NationStates Jolt Archive

Interesting article in The Washington Post on Sunday; both in the confirmation that it gives about homosexuality and the questions that it raises.

Brokeback Mutton

By William Saletan
Sunday, February 4, 2007; B02

Just over the Montana border, closeted in their own private Idaho, the gay sheep were getting it on.

Well, it's not exactly private. They were doing it in front of scientists at the U.S. Sheep Experiment Station. The scientists arranged the trysts. It's called "sexual partner preference testing."

According to an article by researchers involved in the project, here's how it works. In a 15-by-10-foot "arena," a young ram is offered four choices: two ewes in heat, and two rams. "The four stimulus animals are restrained in stanchions so that they can only be approached from the sides and rear." For 30 minutes, the unrestrained ram does as he pleases -- and the scientists keep score.

A bare majority of rams turns out to be heterosexual. About one in five swings both ways. About 15 percent are asexual, and seven to 10 percent are gay.

Why so many gay rams? Is it too much socializing with ewes? Same-sex play with other lambs? Domestication? Nope. Those theories have been debunked. Gay rams don't act girly. They're just as gay in the wild. And a crucial part of their brains -- the "sexually dimorphic nucleus" -- looks more like a ewe's than that of a straight ram. Gay men's brains similarly resemble those of women. Charles Roselli, the project's lead scientist, says that such research "strongly suggests that sexual preference is biologically determined in animals, and possibly in humans."

Roselli's interest is in the science. He figured the political upshot, if any, would be gay-friendly. After all, surveys show that if you think homosexuality is biologically determined, you're less likely to be anti-gay.

Roselli didn't just prove that homosexuality in rams is natural. He tried to engineer it. In a 1999 grant application, he proposed to determine whether male-oriented "preference behavior can be artificially produced in genetic male sheep" by depriving male lamb fetuses of estrogen stimulation. Seven months ago, he reported that the experiment failed. The point wasn't to promote homosexuality. The point was to learn what causes it.

You'd expect conservatives to demand that the National Institutes of Health stop funding this research. But if you figure out how to make sheep gay, maybe you could figure out how to make them straight. And maybe you could do the same to people.

Roselli studies hormones, brains and behavior at Oregon Health and Science University, a medical institution. But Fred Stormshak, his collaborator, is an animal scientist affiliated with Oregon State University, which focuses more on agriculture and economics. Gay rams are "a costly problem for sheep producers because breeding rams are worth $300 to $500 each," Stormshak said in OSU's agricultural newsletter a decade ago. "Outwardly, there is no way to tell whether a ram is male-oriented, so the producer runs the costly risk of buying an animal that will never produce any offspring."

Identifying gay rams wasn't enough. In 2000, Stormshak described an attempt to "alter" them. The idea was to "enhance their sexual behavior or performance" by making them act like straight rams. Three years later, Roselli told an OHSU committee that "information gained about the hormonal, neural, genetic, and environmental determinants of sexual partner preferences should allow better selection of rams for breeding and as a consequence may be economically important to the sheep industry." OSU President Ed Ray says the research "may define biological tests that can be used to identify" gay or asexual rams, "thus eliminating their use for general breeding purposes."

Notice the lack of animus. Breeders don't care whether rams are gay or simply unmotivated. All that matters is "performance." And when Ray talks about "eliminating" such rams from breeding, he leaves open the possibility of their grazing happily into old age. But you can smell the slaughterhouse.

Which brings us to the animals whose breeding we really care about: our children.

Passing on genes is life's deepest drive. You don't just want kids. You want grandkids. An Israeli woman, with court approval, is using her dead son's sperm to inseminate a stranger. I know a man whose future mother-in-law put him through a fertility test before approving the marriage. Then there are parents who pressure their adult children to marry and procreate. In a survey, 73 percent of Americans said they would be upset to learn that their child was gay. To many parents, "I'm gay, Mom" means "No grandkids."

Roselli offers evidence that human homosexuality is linked to biological conditions, some of them genetic. If he figures out how to manipulate sexual orientation in sheep, will others try to manipulate it in humans? Doctors used to "treat" homosexuality with hormone injections. Some still do. This idea failed miserably in adults, but it might work in fetuses. And if we can't engineer sexual orientation, maybe we can select it. In Asia, millions have used modern tests to identify female fetuses so they could be aborted. If we learn how to recognize gay brains in development, look out.

The more likely path is gentler. Science will gradually convince us that sexual orientation is innate, more like skin color than character. Condemnation of homosexuality as a sin will subside, and we'll turn to two biological differences between race and sexual orientation: Homosexuality defies the aspiration to procreate with your mate, and it's easier to isolate and alter in embryonic development. We may come to view homosexuality as we do infertility -- as a disability. The rhetoric of "acceptance" will shift from liberals to conservatives. We'll inoculate our children against homosexuality out of love, not hate.

The sheep researchers didn't intend anything like this. But they didn't foresee the uproar over their work, either. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals has tried to quash their research, depicting them as bigots. PETA, like President Bush, thinks that bad ideas come from bad people, and you must stamp out the whole lot.

But bad ideas, such as communism and eugenics, are usually well-intended ideas that turn bad along the way. What we do with the biological truth about homosexuality isn't written in our genes. It's up to us.

human@slate.com
Article here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/02/AR2007020201462.html?sub=AR) *Reg required*

So on one hand we have yet more evidence that homosexuality occurs in nature (unless someone would like to address the gay sheep rate), but it does bring up a rather difficult question, if you COULD " inoculate [your] children against homosexuality" while in the womb (assuming no risk and a test that would be pretty damn sure that he or she would develop into a homosexual), would you? Again, this would be done while the child is in the womb and probably not aware.

Thoughts and gay sheep jokes here:

This surprises me not at all. Homosexual behaviour has been observed in pretty much every mammal species, and quite a few birds and reptiles. Rather gives the lie to that whole "unnatural" argument, doesn't it?

As to sexual preference selection: No probably not. It just isn't important to me. I'd have them engineered to be healthy, strong, smart and confident in a heartbeat; but sex preference? I really don't care so much.

Pfft, the English have known this for ages. But then are right next door to Wales... high density of sheep, low density of people. Humans males, get a honry, and frustrated and get into the bestiality scene. They traumatise thousands of sheep, who then do all sorts of things for kicks - like submit to the authority of humans. This (http://www.blacksheep-themovie.com/) is what happens when you don't sodomise sheep.

I don't get the whole 'sheep do it so it must be natural'. Suddenly humans aren't a part of nature? But then I guess that goes with the whole protestant work ethic - 'we cannot give into animal instincts, we must be chaste and shit. For we the creations of God. Who must have a higher purpose for please'. So yeah, lots of bullcrap about higher purposes and being the first among God's creatures. Whole lot of denial there. It's like the 5 stages of grief. The christians are still stuck in denial, the Islamists have moved on to anger, whereas the atheists are somewhere between depression and acceptance.

I think my rant's over. But yeah, gay sheep. I'm all for that. So long as they aren't camp. I can't be dealing with sheep that have limp hooves and have a high pitched 'baa'.

Nope. I want my kids to turn out the way they will, skinny or fat, gay or straight, short or tall, bright or dim... I think if I know I won't be able to accept my kids no matter what, what on earth is the point of having them in the first place?
Get yourself a goldfish if you can't deal with humans.

America has the "U.S. Sheep Experiment Station."? :O

Anyway, no I wouldn't.

Gay sheep? That's worth a storefront...

Personally, if it was my choice - or it will be - I would feel fine with configuring and fine-tuning genes for my children. I live too early to get this option.
However, with all what's going on with health and genetically transmitted diseases, I'm afraid it won't be an option when it will become available. Or, at least, will be a no-brainer.

Get yourself a goldfish if you can't deal with humans.
Naw, goldfish are FAR more trouble. ;)

but it does bring up a rather difficult question, if you COULD " inoculate [your] children against homosexuality" while in the womb (assuming no risk and a test that would be pretty damn sure that he or she would develop into a homosexual), would you? Again, this would be done while the child is in the womb and probably not aware.

Nothing difficult about that question: No, hell no, and absolutely not.

I fail to understand how homosexuality can logically be construed as a disability.

Nope. I want my kids to turn out the way they will, skinny or fat, gay or straight, short or tall, bright or dim... I think if I know I won't be able to accept my kids no matter what, what on earth is the point of having them in the first place?
Get yourself a goldfish if you can't deal with humans.

what about genetic diseases?

what about genetic diseases?

Ok, if it was an option I'd make sure they don't have any serious health problems.
But I wouldn't go so far as to treat short-sightedness, or an allergy to strawberries.

Nope. I want my kids to turn out the way they will, skinny or fat, gay or straight, short or tall, bright or dim... I think if I know I won't be able to accept my kids no matter what, what on earth is the point of having them in the first place?
Get yourself a goldfish if you can't deal with humans.

a pet rock cheaper and you can't kill it

The world's like trite Sci-Fi sometimes. The Chinese will eliminate females, the Americans will eliminate the non-heteros, and the EU will disintegrate into a bunch of squabbling neo-Nazi states under the flood of environmental refugees.

Yay for the fucking world.

Ok, I'm not that pessimistic, but still. This species' cracked.

But I wouldn't go so far as to treat ... an allergy to strawberries.You evil evil woman, how dare you passively deny pleasures such as strawberries to your children. Won't someone please think of the children and strawberries and cream?!

After all, surveys show that if you think homosexuality is biologically determined, you're less likely to be anti-gay.I think they got this mixed up. According to my observations, you're less likely to think homosexuality is biologically determined if you're anti-gay already.

I find it a bit odd that if, when given the chance, a ram doesn't have sex within 30 minutes it's considered asexual. Maybe they just have a headache or something, or standards.

You evil evil woman, how dare you passively deny pleasures such as strawberries to your children. Won't someone please think of the children and strawberries and cream?!

Somebody is thinking of the children and strawberries and cream, and not in a good way.


*flees the ruins of the thread*

I find it a bit odd that if, when given the chance, a ram doesn't have sex within 30 minutes it's considered asexual. Maybe they just have a headache or something, or standards.
Or they're just not into the whole domination thing. I mean, the sheep were restrained. Maybe they wanted to be the gimp?

They don't feel particulary turned when they're being watched by a panel of scientists

Somebody is thinking of the children and strawberries and cream, and not in a good way.


*flees the ruins of the thread*Oh hoho, that's dodgy coming from you. I seem to remember in a another thread that you said... :p;)

Oh hoho, that's dodgy coming from you. I seem to remember in a another thread that you said... :p;)

Oh no, it's like Pedro all over again.

Somebody is thinking of the children and strawberries and cream, and not in a good way.


*flees the ruins of the thread*
Wow, destroying the thread in less than 2 pages. This has to be a record, hasn't it?

Wow, destroying the thread in less than 2 pages. This has to be a record, hasn't it?

Some threads are destroyed as soon as the OP clicks Sumbit New Thread.

If it will become possible to inoculate feotuses against homosexuality, then presumably it will also be possible to inoculate them against (ugh!) heterosexuality.

Gay parents everywhere will be able to ensure their offspring do not turn out to be "breeders" (although that appelation will have lost its currency).;)

I fail to understand how homosexuality can logically be construed as a disability.

Indeed. So no, I wouldn't "inocculate" my children.

By the way, the fact that many animals are at least bisexual is not new. It's been observed in chimps. And I used to have two female dogs. The fact that they were both female didn't put them off. (Then again, one of them thinks she's male. She even used to try and cock her leg, when she was still young and agile enough to do so.)

Indeed. So no, I wouldn't "inocculate" my children.

By the way, the fact that many animals are at least bisexual is not new. It's been observed in chimps. And I used to have two female dogs. The fact that they were both female didn't put them off. (Then again, one of them thinks she's male. She even used to try and cock her leg, when she was still young and agile enough to do so.)

Seems you've got a transgendered dog. I wonder if you can get sex changes for animals......

Seems you've got a transgendered dog. I wonder if you can get sex changes for animals......

I can't help wondering if Christian teachings would object to this... ;)

I can't help wondering if Christian teachings would object to this... ;)

I dare say they'll have trouble finding a bible passage that has anything to do with it.

I can't help wondering if Christian teachings would object to this... ;)

Interesting question. :D

Oh no, it's like Pedro all over again.

:eek:

I dare say they'll have trouble finding a bible passage that has anything to do with it.

Sounds like a wager. ;)

Sounds like a wager. ;)

You just try and find a bible passage that has something to do with animal sex changes.

You just try and find a bible passage that has something to do with animal sex changes.

I'm sure there's a passage somewhere in the back.....

:rolleyes:

Whole lot of denial there. It's like the 5 stages of grief. The christians are still stuck in denial, the Islamists have moved on to anger, whereas the atheists are somewhere between depression and acceptance.

No, some of the Christians are stuck in fear

The world's like trite Sci-Fi sometimes. The Chinese will eliminate females, the Americans will eliminate the non-heteros, and the EU will disintegrate into a bunch of squabbling neo-Nazi states under the flood of environmental refugees.

Yay for the fucking world.

Ok, I'm not that pessimistic, but still. This species' cracked.

It happens to all species eventually... we just have the honour of being the first ones to realise it... and to realise that we're probably not going to be able to stop it.

I'm sure there's a passage somewhere in the back.....

:rolleyes:

Lost Book Of Commandments, 23:5
Thou shalt not fiddle with thine pets' gender.

Lost Book Of Commandments, 23:5
Thou shalt not fiddle with thine pets' gender.

Hrm, wasn't aware someone recovered that extra tablet Moses dropped.

Good to know.

Lost Book Of Commandments, 23:5
Thou shalt not fiddle with thine pets' gender.

Ha! Proved yourself wrong. How does it feel? :p

Hrm, wasn't aware someone recovered that extra tablet Moses dropped.

Good to know.

"Damn these tablets, they're so heavy...I'm sure God won't mind if I just drop one..now let's see,murder? No, that's pretty important. Adultery? Nope. Gender fiddling on thine kitties and doggies? Done! *walks down the mountain*"

That's exactly what happened. *nod*

Ha! Proved yourself wrong. How does it feel? :p

Soft and fluffly.

howsabout we get back on topic? I like this thread

howsabout we get back on topic? I like this thread

A thread on topic on NS? Bah. You should know better.

This (http://www.blacksheep-themovie.com/) is what happens when you don't sodomise sheep.


I just watched the trailer that looks pretty funny. Kind of a Night of the Lepus (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0069005/) with sheep.

Who gives two fu--s or a sh-- about gay sheep packing each others crap. I don't see why we are wasting our tax money on studying gay sheep, it should be spent on studying gay people, to find our what in hell's name is wrong with them!

Oh, we know that already. Nothing at all, actually.

Who gives two fu--s or a sh-- about gay sheep packing each others crap. I don't see why we are wasting our tax money on studying gay sheep, it should be spent on studying gay people, to find our what in hell's name is wrong with them!

Isn't it amusing when we have a n00b like this who's not only ignorant and bigoted, but who "comments" on an article without even reading it?

You just try and find a bible passage that has something to do with animal sex changes.

Maybe you aren't looking hard enough. ;)

And people wonder why I hate paying taxes... It's because this is where the money goes. My god... We have a dissolving Social Security fund, an underfunded miltary, a massive Federal defecit and national debt and money is being allocated to study the sexual preferences of sheep...

So on one hand we have yet more evidence that homosexuality occurs in nature (unless someone would like to address the gay sheep rate), but it does bring up a rather difficult question, if you COULD " inoculate [your] children against homosexuality" while in the womb (assuming no risk and a test that would be pretty damn sure that he or she would develop into a homosexual), would you? Again, this would be done while the child is in the womb and probably not aware.

When I do have kids, I don't even want to know their biological sex before they are born. Why on earth would I be testing them for sexual preference? And why on earth would I care if they were gay/straight/bi? Sure, I want to be an old lady with grandchildren, but the sexual preference of my children won't have much to do with that possibility - only their wishes regarding children will. If they want kids, they'll have them or adopt them, and I'll have grandkids. If they don't, it doesn't really matter if they're gay or straight, then, does it?

Seems you've got a transgendered dog. I wonder if you can get sex changes for animals......

There are transgendered bighorn sheep - male sheep who act in every way as female, even traveling with the female herd and refusing to let other males mount them except during breeding season.

But I don't think they get sex changes.

Who gives two fu--s or a sh-- about gay sheep packing each others crap. I don't see why we are wasting our tax money on studying gay sheep, it should be spent on studying gay people, to find our what in hell's name is wrong with them!

My dear, do you really think we should start messing around with human fetuses to try and figure out what determines sexual orientation? Or, if we really want to know, should we do it in animals like most biological research?

And as for what is wrong with gay people, the answer is simple and clear: nothing.

Don't fuck with sheep (http://www.ifilm.com/video/2810911).

My dear, do you really think we should start messing around with human fetuses to try and figure out what determines sexual orientation? Or, if we really want to know, should we do it in animals like most biological research?

And as for what is wrong with gay people, the answer is simple and clear: nothing.

It might be more worthwhile to study the intolerant instead of the gay. Perhaps we will learn something interesting about what makes them tick. What makes them turn into fearful bigots? Careful experimentation will find out I'm sure. Hookienookiejawa can be our first subject.

It might be more worthwhile to study the intolerant instead of the gay. Perhaps we will learn something interesting about what makes them tick. What makes them turn into fearful bigots? Careful experimentation will find out I'm sure. Hookienookiejawa can be our first subject.

Just out of curiosity, (honest) would you consider all people who believe homosexuality to be a malfunction fearful bigots, or just Hookienookiejawa?

Just out of curiosity, (honest) would you consider all people who believe homosexuality to be a malfunction fearful bigots, or just Hookienookiejawa?

I can't see a situation where a person can view homosexuality as a "malfunction", or however they choose to term it and not have some kind of fear, or hatred. I suppose some might see it as a disease and pity gays which is hardly any better. So on top of Hookienookiejawa yes, anyone who things someone practicing homosexuality has something "wrong" with them is a bigot at the very least.

Just out of curiosity, (honest) would you consider all people who believe homosexuality to be a malfunction fearful bigots, or just Hookienookiejawa?

What would you think about someone who thought anyone who liked chocolate ice cream had a malfunction? Or anyone who was primarily attracted to tall women? Or anyone who simply didn't have a thing for redheads?

When I do have kids, I don't even want to know their biological sex before they are born.
I read a sci-fi story once about a species where they actually don't have gender at all until they reach sexual maturity. For their entire childhood they are "gender neutral," and only when puberty hits do they start becoming male or female.

I always thought that would be fantastic. I've never understood why so many people are in such a hurry to impose various gendered expectations on their kids. If it really is normal and natural for girls and boys to turn out different, then why should you have to put so much effort into making it happen? Shouldn't they just turn out that way all by themselves, without you forcing them to wear pink or play football or whatever?

I can't see a situation where a person can view homosexuality as a "malfunction", or however they choose to term it and not have some kind of fear, or hatred. I suppose some might see it as a disease and pity gays which is hardly any better. So on top of Hookienookiejawa yes, anyone who things someone practicing homosexuality has something "wrong" with them is a bigot at the very least.

I asked because I wanted to be clear on my interpretation of what you said. I've observed a lot of debates on here and I think sometimes people tend to misunderstand each other's posts and so I asked in order to be sure. Thanks.

What would you think about someone who thought anyone who liked chocolate ice cream had a malfunction? Or anyone who was primarily attracted to tall women? Or anyone who simply didn't have a thing for redheads?

Back off. I was just asking for Utracia's opinion. That alright with you?

I read a sci-fi story once about a species where they actually don't have gender at all until they reach sexual maturity. For their entire childhood they are "gender neutral," and only when puberty hits do they start becoming male or female.

I always thought that would be fantastic. I've never understood why so many people are in such a hurry to impose various gendered expectations on their kids. If it really is normal and natural for girls and boys to turn out different, then why should you have to put so much effort into making it happen? Shouldn't they just turn out that way all by themselves, without you forcing them to wear pink or play football or whatever?

I think parents should stop buying their little girls dresses. It emphasizes the classic "female" status too much that they should just sit and look pretty. Don't girls want to run around outside and get dirty like the boys? Besides, dresses must be really annoying to do any kind of physical activity in, they have to be incredibly impractical.

Who gives two fu--s or a sh-- about gay sheep packing each others crap. I don't see why we are wasting our tax money on studying gay sheep, it should be spent on studying gay people, to find our what in hell's name is wrong with them!

This is a board for mature people. Perhaps you don't belong here.

I think parents should stop buying their little girls dresses. It emphasizes the classic "female" status too much that they should just sit and look pretty. Don't girls want to run around outside and get dirty like the boys? Besides, dresses must be really annoying to do any kind of physical activity in, they have to be incredibly impractical.

Nothing wrong with letting a little girl wear a dress if she wants to. What they need to stop is putting them in mini skirts, its just creepy.

I can't see a situation where a person can view homosexuality as a "malfunction", or however they choose to term it and not have some kind of fear, or hatred. I suppose some might see it as a disease and pity gays which is hardly any better. So on top of Hookienookiejawa yes, anyone who things someone practicing homosexuality has something "wrong" with them is a bigot at the very least.

That seems to be pretty much how a lot of people feel. I find it troubling, though, that someone would be dismissed out of hand for having a dissenting opinion. The whole point of an open forum is for people to discuss their opinions and ideas, and I think it would all get boring if everybody just agreed. I don't think Hookienookiejawa's opinion makes him/her automatically afraid of anything or even necessarily bigoted, depending upon why he/she has that opinion. Instead of shouting him/her down or dismissing the opinion as immature, fearful or bigoted, I'd be interested in knowing what brings that opinion about. Is it religion? Is it scientific? Is it a reflection of some inner insecurity? Who knows?

Sometimes the dissenter is completely wrong. Sometimes completely right. Most of the time, they are somewhere in between. That's what discussion is about.

As soon as people get into the habit of saying "You're afraid/bigoted/immature/crazy/evil because you disagree with me" I get nervous. People ought to be able to express themselves without this kind of reaction...

...assuming people aren't afraid of what they're saying.

Nothing wrong with letting a little girl wear a dress if she wants to. What they need to stop is putting them in mini skirts, its just creepy.

Yes, but often it is not what she WANTS to wear but simply what her parents tell her she should wear. Because she is a girl and it is what girls are supposed to wear. Simply puts the child into a stereotype and prevents them from expressing their true selves. And all kids want to run around, I haven't met a kid who didn't. And a dress makes that more difficult. And I most certainly agree on the mini-skirt but also on the skin tight jeans and belly shirts saying "Boy Toy" on the front. Parents have no business making their kid a pretend adult.

That seems to be pretty much how a lot of people feel. I find it troubling, though, that someone would be dismissed out of hand for having a dissenting opinion. The whole point of an open forum is for people to discuss their opinions and ideas, and I think it would all get boring if everybody just agreed. I don't think Hookienookiejawa's opinion makes him/her automatically afraid of anything or even necessarily bigoted, depending upon why he/she has that opinion. Instead of shouting him/her down or dismissing the opinion as immature, fearful or bigoted, I'd be interested in knowing what brings that opinion about. Is it religion? Is it scientific? Is it a reflection of some inner insecurity? Who knows?

Sometimes the dissenter is completely wrong. Sometimes completely right. Most of the time, they are somewhere in between. That's what discussion is about.

As soon as people get into the habit of saying "You're afraid/bigoted/immature/crazy/evil because you disagree with me" I get nervous. People ought to be able to express themselves without this kind of reaction...

...assuming people aren't afraid of what they're saying.

People can claim that homosexuality is wrong if they wish. But how can claiming that the practice is "evil" or simply "not natural" or "icky" be anything other then bigotry or at least simple ignorance? We would certainly say the same thing if someone protested an inter-racial couple. That their arguements were simply laid in a foundation of narrow-mindedness. Besides, they aren't going to be dismissed if they can make a response to the bigotry charge. I would welcome for them to formulate a reason to be against homosexuality that doesn't involve homophobia.

I think parents should stop buying their little girls dresses. It emphasizes the classic "female" status too much that they should just sit and look pretty. Don't girls want to run around outside and get dirty like the boys? Besides, dresses must be really annoying to do any kind of physical activity in, they have to be incredibly impractical.
The thing about dresses is that they don't HAVE to be such a pain in the ass. As a kid, I kind of felt like wearing a dress was like wearing one of my dad's t-shirts. It could be very comfy. Dresses don't have to "feminine" or girly, any more than shirts and pants have to be masculine. We've managed to make pants and shirts "feminine" in many ways, so I don't see why we can't make dresses "masculine" if we want to.

What bugged me was that stupid adults would put me in a dress and then expect me to somehow NOT end up showing my underwear. You can't run around and play in a dress without it sometimes flapping up or whatever. You can't climb a tree in a dress without it being possible for somebody to look up it.

I don't see dresses as necessarily being a problem, since I have no problem with little kids running around stark nude if they feel like it. I have no problem with little kids being in their underwear or in swim suits. Whatev, they're little kids. Who cares if they've got undies?

What bothers me is that people put little girls in dresses...and then forbid them to act like kids because they're in a dress. No, you can't climb that tree, you're wearing a dress. No, you can't play baseball with the other kids, you'll ruin your pretty dress. No, you can't run around, your dress might fly up. And the kid is thinking, "Well then why did you put me in this stupid thing to begin with?!"

People can claim that homosexuality is wrong if they wish. But how can claiming that the practice is "evil" or simply "not natural" or "icky" be anything other then bigotry or at least simple ignorance? We would certainly say the same thing if someone protested an inter-racial couple. That their arguements were simply laid in a foundation of narrow-mindedness. Besides, they aren't going to be dismissed if they can make a response to the bigotry charge. I would welcome for them to formulate a reason to be against homosexuality that doesn't involve homophobia.

I think that may be an unreasonable expectation. I liked your inter-racial couple example, so I'll borrow it. Personally, I have no problem with inter-racial couples. I am, in fact, the product of one. (Dad is Hispanic and Mom is Caucasian)

On the other hand, if someone DOES have a problem with it, and wanted to debate, I think it could make for an interesting conversation. Might they just be bigoted? Maybe... but then, maybe they're not. They may have an argument that makes perfect sense to them without it being based upon racism. (I've heard arguments like those. I disagree with them, but at least they aren't racist as such.)

If you'd be willing to listen to someone's opinion about homosexuality without dismissing it as homophobic off the bat, then I respect you for that. The problem is that for far too many people it's a black and white proposition... you either are okay with homosexuality, in which case you're reasonable and rational, or you're not, in which case you're homophobic and bigoted.

I'm not saying that everybody who disagrees with the morality behind homosexuality are reasonable, or that they're not homophobic. I'm only asserting that they're not ALL that way, and sometimes there's no way to know without engaging them in an honest discussion.

Some scientists have way too much time.

What bothers me is that people put little girls in dresses...and then forbid them to act like kids because they're in a dress. No, you can't climb that tree, you're wearing a dress. No, you can't play baseball with the other kids, you'll ruin your pretty dress. No, you can't run around, your dress might fly up. And the kid is thinking, "Well then why did you put me in this stupid thing to begin with?!"

Absolutely! I always figured that in this case it is because the kid is a girl. Are girls supposed to climb trees or play sports with the boys? Nope, that's why they wear dresses and stay off to the side and look pretty and clean. Clearly they aren't supposed to participate in any physical activities. The very idea would be scandalous!

Though perhaps most parents are simply absent-minded and don't realize that kids want to be ACTIVE and dressing them in such a way that will make that difficult will simply make the parents pay. Having a cranky kid on your hands is something to avoid afterall. :)

That seems to be pretty much how a lot of people feel. I find it troubling, though, that someone would be dismissed out of hand for having a dissenting opinion. The whole point of an open forum is for people to discuss their opinions and ideas, and I think it would all get boring if everybody just agreed. I don't think Hookienookiejawa's opinion makes him/her automatically afraid of anything or even necessarily bigoted, depending upon why he/she has that opinion. Instead of shouting him/her down or dismissing the opinion as immature, fearful or bigoted, I'd be interested in knowing what brings that opinion about. Is it religion? Is it scientific? Is it a reflection of some inner insecurity? Who knows?

See, and I think it's possible to be both honest and also open to discussion.

Hookienookiejawa's stated opinions are bigoted. That is simply a fact. Calling them bigoted is accurate.

A person who holds such ideas is, by definition, a bigot. Calling them a bigot is accurate.

I don't see why we should shy away from accuracy in cases like this. If somebody wants to debate the merits of bigoted ideas, fine. If they want to present reasons why certain bigoted policies are good, fine. It's still bigotry.

If you want to talk with somebody about why they are a bigot, then I think you'll find plenty of people around here who share your interest. If you want to examine the roots of bigotry, you're in good company in General Forum. But if you expect people to maintain an "open forum" by not calling bigotry when they see it, then this is not the place for you.


Sometimes the dissenter is completely wrong. Sometimes completely right. Most of the time, they are somewhere in between. That's what discussion is about.

If somebody asserts that ideas like Hookienookiejawa's are not bigotry, they are wrong. It's really quite simple.

Now, if you want to argue in favor of particular kinds of bigotry, that's fine by me. We've had tons of debates like that around here, and calling bigotry what it is has never stopped a single one.

As soon as people get into the habit of saying "You're afraid/bigoted/immature/crazy/evil because you disagree with me" I get nervous. People ought to be able to express themselves without this kind of reaction...

It's stupid to say that somebody is a bigot simply because they disagree with you. However, I've not seen anybody do that here. People have called somebody a bigot, etc, because they acted like one.

If you express bigoted ideas, don't cry when people call you a bigot. If you act like an immature homophobic troll, don't cry when people call you immature or homophobic or a troll. You are those things. If you think it is an insult to be called them, then maybe you shouldn't BE them.


...assuming people aren't afraid of what they're saying.
Yeah, this is the classic old tactic used by a lot of bigots.

"Huh, lookit that, a bunch of people got mad when I said they were worthless and sinful and should be eliminated from the population! Well gorsh, it can't be because I just said something asinine, can it? Nope, it must be because I'm hitting a nerve and they all secretly suspect I'm right!"

If you'd be willing to listen to someone's opinion about homosexuality without dismissing it as homophobic off the bat, then I respect you for that. The problem is that for far too many people it's a black and white proposition... you either are okay with homosexuality, in which case you're reasonable and rational, or you're not, in which case you're homophobic and bigoted.

I think I see the distinction you are trying to make. I certainly agree that it's possible to be personally uncomfortable with issues like homosexuality, even if you aren't actively homophobic.

The problem is that you picked a lousy example when you chose Hookienookiejawa. That person is a very clear example of somebody who is expressing homophobic beliefs. There's no ambiguity, particularly when you add up the various posts they made today.


I'm not saying that everybody who disagrees with the morality behind homosexuality are reasonable, or that they're not homophobic. I'm only asserting that they're not ALL that way, and sometimes there's no way to know without engaging them in an honest discussion.
Honest discussion will include pointing out when something is homophobic. Honest discussion will include pointing out when somebody is voicing homophobic beliefs or advocating homophobic policies.

There are plenty of otherwise-nice people who hold homophobic beliefs. There are plenty of otherwise-nice people who are racist, or sexist, or anything else. The fact that they happen to have a "bigoted blindspot" doesn't erase the other ways in which they may be a nice person. But we also do them a disservice if we try to pretend that their niceness in other areas somehow wipes away the fact that they ARE being a bigot on a particular subject.

I think I see the distinction you are trying to make. I certainly agree that it's possible to be personally uncomfortable with issues like homosexuality, even if you aren't actively homophobic.

The problem is that you picked a lousy example when you chose Hookienookiejawa. That person is a very clear example of somebody who is expressing homophobic beliefs. There's no ambiguity, particularly when you add up the various posts they made today.


Yah I'd only looked at one of his/her posts (the last one) so you're probably right I did pick a bad example.


Honest discussion will include pointing out when something is homophobic. Honest discussion will include pointing out when somebody is voicing homophobic beliefs or advocating homophobic policies.

There are plenty of otherwise-nice people who hold homophobic beliefs. There are plenty of otherwise-nice people who are racist, or sexist, or anything else. The fact that they happen to have a "bigoted blindspot" doesn't erase the other ways in which they may be a nice person. But we also do them a disservice if we try to pretend that their niceness in other areas somehow wipes away the fact that they ARE being a bigot on a particular subject.

Agreed. I would just hold off on that judgement until it's discernably true, which I suspect is in agreement with what you're saying.

I'm not saying that everybody who disagrees with the morality behind homosexuality are reasonable, or that they're not homophobic. I'm only asserting that they're not ALL that way, and sometimes there's no way to know without engaging them in an honest discussion.

I would certainly like to have an honest discussion but I haven't yet encountered an arguement that didn't come down to the simple fact that the person who didn't care for homosexuality hated and/or feared gays. It is an unfortunate reality that their more rational arguements are simply wrapped up in it being "unnatural". Just the way it is.

I would certainly like to have an honest discussion but I haven't yet encountered an arguement that didn't come down to the simple fact that the person who didn't care for homosexuality hated and/or feared gays. It is an unfortunate reality that their more rational arguements are simply wrapped up in it being "unnatural". Just the way it is.

I dunno I think it's entirely possible for a person to feel that homosexuality is wrong/immoral without necessarily hating or fearing gay people.

Actually I had another thought related to a couple of my replies below... It's very much a problem when people kneejerk react to things like this because it can very quickly and easily build tension and resentment. Compare it to race relations in the United States. I've known some people who had nothing against those of other races who have since become jaded and resentful by things like quotas and compansation for slavery. It stems from the idea that it's the "other side" that's being confrontational and creating an "us vs. them" situation.

I've seen that happen with heterosexuals and homosexuals. People who have no problem with gay people suddenly being categorically lumped in with a group and labeled homophobic. (religious or political groups, for example.) In cases like that you could easily create hostile feelings in a person who didn't have them previously.

Finally, scientific proof that Bisexuals exist! And are apparently more numerous than full out gays. This makes sense, since in our society Bisexuals would have an easier time hiding their nature and pretending to be straight (or gay) in order to fit in.

Of course it would be Rams. What more appropriate name for a gay animal.

Back off. I was just asking for Utracia's opinion. That alright with you?

My dear, it's an open forum. If you want to have a private conversation, you should probably TG Utracia. Otherwise, you should expect multiple people to answer you.

And if you really do have a problem with me in particular, perhaps you should put me on ignore or something, because I quite often reply to something without really paying much attention to exactly who posted it.

And all kids want to run around, I haven't met a kid who didn't. And a dress makes that more difficult.

Only a tight dress would really make it more difficult to run around. Now, if you're worried about the dress flying up, that would be a problem, but I've seen very few young girls (whose parents still regularly pick out their clothes) who were very worried about someone seeing their underwear.

Heck, I'm picking out dresses for my flower girls that are fairly inexpensive, not only because they'll grow out of them in less than a year, but also because I fully expect them to be rolling around on the ground in them by the end of the night.

My dear, it's an open forum. If you want to have a private conversation, you should probably TG Utracia. Otherwise, you should expect multiple people to answer you.

And if you really do have a problem with me in particular, perhaps you should put me on ignore or something, because I quite often reply to something without really paying much attention to exactly who posted it.


You misunderstand my meaning. My original question to Utracia was to establish a common understanding so that I could see his/her point clearly. Your response to that was beside the point entirely.

The reason I reacted the way I did is because, no offense, it wouldn't be the first time you've responded to something I've said seemingly without having read it carefully.

I kinda like the idea of being able to tell if my kid is going to turn out gay. It whould make it so when he comes out about it alot less stressful/less shock/easyer to accept.

Now I got nothing agienst gays, and I whould never treat a gay less of a human then any one eals. But I do have to admit, if my kid came out of the cloeset. I whould be asking over and over agien if he sure he was, caues I whould be so scared of him being hurt. So I think some good can infact come from this, and it chould help move us forword pass this petiness.

You misunderstand my meaning. My original question to Utracia was to establish a common understanding so that I could see his/her point clearly. Your response to that was beside the point entirely.

No, it wasn't. Once again, if you want to have a private conversation, take it to TGs. Otherwise, realize that you are on an open forum and that others will respond to you, no matter how much you want to talk to just one person.

You asked if any person who reacts a certain way to homosexuality in a certain manner is a bigot, etc. I brought forth other examples of preference to show how silly the idea of a preference in partners being a "malfunction" truly is. The idea of it being a "malfunction" is a knee-jerk reaction caused by a distaste for the person's preference with no basis in objective reality, which pretty much defines bigotry.

The reason I reacted the way I did is because, no offense, it wouldn't be the first time you've responded to something I've said seemingly without having read it carefully.

The problem here is that you are still assuming that you are having a private conversation on an open forum. I didn't misread your post. I'm well aware that it was in response to something Utracia said. However, that doesn't matter on an open forum. I was responding to the question you asked plain and simple.

Meanwhile, the pot and the kettle are really obvious here, considering your over reactive responses to my posts in recent threads where you became defensive about something you thought I had said when I had explicitly said exactly the opposite. And yet *I'm* the one who doesn't read carefully?

No, it wasn't. Once again, if you want to have a private conversation, take it to TGs. Otherwise, realize that you are on an open forum and that others will respond to you, no matter how much you want to talk to just one person.

You asked if any person who reacts a certain way to homosexuality in a certain manner is a bigot, etc. I brought forth other examples of preference to show how silly the idea of a preference in partners being a "malfunction" truly is. The idea of it being a "malfunction" is a knee-jerk reaction caused by a distaste for the person's preference with no basis in objective reality, which pretty much defines bigotry.



The problem here is that you are still assuming that you are having a private conversation on an open forum. I didn't misread your post. I'm well aware that it was in response to something Utracia said. However, that doesn't matter on an open forum. I was responding to the question you asked plain and simple.

Meanwhile, the pot and the kettle are really obvious here, considering your over reactive responses to my posts in recent threads where you became defensive about something you thought I had said when I had explicitly said exactly the opposite. And yet *I'm* the one who doesn't read carefully?

I'm not going to put too fine a point on it, since you seem unwilling to see it, but I'll just summarize and leave it at that.

1-You can end the mantra about the open forum. I'm aware of that, thanks. Like I said, my reaction to you wasn't that you responded to something I said to Utracia, it was that you were missing the point of the question.

2-You're belaboring the justifications for calling someone bigoted/hompohobic/whatever based on a comparison with disliking red-headed people etc. That's completely beside the point, since my posts to Utracia involved the issue of willingness to discuss the subject before resorting to dismissing the person. You're still trying to justify that when all Iw as doing was trying to be clear on whether or not that's what Utracia was doing.

If you want to reply to my post to someone, by all means go ahead. Of course it's a public forum, but be aware that when you seem to miss the point entirely, people are going to react negatively, especially when missing the point comes off as being confrontational.

I'm not going to put too fine a point on it, since you seem unwilling to see it, but I'll just summarize and leave it at that.

1-You can end the mantra about the open forum. I'm aware of that, thanks. Like I said, my reaction to you wasn't that you responded to something I said to Utracia, it was that you were missing the point of the question.

In other words, I didn't respond in the way you wanted me to. I know what you were trying to get at. The fact that I didn't go down the exact conversational path that you wanted is beside the point. You wanted to find out exactly what Utracia thinks. Fine. But with the branching nature of a forum conversation, your words might spark more than that.

I responded by asking you questions that you apparently didn't want to answer.

If you want to reply to my post to someone, by all means go ahead. Of course it's a public forum, but be aware that when you seem to miss the point entirely, people are going to react negatively, especially when missing the point comes off as being confrontational.

Yes, I'm the one who came off as being confrontational. What were the first words in your response to me?

In fact, lets just look at the posts in question, shall we?


What would you think about someone who thought anyone who liked chocolate ice cream had a malfunction? Or anyone who was primarily attracted to tall women? Or anyone who simply didn't have a thing for redheads?

A simple list of questions that anyone could answer, related to the topic under discussion, which was whether or not someone holding the idea that homosexuality is a malfunction is a bigot.

Your response?

Back off. I was just asking for Utracia's opinion. That alright with you?

Hmmmm. "Back off." "That alright with you?" Which one of these posts sounds confrontational?

Meanwhile, don't mistake responding with my own views on the subject to "missing the point." I don't have to agree with you to understand you, nor does using a post for something other than your personally intended gratification amount to "missing the point."

Who gives two fu--s or a sh-- about gay sheep packing each others crap. I don't see why we are wasting our tax money on studying gay sheep, it should be spent on studying gay people, to find our what in hell's name is wrong with them!

:( I checked.... all their other posts are as bad or worse than this..... :D I can't wait until they make a thread.

This is a board for mature people.
Sadly the first two pages of this thread do not bear that position out. ;)

Sadly the first two pages of this thread do not bear that position out. ;)

Mature people can't make jokes? Man, I'm screwed.....

=)