Gay bashing deserving of the same taboo as racism?

[TheKurp]

Art, in another thread, wrote:

I'm not going to monitor gay joking/bashing all that much for the obvious reasons to be honest. Unlike potential bashing of other groups that wouldn't be allowed, there's not really the same angst associated with "homos" as there might be with "n!ggers" or whatever.

There is mounting evidence that one's sexual orientation is genetically determined. (See Sheep study suggests sexual orientation may be genetic ) Even if we don't accept scientific research into this subject as infallible, there's enough data to at least suggest that gay bashing is akin to discrimination based one's genetically determined skin color.

Frankly, I didn't have to *learn* to like women. It just happened around puberty. I don't think it's any different for gays. Ergo, I think gay bashing on this site should receive the same consideration as racism.

[TheKurp]

Ignore, I meant to edit the above post.

[Art]

Kurp,

If I'm not mistaken you are a doctor or some other well educated, intelligent person. Sex is a primal instinct. My Shih Tzu humps my cat. My in-laws Shih Tzu humps my arm and deflated soccer balls. Humans, like animals, are born with a sexual desire. There is no straight gene. There is no gay gene. You do have the primal instinct to have sex and I think we both know neither sexual leaning is something anyone is born with.

I shouldn't have to lecture you that male sheep screwing other male sheep is not really a reflection on whether there's a genetic predisposition toward homosexuality. Sex is an instinct. Animals have sex with pretty much anything they want. So do humans. Society now teaches a man-woman relationship in everything we see from the smallest age and up.

Just as the ancient Greeks taught the only true love was between a man and a boy. No one is making a conscious decision to pick girls to screw or pick boys to screw. It's a combination of social engineering and controlling one's sexual instincts. If there's ever a study that proves there's a straight gene we'll consider there may be one for gays as well. This topic is essentially a non-starter.

You are born black. You are born white. You are not born gay. And, hey, you are not born straight either. Sexual desire is not a race. And it's never going to become one.

[Henry]

Doesn't really matter. Even if it is something one chooses (though I'm not sure why someone would choose to be gay) I think the slurs on this board are really getting out of hand.

I guess you could say I choose to be Jewish instead of Chrisitian, but I would be shocked and dismayed if anyone on this board, even FSF, suddenly started using the word 'Kike' in reference to me or my fellow Tribesmen.

That's my vote. But you are the mods. Do what you want.

[RiggoDrill]

I think you're probably right Art, though the psychological aspect or "need" for one gender or the other probably has a social component.

Gay-bashing, on the other hand, doesn't make much sense to me. Why are people so obsessed with that one manifestation of sexual behavior? Why are there so many jokes focused on what gay guys do in bed? A lot of straight people into equally kinky or perverted things, but people don't go out of there way to ridicule or persecute them.

I don't care what someone does in their bedroom as long as it doesn't negatively impact me or societal health or safety.

[RiggoDrill]

Originally posted by Henry

Doesn't really matter. Even if it is something one chooses (though I'm not sure why someone would choose to be gay) I think the slurs on this board are really getting out of hand.

I guess you could say I choose to be Jewish instead of Chrisitian, but I would be shocked and dismayed if anyone on this board, even FSF, suddenly started using the word 'Kike' in reference to me or my fellow Tribesmen.

That's my vote. But you are the mods. Do what you want.

I hear you, Henry ...

But I think the mods should take a principled approach on a case-by-case basis, rather than making blanket bans on speech. I might not like what people say about things, but this isn't North Korea.

People have made plenty of stupid statements on this board, and usually they're shot down if they're being really dumb -- I remember when some guy dismissed Blondie for being a woman -- whooo boy did he get it

[Art]

Henry,

Canyerano (spelling) complained last week about people using the term "midgets" to make fun of the Giants because he knows people who are short and how hurtful that word is to them. People are born short.

I'm not going to moderate a series of words that are allowed or not allowed here. People have a right to say what the hell they want to say. Others have a right to respond to that just as Kurp has done here and ATB did on the main board. People have the right to ignore users they don't like reading.

People here generally know when they are going to far or when they are not. But, for every person who finds "midget" offensive you simply can't thin out the dictionary enough to make a board politically correct.

One thing to consider with FSF's choice of mocking here. The football player who just came out spoke of the fact that the jokes and put downs in the lockerroom essentially led him to know he shouldn't come out during his playing days. In general sports is a rough place to be gay. In lockerrooms or on the playing court of the Y. This type of jocularity is simply part of the culture. Racism is not something that is generally part of the culture. We don't see that type of thing here so it's not something we can say we do or do not moderate. But, football players and fans have made fun of Jeff Garcia and Michael Westbrook and Kordell Stewart for years based upon a supposed leaning toward homosexuality. You and I may not be among them. But, I don't think the mods here can do anything more than they did with FSF. He was essentially told he had to step back. He had posts edited and he was nearly banned.

The community here polices itself pretty well. I see no reason to stop that practice from being the way.

[Henry]

That's fine Art. I know you generally like to let things on this board work themselves out, and I think that's probably best.

I'm not really demanding you do anything about this. But since the subject came up I'm offering my opinion, for what it's worth.

As far as racism in sports goes, there used to be a LOT of racism in sports. But we all got over it, and I think that was for the best. Perhaps there's a lesson to be learned there somewhere.

[TheKurp]

Art,

The reason your dog humps your cat has nothing to do with sex. Primal instinct, yes. However it's an instinct to establish pack hierarchy. Observe your shih tzu the next time it humps your cat. I'm betting that prior to your dog mounting the cat it placed it's head over the neck of your cat. It's called establishing dominance. Of course your cat knows nothing about the behavior because in the world of felines, establishing dominance is an entirely different ritual.

Now as for your dog humping your soccer balls and your in-laws dog humping your arm, well, it's just plain looking for a release. The same way a young boy might hump his pillow looking for a thrill.

I have to ask, did you even read the article? Or have you read the results of the study performed in 1991? There is little room for doubt that there are physiological differences between gays and heterosexuals. By it's very definition, this is genetic.

Your argument that instinct has no connection with physiology is erroneous. In fact it has been determined that environmental factors can influence the evolution of a species and create biological and physiological changes over generations. But I digress....

Genetics aside, it's a simple issue for me. Very few people consciously choose to bring public scorn upon themselves. Certainly not at the rate we find the number of homosexuals in the world. Based on this I would argue steadfastly that being gay is not a choice. Your assertion that sex is instinctive, while true, has nothing to do with whom we find sexually attractive. When a correlation can be determined, and proven repeatedly with statistical significance, between physiological attributes and sexual orientation, then to argue that society's influence plays a greater role is baseless.

[Art]

Kurp,

We've had these discussions before. If you'd like, we can have them here again. But, there is EXTREME doubt that there's any difference at all between straight people and gay people. That you would like to have others believe that in some way there's a genetic predisposition in the human body that guides them to same-sex relationships is really insane.

The human body is made up in such a way that men fit with women and new life comes from that. Nature is pretty clear on how genetics intends sexual activity to take place. There's nothing in you that points you toward women anymore than there's anything in a gay guy that points him to gays.

I don't really feel like having this whole discussion again. I'd rather you just go ahead and read this:

http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10544&highlight=born+gay

or this:

http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10540&highlight=born+gay

If you'd like we can go back and forth on what the 1991 study meant or didn't mean. I like to argue. But, in the end, if you win, you then admit there is a rapist gene and a pedophile gene and a scat gene and a S&M gene and all other things so I'm not sure you want to win.

You can't excuse gay tendencies as genetic if you won't do the same for all other sexual tendencies that differ from what society has defined as "normal". You can accept gay tendencies for what they are, but you can't grant them birth rights unless you open your mind to the same rights for all other perversion.

Let me know if we have to argue this all over again .

[Art]

P.S.

I find it somewhat difficult to see you here wanting to say gays are born gay, but in another thread you started a while back didn't you essentially condemn all fat people as those who eat too much and should be charged extra on airplanes for being fat? Heck, there's a ton more evidence of a genetic predisposition toward being heavy than there is toward being gay, but it seems you sympathize with gays and not fat people. Why is that?

[RiggoDrill]

Originally posted by TheKurp

Art,

The reason your dog humps your cat has nothing to do with sex. Primal instinct, yes. However it's an instinct to establish pack hierarchy. Observe your shih tzu the next time it humps your cat. I'm betting that prior to your dog mounting the cat it placed it's head over the neck of your cat. It's called establishing dominance. Of course your cat knows nothing about the behavior because in the world of felines, establishing dominance is an entirely different ritual.

Now as for your dog humping your soccer balls and your in-laws dog humping your arm, well, it's just plain looking for a release. The same way a young boy might hump his pillow looking for a thrill.

I have to ask, did you even read the article? Or have you read the results of the study performed in 1991? There is little room for doubt that there are physiological differences between gays and heterosexuals. By it's very definition, this is genetic.

Your argument that instinct has no connection with physiology is erroneous. In fact it has been determined that environmental factors can influence the evolution of a species and create biological and physiological changes over generations. But I digress....

Genetics aside, it's a simple issue for me. Very few people consciously choose to bring public scorn upon themselves. Certainly not at the rate we find the number of homosexuals in the world. Based on this I would argue steadfastly that being gay is not a choice. Your assertion that sex is instinctive, while true, has nothing to do with whom we find sexually attractive. When a correlation can be determined, and proven repeatedly with statistical significance, between physiological attributes and sexual orientation, then to argue that society's influence plays a greater role is baseless.

So, guys who screw each other in prison somehow became physiologically different once they're incarcerated?

If a young guy tries gay sex, then is heterosexual the entire rest of his life, is he genetically different?

I agree with Art: Sexual BEHAVIOR is just that. The only biological truth is that we were designed to reproduce.

[Art]

Ding.

RD and I on the same side. Remarkable .

[TheKurp]

:gus:

Art, if I didn't have to get home soon to work out, shower, primp, and drive to pick up a girl for our first date, I'd spend the time poking skewers in your [il]logic on this topic.

To dismiss a scientific study as simply the liberal press' manipulation of the facts is reaching isn't it? How ironic that a right-wing conservative is out in left field. Scientific studies are there for the reading sans media slants or skewing of the facts. Draw your conclusions but do so without the liberal paranoia.

Fat verses homosexuality? Okay, I will concede that there are probably people who choose to be gay, but I'll argue that the percentage is very small. I'll also concede that there is a *very* small percentage of people who are genetically incapable of sustaining a healthy weight. However let's not equate the two because to do so would be to gather out in "left field" where I choose not to play ball with you. Almost all fat people are that way because they consume more calories than they burn. It's an American epidemic. Some have forecast that by the year 2030, if Americans continue on their trend, only 7 to 10 percent of the population will be neither overweight nor obese. But again, I digress.... Funny how I keep allowing you to steer me away from the topic at hand, which is, whether gay bashing is akin to racism.

Obviously it's your call how you choose to react to gay bashing on this site. Like Henry, I'm just letting you know where I stand on this particular issue.

[TheKurp]

Originally posted by RiggoDrill

So, guys who screw each other in prison somehow became physiologically different once they're incarcerated?

If a young guy tries gay sex, then is heterosexual the entire rest of his life, is he genetically different?

I agree with Art: Sexual BEHAVIOR is just that. The only biological truth is that we were designed to reproduce.

Riggo,

Because a man has sex with another man it does not necessarily make him gay.

Learn the difference and then perhaps you'll see the fallacy of your argument here.

[RiggoDrill]

Originally posted by TheKurp

Riggo,

Because a man has sex with another man it does not necessarily make him gay.

Learn the difference and then perhaps you'll see the fallacy of your argument here.

What "difference" is there to learn?

That some guys sleep with men 100% of the time?

Some 90%?

Some 1%?

Some men turn to homosexuality later in life, after marriage. Were they straight, then gay? Gay living in denial for 50 years?

Who gets to be the judge of "Officially Gay"? You?

Honestly, I don't have anything against gay people. People's sex lives are their own business. However, your assertions that homosexuality is incontravertibly genetic are obviously flawed, besides being condescending.

[Art]

This is fabulous.

"Because a man has sex with another man it does not necessarily make him gay."

Kurp. It appears I've made a mistake on your basic intelligence. You are just blinded by an issue and refuse to make even coherent statements. In fact, a man having sex with another man precisely does make him gay. Now, a man having sex with a woman can probably be gay as well. But, with 100 percent certainty, a man having sex with another man is gay.

You appear to be campaigning for gay and lesbian groups that like to use "gay" to describe social or cultural associates with the word rather than sexual, but, homosexual, gay, lesbian, etc., are pretty easy to define. Hell, Andrew Dice Clay said it best many years ago. "Either you suck d!ck or you do not suck d!ck."

So, now that we know you are an activist, let's go ahead and play your game. You wrote:

"To dismiss a scientific study as simply the liberal press' manipulation of the facts is reaching isn't it? How ironic that a right-wing conservative is out in left field. Scientific studies are there for the reading sans media slants or skewing of the facts. Draw your conclusions but do so without the liberal paranoia."

I have in no way dismissed a "scientific" study due to liberal press manipulation. In fact I question the scientific nature of an that initial study in the first place, given who it was conducted by and the fact that more recent studies question the findings.

Are you ignoring studies that have questioned Hamer's findings? Or Levay's? If you want a read of how the liberal media may have influenced things, read here:

http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/satinover.html

In fact, the reports of a gay gene tend to suggest the possibility that genetic similarities found in gay men may be caused by homosexuality rather than being the cause of homosexuality. If you did a study of the liver of 100 dead alcoholics, would you announce to the world that in each case they had livers' that were unable to process the alcohol anymore and therefore bad livers cause alcoholism? Of course not. Simplistic, sure. But a valid question.

Is there any doubt that certain behavior produces traits in a person that may be genetically similar through use rather than from being the cause? Sure. You are an activist, I see, so you may not admit to what Hamer himself wrote in his study, but, it certainly seems signifcant.

Do you know whether Levay or Hamer are, like you, activists on this issue? If you knew they were, would it alter your thoughts on what they may have been able to produce? Would it matter if other scientists use their data to reject their claims? No. Because to you, these are somehow "facts" now. You've let a decade old linkage study that has since been refuted be all you'll allow into your thought process.

Why is that and why is that you would question my openness to an issue?

Dean Hamer -- the author of the most powerful gay gene study -- is himself gay. He is also the person quoted as saying, "It is the same for every human behavior--environment matters for extroversion, smoking cigarettes, just about anything you can name."

So, EVERY human behavior is somehow genetic according to Hamer. Fascinating and unlikely to be true or false really.

Simon Levay -- the linkage study expert -- is also gay. He is the man who is quoted with the following, "Are the positions taken by researchers merely the expression of their own personal attitudes and prejudices--whether pro-or anti-gay--that have been dressed up in academic language. . . ?"

So, you have gay guys attempting to prove they didn't really chose to be gay, but they know enough to ask the question allowed whether they are attempting to validate themselves by trying to link all human behavior to some genetic quality.

You call it fact that any study has suggested there is a gay gene. In fact, no study has done so. Even in Hamer's study it was found that at least seven pairs of the brothers tested did not have the Xq28 gene yet they were unquestionably gay. By itself that proves for a fact that no gay gene was found. It would have to be 100 percent before you can start using "fact" to describe linkage studies that have some statistical meaning and that statistical meaning has been highly questioned and remains questionable and, in fact, was refuted in 1999.

But, why don't you open your mind to any of this?

In fact, if Xq28 is a genetic marker in "gay" men that can ever be confirmed to CAUSE homosexuality, it will prove that about 5 percent of men are gay (no marker was found in women) and the rest are just acting gay by choice which will go a long way toward proving that a very small portion of gay men are born that way while the rest just act that way. And, I take it from your genetically fat comments that you would be swayed by that finding. Right?

But, even Xq28 wasn't properly tested by the activist Hamer. He didn't compare what he found in gay men to straight men. So, even the inference of a cause was misplaced. But, Hamer said that himself about 10 times in his 1993 study.

But, let's end this now.

Perhaps the best manner to answer the "facts" you think studies display is to read this.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/assault/genetics/nyreview.html

This is written by a man who clearly admires Levay and Hamer for the work they've tried to do. Perhaps you should attempt to educate yourself on a topic as complex as this before calling me out again, eh Kurp?

[Predicto]

I believe that gay people are created that way. I believe this because I know many many gay people and have discussed this with them. Their stories are remarkably similar. Contrary to popular fiction, they were not seduced into gayness by some older person. In fact, they did not "want" to be gay, and they fought accepting it for a long time. But it was just part of who they were.

I believe that I have developed a proof for my view. It is called the "no way" proof. It goes like this:

Q - If you had the opportunity to be gay, would you?

A - No way! I love women, the idea of sex with a guy grosses me out, and I do not want to be a pariah in our society.

Q - Then why do you think that anyone else would choose to do so unless they were predisposed to by their nature? Why would they do something that physically disgusts them, that makes them an outcast, that very well could get them beaten up by a bunch of hostile frat boys?

A - Because that is the way they were made. Period.

[Ancalagon the Black]

OK, OK. This whole "nature vs. nurture" (or "nature vs. choice," or whatever) debate is ridiculous, overdone, and probably doomed to fruitlessness in the first place. We know from the principle of norm of reaction (hey, sounds like a character in Cheers!) that neither genetics nor environment is responsible for sole determination of a person's behavior. I could have a gene that predisposes me to be tall, but with a poor diet i'll never realize that potential.

Choice or not, someone's being gay just should not be a target of hatred, ridicule, or prejudice. It's just ludicrous. What a dumb frickin' thing to be hung up on.

I'm hoping that in the next few decades, the question of sexual orientation will be a non-issue.

[RiggoDrill]

Originally posted by Predicto

Q - Then why do you think that anyone else would choose to do so unless they were predisposed to by their nature? Why would they do something that physically disgusts them, that makes them an outcast, that very well could get them beaten up by a bunch of hostile frat boys?

So what's your point, that going against potential ostracization is proof of nature?

The same could be said of any sexually deviant behavior. If some straight guy likes to wear a diaper and be tied up by his wife, he sure wouldn't want to share that with his frat friends.

I would agree that homosexuality is deeply ingrained in a person's pysche, but that doesn't mean there's a genetic cause.

[Darth Tater]

There is mounting evidence that sex with children is due to genetics. Well, pedophiles got no choice, so I guess we shouldn't ostracize them? :doh:

[Art]

Ding OPM.

Man. Some of you guys get it .

You can't pick which sexual perversion you are born with at the exclusion of others. All I know is if you are right Kurp, I feel real sorry for those poor, misunderstood Catholic priests.

[Predicto]

That is a specious argument.

Pedophilia harms innocent children who are unable to protect themselves.

Homosexuality between consenting adults harms no one.

[RiggoDrill]

Originally posted by Predicto

That is a specious argument.

Pedophilia harms innocent children who are unable to protect themselves.

Homosexuality between consenting adults harms no one.

No one would argue to the contrary.

Nor does anyone here seem to care all that much about people being gay.

What's being debated is the assertion that homosexuality is PROVEN to be genetic. It's not. To say it's proven is arrogant.

[Art]

Predicto.

So what?

If you are born that way, shouldn't we help those people instead of jailing them? I mean, here's a theory you should think about living by.

Q - If you had the opportunity to screw a four-year old girl, would you?

A - No way! I love women, the idea of sex with a child grosses me out, and I do not want to be a pariah in our society.

Q - Then why do you think that anyone else would choose to do so unless they were predisposed to by their nature? Why would they do something that physically disgusts them, that makes them an outcast, that very well could get them beaten up by a bunch of hostile prisoners since they will be going to jail?

A - Because that is the way they were made. Period.

In fact, this fits better with pedophiles than it does with gays doesn't it? Afterall, they have television shows uplifting the gay lifestyle, but a pedophile is hated, rightfully. Obviously no one would make the decision to be a pedophile. They can't help themselves from hurting children. It's a trait they are obviously born with. Let's reach out to them and understand them. Please.