That is soooo cuntly. "Teach your parents well", and all that. Bllleeeecchhhhh

Personally I think pedophiles are generally hardwired that way, just like fags and str8s. I think its a misconception they are abused into pedoing kids. People who get turned on by shit, and I mean people that love being diarrhead on and guys that get a boner from vomiting don't do it by choice or trauma. Neither people into animal fucking.

Not saying all the above behaviors are acceptable but people rarely choose who they fantasize about fucking. And what about those asexuals? They wanna fuck no one.

When did adults have to start asking permission?

Segue to that most appropriate quote from "Gone With the Wind."

Years ago I was editing this TV show about the street dancers at Carnival in Brazil, and the producer had a piece of copy that went something like: "In this annual festival of indulgence, transvestites and cross-dressers frolic in the street," with a lyrically sing-song read from the announcer. And I said to her, "You understand that transvestites and cross-dressers are essentially the same thing, right?" And she said "No... I didn't know that!" She turned to her husband. "Did you know that?" "Nope."

Well, we're not all gutter-minded sex-trash like me, but I should have stopped the work to ask what they thought the distinction was.

Also, we're waiting on a final ruling from the committee on this.


Also, I'm still hating the mirthless smugness of those last two paragraphs. They have the nyah-nyah tone of a child who thinks the only function of his ancestors has been to cause pain and make people eat horrible vegetables. And as always, fools in the discussion want to believe that marriage is just a way for Mr. Rogers to pat you on the head and say you're special for just being you; At no point are the greater needs of society to be discussed. Blexi-poodle-bleeechhhh.

In the end I really do not care about gay or straight, what I care about is the science. And results...

It really peeves me off when science gets politicized and research can not be done due to political "Holy Cows".

From the left side of the political spectrum and it cows of "Climate Change/Global Warming" and "homosexuality - choice or innate. To the right sides cows of "Evolution vs Intelligent Design" and "human reproduction via cloning, stem cells, and birth control".

Science needs to be pure, either wrong or right, until proved otherwise. Some ethics would be nice, but when the work is not done because it might hurt somebodies view point/feelings. Or the data is warped to suit some ideal, business, or policy. Scientists who are blacklisted or censured for coming up with data that goes against the party line. That shit pisses me off.

Will read the article a bit more, but I really really hope that the research is being done and with a scientific standard and desire to learn the truth.

If in the end my opinion (leaning towards nuture of gay) is proven wrong, do it with the big nasty stick of science.

Ok, I'm clearly missing some kind of nuance or something. Sexual encounters with male children in certain tribes is a done thing. Then these kids grow up and presumably do the same to the next generation of boys. But they aren't gay? Is the distinction because they're doing this with kids and not grown men?

I'm very confused?

When I first heard this argument I was in high school. I believe I was born straight. I love men. I have thought about sex with another woman, and there's just nothing there. No revulsion, but no interest. I've seen some hot girl-on-girl porn scenes, but can't imagine myself in them.

Guys, though...mmmm. This is very distracting.

"I think there are people who are attracted to boys and men and people who just have sex with whomever is available. I could probably have sex with a woman -- it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world -- but I don't look at women and go hubba-hubba the way I do with men, and especially tall men."

http://www.youtube.com/partners

You've got great videos and a growing audience. Let YouTube help you take your channel to the next level through our Partner Program. Generate revenue from your videos and access YouTube's specialized partner features and tools, including rentals, content management, and analytics.

either because of childhood accidents that obliterated their penises

Outside of circumcisions what are the other 'accident' that destroy penies in children before they are old enough to remember they once had a penis?

Sheltlink

Thank you for posting this. It is refreshing to get meaningful information on such politically charged topic.

Why doesn't this just get down to aggression? For sure, more testosterone equals more aggression, and if you're a woman with lots of testosterone (or an original male with lots of testosterone, even without a penis), then you're going to seek out those partners you can dominate, which would probably be other women. Especially if we know that men in other cultures choose to have sex with young boys, then aggression and dominance applies to sexual preference. These men simply replace the vulnerable boys with the (more acceptable) vulnerable women. It's not so much WHO they're attracted to, but WHAT they're attracted to, which is physical dominance.

"For sure, more testosterone equals more aggression, and if you're a woman with lots of testosterone"

An ex of mine was super gorgeous and did male modeling on the side. He was mixed race, black and white. One day he was walking down the street alone and a huge HUGE 6'8 black guy commented on how beautiful he was and um....tried to pin him down and rape him. My ex was able to wrestle away.

He said from that moment on he knew how chicks feel.

> It's not so much WHO they're attracted to,
> but WHAT they're attracted to, which is
> physical dominance.

I'm not tracking this whole conversation, but this reminds me of something Prager once said, or a principle I've derived from something Prager once said.

There's a particularly watery kind of feminism out there, with coddled and naive young women who've never actually worked a day in their lives (except for term papers). Their romantic lives are often spiritless and uninteresting, and they're fearful and resentful of a kind of masculinity with which they have zero personal experience. These women are very eager to take offense.

One of the best things that can happen to these women is frank study of gay male pornography. When men go for other men without any consideration for women's feelings whatsoever, all the offensive things are still there; the dominance, the detachment, the wordlessness, the shallow narratives, the disregard for consequences, all of it. Masculinity isn't a social construct designed to oppress women by design; it just doesn't much care. It wants what it wants.

A lot of women go through their entire lives thinking that individual feelings (almost always their own) are of paramount importance.

But anyone who's ever been a romantically disappointed 15-year-old boy knows better... And that's nearly half the human race.

"Ditto, Prickly."

So, a question: do women who stand out for their looks have it easier or harder?

I know of one who stopped conversation in a 400-seat auditorium when she walked in, and I've always wondered if senior managers and businessmen in fields other than the performing arts saw her looks as a handicap or asset - and how she coped with it all.

What on earth is a "professor of clinical humanities"?

The article itself is rife with politicized half-truths and wiggling.

It's good to see the pro-gay folks starting to squirm, though - as their "born that way" lie gets exposed as the PC moral dodge it always was.

Real science, not "clinical humanities" in the Atlantic - has demonstrated that:

1) No gene patterns are reliably associated with homosexuality.

2) Genes do not drive complex behaviors like sexuality in the simple way peddled for decades by the "born that way" slogan - that is, sexuality is not like eye color.

Now that this untruth - which was used to sidestep actual examination of gay dysfunction - is being exposed, the progressives are tapdancing around with clever, coy, attempts at misdirection like this article.

Never having proven that gays are "born that way" - they now toss out nonsensical lines like "are straights born that way?" - trying to wring some ironic mileage out of a failed trope.

While it has been asserted by some that abuse at the hands of men might incline girls to be more likely to ultimately become lesbians, the evidence for this claim is weak.

I read an article years ago in Rolling Stone where the author interviewed numerous lesbians in San Francisco. Some of them said that they had chosen to be with another woman due to abuse by a lot of men. However, they also told the author that they didn't want him to put that in the article because the vast majority of lesbians they knew had always felt attracted to women and they were afraid that their stories, about choosing to be with women, would provide fuel to those who see all homosexuality as a choice.

I believe that sexual orientation is something people are born with.

which was used to sidestep actual examination of gay dysfunction

Yes, by all means let's have an actual examination of the gay dysfunction. Maybe then we could convert all, or most, of those dysfunctional gays and lesbians into proper human beings, the kind who make babies. After all, we have a severe shortage of human beings on the planet and we could really use more people breeding.

Then, after that, we could have an examination of heterosexual couples without kids. That's another dysfunction and, if we could cure that, we could have even more babies.

"Never having proven that gays are "born that way" - they now toss out nonsensical lines like "are straights born that way?" - trying to wring some ironic mileage out of a failed trope."

Never having studied actual genetic diversity in humans, despite it repeatedly having had it pointed out to him, Ben David is again apparently fixated on his fear that he might be gay, or be able to choose by a simple act of will.

Nutcase. Here you go, again.

When you finally see that gross physical attributes show conclusively that human gender identity is not binary, and that logically other factors exist, you may be able to clear your thoughts.

And quit pretending you don't want to see them dead.

"Never having proven that gays are "born that way" - they now toss out nonsensical lines like "are straights born that way?" - trying to wring some ironic mileage out of a failed trope."

Even if it's not a gene, that doesn't mean many gays aren't born that way. As Rad says, it could be a chromosomal condition, like AIS, or hormonal influences present within the womb.

There's actually a lot more evidence that it's likely a lack of choice rather than a choice. But, whatever, who cares? Does it really impact you, or your life, Ben-David? Whether your neighbor is with Eve or Steve, why is this your concern?

You may believe it's a sin, fine. People are sinning around you everywhere, involved in many things much worse than loving someone else. We have murder and violence all around us. It seems particularly wasteful of your outrage to be concerned with where pieces of other people's anatomy are placed.

Goddess:

Thanks, Rad, for taking apart our regular religious rube

He's done nothing but throw out another red herring - or maybe he can explain what "gross physical attributes" are, among his other folderol.

Here's what the geneticists themselves have to say:

Biologists have known for a long time that gene expression is complex and DNA does not determine biology, let alone other characteristics of physical and mental health, behavior and intelligence. Nevertheless, over the years, the deterministic model that genes alone define biology has become enshrined as the prevailing paradigm. This dogma... has led to a problematic construction of race, sexuality, and intelligence, as seen through a lens of genetic determinism

Link:
http://www.councilforresponsiblegenetics.org/Projects/PastProject.aspx?projectId=11

LS asks:

Does it really impact you, or your life, Ben-David?

The move to mainstream dysfunctional, exploitative behavior - and especially to equate it with marriage - is part of a concerted, clearly stated campaign to change the moral standards of the society in which I live. So yes, it does impact me.

The "born that way" myth was used to sidestep moral evaluation of a "lifestyle" marked by compulsive promiscuity. It was used to convince people through sloppy thinking that "natural" is the same as "normal".

And now it's falling apart - just like the assertions by feminists that there were no inherent differences between men and women, just like the junk science used to push global warming.

The Left always loves to wrap its agenda in pseudo-science, and label its opponents no-nothings... except I've got an engineering degree and the science is on my side of this argument.

Sorry unicorn-rainbow folks - this pie-in-the-sky is also falling apart, and calling me names - and blindly repeating "it MUST be so" doesn't make it so.

"He's done nothing but throw out another red herring - or maybe he can explain what "gross physical attributes" are, among his other folderol."

Read the link, retard.

Does having no genitals, or both sets, in a significant percentage of the population bother you as much as gays do? Hell, no. You have a religious cause to crusade for.

I'm surprised you can still type. Your faculties of reason - such as they are - are completely inoperative, being commanded to a pre-determined result, rather than allowed to investigate.

Again: gender is not binary, and the living proof of that is all around you. Hidden, of course, because people like you would do everything nasty imaginable.

You might also read the employment policies of both Apple and Microsoft, you hypocrite, you. You're using the product of a company who backs their employees to a degree you want to {jail, "cure", etc., pick one} them.

Are you sure you're not a Muslim?

Because what you're backing is the idea that you can point at an American - a neighbor of yours - and state that they are lesser than you.

What a bigot. (Yes, the right word - look it up.)

Hey, you know, one way to shut abortion opponents up - by exposing how little thinking they've actually done, is to ask them what sort of jail time a woman should get for having an abortion.

So here's its equivalent. Ben David: Elton John and George Takei are both openly gay men with long-term partners, David and Brad respectively.

What do you want to happen to them?

Bonus video, showing the danger GT is to the public: The Happy Dance

Did you notice, Ben David, that your citation above ("Biologists...") didn't rule out anything I've said?

I'd make an analogy, but you wouldn't understand that.

Meanwhile, promiscuity goes on. Single motherhood is at record levels due to a lack of marriage, yet you have selected the actual check on promiscuity that is gay marriage as your windmill.

Call for ROI numbers. That's reasonable.

You... aren't.

"The move to mainstream dysfunctional, exploitative behavior - and especially to equate it with marriage - is part of a concerted, clearly stated campaign to change the moral standards of the society in which I live. So yes, it does impact me."

But doesn't this start with heterosexuals? Promiscuity, premarital sex, divorce, unwed pregnancies, and Hollywood celebrities, most of whom are straight, glorifying all of it?

Gays haven't even had the chance to mess up marriage as thoroughly as straight people already have. And they're certainly not going around wrecklessly procreating outside of marriage and dumping their children on the state like straight people are.

Even if every gay couple in America married, decided to raise children, then failed at it, they couldn't statistically come close to the social and emotional carnage created by straight couples.

So, the blame you place on gays seems misplaced. Again, it's wasted outrage that would be better directed towards the much larger percentage of straight people who are ruining marriage and family in this country.

Besides, your assertion that "born that way" is falling apart is untrue. I happen to agree with you that the culprit isn't likely a "gay gene", but that doesn't mean that womb environment or chromosomal differences don't create gender conditioning prior to birth. In fact, it's pretty clear that these factors play a significant role for many people, like those mentuoned in Rad's link on AIS.

And since we can't possibly know whether the tendencies occur before birth or afterwards, how can we discriminate? If we acknowledge that even one circumstance of gender identification can be influenced before birth - which seems entirely logical based on science - we must accept that all of them could. How can we possibly presume to go through any gay person's life and pinpoint the exact moment they became gay? At age 3, age 10, or before birth? That would be stupid.

What do you want to happen to them, Ben David?

You've had five days to think about it.