h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Tories use blue rinse on their nether regions?
You learn something everyday!

Quite makes it worth getting up in the morning, doesn't it, Ictoan?



az

I was going to say I'll never be able to take Michael Howard seriously again.
But then i never did, so no change there!

I've just horrible picture of Boris Johnson form in my head.

At the risk of agreeing with Della.

When I was a teenager who was coming out it was really important to me to be able to say to people, 'this is who I am and it's biological'

It helped my parents come to terms with things and stopped them wishing that I'd just meet the right person of the opposite sex.

If you are homophobic you could use both arguments either way..

'it's a choice, therefore it's ok to discriminate against them'

or 'it's not a choice it's genetic lets try and find a cure'

If you accept that it's a normal part of the human experience then it doesn't matter whether or not it's innate or unchangable.

<>

Well, quite Z.

I'm often asked why I get so up in arms about 'homosexual rights' since I'm not homosexual. But that is actually the point. I don't see these as separate from basic human rights issues. That a person's sexual inclination makes any difference at all, in any way whatsoever. Because, frankly, who cares?

Well, except for those who make it their business to 'care' in the sense of seeing anything they don't agree with as being some sort of 'aberration'. And wanting to stamp it out.

And - can't help it - this really p*sses me off! In fact, it quite infuriates me.

Just as I would be equally infuriated if it was said that any person was somehow not socially acceptable based on narrow-minded and ignorant bigotted viewpoints. It really drives me crazy with anger somehow. So sue me.


az

>Hmmm, so is this a thinly disguised attempt to label homosexuality as something... 'avoidable'?<
Sorry for shortening you quote az, there was just a particular point I wanted to make. All the study will show is that at the most some kids could be born gay because of slimming pills - not all of us are born because their parents had ego issues. My mum never touched the things and I'm still here, and I'm sure the same is true of most gay people.
However it may be because "[I'm] not like your normal, girly gay bloke" as I was informed last night

Oh and Agapanthus I could kiss you, but I suppose you'll have to make do with this:

You see, it pays to actually research your links before you post them. In fact, The Washigton Times is an ultra-conservative rag put out by the owner of the Moonies.... You know, the ones that marry 10,000 couples who haven't met each other until the ceremony in mass weddings. They have never been known either for objectivity or for veracity.

The other link was to a group well-known to anyone who does any reading on either Christian fundamentalist groups, anti-homosexual groups, or anti-abortion groups. They have no standing in the medical or psychology field whatsoever.

How do I know this?

Because I read. I research very carefully before I post. God gave us brains so we can reason.... I use mine to its fullest.

<>

Look, I am massively confused here... Homosexuals appear to have done a 180 here. As recently as last year, they were all insisting that homesexuality has a physical cause, isn't a choice, - "I'm gay just like I have brown eyes so get over it, you (*&^ homophobe" sort of thing. Now, they *don't* want it to have a physical cause? What gives?

<>

I don't think there's anything to discover - that there's anything genetic about mental/spiritual events, but I wouldn't mind such studies being done - why would I?

It's fairly sweeping to describe someone as a "bigot" because they don't share your (rather emotive) views...

How if I described you as a "bigot" for your anti-Christian views? (I am not doing so, so please don't accuse me of calling you that - I am just asking why it's okay for you to interpret my question as bigotry...)

To restate the question - why is it that now homoexuals feel threatened by anyone investigating whether or not their "orientation" has a physical cause, when previously, they all insisted it *does* have a physical cause?

The "gay community" which as a bisexual I guess I'm slotted into... Does not have one unified opinion. The same as any community there are a wide range of hopes, fears and beliefs. There is no 180, just variation.

>>Look, I am massively confused here... Homosexuals appear to have done a 180 here. As recently as last year, they were all insisting that homesexuality has a physical cause, isn't a choice, - "I'm gay just like I have brown eyes so get over it, you (*&^ homophobe" sort of thing. Now, they *don't* want it to have a physical cause? What gives? <<

Gays may be homosexual but they are certainly not culturally homogenous. How could they be? The idea that all gays think the same is about as ridiculous as the idea that all hets think the same.

If you are confused I suggest that you take some time to look for and *listen* to the views of people that are actually gay, rather than relying on the first hits off google, or the mainstream media.

Well said!

Because "they" don't want homosexuality to be seen not as a natural occurance but as a defect in nature that needs to be "cured". The natural world is filled with "anomolies" and "anomolies" are not "abnormal", nor are they diseases in need of a cure.

"Inevitably, the idea of biological determinism carries with it the threat of manipulating the genes or the brain in order to adapt to the prevailing norm"
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/assault/genetics/nyreview.html

"In the 1990s, many gay rights activists hoped that the discovery of a biological basis for homosexuality would give them the key to winning legal rights for gays. If sexual orientation was immutable, the theory went, then it would warrant greater judicial scrutiny, similar to that shown other inherent characteristics like race or national origin.

Today, however, the same people do not want to hinge the battle for equal rights on genetic research. According to Janet Halley, a professor at Harvard Law School, this is the right decision. "The legal landscape has been profoundly reconfigured by the appellate courts' analysis of military anti-gay policy, and especially by the Lawrence decision this summer," Halley said in a recent HPR interview. "None of those cases make immutability an important winning point for gay rights. None of the cases make mutability a losing point for gay rights."

Indeed, Clinton Anderson, the lesbian, gay and bisexual concerns officer at the American Psychological Association, told the HPR that "we consider [the nature versus nurture debate] to be a scientific issue, and not really central as a policy issue." Moreover, some researchers say they would be uncomfortable having their studies used outside academia for normative purposes. "Why people become straight or gay is something that should interest any intellectually curious person," said Michael Bailey, professor of psychology at Northwestern University, in a recent HPR interview, "but I don't need to do a genetic study to know that there's nothing wrong with homosexuality."" http://www.hpronline.org/news/2003/12/07/Cover/Nature.Or.Nurture-573842.shtml

It might also be pointed out that in the prenatal period ALL human fetuses are female. During the eighth week of gestation, the presence of a Y chromosome and certain other genes, determines if testicular (male) development will occur. If this is the case the inherently female fetus will transform into a male one with the production of testosterone. At this point another hormone (antimüllerian) is produced and this stops the development of female genitalia in the fetus. In the absence of testosterone, the fetus continues its progression in the female state.

>> "Homosexuals appear to have done a 180 here. As recently as last year, they were all insisting that homesexuality has a physical cause"

Della,
I can understand that if you listen to a handful of vocal activists, filtered through a media that is prone to amplify the most noticable voices, you could get the impression that 'they' have done a 180.

However, assuming that the few activists speak for the entire population is similar to someone looking at a few noisy and/or ignorant fundamentalists from religion X, and assuming that everyone from that religion is of the same mind, when in fact many of them might be saying to themselves "who do those daft buggers think they are speaking for?".

In any case, since you know (by whatever magical means) that it's just a choice 'they' all make, why should you care what 'they' say? If only the media just asked *you*, they wouldn't need to bother talking to the activists at all.

Hi, Potholer... Yes, my impressions are based on the activists the media go to, because since we moved cities, I have lost touch with the homosexuals I used to know personally. Because of recent events in NZ, I have heard a great deal lately, from homosexual activists, and those who speak for them on television, radio, and in print. So far so good.

But then you say <>

Why the attack? Sure, I think it's a choice, so what? I just wanted to know why they switched from "it's physical, genetic, not a choice" to feeling threatened by studies which endeavour to find the mechanism for it?

Going back to the conspiracy theory, I reckon 'The Dr. is In' is onto something: it's just silly season in the media. I haven't clicked on the links yet, but I get the impression that some journalist came across the slimming pills thing and figured that most people are interested in gay issues, even if only vicariously; then they angled it to look impressive and more scientific than it is, to make the article meaningful. It happens a lot with science and the media, and can lead to easier funding applications for science departments.



Now, I've really got to say something here. Every forum thread I look at these days seems to turn into a "let's all attack Adelaide" thread. It's getting boring to the point of embarrassment. People such as Agapanthus are free to make sweeping comments like, "no gay person wants a simple and obvious 'cause' to be found," and even receive applause for it. (Agapanthus, this isn't an attack on you--I thought you made some really good points in that post.) But when Adelaide does the same thing, suddenly lots of people start making insulting and personal comments about how unforgivably stupid she is. The thing that particularly shocks me about this is that those who do it seem perfectly rational the rest of the time, and then when Adelaide appears on the thread this goes out of the window and it feels like we're all in the school playground. Sheesh. Have some respect.

I have noticed this lately, every 'serious' discussion degenerates into an everyone against Adelaide thread,(although a lot of it is justified) it is getting boring, I just wish everyone would stop baiting her.........

*waits for comp screen to blow up*

<./>aside
one of the first times I got involved in a serious debate, last week, I not only get shot down in flames , my fault, my computer screen blows up in the middle of a post
</.>aside

So, why not read the links, Snailrind?

Re: the 'Della bashing' you seem so up in arms about - well, she *will* post her opinions. And it seems many people don't agree with her on certain issues. Including myself.

Meanwhile, if you take a quote of Apaganthus out of context, it might sound like a sweeping generalization. Though her entire posting was a very solid and compassionate argument, imho.

Don't worry about Della. She's a big girl and can take care of herself. I never insult her or partake in 'Della bashing' though I *do* question lots of her postings. She knows the difference. At least I hope she does.

It's nice that you care so much about another researcher that you will try to back them up. But are you actually backing up her ideas or just the fact that so many people tend to jump on her? Have you actually wondered *why* this happens?

Trust me, Della gives as good as she gets, which is why I say there is no need to worry about her. She seems to be made of sterner stuff than you might think.


az