What makes someone gay

February 17th, 2014 at 3:00 pm by David Farrar

The Herald reports:

Genes play a large part in determining the sexual orientation of men, scientists have shown.

Genetic factors account for between 30 per cent and 40 per cent of what decides whether a man is gay or straight, according to the largest investigation conducted into the subject.

That sounds right. It’s not the only factor, but it is a very major factor.

The US researchers stress that environmental forces, such as hormones in the womb, play a more important role.

But they said this did not imply that upbringing or other social factors, or individual choice, had a bearing on sexual orientation.

“Sexual orientation has nothing to do with choice,” one of the lead researchers, Dr Michael Bailey, from Northwestern University in Chicago, said.

One study has suggested that if you have older brothers you are more likely to be gay, as the mother’s hormones try to “feminise” you.

The research involved testing the DNA in blood samples taken from more than 409 gay brothers and their heterosexual relatives.

It confirmed that a region previously linked to male sexuality on the X chromosome, known as Xq28, is more likely to be shared by gay pairs of brothers than siblings who do not have in common.

A second genetic region, on chromosome 8, also appeared to increase the chances of a man being gay.

The future is fascinating we we get to understand DNA better.

Tags:

148 Responses to “What makes someone gay”

  1. Nigel Kearney (747 comments) says:

    Why should we care if it is a choice? Religion is a choice and we don’t discriminate based on that. If I was gay, I would not want my entitlement to equal treatment to be dependent on this kind of biological assertion. All it takes is one gay/straight pair of identical twins anywhere in the world to prove that environment or choice must have an effect.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. James Stephenson (1,885 comments) says:

    It’s driving a Holden isn’t it?

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Elaycee (4,067 comments) says:

    Lad had been at University for a month and called home.

    Dad said “How’s it going, son?”

    “Good, Dad – I’ve made few new friends and I’m sure I’ll like it here. But I think my room mate is gay.”

    “What makes you think that, son?” asked the Dad.

    “Well, he closes his eyes when I kiss him goodnight….”

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Odakyu-sen (248 comments) says:

    I wonder if similar pathways are at work in the creation of gay females. If you have older sisters, do your mother’s hormones try to masculinize you in the womb? Or are totally different pathways at work for XX people?

    Maybe researchers might find that the Xtp28 chromosome (tp being for “topp”) is more likely to be shared by gay pairs of sisters.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Huevon (101 comments) says:

    I firmly believe that all conclusions in studies to do with sexuality and family are ideologically motivated, unless proven otherwise.

    I’m happy to be proven otherwise in this case…

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. PaulL (5,775 comments) says:

    See, here was me thinking you were gay because you were attracted to other blokes. Simple really. :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. dime (8,752 comments) says:

    Imagine when it gets to the point where you can terminate a pregnancy cause the kid is gay.

    The left – all fucked up! they LOVE abortion but discriminating cause the baby is gonna be gay? arghhh

    The religious right – even more fucked up! “i aint having no faggot son!” “you aint getting no abortion neither”

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. iMP (2,152 comments) says:

    This is utter nonsense. It perpetuates the notion that “being gay” is about being feminised. So, what it’s saying, is that gays are a bunch of psuedo-girls? If this is correct, then the gene results are a distortion. Hardly a basis then, for redefining gender and new “normals” I would have thought.

    Humans are varied across the masculinity and femininity scale, often as a result of dna (like everything else). But it is an error to suggest that results in men seeking to have sexual relations with men, anymore than genes determine whether you like DEtective novels or vegetables.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. BeeJay (65 comments) says:

    It has always intrigued me, this question “what makes someone gay”, having been born into a catholic family with an older brother, one older sister and four younger sisters. I’m not gay, married with 5 children, and 6 grandchildren so far, and have actually been accused of being homophobic, which I think I probably was in my younger days. I’ve since met and befriended many gays, both male and female, and my youngest sister after a heterosexual marriage (does that sound right) and two lovely children, decided that she was gay and has lived for over 20 years in a very happy relationship with her partner. We socialize regularly as a family, and obviously meet many of their gay friends. My sister’s two children are both happily married and have children of their own. So, for my intrigue!! Is the gene in all of us but is dormant in the majority? Were the priests, brothers and nuns who abused children, some of the children being either members of my family or our friends, gay or just simply pedophiles? I have always thought that genetics must play a major part in the sexuality outcomes, but is still a mystery to me!

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. dirty harry (240 comments) says:

    …ask scottchris…

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. dime (8,752 comments) says:

    “It perpetuates the notion that “being gay” is about being feminised.”

    thats true. what about “power tops”?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Chthoniid (1,966 comments) says:

    @Dime

    Imagine when it gets to the point where you can terminate a pregnancy cause the kid is gay.

    I imagine attitudes towards homosexuality would have softened considerably long before such genetic technology becomes available. Unless you’re talking about Mendelian diseases like Huntington disease, most conditions depend on combinations of regulatory genes and coding genes that are difficult to pinpoint. Probably better we work out how to screen for, and treat problems like breast cancer instead.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Andrei (2,430 comments) says:

    The old “gay gene” meme being sold again.

    Most people are sexually attracted to the opposite sex, a few people are sexually attracted to the same sex as themselves, yet others are sexually attracted to all sorts of other things, eg women’s shoes and yet others seem to be lacking any form of sexual desire.

    This is not the same as having blue eyes or red hair which are genetically determined.

    And many of those who have “same sex attraction” are perfectly capable of forming an opposite sexual relationship if they desire to for reasons which go beyond sexual gratification and they do.

    As an example of how utterly inane this debate is would be found in News reports of Vladimir Putin congratulating “gay” Dutch Speed Skater Ireen Wust who being a “b” in the alphabet soup of sexual identities is currently has a boyfriend

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Chuck Bird (4,406 comments) says:

    @Nigel

    There is an alternative view.

    http://www.mygenes.co.nz/download.htm

    There has been studies on identical twins both those raised together and apart.

    There are certainly a lot of identical twins where one is homosexual and the other is not. This is more common where they are raised apart.

    I find it very hard to believe the environment does not play any part in any human behaviour be it homosexuality, aggressive or addictive behaviour.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. ManuT (33 comments) says:

    Who really cares I say. Live and let live and all that but allow me the privacy I am entitled to at the gym.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Weihana (4,475 comments) says:

    Chuck Bird (4,291 comments) says:
    February 17th, 2014 at 3:40 pm

    I find it very hard to believe the environment does not play any part in any human behaviour be it homosexuality, aggressive or addictive behaviour.

    Trying re-reading this bit:

    “The US researchers stress that environmental forces, such as hormones in the womb, play a more important role.”

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Chuck Bird (4,406 comments) says:

    I do not need to. My comprehension is alright. I already read it.

    As I said in my earlier post identical twins very often do not have the same sexual preference. They have the same genes and hormones in the womb.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Harriet (4,010 comments) says:

    So if genes make you gay [what ever the fuck gay actually means on kb today] – then do female gays want to be sodomised too? – afterall they do have bottoms. If not – does the ‘gene’ only then work on male bottoms? That sounds unbelievable.

    And – why also do female gays want to be rooted by a ‘strap-on’ when that piece of chinese made plastic is representitive of hetrosexual sexual acts and not lesbian sexual acts? – as lesbians are supposed to be lesbians – not pretend males!

    In other words – lesbians by their current sexual actions can easily change – therefor they are in all likelyhood NOT affected much at all by a ‘gene’.

    So IMHO – They are humans who won’t accept their natural sex that they were born with.

    Afterall – the L & G’s are in with the BTQRSXJ’s…….. – all the one’s who ‘think’ they are something else. :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Weihana (4,475 comments) says:

    DPF,

    The future is fascinating we we get to understand DNA better.

    Indeed, understanding fueled by exponential decreases in the cost of gene sequencing which apparently is outpacing Moore’s law.


    …Life Technologies said its forthcoming Ion Proton machine, which processes DNA on a semiconductor chip, will do it for a cost of $1,000 per genome.

    These advances are not just big news for biotech and medicine, but exciting for all Techonomists. They’re proof that the pace of advances in genome sequencing technology has exceeded Moore’s Law. The speed of genome sequencing has far better than doubled every two years since 2003, when the first whole human genome was completed in 13 years’ time at a cost of $3.8 billion.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/techonomy/2012/01/12/dna-sequencing-is-now-improving-faster-than-moores-law/

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Urban_Redneck (39 comments) says:

    This study is a retread of 1993 research by American geneticist Dean Hamer, which back then got the media all excited at the discovery of a gay gene. In the wake of all of the sensationalism of course researchers at Yale, MIT, Columbia and The Washington University School Of medicine soon pointed out all of the errors Hamer’s findings, denying that any of the data or accompanying analysis could substantiate his claim of a “gay gene”.

    Of course, all studies of this nature are conducted to make a political statement and to influence how people think, just like the ones attesting to catastrophic global warming are. In the age of “civil rights”, homosexual activists understand that their chances of pushing their agenda is greater if male homosexuals and lesbians are perceived as oppressed minorities rather than the sexual hedonists they really are.

    What do I mean by hedonism? Well, for example, in the US incidents of primary and syphilis cases rose by over 11% between 2011 and 2012, and 75% of those increases are attributable to male homosexuals. In NZ, the AIDS Epidemiology Group at Otago University found similar patterns with homosexuals making up over 60% of all new syphilis infections. Likewise, 76% of all new HIV diagnoses in NZ between 2000 and 2009 were male homosexuals.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2536846/Syphilis-gonorrhea-rise-U-S-especially-gay-men-young-people.html

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. gump (1,228 comments) says:

    @Harriet

    “And – why also do female gays want to be rooted by a ‘strap-on’ when that piece of chinese made plastic is representitive of hetrosexual sexual acts and not lesbian sexual acts? – as lesbians are supposed to be lesbians – not pretend males!”

    ————————-

    I think you’ll find that strap-on dildos are predominantly produced for heterosexual couples – so the male can be sodomised by his female partner. This is a common sexual fetish known as pegging.

    Lesbians don’t actually have a lot of sex. There’s even a phrase used to describe the lack of sex in long term lesbian relationships – it’s called “lesbian bed death”.

    But I get the feeling you don’t actually care.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Weihana (4,475 comments) says:

    Chuck Bird (4,292 comments) says:
    February 17th, 2014 at 3:59 pm

    I do not need to. My comprehension is alright. I already read it.

    As I said in my earlier post identical twins very often do not have the same sexual preference. They have the same genes and hormones in the womb.

    Monozygotic twins are not actually “identical”. Even in the womb identical twins experience differences and their genes can mutate when being copied. Because this is very early on in development this also means that such mutations may be present in nearly every cell in their body.


    Genetic differences among identical twins may be far more common than anyone imagined.

    ‘It’s not as rare as people previously expected,’ study presenter Rui Li, an epidemiologist at McGill University, told LiveScience.

    The genetic alterations can occur early in fetal development, researchers said, and are essentially copy errors — otherwise known as somatic mutations.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2232148/Identical-twins-genetically-different-research-suggests.html

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Harriet (4,010 comments) says:

    “…..The religious right – even more fucked up! “i aint having no faggot son!” “you aint getting no abortion neither”…”

    I’m a Catholic……the wife’s the carrier of the gene……someone in her family must have once fucked a protestant! :cool:

    no we don’t have any gay kids …. it was a figure of speech.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. SPC (4,654 comments) says:

    Chuck,

    “As I said in my earlier post identical twins very often do not have the same sexual preference.”

    I think you meant to say nearly always identical twins have a heterosexual preference. Just as the rest of us do.

    The use of twins in research, as to DNA or environment factors refers to any difference between the rates of those living together and those raised apart (most twins in either category have the heterosexual orientation).

    Do you have any research saying that the number of identical twins that have a different sexuality is greater amongst those split after birth than those raised together – or does this split occur equally in both groups?

    Could hormones in the womb have affected one more than the other?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. SPC (4,654 comments) says:

    Harriet, the people most commonly fucked in the ass are heterosexual females. Now Harriet are you a … and have you …

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Steve Wrathall (207 comments) says:

    “One study has suggested that if you have older brothers you are more likely to be gay, as the mother’s hormones try to “feminise” you.”
    So cultures that have larger families should have a higher % of gays, because any male born is more likely to have older brothers.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. dirty harry (240 comments) says:

    “Harriet, the people most commonly fucked in the ass are heterosexual females.”

    Link please…

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. deadrightkev (176 comments) says:

    There are no gays in Iran. How can you explain that?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Mark Thomson (80 comments) says:

    Also from the article -

    “The new findings were presented at a Science of Sex and Attraction event attended by experts in Chicago. It has no connection with the American Association for the Advancement of Science’s annual conference also taking place in the city.”

    Just in case anyone thought this was a conventional scientific conference (you know, with refereed papers and such), it was actually an evening get together at Schuba’s Tavern – http://science-is-sexy.com/2014/01/21/we-are-back-the-science-of-sex-and-attraction-returns-to-kick-off-our-year/.

    (You can check out the street view if you’re interested – http://bit.ly/1j2MjsQ)

    Also interesting, the meeting notice claims that it *is* connected with the AAAS conference.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. SPC (4,654 comments) says:

    dirty harry,

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/06/anal-sex-heterosexual-couples-report_n_1190440.html

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. SPC (4,654 comments) says:

    This survey of married women in Iran indicates a range of sexual experiences.

    http://irhrc.sbmu.ac.ir/uploads/sexual%20behavior%20of%20married%20iranian%20woman.pdf

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Harriet (4,010 comments) says:

    “…..I think you’ll find that strap-on dildos are predominantly produced for heterosexual couples – so the male can be sodomised by his female partner. This is a common sexual fetish known as pegging….”

    Common?

    O’K……..so according to you one of the All Blacks likes getting fucked in the arse then? – as All Blacks are realitivly common.

    Go on…….name him. :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Chuck Bird (4,406 comments) says:

    @SPC

    “Do you have any research saying that the number of identical twins that have a different sexuality is greater amongst those split after birth than those raised together – or does this split occur equally in both groups?”

    The research you ask for is in My Genes Made Me Do It. I am going out so I do not have time to download and read it.

    http://www.mygenes.co.nz/download.htm

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Monique Angel (229 comments) says:

    As I recall from the Dating Years’; there are a lot of hetero guys who want to push it up a girl’s poop chute, Harriet.
    Just saying.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. SPC (4,654 comments) says:

    Harriet, the vibrator not the strap on is the Lesbian (and other female going solo) preference – they come with clitoris stimulation attachments. The whole package is part of their sexuality – the vagina is not just for procreation.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/5013866.stm

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. SPC (4,654 comments) says:

    Harriet, its common for men to ask for it and for women to tell him to take it up the ass first and if he likes it then good for him but they are still not sure about it. They also negotiate as tough in divorce settlements.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. deadrightkev (176 comments) says:

    SPC

    You know a lot about bedroom science.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Harriet (4,010 comments) says:

    It doesn’t matter if lesbians use strapons or vibrators – as they’re BOTH shaped like penises – while lesbians are ‘born’ to like pussy – which looks and acts NOTHING like penises !

    They arn’t born gay.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. iMP (2,152 comments) says:

    And just to queer the pot further – so to speak – where does the Labour candidate who was a man, is now a woman, who is marrying his/her/it’s ex wife, fit in. Are they in a lesbian relationship, or a tri or…oh, brain explode.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Harriet (4,010 comments) says:

    “……As I recall from the Dating Years’; there are a lot of hetero guys who want to push it up a girl’s poop chute, Harriet.
    Just saying…..”

    Well…………..some kinda girls might be asked that Monigue.

    Just sayin. :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Fletch (5,721 comments) says:

    There never has been anything like a “gay gene”.
    No one really knows why certain people are attracted to the same sex.

    As an example, back in 2010, a researcher from Otago University, Prof Elizabeth Wells in a study, did face-to-face interviews with 13,000 people, and found that those who identified as gay, or some other sexuality, were more than three times as likely to have been abused as children.

    New Zealanders who identify themselves as homosexual or bisexual, or who have had a same-sex encounter or relationship, tend to come from more disturbed backgrounds, a University of Otago researcher has found.

    Information extracted from 13,000 face-to-face interviews clearly showed those with same-sexual or bisexual orientation were more likely to have experienced negative events in childhood, Associate Prof Elisabeth Wells said yesterday.

    People who had experienced sexual abuse as children were three times more likely to identity themselves as homosexual or bisexual than those who had not experienced abuse, she said. Also, the more adverse events someone experienced in childhood, the more likely they were to belong to one of the “non-exclusively heterosexual” groups.

    Associations between adverse events and sexuality group were found for sexual assault, rape, violence to the child and for witnessing violence in the home.

    Other adverse events, such as the sudden death of a loved one, serious childhood illness or accident, were only slightly associated with non-heterosexual identity or behaviour.

    http://www.odt.co.nz/print/117336

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Psycho Milt (1,975 comments) says:

    “Harriet, the people most commonly fucked in the ass are heterosexual females.”

    Link please…

    Simple matter of probability. Obviously a much higher proportion of gay men than straight women like it up the bum, but there are way, way more straight women than gay men. So in terms of numbers, a lot more straight women than gay men get it up the bum on any given day.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. SPC (4,654 comments) says:

    Chuck,

    the major conclusion of study you linked to is that homosexual men who have identical twin brothers is that they do not share the same sexuality. Thus as they were nearly always raised up together, it is not a different environment that explains this difference.

    Hormonal influence in the womb impacting on one more than the other is one possible reason, the others may have something to do with another hypothesis about younger brothers (this as a hormonal factor in the womb or the acceptance of status as a junior male or affinity for an all male environment or …).

    PS. I have no great stake in the outcome of this. Some do – to argue for their human rights as an identity group born that way vs those who condemn the behaviour. I just think it is a matter of choice and consent.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Psycho Milt (1,975 comments) says:

    Well…………..some kinda girls might be asked that Monigue.

    Yep – the ones who aren’t boring.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Fletch (5,721 comments) says:

    btw, the dirty little secret, is that there are very few people who are genuinely only homosexual in their desire.

    Nearly nine percent of men in a GAPSS gay Auckland survey reported having sex with a woman during the previous six months.

    “Things are more three-dimensional and less compartmentalized than they once were”, lesbian activist Nan Golden wrote in The Advocate. “Maybe that has to do with getting older and understanding the ambivalence of things. At the moment I’m actually dating a man. And I’ve known people who were active in ACT UP and were very defined as lesbian or gay but who were secretly sleeping together. I think people are more complicated than those categories. being gay to me isn’t just who I sleep with, it’s how I live my life”.

    In other words, it’s a political statement, not a true sexual identity. International surveys of the gay community have shown that a staggering 91% of gay men have become aroused and had sex with women. Ninety-six percent of lesbians have had sex with men. It’s the dirty-little-secret that the gay community doesn’t discuss with outsiders, but gay media reports off some insights: “I must confess that I am both elated and terrified by the possibilities of a bisexual movement”, lesbian activist Dr Lillian Faderman told Advocate magazine. “I’m elated because i truly believe that bisexuality is the natural human condition. But I’m much less happy when i think of the possibility of huge numbers of homosexuals (two thirds of women who identify as lesbian, for example) running off to explore the heterosexual side of their bisexual potential and, as a result, decimating our political ranks. What becomes of our political movement if we openly acknowledge that sexuality is flexible and fluid, that gay and lesbian does not signify a ‘people’ but rather ‘a sometime behaviour’?”

    New Zealand’s gay community may not like it, but the book title Queer by Choice sums it up, and it’s author – American lesbian academic Dr Vera Whisman – explains the political ramifications for the “rights movement”:

    “The political dangers of a choice discourse go beyond the simple notion that some people genuinely choose their homosexuality. Indeed, my conclusions question some of the fundamental basis upon which the gay and lesbian rights movement has been built. If we cannot make political claims based on an essential and shared nature, are we not left once again as individual deviants? Without an essentialist foundation, do we have viable politics?”

    Advocate citation – http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=OWMEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PT39&lpg=PT39&dq=%22Being+gay+to+me+isn%E2%80%99t+just+who+I+sleep+with,+it%E2%80%99s+how+I+live+my+life%22&source=bl&ots=wbtWM8zTJv&sig=orgQoeISUi4IoArmNO9LXQfyPD8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=e23_UNDbJc-ciAfy34DICw&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22Being%20gay%20to%20me%20isn%E2%80%99t%20just%20who%20I%20sleep%20with%2C%20it%E2%80%99s%20how%20I%20live%20my%20life%22&f=false

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Harriet (4,010 comments) says:

    “….Yep – the ones who aren’t boring…..”

    Since when was having sex boring Milt?

    Nearly all men have sex weekly – and never have sodomy in their lifetimes. Most men respect women.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Ryan Sproull (6,661 comments) says:

    As an example, back in 2010, a researcher from Otago University, Prof Elizabeth Wells in a study, did face-to-face interviews with 13,000 people, and found that those who identified as gay, or some other sexuality, were more than three times as likely to have been abused as children.

    Someone did face-to-face interviews with 13,000 people? Goodness, how long did each interview take?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Ryan Sproull (6,661 comments) says:

    Fletch, if sexual attraction is a choice, do me a favour and choose to spend the next 30 minutes sexually attracted to John Key. Then stop after 30 minutes. Your time starts… now.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. RichardX (290 comments) says:

    Harriet (3,567 comments) says:
    February 17th, 2014 at 4:01 pm
    So if genes make you gay [what ever the fuck gay actually means on kb today] – then do female gays want to be sodomised too? – afterall they do have bottoms. If not – does the ‘gene’ only then work on male bottoms? That sounds unbelievable.
    And – why also do female gays want to be rooted by a ‘strap-on’ when that piece of chinese made plastic is representitive of hetrosexual sexual acts and not lesbian sexual acts? – as lesbians are supposed to be lesbians – not pretend males!

    Harriet (3,572 comments) says:
    February 17th, 2014 at 5:01 pm
    It doesn’t matter if lesbians use strapons or vibrators – as they’re BOTH shaped like penises – while lesbians are ‘born’ to like pussy – which looks and acts NOTHING like penises !
    They arn’t born gay.

    You are confusing being homosexual with individual choices
    Not all gay men practice sodomy, not all gay women use strap ons.
    Individuals enjoy different physical acts regardless of their sexuality
    Stop fixating on the physical aspects of sex

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. RRM (8,988 comments) says:

    I hope everyone has got their compulsory gay marriage now?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Harriet (4,010 comments) says:

    “……Fletch, if sexual attraction is a choice….”

    So you are saying that if a gay man was to choose no gay man for sex from a line-up of 100 gay men – because he wasn’t attracted to them – then if he was stuck for only one weekend in a gay-nite club with them – he wouldn’t then have sex with any of them?

    Bullshit!

    That’s like saying young drunk blokes don’t root women they’ed like to forget about.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. nasska (9,517 comments) says:

    Harriet

    Straight women take it up the arse for various reasons & one of them is that they can’t get pregnant & have babies that way (prospective CCCP MPs being the exception).

    Name the largest Western religious organisation that does not approve of birth control & I’ll reveal to you the greatest grouping of heterosexual women who get rooted in the clacker. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. SPC (4,654 comments) says:

    Fletch, the study was looking to find something that was more common in the life experiences of same sex people, to determine that there were influences on their choice.

    She found something. But the media report does not state how much more common.

    If the experiences were amongst 5% of heterosexuals and 10% of homosexuals – that is more common but not prevalent amongst those that were homosexual.

    PS. I’ll note that 46% of the lesbians in the study were once married – so either crappy sex is a significant background experience or they knew earlier but felt compelled to breed and live with the father of the children while doing so …

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Manolo (12,624 comments) says:

    Chardonnay Guy is our best source for this difficult question. I await his comments.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Ryan Sproull (6,661 comments) says:

    So you are saying that if a gay man was to choose no gay man for sex from a line-up of 100 gay men – because he wasn’t attracted to them – then if he was stuck for only one weekend in a gay-nite club with them – he wouldn’t then have sex with any of them?

    Bullshit!

    That’s like saying young drunk blokes don’t root women they’ed like to forget about.

    No, Harriet, I’m saying that if a straight man was to choose no gay man for sex from a line-up of 100 gay men, then if he was stuck for only one weekend in a gay night club with them, he wouldn’t have sex with any of them and couldn’t choose to want to.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Manolo (12,624 comments) says:

    Another potential source would be the effeminate and limp-wristed Lynn Prentice from The sub-Standard.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Harriet (4,010 comments) says:

    ‘…..Not all gay men practice sodomy, not all gay women use strap ons….”

    FFS Richard.

    …….some weird fuckers that are way out far left on the bell curve?

    The vast majoriy of lesbians want DICK – Richard!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. big bruv (12,352 comments) says:

    What makes someone gay?

    All evidence would suggest that joining the Labour party is a sure fire way to make yourself gay.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Harriet (4,010 comments) says:

    “….All evidence would suggest that joining the Labour party is a sure fire way to make yourself gay….”

    Or drinking with John Key.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. wiseowl (574 comments) says:

    Of course homosexuality is genetic.
    No question about it.
    But shit I’ve learned a lot today!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. SPC (4,654 comments) says:

    Fletch 5.12pm – it is no surprise that the sexual partners of those practicing homosexuality would include some of the rest of us. They would naturally check out what the rest of us are up to while deciding for themselves, and thus later would know they could revert to this.

    Clearly you are arguing that as this bisexual behaviour is possible (for them as it is for any of us) they should suppress the homosexual activity and be exclusively heterosexual in any/all of their actions.

    The same zeal in arguing that all (hetero) sexuality should be for procreation and within male parent and female parent marriage could be shown, though it is not as wonderfully us and them as going tribal against homosexuals and their liberal fellow travellers. Not nearly.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Fletch (5,721 comments) says:

    I’ve pointed this out before, but the world’s leading expert on the history of homosexuality is Dr David Greenburg, a New York sociologist, who is gay himself and is the author of a 635 page academic study of homosexuality through the ages called “The Construction of Homosexuality”. It has been hailed within academic circles as the most “extensive and thorough” analysis of homosexuality ever published. And what does he say? That homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. He said he had “an obligation to the truth”. Greenburg looked at all recorded examples of homosexuality – from the Greeks, to the Romans and in between. Every single one, he wrote, could be traced back to sexual behaviour practice rather than an innate sexual identity.

    For example, He touches on the history when he says that homosexual behaviour was rife in Greece and Rome because it was tolerated and even expected and had much to do with male initiation ceremonies. Older men enjoyed the power of raping young boys. These men then went home to their wives and fathered children. “The Greeks assumed that ordinarily sexual choices were not mutually exclusive, but rather that people were generally capable of responding erotically to both sexes”, writes Greenberg. “Often they could and did. Sparta too, institutionalized sexual relations between mature men and adolescent boys.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. BlairM (2,266 comments) says:

    Please explain to me how these genes obtained guns. Apparently they hold the guns to people’s heads and make them go out and shag someone of the same gender as them. Well they must do, mustn’t they? Otherwise how could you explain that they had “no choice”, when clearly it is one.

    Everybody has a choice whether they have sex with someone or not. I’m not having sex right now actually, and it seems to be only a minor strain on my general wellbeing.

    I wake up every day wanting to motorboat Katy Perry, but even assuming she’d let me, doesn’t make it a moral thing for me to do. Nor does it mean I *should* do it, because it is *natural* for me.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Fletch (5,721 comments) says:

    No, Harriet, I’m saying that if a straight man was to choose no gay man for sex from a line-up of 100 gay men, then if he was stuck for only one weekend in a gay night club with them, he wouldn’t have sex with any of them and couldn’t choose to want to.

    But some people have abnormal or perverse desires. You’re comparing the average Joe to someone with an abnormal desire. And these ‘scientists’ (and I use the term lightly) are using science as a rationale for peoples abnormal conduct. To excuse it. That we should be sympathetic because their genes make them that way. So we should all just bow to whatever wants they have (like gay marriage) because it wouldn’t be fair otherwise. That’s what it comes down to.

    I wonder when they’ll find the gene for pedophilia.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. nasska (9,517 comments) says:

    Fletch

    ….”Sparta too, institutionalized sexual relations between mature men and adolescent boys.”…..

    It still goes on. Not so long back it was revealed that the clergy of a well known religious sect were at it like rats up a drainpipe.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Chinarugby (80 comments) says:

    Harriet – the all wise know nothing know all.

    Your contributuion to this topic has wasted valuable reading time – can you bugger off please and let the adults play.

    How’s life in crazy town?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. dog_eat_dog (677 comments) says:

    If someone here can read Harriet’s posts on homosexuality and still believe in freedom of speech then they have a truly zen understanding of the Rights of Man.

    It must be so depressing to lead such a hateful judgmental life.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. SPC (4,654 comments) says:

    nasska, for some the entire point to forming an authority on Earth is to establish ones privilege to do what others are told not to do.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Ryan Sproull (6,661 comments) says:

    But some people have abnormal or perverse desires. You’re comparing the average Joe to someone with an abnormal desire.

    One man’s abnormal perversity is another man’s appreciation for listening to Enya.

    If your worldview includes an idea of normality and propriety that excludes homosexual sex and/or homosexual romantic love as abnormal and perverse, then yes, to you, those desires are perverse and abnormal.

    But perverse or not, they are still unchosen, and in that sense – the sense that is relevant to my point – they can be compared with the “average Joe” (another value judgement grounded in your worldview), who also doesn’t choose to be attracted to whomever he is.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. nasska (9,517 comments) says:

    SPC

    One of the few pleasures given to common man is sex yet it is that which religious authorities seek to limit by rule & decree.

    They are truly mad.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. SPC (4,654 comments) says:

    Fletch, I guess the idea of humans deciding who they consent to have sex with and when is just too big for the religions built by men.

    After all those who claimed they could both represented the authority of God on Earth and reveal God’s will for humanity they had to then say what could or could not be done. So as humans ate food and had sex they said once upon a time there was a woman who carried an apple … and she presented herself to a man as …

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Ryan Sproull (6,661 comments) says:

    And these ‘scientists’ (and I use the term lightly) are using science as a rationale for peoples abnormal conduct. To excuse it. That we should be sympathetic because their genes make them that way. So we should all just bow to whatever wants they have (like gay marriage) because it wouldn’t be fair otherwise. That’s what it comes down to.

    Science makes no value judgements in observing genetic predispositions for homosexuality. There are genetic predispositions for all kinds of things – addiction, heterosexuality, anger, etc. Doesn’t make any of those things right or wrong, or acceptable or unacceptable.

    If someone makes the argument that because some people are genetically predisposed towards a behaviour, therefore they should be permitted to behave that way, that’s a separate issue, and not an argument with which I agree. It’s not one I see being made very often, either. The last thing we want is a society built indiscriminately around what people are genetically predisposed to do.

    I wonder when they’ll find the gene for pedophilia.

    Well, Fletch, the difference between someone having a genetic predisposition for adult heterosexuality or adult homosexuality and having a genetic predisposition for paedophilia is that the first two involve consenting adults and the latter cannot.

    If anyone is saying “homosexuality is good because people have a genetic predisposition towards it” or “heterosexuality is good because people have a genetic predisposition towards it”, you point them in my direction and I’ll explain why they’re wrong.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. SPC (4,654 comments) says:

    nasska, if they can control your sexuality, then they know they are the head ruling over your body. It’s a demonstration of ultimate power.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Fletch (5,721 comments) says:

    Well, Fletch, the difference between someone having a genetic predisposition for adult heterosexuality or adult homosexuality and having a genetic predisposition for paedophilia is that the first two involve consenting adults and the latter cannot.

    But there are those who will argue (and I am playing devil’s advocate here) – that if homosexual attraction is due to your genes, then isn’t pedophilia – or attraction to children – also genetic? And that the age of consent is simply a societal thing and that if it is a genetic predisposition, then it is unfair discrimination to allow one and not the other. If they can find genes to explain one preference, then I’m sure they can find genes to explain the other.

    The thing is, I do not think anyone knows why a small percentage of the population (less than 3% by most accounts) prefers the same sex. But, yes, although I have deep sympathy for people who feel that way, I also think it goes against what is natural. How can it not be?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Weihana (4,475 comments) says:

    BlairM (2,230 comments) says:
    February 17th, 2014 at 5:46 pm

    Please explain to me how these genes obtained guns. Apparently they hold the guns to people’s heads and make them go out and shag someone of the same gender as them. Well they must do, mustn’t they? Otherwise how could you explain that they had “no choice”, when clearly it is one.

    Clearly?

    There are very good arguments that there is no such thing as “choice” and that our belief that we “choose” something is actually an illusion. Supporting evidence is often in the form of studies such as Benjamin Libet’s experiment which purports to show that unconscious activity in the brain precedes what people believe are voluntary actions.

    I believe otherwise… mostly out of blind-faith… but if you believe in “choice” and “free will” then you’ve got a tough time explaining exactly where this “will” originates. At what point exactly do the laws of physics get suspended and the chain of cause and effect broken so that our “will” causes an atom/molecule/neuron to move irrespective of the forces the environment places upon it? Is there an explanation in quantum physics? If so, how does this generate “will” rather than randomness?

    Lots of answered questions before any of this becomes “clear”.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. David Garrett (5,131 comments) says:

    Nasska: Have you heard of “technical virgins” in the bible belt of the US? They apparently have anal sex so as to remain “technically” a virgin for the wedding night, and the stereotype howls of pain and production of bloodies sheet…

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. SPC (4,654 comments) says:

    Fletch, do you also think that sexuality is naturally procreative, and thus contraception is also against what is natural?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. RichardX (290 comments) says:

    Harriet (3,573 comments) says:
    February 17th, 2014 at 5:14 pm
    Nearly all men have sex weekly – and never have sodomy in their lifetimes. Most men respect women.

    You have this habit of projecting your issues on to other people
    Some women enjoy anal sex and you would be disrespecting them if your issues prevented you from granting them that pleasure

    Harriet (3,576 comments) says:
    February 17th, 2014 at 5:30 pm
    The vast majoriy of lesbians want DICK – Richard!

    And this comes from your vast experience as a lesbian?

    Harriet (3,308 comments) says:
    January 1st, 2014 at 10:15 pm
    I’m no authority on any given subject matter whatsoever, least of all on what I talk about!
    Why on earth would you take whay I say seriously ?

    This probably explains your statements

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Weihana (4,475 comments) says:

    Fletch (5,524 comments) says:
    February 17th, 2014 at 6:29 pm

    But there are those who will argue (and I am playing devil’s advocate here) – that if homosexual attraction is due to your genes, then isn’t pedophilia – or attraction to children – also genetic? And that the age of consent is simply a societal thing and that if it is a genetic predisposition, then it is unfair discrimination to allow one and not the other. If they can find genes to explain one preference, then I’m sure they can find genes to explain the other.

    Schizophrenia isn’t a choice but I don’t think anyone thinks it is okay for a crazy person to go around slicing people up with swords because they think we are pieces of chocolate cake. You seem to have ignored the point made that whether something is ethical or not is not determined by whether or not the person doing the thing is doing so voluntarily or not. That there are “those who will argue…” is irrelevant.

    The thing is, I do not think anyone knows why a small percentage of the population (less than 3% by most accounts) prefers the same sex. But, yes, although I have deep sympathy for people who feel that way, I also think it goes against what is natural. How can it not be?

    Having access to food year round without having to hunt is “unnatural”. Moreover, homosexual behaviour is found in species other than humans which would suggest that homosexuality is more natural than modern science and modern prosperity which is evident in only one species: us.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Fletch (5,721 comments) says:

    Fletch, do you also think that sexuality is naturally procreative, and thus contraception is also against what is natural?

    Yes I do – artificial contraception, anyway.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. Fletch (5,721 comments) says:

    Having access to food year round without having to hunt is “unnatural”. Moreover, homosexual behaviour is found in species other than humans which would suggest that homosexuality is more normal than modern science and modern prosperity which is evident in only one species: us.

    But we have others that do the hunting and harvesting for us. Somebody does it. It isn’t magic. And we pay money for the results of that work. And I do not believe that any animal is truly homosexual. And even if they were, we are not wild animals. Humans have the ability to make moral judgments.

    I have said it before – but the anus is not a sexual organ. Gays cannot have sexual intercourse (coitus): it is a fact.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Fletch (5,721 comments) says:

    Schizophrenia isn’t a choice but I don’t think anyone thinks it is okay for a crazy person to go around slicing people up with swords because they think we are pieces of chocolate cake.

    But we also stop people who are schizophrenic from slicing people up for the good of themselves and for society. We do not enable them because it’s in their genes or say it would be unfair to stop them.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. cha (3,537 comments) says:

    have anal sex so as to remain “technically” a virgin

    Obilgatory

    Saddlebacking: sad•dle•back•ing ˈsa-dəl-ˈba-kiŋ vb [fr. Saddleback Church] (2009): the phenomenon of Christian teens engaging in unprotected anal sex in order to preserve their virginities

    After attending the Purity Ball, Heather and Bill saddlebacked all night because she’s saving herself for marriage. Unfortunately her parents found out because they got santorum all over the sheets.

    http://saddlebacking.com/

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Weihana (4,475 comments) says:

    Fletch (5,526 comments) says:
    February 17th, 2014 at 6:46 pm

    But we have others that do the hunting and harvesting for us. Somebody does it. It isn’t magic. And we pay money for the results of that work.

    The issue was not whether homosexuality was “magic” it was whether it was “natural”. Though if your point was that homosexuality was “magic” that might explain a lot… :)

    The fact that modern farming is not magic doesn’t mean it is natural. Indeed our genetics are in many ways evolved for a hunter gatherer lifestyle as the insulin-receptor gene tells us to hold on to calories fearing the lack of food and the continuous availability of food today causes many to become overweight.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. SPC (4,654 comments) says:

    Fletch, and thus Bill Clinton could not have had sex with that women as it was not a procreative sex activity such as required to consummate his marriage to another woman.

    Such activities and withdrawal are longstanding means to ensure pregnancy is not a consequence, almost a natural response to the predicament of desire without seeking procreation as an outcome.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. Scott (1,614 comments) says:

    Thanks for great comments Fletch. It’s just all pc pseudo science. It supports the gay political agenda, born that way, gay marriage agenda of the gay activist and liberal hedonist. It’s all bollocks!
    Basically the gay gene theory says, you are gay because your father was gay because his father was gay. Complete nonsense but it serves the political purpose and that’s all that matters. Who cares about the truth?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. Weihana (4,475 comments) says:

    But we also stop people who are schizophrenic from slicing people up for the good of themselves and for society. We do not enable them because it’s in their genes or say it would be unfair to stop them.

    Exactly my point. But likewise they are not stopped BECAUSE it is involuntary. Having ginger hair is involuntary but we don’t lock people up for it. Schizophrenics are stopped when they harm other people.

    Gays aren’t harming you… no one is forcing you to visit the gay sauna… so live and let live. Pretty simple concept.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. SPC (4,654 comments) says:

    Scott, no. No one is arguing that gay or lesbian parents are any more likely to have homosexually active children than anyone else – you misunderstand the gene research (looking for any markers more common to homosexuals than the rest of us).

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. David Garrett (5,131 comments) says:

    Cha: Oh how I wish I hadn’t clicked on that link for “santorum”…not quite as bad as “felching” but close…

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. chiz (1,095 comments) says:

    Odakyu-sen:

    I wonder if similar pathways are at work in the creation of gay females. If you have older sisters, do your mother’s hormones try to masculinize you in the womb? Or are totally different pathways at work for XX people?

    There is no older sister effect for lesbians. People have looked.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. SPC (4,654 comments) says:

    chiz, not a surprise – given the males have a club scene/are more promiscuous at the group level (bonding behaviour of the Spartan army band of brothers type). For females it still being relationship and finding partners for themselves or at the collective level being political.

    PS besides younger sisters would simply seek to steal big sisters boyfriends.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. chiz (1,095 comments) says:

    Fletch:

    As an example, back in 2010, a researcher from Otago University, Prof Elizabeth Wells in a study, did face-to-face interviews with 13,000 people, and found that those who identified as gay, or some other sexuality, were more than three times as likely to have been abused as children.

    There are two problems with arguing that abuse makes people gay. The first is that most gay people haven’t been abused just as most heterosexual people haven’t been. The second is that it confuses correlation with causation. Many gay people show gender nonconforming behaviour when young. Its possible that this makes them more likely to be selected as victims.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. Jack5 (4,220 comments) says:

    Does this stuff the reputed old public lavatory graffiti?

    Line 1:

    My mother made me a homosexual.

    Line 2, in different writing:

    If I bring her the wool, will she make me one, too?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. nasska (9,517 comments) says:

    David Garrett

    I must have led a sheltered life…..until I clicked I didn’t know that either. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. Fletch (5,721 comments) says:

    Cha: Oh how I wish I hadn’t clicked on that link for “santorum”

    A term invented by gay activist Dan Savage to smear senator Rick Santorum because of his views on homosexuality. That’s what the Left do – instead of respecting another’s views they go out of their way to malign them in the worst way they can think of.

    On April 25, 2003, in a New York Times op-ed, Savage responded to Santorum’s comments, arguing that the remarks amounted to an overt Republican appeal to homophobic voters.[12] A reader of Savage’s column, Savage Love, subsequently suggested a contest to create a new definition for “santorum”.[13] Observing that he had previously sought to coin the sexual neologism “pegging”, Savage agreed, writing on May 15, “There’s no better way to memorialize the Santorum scandal than by attaching his name to a sex act that would make his big, white teeth fall out of his big, empty head.”[2][14][15]
    He said on May 29 that he had received 3,000 suggestions, and posted several nominees for readers to choose from.[16] On June 12 he announced the winner as “that frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex”.[10][17]
    Savage set up a website, spreadingsantorum.com, to spread awareness of the term;[10] the site features the definition over a brown splattered stain on an otherwise-white page. Savage also set up another website, santorum.com, that displays the same content. The Philadelphia Inquirer reported in July 2006 that the site appeared at the top of a Google search for Santorum’s name. When asked whether he was concerned about the effect on Santorum’s children, Savage responded that gays and lesbians also have children, who are required to listen to comparisons of gay relationships to incest and bestiality. He also said, “The only people who come at me wringing their hands about Santorum’s children are idiot lefties who don’t get how serious the right is about destroying us.”[18] Savage offered in May 2010 to remove the site if Santorum donated $5 million to Freedom to Marry, an advocacy group for same-sex marriage.[5]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_for_%22santorum%22_neologism

    This is the same Dan Savage who joined the political campaign of a man who didn’t share his views on homosexuality, and (when he got a bad case of the flu) went around licking doorknobs, staplers, pens – anything he could get his hands on, in order to make people sick with whom his disagreed.

    The man is a disgrace. In his own words-

    In my Sudafed-induced delirium I decided that if it’s terrorism Bauer wants, then it’s terrorism Bauer is going get — and I’m just the man to terrorize him. Naked, feverish and higher than a kite on codeine aspirin, I called the Bauer campaign and volunteered. My plan? Get close enough to Bauer to give him the flu, which, if I am successful, will lay him flat just before the New Hampshire primary. I would go to Bauer’s campaign office and cough on everything — phones and pens, staplers and staffers. I even hatched a plan to infect the candidate himself. I would keep the pen in my mouth until Bauer dropped by his offices to rally the troops. And when he did, I would approach him and ask for his autograph, handing him the pen from my flu-virus incubating mouth.

    My plan was a little malicious — even a little mean-spirited — but those same words describe the tactics used by Bauer and the rest of the religious right against gays and lesbians.

    I went from doorknob to doorknob. They were filthy, no doubt, but there wasn’t time to find a rag to spit on. My immune system wasn’t all it should be — I was in the grip of the worst flu I had ever had — but I was on a mission. If for some reason I didn’t manage to get a pen from my mouth to Gary’s hands, I wanted to seed his office with germs, get as many of his people sick as I could, and hopefully one of them would infect the candidate.

    So, much as it pains me to confirm a hateful stereotype of gay men — we will put anything in our mouths — I started licking doorknobs. The front door, office doors, even a bathroom door. When that was done, I started in on the staplers, phones and computer keyboards. Then I stood in the kitchen and licked the rims of all the clean coffee cups drying in the rack.

    I pulled the pen out of my mouth and handed it to him. Score! My bodily fluids — flu bugs and all — were all over his hand!

    http://www.salon.com/2000/01/25/savage_3/

    There’s your gay activist.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. chiz (1,095 comments) says:

    Fletch:

    I’ve pointed this out before,

    And I’ve replied to you before on this ….

    but the world’s leading expert on the history of homosexuality is Dr David Greenburg, a New York sociologist, who is gay himself and is the author of a 635 page academic study of homosexuality through the ages called “The Construction of Homosexuality”. It has been hailed within academic circles as the most “extensive and thorough” analysis of homosexuality ever published.

    The book came out decades ago and is out of date. And in all the years of reading the academic literature on this subject I have never once seen a reference to it. Its impact in academic circles has been zero.

    And what does he say? That homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. He said he had “an obligation to the truth”. Greenburg looked at all recorded examples of homosexuality – from the Greeks, to the Romans and in between. Every single one, he wrote, could be traced back to sexual behaviour practice rather than an innate sexual identity.

    Based on your own summaries and other reviews I’ve read the reason it has been ignored by academia is because the author, like you, is confusing sexual behaviour with sexual orientation. If ancient greeks had sex with boys due to their culture it doesn’t follow that the men are gay.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. chiz (1,095 comments) says:

    Fletch:

    I have said it before – but the anus is not a sexual organ.

    And yet … many men find stimulation of the prostate pleasurable. Presumably you have a Christian explanation as to why God would make it so?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. cha (3,537 comments) says:

    I pulled the pen out of my mouth and handed it to him. Score! My bodily fluids — flu bugs and all — were all over his hand!

    Well Fletch, convict bum tricks are fucking disgusting too so best you don’t ever go out on the drink with an Australian.
    //

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. Fletch (5,721 comments) says:

    And yet … many men find stimulation of the prostate pleasurable. Presumably you have a Christian explanation as to why God would make it so?

    Many people find being whipped on the bum an erotic experience. That doesn’t make it a sexual organ. Some people like their earlobes bitten. That doesn’t make earlobes sexual organs.

    Some people are weird…

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. nasska (9,517 comments) says:

    Remind me someday to tell you about the trick involving chicken giblets & whipped cream Fletch. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. wiseowl (574 comments) says:

    Jeez, I don’t know where to start.
    Earlobes,whipped cream maybe chocolate sauce.mmmmmm

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. Ryan Sproull (6,661 comments) says:

    But there are those who will argue (and I am playing devil’s advocate here) – that if homosexual attraction is due to your genes, then isn’t pedophilia – or attraction to children – also genetic? And that the age of consent is simply a societal thing and that if it is a genetic predisposition, then it is unfair discrimination to allow one and not the other. If they can find genes to explain one preference, then I’m sure they can find genes to explain the other.

    The explanation of the origins of a desire is, in itself, irrelevant to the moral acceptability of acting on that desire. If you can point me to the person who is saying “people should be allowed to do whatever they’re genetically predisposed to do, and that’s why it’s okay to be gay”, I can address that person. But I don’t know anyone who is making that argument.

    Where I have seen it come up is in the following sequence.

    Christian says homosexual love is a sin.
    Gay person says they can’t help who they fall in love with.
    Christian says they can, because being gay is a choice.
    Gay person says they didn’t make that choice – they were born this way.
    Christian says they were not born this way.
    Gay-rights advocate points to evidence of genetic predisposition to support claim that gay people were born that way.

    At that point, the thing breaks down into arguing whether or not there’s a genetic predisposition, and that argument goes on for so long that they forget the original point of bringing up genetics, and someone like yourself thinks that the gay-rights advocate’s argument is “it’s genetic, so it’s okay”. Which leads you to say things like “oh, if they find the gene for paedophilia, apparently that’ll be okay too”.

    But that was never the point. The point was that a significant number of people do not experience choosing to whom they are attracted or with whom they fall in love, contrary to some people’s claims that being gay is a choice. Those who believe in God must therefore believe that God created some people gay. But that was His choice, not theirs.

    The thing is, I do not think anyone knows why a small percentage of the population (less than 3% by most accounts) prefers the same sex. But, yes, although I have deep sympathy for people who feel that way, I also think it goes against what is natural. How can it not be?

    I suspect that if you interrogated your own notion of “what is natural”, you’d find your own religious worldview revealed. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, just a thing, but don’t expect other people to mean the same thing by “natural” that you do.

    As for sympathy, the world is full of better candidates for that.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. Rowan (1,729 comments) says:

    Don’t believe that anyone is ‘born’ gay, its all a matter of choice, to say you were born gay because one of your parents is homosexual is just wrong, we do not inherit exactly everything our parents did, and may have taken up (or not taken up) any number of different lifestyle choices to them. Its your choice who you wish to jump into bed with at the end of the day

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. Harriet (4,010 comments) says:

    …………………….Harriet (3,308 comments) says:
    January 1st, 2014 at 10:15 pm
    I’m no authority on any given subject matter whatsoever, least of all on what I talk about!
    Why on earth would you take whay I say seriously ?

    This probably explains your statements………………..

    Yeah I stand by that Richard……..I’ve been saying it for years…….I got it from Bob Jones who said something similar.

    I can’t believe you saved it though………I think you may have a problem…… being ‘offended’ or something……..from general public opinion.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. Harriet (4,010 comments) says:

    “…….And yet … many men find stimulation of the prostate pleasurable. Presumably you have a Christian explanation as to why God would make it so?….”

    He made arsholes a one way valve…….to keep things out………..as all GP’s will tell you.

    Some people find cutting themselves pleasurable……….that’s also a mental issue!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. eszett (2,268 comments) says:

    OMG, Harriet is Philu’s evil right wing twin! A mirror image of incoherent ramblings separeted by the liberal use of ellipsis

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. Fletch (5,721 comments) says:

    Ryan, I didn’t say that being gay is always a choice.
    I don’t think anyone really knows the reasons. Maybe sometimes it is a choice, maybe not.

    If you can point me to the person who is saying “people should be allowed to do whatever they’re genetically predisposed to do, and that’s why it’s okay to be gay”

    I think there are people who are making that argument – at least the argument that marriage is somehow a human right, based solely on “love” and who ignore the reality of complementarity of gender; that love is the only requirement for most kinds of relationship, apart from the ones outlawed by societal mores.

    People ignore the ecology of their own bodies. The same people that would jump up and down if the natural ecology of a waterway is disturbed by something unnatural. Pope Benedict said in a talk –

    These words lay the foundation for what is put forward today under the term “gender” as a new philosophy of sexuality. According to this philosophy, sex is no longer a given element of nature, that man has to accept and personally make sense of: it is a social role that we choose for ourselves, while in the past it was chosen for us by society. The profound falsehood of this theory and of the anthropological revolution contained within it is obvious. People dispute the idea that they have a nature, given by their bodily identity, that serves as a defining element of the human being. They deny their nature and decide that it is not something previously given to them, but that they make it for themselves. According to the biblical creation account, being created by God as male and female pertains to the essence of the human creature.

    This duality is an essential aspect of what being human is all about, as ordained by God. This very duality as something previously given is what is now disputed. The words of the creation account: “male and female he created them” (Gen 1:27) no longer apply. No, what applies now is this: it was not God who created them male and female – hitherto society did this, now we decide for ourselves. Man and woman as created realities, as the nature of the human being, no longer exist. Man calls his nature into question. From now on he is merely spirit and will. The manipulation of nature, which we deplore today where our environment is concerned, now becomes man’s fundamental choice where he himself is concerned. From now on there is only the abstract human being, who chooses for himself what his nature is to be. Man and woman in their created state as complementary versions of what it means to be human are disputed. But if there is no pre-ordained duality of man and woman in creation, then neither is the family any longer a reality established by creation. Likewise, the child has lost the place he had occupied hitherto and the dignity pertaining to him. Bernheim shows that now, perforce, from being a subject of rights, the child has become an object to which people have a right and which they have a right to obtain. When the freedom to be creative becomes the freedom to create oneself, then necessarily the Maker himself is denied and ultimately man too is stripped of his dignity as a creature of God, as the image of God at the core of his being. The defence of the family is about man himself. And it becomes clear that when God is denied, human dignity also disappears. Whoever defends God is defending man.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. Psycho Milt (1,975 comments) says:

    But there are those who will argue (and I am playing devil’s advocate here) – that if homosexual attraction is due to your genes, then isn’t pedophilia – or attraction to children – also genetic? And that the age of consent is simply a societal thing and that if it is a genetic predisposition, then it is unfair discrimination to allow one and not the other.

    Your consistently-demonstrated inability to understand the concept of consent or ascribe any relevance to it is seriousy creepy.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. ShawnLH (1,932 comments) says:

    So we are slaves to our genes? Do we release all serial killers merely because there are genetic factors involved in the creation of serial killers? No. Why? Because we do not use “my genes made me do it” as an excuse.

    Genetics play a role in many things we consider bad, like cancer.

    Genes play a role in all our lives, but they do not take away our moral responsibility.

    I think people who choose to indulge this particular behavior should be left alone to live their lives as they see fit but they do not have a right to try and force the rest of us to agree, nor to use ratepayers money for parades or gathering, and the argument for “equality” in marriage is a fraudulent lie.

    Gay marriage is about ideology, not science.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. Rowan (1,729 comments) says:

    Good call Shawn
    It all comes down to a moral choice at the end of the day, Genes play a role but being gay or becoming a serial killer comes down to an individuals chosen path.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. SPC (4,654 comments) says:

    Fletch, or associating God with a society built by a patriarchy, and expecting individuals of that society to bow down to the god of its natural order. A classic apology for conservatism by wrapping up its values with god anointing. And so connect each individual life with being born into a role in that society. Whomever defend that society god is defending the order men have built and called the natural way of godly society.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. ShawnLH (1,932 comments) says:

    “or associating God with a society built by a patriarchy”

    Ooooo…”PATRIARCHY”!!! The feminist bogeyman, and a convenient excuse for both moral nihilism and cultural Marxism.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. SPC (4,654 comments) says:

    ShawnLH, if the DNA markers are valid scientific conclusion, albeit unwelcome to those of religion then this will be a replay of an old story.

    They will at first deny the science, then say the science does not matter, or that the science is no excuse for doubt in the moral authority of the society god.

    Then they will link those who claim a certain DNA as those to remain separate from the society god as rebellious immoral dogs to be confined to a ghetto outside the marriage bed of the society god, then they will associate them with serial murder each year, then associate them with disease (physical and mental and or abuse), and claim any evidence against the society god comes from those of an ideology that is adversarial to belief in and obedience to the society god.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. SPC (4,654 comments) says:

    What next ShawnLH, wanna bring up the Frankfurt school theory … and the fellow travellers – feminism and the left.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. Fletch (5,721 comments) says:

    Genetics play a role in many things we consider bad, like cancer.

    Genes play a role in all our lives, but they do not take away our moral responsibility.

    Well said.
    Some people have a propensity to alcoholism because their mother or father were alcoholic or for some other reason. Does that mean they should give in to their natural inclinations or try and fight them to break the cycle and try make a better life for themselves.

    I read an article written recently by a man who got married to a woman, adopted two children and later figured out that he was gay. He left his wife and got into the gay lifestyle. After 10 years he came back and they are a family again, even those he still has some homosexual feelings. He does say that a gay marriage, or lifestyle is not the same thing as a traditional family.

    Philia love between men is far better, far stronger, and far more fulfilling than erotic love can ever be. But society now promotes the lowest form of love between men while sabotaging the higher forms. Gay culture continues to promote the sexualization of all (viewing one’s self and other males primarily as sexual beings), while proving itself nearly bankrupt when it comes to fostering any other aspect of male/male relationships.

    At first, I felt liberated. I dated some great guys, and was in a couple of long-term relationships. Over several years, intellectual honesty led me to some unexpected conclusions: (1) Creating a family with another man is not completely equal to creating a family with a woman, and (2) denying children parents of both genders at home is an objective evil. Kids need and yearn for both.

    It took some doing, but after ten years of divorce, we began to pull our family back together. We have been under one roof for over two years now. Our kids are happier and better off in so many ways. My ex-wife, our kids, and I recently celebrated Thanksgiving and Christmas together and agreed these were the best holidays ever.

    Sexuality is fluid for many, and much more complex than many want to acknowledge. Gay and straight activists alike pretend this isn’t true in order to fortify their positions. If they fail to maintain that mirage, fundraising for their organizations might dry up, as would the requests for television and radio interviews. Yet the “B” in the middle of “LGBT” acknowledges an important reality concerning our human sexuality.

    Here’s a very sad fact of life that never gets portrayed on Glee or Modern Family: I find that men I know who have left their wives as they’ve come out of the closet often lead diminished, and in some cases nearly bankrupt, lives—socially, familially, emotionally, and intellectually. They adjust their entire view of the world and their role within it in order to accommodate what has become the dominant aspect of their lives: their homosexuality. In doing so, they trade rich lives for one-dimensional lives. Yet this is what our post-modern world has taught us to do. I went along with it for a long while, but slowly turned back when I witnessed my life shrinking and not growing.

    [...]

    Two men or two women together is, in truth, nothing like a man and a woman creating a life and a family together. Same-sex relationships are certainly very legitimate, rewarding pursuits, leading to happiness for many, but they are wholly different in experience and nature.

    Gay and lesbian activists, and more importantly, the progressives urging them on, seek to redefine marriage in order to achieve an ideological agenda that ultimately seeks to undefine families as nothing more than one of an array of equally desirable “social units,” and thus open the door to the increase of government’s role in our lives.

    And while same-sex marriage proponents suggest that the government should perhaps just stay out of their private lives, the fact is, now that children are being engineered for gay and lesbian couples, a process that involves multiple other adults who have potential legal custody claims on these children, the potential for government’s involvement in these same-sex marriage households is staggering.

    Solomon only had to split the baby in two. In the future, judges may have to decide how to split children into three, four, or five equal pieces. In Florida, a judge recently ordered that the birth certificate of a child must show a total of three parents—a lesbian couple and a gay man (the sperm-providing hairdresser of one of the lesbian moms). Expect much more of this to come.

    http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/03/9432/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. Ryan Sproull (6,661 comments) says:
    If you can point me to the person who is saying “people should be allowed to do whatever they’re genetically predisposed to do, and that’s why it’s okay to be gay”

    I think there are people who are making that argument – at least the argument that marriage is somehow a human right, based solely on “love” and who ignore the reality of complementarity of gender; that love is the only requirement for most kinds of relationship, apart from the ones outlawed by societal mores.

    That is an utterly different thing. I am asking you to point me at someone who is saying “people should be allowed to do whatever they’re genetically predisposed to do, and that’s why it’s okay to be gay”. Nothing about anything you said in that paragraph comes close to that statement, and that’s the statement to which this question of genetic predisposition is relevant.

    What you are introducing are several entirely different arguments.

    People ignore the ecology of their own bodies. The same people that would jump up and down if the natural ecology of a waterway is disturbed by something unnatural.

    As I’ve said, what you mean by “natural” is inextricably linked with your religious views. Other people do not share you and Pope Benedict’s worldview and the meaning of the word “natural” that comes with it. We all have to live in the same society, so we’ve come up with ways of separating each citizen’s idea of nature from the laws that are imposed on all.

    Yes, that does mean collectively agreeing to a barer notion of what is right, partly for practical reasons (we’ve got to manage to get along somehow with incompatible worldviews and without violence) and partly because we do share some appreciation for the value of individual liberty in common despite our other differences.

    But the only people who agree with your idea of what is natural are people who already agree with you about just about everything else.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. ShawnLH (1,932 comments) says:

    “ShawnLH, if the DNA markers are valid scientific conclusion, albeit unwelcome to those of religion then this will be a replay of an old story.”

    DNA markers are largely irrelevant t personal moral responsibility. Science cannot determine moral questions.

    “They will at first deny the science, then say the science does not matter, or that the science is no excuse for doubt in the moral authority of the society god.”

    The “science” doesn’t matter. Science cannot determine moral truth, only tell us what kind of environment within which moral decisions are made.

    “Then they will link those who claim a certain DNA as those to remain separate from the society god as rebellious immoral dogs to be confined to a ghetto”

    Rubbish. ALL human beings are immoral and in rebellion to God, me included. I have never heard homosexuals referred to as “dogs” in any church I have attended, nor spoken about in such a way. Sure, there may be some out there, but most Christians do not think the way your claiming. This is just your own hysteria driven fantasy.

    “the society god”

    The god of our current society is not God.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. ShawnLH (1,932 comments) says:

    Ryan,

    “As I’ve said, what you mean by “natural” is inextricably linked with your religious views.”

    Of course. That is a totally fair comment. It is also true of you and everyone else in society, including those claiming, wrongly, to be agnostic on religion.

    All moral worldviews and beliefs are about our personal worldviews, not “science.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. SPC (4,654 comments) says:

    Fletch, when 50% of marriages end in divorce many children end up with 4 parents and time living with all of them. Possibly 2 fathers and two mothers but not always.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. Ryan Sproull (6,661 comments) says:
    “As I’ve said, what you mean by “natural” is inextricably linked with your religious views.”

    Of course. That is a totally fair comment. It is also true of you and everyone else in society, including those claiming, wrongly, to be agnostic on religion.

    Yes, that is why I didn’t stop there, and continued on in my comment to explain how we’ve tried to deal with that matter.

    All moral worldviews and beliefs are about our personal worldviews, not “science.”

    I agree. Science has nothing to say on the question of morality. Science deals with causation, not justification.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. SPC (4,654 comments) says:

    ShawnLH, I refer you to the writings of Paul and then to the writings of the book of Revelation (outside the walls of the Christian city etc), then to the 26th week of the 3rd year of the catechism – with a passing aside to blood libel of the Middle Ages era.

    Arguing for the exclusion of some from a “Christian society god” authorised marriage bed is ghettoising. Christians ended the earlier right to divorce and re-marriage till secular society restored this.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. ShawnLH (1,932 comments) says:

    “Fletch, when 50% of marriages end in divorce many children end up with 4 parents and time living with all of them. Possibly 2 fathers and two mothers but not always.”

    True, but this is partly to do with the liberal view, promulgated for decades now in popular culture, that marriage is about feelings, rather than a binding life-long commitment. So we have high divorce rates because the old ideas of marriage have been replaced by the notions that marriage is a “right”, that marriage can be ended when a person thinks, due to ephemeral feelings, that it’s over, and that marriage can be endlessly redefined to suit the fashionable idols of the culture.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. ShawnLH (1,932 comments) says:

    “Arguing for the exclusion of some from a “Christian society god” authorised marriage bed is ghettoising.”

    Rubbish. It is exclusion certainly. But “ghettoising” is just a conveniently pejorative and hysteria driven label. Your unspoken assumption is that nobody should be excluded from anything. What do you base that on?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. ShawnLH (1,932 comments) says:

    “then to the 26th week of the 3rd year of the catechism”
    Which catechism? I’m not Roman Catholic if that is what your thinking.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. SPC (4,654 comments) says:

    ShawnLH 11.40pm, to be relevant contextually universal salvation and a democracy including all its citizens as equals.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. SPC (4,654 comments) says:

    ShawnLH, the Catholic Church was the one church for much of Christian history and the expression was based on the writings of Paul and Revelation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. RichardX (290 comments) says:

    Fletch (5,530 comments) says:
    February 17th, 2014 at 9:33 pm
    Pope Benedict said in a talk …

    Why would you quote that individual as any sort of authority when he was responsible for moving pedophile priests around to avoid them being held accountable for their actions?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. ShawnLH (1,932 comments) says:

    “ShawnLH, the Catholic Church was the one church for much of Christian history and the expression was based on the writings of Paul and Revelation.”

    Er…no. Problems with history again I see,

    The early Church was not Roman Catholic, just the Church. The first split occured between the East and the West, and for several hundred years there were two-three main Churches, Roman, Eastern and Oriental (the Copts).

    The use of the Hebrew word, kelev, (dogs) is a reference to the slumbering watchmen of Israel who by their greed and sloth have become dogs or false teachers as in Isaiah 56 or earlier in Isaiah 4:9.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. ShawnLH (1,932 comments) says:

    “to be relevant contextually universal salvation and a democracy including all its citizens as equals.”

    Contextual relevance cannot re-write Scripture just to suit the times. That is not contextual relevance, but slavery to fashion.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. double d (219 comments) says:

    oh my god. DPF. You knew this would create traffic. BORING
    homosexuality
    religion
    and on the debate rages.
    tolerant lot aren’t we?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. Fletch (5,721 comments) says:

    Why would you quote that individual as any sort of authority when he was responsible for moving pedophile priests around to avoid them being held accountable for their actions?

    Not true. Benedict wasn’t part of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith when that was going down. I know, because, being Catholic, I had a need (more than most) to find out what went on, so I did a heap of research on the whole thing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. ShawnLH (1,932 comments) says:

    I am currently excluded from joining a women’s netball team because I’m not a women, and I can’t play netball. Am I being ghettoised because of that?

    I am currently exluded from joining the army because of my age. Am I being ghettoised as a result? No.

    Like the constant invocations of “homophobia” or “racism” this is just more Liberal New-Speak that is used by some to avoid having to make their case in any serious fashion, and to demonise opponents to the liberal worldview.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. SPC (4,654 comments) says:

    ShawnLH, oh from one of the pedantic education churches … .

    For much of Christianity there was one (major) church and when the Eastern Church separated it was not over teaching or doctrine, or debate over the meaning of the term dog.

    The attempt to define the meaning of the term dog in some particular way – is just revealing as to how those so indoctrinated into a group divided against the others (as to how others are slandered) – whether by lack of adherence to doctrine or by behaviour etc.

    I pity you if you think confusing the Hebrew word for the eternal with a name for God makes you one of the awake.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. SPC (4,654 comments) says:

    Shawn, I think the idea that any real God has favourites based upon which religion or church they are of is the fashion humanity needs to outgrow.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. ShawnLH (1,932 comments) says:

    “ShawnLH, oh from one of the pedantic education churches”

    Pedantic education churches????? Huh??? Speak English please.

    “or much of Christianity there was one (major) church and when the Eastern Church separated it”

    Or the Western Church separated from the East. Depends on your point of view. There has never been only one church for most of Church history. The split with the Oriental churches, the Copts, Syrians and so forth, occurred way before the split between East and West.

    “The attempt to define the meaning of the term dog in some particular way – is just revealing as to how those so indoctrinated into a group”

    Yes, it is very revealing of those with a certain Liberal mindset who have been indoctrinated by the foot soldiers of the Frankfurt school.

    “I pity you if you think confusing the Hebrew word for the eternal with a name for God makes you one of the awake.”

    Are you a Hebrew expert?

    ” I think the idea that any real God has favourites based upon which religion or church they are of is the fashion humanity needs to outgrow.”

    I never said anything about God having favorites. That does not remotely describe the Christian understanding of marriage. It’s not about favorites, it’s about discipleship. God expects a certain standard of behavior in many areas of life, from ALL of us equally.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. ShawnLH (1,932 comments) says:

    “What is true, just, and beautiful is not determined by popular vote. The masses everywhere are ignorant, short-sighted, motivated by envy, and easy to fool. Democratic politicians must appeal to these masses in order to be elected. Whoever is the best demagogue will win. Almost by necessity, then, democracy will lead to the perversion of truth, justice and beauty.”

    Hanse-Hermann Hoppe

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. SPC (4,654 comments) says:

    It is because truth, justice and beauty is not revealed by nor imposed by government that the Hoppe comment applies to all forms of government – and its use against democracy is just an admission that claims to have special knowledge of the truth, justice and beauty unknown to others is the path of the elitist (and so is the monopoly of each marriage bed) and is common to sects.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. SPC (4,654 comments) says:

    Shawn, now why was I right at 11.08pm to expect you to bring the Frankfurt school into it after your 11.04 pm post – the idea of a conspiracy of Marxist Jews to exploit feminism and overthrow the patriarchy of Western Christendom …

    Thus you connect your others, “dogs”, to Jews apart from Christianity and render suspect your prevarication on this earlier …

    What has knowledge of Hebrew to do with spotting the silliness of naming God with a word for “the eternal” in Hebrew, especially amongst those who do not speak it (most of those who speak Hebrew know better). It’s similar to Moslems who use the Arabic term for “the God” and think its a name for God – those who speak Arabic would know better.

    Use of a name for God is of the tradition of “blasphemy” – you referred to Isaiah and the use of the term dog in that writing – the book notes that the Israeli kingdom fell after calling on God by name – the subsequent slaves were no longer to keep the Sabbath day holy (so breach of the third commandment on not to use a name for God, for this would be in vain, led to the loss of the Sabbath day keeping 4th commandment sign of that people – now more commonly linked to Jews).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. Ed Snack (1,535 comments) says:

    Interesting, although I expect to see many more announcements of this sort about “gay genes” and the like, because that is “news” and fits certain political agendas. Genetics is complex, and just how complex we are still finding out. I can well recall how we were told all about the “junk DNA” and how only coding for proteins was important, and how each active stretch of DNA coded for one protein; and all of those are demonstrably wrong. I have little doubt that there is yet more to be discovered that will probably make the interpretation of such studies harder to be certain about.

    However I would opine that much of what we see related to homosexuality is a political agenda, not one driven by sexual preference at all. Gay marriage I would posit is a good example of this; “marriage equality” was a purely political slogan and the target was swinging public opinion against social conservatives. Similarly most if not all of the aggressive “gay equal rights” movement agenda is a political agenda used largely by progressive elements because it is so effective in stigmatizing elements of the so called “right”, the social conservatives and religious groupings. This is recognized by some but I believe not most gay activists.

    After all, who cares what consenting adults do with each other provided it doesn’t cost the rest of us $$$ in compensation or health costs. But political barrow pushing based on some ridiculous form of identity politics, push off.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  140. Psycho Milt (1,975 comments) says:

    God expects a certain standard of behavior in many areas of life, from ALL of us equally.

    Odd that he’s never mentioned it…

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  141. Fletch (5,721 comments) says:

    Odd that he’s never mentioned it…

    There’s a big thick manual where he explains it all.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  142. RRM (8,988 comments) says:

    There’s a big thick manual where he explains it all.

    LOL – we got some God propaganda in our letterbox recently.

    There is a Q & A thing on the back.

    Q: “How do I know everything said in the Bible is true?”

    A: Chapter XX verse YY of the Bible says it is all true.

    Even our 9 year old could see the problem… ;-)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  143. ShawnLH (1,932 comments) says:

    SPC,

    “Shawn, now why was I right at 11.08pm to expect you to bring the Frankfurt school into it after your 11.04 pm post – the idea of a conspiracy of Marxist Jews to exploit feminism and overthrow the patriarchy of Western Christendom”

    The Frankfurt School was and is made up of a very large number of people, some Jews, many not. I am not anti-Jewish, and have been one of the strongest opponents over the years on this blog to anti-Semitism and to anti-Israeli polemic.

    Be careful what you so lazily accuse people of.

    “What has knowledge of Hebrew to do with spotting the silliness of naming God with a word for “the eternal” in Hebrew”

    The Hebrew word ‘Kelev’ is the word for dogs, not the eternal. If your going to misquote Scripture, and claim that the Bible says something it does not (in this case saying that Paul called homosexuals dogs, which is not true) I’m going to point that out.

    As to “sects” I’m in the Anglican Church.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  144. ShawnLH (1,932 comments) says:

    RRM,

    Yes, that is a very silly bit of Biblical defense, but there are much better. For what it’s worth here is my purely subjective take.

    I did not become a Christian because I was convinced the Bible is true, nor even because I had decided that God existed. Debates on those two issues to me are irrelevant, because neither can be proved nor disproved.

    My journey to Christianity began with this guy called Jesus. The more I learnt about him, the more I became convinced he was who he said he was, that he was good and wise and different to every other human being. So I started to pray to him, and the more I did, the more I had experiences of profound love, guidance, blessing, and a deep sense of his presence with me. Thus I began to trust that this guy called Jesus, to believe through my experience, that he was truly alive, and was truly God.

    So I trust in the Bible, because I trust in Jesus first. I believe in God, because I trust in Jesus first. Arguments, for or against, either on purely abstract grounds thus don’t interest me. I avoid debates about the existence or non-existence of God for that reason; they are pointless. It is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God or the truth of the Bible on purely abstract grounds. Faith alone can do that, and by faith I don’t mean abstract belief, but a profound trust arising from the personal experience of walking with Jesus and trying to follow him.

    I cannot give that experience to anyone else, so I don’t try and convince people of what I believe. My responses to SPC were solely because he was talking blatant rubbish about Scripture teaches.

    As to homosexuals, just to be clear, I take the view that what consenting adults choose to do privately is their own business and not mine or anyone else’s. I supported the civil union bill on that basis. I did not support the marriage “equality” bill because I think there are very good reasons, long before we get anywhere near religion, for keeping marriage and civil unions separate.

    But the “my genes made me do it” is a silly argument from any point of view.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  145. Ryan Sproull (6,661 comments) says:

    I did not become a Christian because I was convinced the Bible is true, nor even because I had decided that God existed. Debates on those two issues to me are irrelevant, because neither can be proved nor disproved.

    My journey to Christianity began with this guy called Jesus. The more I learnt about him

    Learnt about him from…?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  146. SPC (4,654 comments) says:

    ShawnLH, no where did I misquote scripture, or say that kelev was a Hebrew word for eternal or that Paul called homosexuals dogs. Yet you claimed I did. Hmm.

    Replying to what I wrote or a version of it, experiencing Jesus or your idealism for/of Jesus?

    So your sect is the same as Reid’s.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  147. SPC (4,654 comments) says:

    BBC magazine looks at the issue.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26089486

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  148. SPC (4,654 comments) says:

    3 comments on the latest DNA research.

    Dr William Byne, editor-in-chief of the journal LGBT Health, believes sexuality may well be inborn, but thinks it could be more complicated than some scientists believe. He notes that the heritability of homosexuality is similar to that for divorce, but “social science researchers have not… searched for ‘divorce genes’. Instead they have focused on heritable personality and temperamental traits that might influence the likelihood of divorce.”

    William Rice, from the University of California Santa Barbara, says that it may be possible to explain this by looking not at our genetic code but at the way it is processed. Rice and his colleagues refer to the emerging field of epigenetics, which studies the “epimarks” that decide which parts of our DNA get switched on or off. Epimarks get passed on to children, but only sometimes. Rice believes that female foetuses employ an epimark that makes them less sensitive to testosterone. Usually it’s not inherited, but occasionally it is, leading to same-sex preference in boys.

    For Qazi Rahman, it’s the media that oversimplifies genetic theories of sexuality, with their reports of the discovery of “the gay gene”. He believes that sexuality involves tens or perhaps hundreds of alleles that will probably take decades to uncover. Qazi Rahman says that alleles coding for same sex attraction only explain some of the variety in human sexuality. Other, naturally varying biological factors come into play, with about one in seven gay men, he says, owing their sexuality to the

    “big brother effect”

    This is the observation that boys with older brothers are significantly more likely to become gay – with every older brother the chance of homosexuality increases by about a third. No-one knows why this is, but one theory is that with each male pregnancy, a woman’s body forms an immune reaction to proteins that have a role in the development of the male brain. Since this only comes into play after several siblings have been born – most of whom are heterosexual and go on to have children – this pre-natal quirk hasn’t been selected away by evolution.

    Hormones in the womb

    Exposure to unusual levels of hormone before birth can also affect sexuality. For example, female foetuses exposed to higher levels of testosterone before birth show higher rates of lesbianism later on. Studies show that “butch” lesbian women and men have a smaller difference in length between their index and ring fingers – a marker of pre-natal exposure to testosterone. In “femme” lesbians the difference has been found to be less marked.

    Twins

    Brothers of a different kind – identical twins – also pose a tricky question. Research has found that if an identical twin is gay, there is about a 20% chance that the sibling will have the same sexual orientation. While that’s a greater likelihood than random, it’s lower than you might expect for two people with the same genetic code.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26089486

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.