliteration!), but to paint a whole group with the same brush? Nuh uh!

Sexuality is a very fluid thing. Some people will never switch teams, others are free agents. Who are we to judge? If people are attracted to someone because of their inner beauty, and not because of what’s dangling (or not dangling) between their legs, then more power to them. :-)

rox-kuryliw said on August 15, 2005 19:24:

coyboy your always such an angery person im not getting good vibes again, lots and lots of pigeon holes and blame :-(.

ye littlespook i do lol, well attually i have a few women id turn for lol. coyboy does that mean i spread aids hiv , i dont f**king think so lol.

. ”lesbian gay women have it a little bit easier” how the hell you know if your not a women now? like you said to spooky , you cant understand cos your not a gay man , what makes you so perfect and so sure of yourself to know how a lesbian feels ey, if a women doesnt know how you feel cos your ’ a gay man’ as you said (see i think of myself just a man), what makes you think its a little bit easier for other people ? ? eh well ? ? ’
gonna have to hear this!