dk

dk: I said the cause of homosexuality was unknown meaning nature and nurture. I’ve maintained all along that bi, gay and lesbians are some unfathomable mixture of nature and nurture. If there is a bi, gay or lesbian gene there’s no evidence of it, so it’s a matter of speculation, doctrine, dogma and opinion. Absent positive evidence logical diktats the parameters should be defined as broadly as possible. You made a declarative statement of positive knowledge, then failed to present an iota of positive evidence. Belief absent physical evidence is doctrinal and dogmatic.
dk: You have not offered one iota of physical evidence that sexual response is a function of genetics.
dk: Touting homosexual dogma as a cure for suicide is desperate or imbecilic. All the evidence I’ve read says gays (males) suffer disproportionately high rates of STDs, suicide, drugs abuse and mental illness. The most recent reports by the CDC says Gay teens suffer a 5-7% annual infection rate of HIV, teens under the tutelage of their disproportionately HIV+ gay sugar daddies. This proves misery loves company and infers that gay culture is disease ridden.
dk: The topic of the thread is honest sex education. To covertly and systematically indoctrinate children with dogma under the guise of scientific fact is dishonest. Lets be honest now.

Quote:

The results of this investigation and other similar outbreaks suggest that an increasing number of MSM are participating in high-risk sexual behavior that places them at risk for syphilis and HIV infection [5,6]. Similar trends have been reported internationally [7]. These data are consistent with reports from behavioral surveys that indicate some MSM are participating in activities that increase their risk for acquiring and transmitting HIV and other STDs [8]. Several factors may have contributed to this change, including the availability of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) [9]. Since the introduction of HAART in 1996, acquired immunodeficiency syndrome incidence and deaths have declined substantially, decreasing the actual and perceived threat of HIV to MSM [8]. Because syphilis increases the likelihood of acquiring and transmitting HIV infection, the increase in P&S syphilis among MSM may indicate an increase in the incidence of HIV infection. HIV incidence was high among MSM in their 20s and young racial/ethnic minority MSM, especially blacks. Because there were no earlier incidence studies of MSM aged 15--22 years, it is unknown whether HIV transmission among very young MSM is increasing. However, the preliminary high incidence data among MSM aged 23--29 years in YMS Phase II, in conjunction with other recent findings on STDs and sexual behaviors [1,2], are of concern and may suggest a resurgent MSM epidemic among young MSM in the late 1990s

These trends are as horrific as they are tragic.
Note: MSM denotes “males who have sex with males”. I simply note that love does no harm, so homosexuals sugar daddies have no love for their young protégés.
To be honest if 1 in 10 young Gay men are infected with HIV, I don't want my kid swapping spit in that crowd. To be honest as a black parent living in any one of these 6 cities I'd be horrified at the prospect of my kid joining a gay support group, or dating any male bi or gay. These kind of numbers 20 years into the AIDs epidemic, with the government, schools and DOH spending billions on the "safe sex" message, put a condom on it, sexual tolerance and amoral sex can only be catagorized as a abject failure of policy, education and doctrine.

[ January 04, 2002: Message edited by: dk ]

[ January 04, 2002: Message edited by: dk ]</p>

Prax

i apologize for jumping in the middle here...but i have questions of the participants in this thread:
the 'nature vs. nuture' arguement seems to limit the actuallity of how we, as humans, develop any aspect of our personality.
is the answer truly limited in all instances of gay-dom to be either, neither, or both?
until there is scientific probablility that it is one or the other...wouldnt the presumption of a cummulative effect of both be most reasonable?
at least based on this premise: most aspects of our personalities (likes, dislikes, hates, desires, etc) are contextual.
our genetics set the stage for our tendancies, in some instances though not all, but our experience defines our patterns of thought and validation of our input and the formulation of our conclusions.
after reading this entire thread i didnt feel as though any response to dk's post really addressed the 'why' you all dont think sexual expression isnt a matter of both nature and nurture. and if its _not_...then why it has to be 'either not both' in every given instance.

i know more than one person who 'gave up' on the opposite sex and 'became' involved in same sex relationships. i also know more than one person who says they have felt 'gay' since early childhood.

does the reality of the situation lie somewhere else?

can it not be both, neither, or either in any given, contextual, circumstance?

/doda

[ January 04, 2002: Message edited by: D.O.D.A ]

[ January 04, 2002: Message edited by: D.O.D.A ]</p>

dk

I agree with you doda, if we are to be honest about sex education, then we must all confront our preconceived and personal opinions. Trying to slap a gene on the many issues that confront homosexuals and more generally young people is dishonest and counter productive. Such tactics by either side only serves to end an important discussion by drawing a line in the sand to blame somebody else to avoid a deeply personal and important issue. .

ChurchOfBruce

Welcome on in, DODA &lt;G&gt;.

I also know a few people who "gave up on" opposite sex relationships and settled into "same sex" relationships. And every one of the people I know will tell you that, at the heart of it, they are neither gay nor straight. They are bisexual.
I'll quote a friend of mine, who has had relationships with men and women but has been in a long-term lesbian relationship for a while: "I prefer women, but that's mostly personality. Sexually, I'm attracted to both. Now, my *relationships* with women have been more satisfying, which is why I stick to women. But I'm bisexual. However, I never could have switched to having relationships with women in the first place if the basic sexual attraction hadn't been there."

The reason I discount nurture in sexual orientation is because *all* sexuality is innate. Our sex drives are as hard-wired as the need for food, the need to eat, and the need to sleep. Now, sex drives *can* be controlled to some degree (as can some of the others, like eating) and can be controlled better by some people that others (as can some of the others, like eating, and nobody knows that better than overweight me &lt;G&gt . However, sexual interest is innate.

Now, one of the problems we run into when talking about sexual orientation is, as I discussed above, bisexuality. Have you ever heard of the Kinsey scale? It was developed by Alfred Kinsey in--I think--the forties. His research led him to the conclusion that human sexuality is not black or white, but on a spectrum. He developed a numerical scale from zero to six. Zero is completely hetero. Six is completely homosexual. Three is fifty/fifty bi. The way he described the numbers went like this:

0--no interest whatsoever in the same sex
1--could be coaxed into a fling with the same sex, but long-term relationships will be hetero
2--some interest in same sex, overall prefers opposite
3--sex of partner is irrelevant
4--some interest in opposite sex, overall prefers same
5--could be coaxed into a fling witih opposite sex, but all long-term relationships will be homo
6--no interest whatsoever in opposite sex

Now, this is where it can get confusing. Because if you're a three, it *might* look like that sexuality is a choice. But is it, if you are hard-wired to be equally attracted to both sexes? A particular *partner* might be a choice, but the basic attraction is hard-wired. In this case, the attraction happens to be both.

So, if you want to propose that nurture plays some part with *bisexuals*, you might have a case. This also applies to some degree for what I call the "fuzzy numbers" &lt;G&gt; especially 2 and 4.

However, if you're a six, you're a six. The opposite holds true: if you're a zero, you're a zero.

I have been exposed to "the gay lifestyle" for almost my whole adult life. When you're a trannie, you meet a lot of gays--most trannie clubs and bars are gay/les/bi/trannie clubs. And, if you hang out in them enough, you find out that there is a subset of gay and bi--especially bi--men who are very attracted to trannie/crossdresser types.

In other words, I've had my chances &lt;G&gt;. If it were possible to "indoctrinate" someone into a gay lifestyle, you'd think I'd be a prime candidate--I'm not homophobic, I hang around with gay people, and I delight in expressing my feminine side (and what better way to express your feminine side than to sleep with a man, right?)

But I've never done it. Because men don't turn me on.

--Frank

dk

dk: Innate? It is absurd to postulate sexuality is determined by factors present in an individual from birth. This is the day of sex operations, hormone injections, breast implants, Viagra, condoms, birth control pills, body piercing, sex toys and penal implants. Women swooned at Bill Clinton because he glowed in the power of the presidency. I suspect as Clinton ages without power women will come to view him with scorn for his indiscretions. If you remember during presidential campaign it was the Gore Kiss that sent women swooning to his corner, and pumped his approval rating up 20% amongst the favored sex. Who can say maybe its Hillary’s power that makes her attractive to women voters, but there is nothing innate about political power.
dk: Kinsey’s work has been thoroughly discredited. Turns out he was more of a sex pervert that found the research stimulating than an objective researcher. Most of his data was developed not recorded, he solicited his subjects from the ranks of prisons and prostitutes, including child prostitutes. I’m surprised you brought this guy up.
dk: As a kid I regularly played in and cut through a Forest Preserve that was a gay hangout. It was a shortcut to a public swimming pool and ball field. It had a good size parking lot off a busy street but completely surrounded by trees. On a nice summer morning it was packed with gay men sunning themselves and enjoying nature. By the time I was 12 years old I had been solicited for sex with offers ranging from Cub tickets to a $100 Bill, and got solicited so often it was routine. There was a gay guy with a house a quarter mile away. Years later my brother told me his friends and he went their to play poker. Actually the went their because the gay guy would loose money to them regularly, and when he won he traded nude pictures for debts. Two of my brothers friends ended up gay, and they all rolled gays at gay bars when they learned to drive. Little Rick was a nice looking petite young man who didn’t get carded in gay bars. Here’s an instance of a gay man not only molesting kids, but teaching them how to play poker, and play “Roll gays for Dollars”. If you want to trade stories I have a bunch and they are as disgusting as they are true. What do think society should do about this problem?

[ January 05, 2002: Message edited by: dk ]

[ January 06, 2002: Message edited by: dk ]</p>

ChurchOfBruce

Treat it as what it is--molestation.

I have a similar story, happened to a childhood friend of mine. Only difference is, my friend was a girl. You think child molestation is an exclusively gay phenomenon?

--Frank

dk

However we categorize the criminal, to the child the experience is hetero or homo. Since the vast majorities of pedophiles are men, 99% of molested boys have a homosexual experience; and 99% of girls that are sodomized have a perverted experience with a man.

-Are you suggesting a MSM (Man who has sex with Men) pedophile that rapes a hetero boy child commits a crime, but a MSM pedophile that rapes a gay child is a mentor?
-How many women pedophiles are there in contrast?

s
By the way the numbers put up by this article indicate MSM (males who have sex with males) and WSW (women who have sex with women) exhibit behaviors based on sexual assignment, as opposed to sexual orientation; in opposition to the innate sexual response theory. If innate sexual responses were the antecedent of sexual orientation set at birth, then WSW would sexually molest girls at the same ratio that MSM molest boys. This is simply not the case. Please explain the broad and universal discrepancy?

[ January 06, 2002: Message edited by: dk ]</p>

ChurchOfBruce

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. Why would innate sexual responses have anything to do with behaviours based on sexual (really gender) assignment? Sexual orientation and gender identity are not the same thing. If the rate that women commit molestation is a lot lower--and I agree with you, it is, although not unheard of--whether the woman in question is gay or straight shouldn't matter. Gay women wouldn't exhibit "male" behaviour. *Transgendered* women might. Not all gay people are transgendered. Not all transgendered people are gay.

As for some of the other stuff you talked about--this gets into some grey areas. One of them is age of consent laws. A 23 year old having sex with a 16 year old, in my home state, is *not* molestation. No matter the sex of the participants. 16 is the age of consent here.

Now, I think we can agree with *younger* kids, it is. I don't care if you're male or female, kids that are molested suffer. The crime is molestation, not homosexuality.

--Frank

Prax

i agree...the drive is as basic as the need to eat and sleep. but what is that drive? to get off? nope...the drive is for survival of the species...procreation...like every other mammal. we are programmed to procreate.

should the object of the attraction be separated from the innate 'drive' of sexuality, which is rooted in all mammals, as a reproductive tool?
are they 2 different subjects? the mechanism that gives us our drive _for_ sex in general vs. the mechanism that defines attraction for any given person.

i would agree that sex drive is innate...but likes and dislikes are contextual.

why would nature produce an organism with an innate drive for sexual experience with a member of the same sex? it would defeat the fundamental reason we have this drive in the first place.

so, making like my head and coming to a point:

drive = biology
attraction = psychology

maybe?

i dunno...im simply opining

_if_ homo is solely a nature thing, and the nature of sex is for procreation, then an organism with an innate drive to have exclusive sexual relations with members of the same sex is an organism that has been genetically mutated into an organism which is not sexually functional, at least from the perspective that sex drive is genetically based on the more fundamental drive for procreation of the species/your genetic material...not to say mutations dont happen...just to say that if it does happen, it is a self destructive gene for humanity to carry...lest it propagate somehow and destroy us all by removing our drive to reproduce...which is almost like saying homosexuality is somehow 'wrong'. (which i am NOT saying...at the most im saying it is pointless and has no role in our natural world and wouldnt likely be based on genetics because the genetic basis for sexuality is at best the drive to procreate...not the drive to get a nut off).

barring mutations, it is also a gene that would not often be passed unless 'nuture' interferes and 'teaches' them to be straight, and thus procreate...giving more credence to the position that nurture plays a role in sexual choices.

i think there are likely genes that control some aspects of sexuality...certainly the base level drive we all have...but how/do you guys/gals think that rolls up to the higher level aspects of our sexual choices...like attraction to a specific mate, (not the drive to mate in the first place)? let me know!

there are likely as many reasons for homosexuality as there are homosexuals.

i guess im saying the same thing i said last time...so ill shut up now.

regards,
doda

[ January 07, 2002: Message edited by: D.O.D.A ]</p>

dk

dk: - If 99% of all pedophiles and rapists are men then they are clearly hardwired to gender assignment. Kinsey speculates sexual orientation is set independently by a sexual orientation dial wired to sex assignment. So it’s meaningless. \
dk: Kinsey’s spectrum is an analogy for a rotary control with settings that range from 0, 1, 2,,, 6. Such that

• Rotate dial to 0, hetero … in men like women; women like men
• Rotate dial to 1 largely hetero
• Rotate dial to 2 slightly hetero
• Rotate dial to 3 bi
• Rotate dial to 4 slightly homo
• Rotate dial to 5 largely homo
• Rotate dial to 6 all homo

The problem is the dial orientation flip/flops depending upon the gender assignment.

• The dial control flips 180degrees on the sex orientation as a function of the Y chromosome, so gender assignment is certainly wired to the dial (not independent).
• The Y chromosome (or lack thereof) determines gender assignment, so sexual orientation in a lesbian isn’t due to the Y chromosome she doesn’t have.
• , Males commit 99% of the statutory, child molestations and rapes. This is strictly male behavior and could qualify as an innate sexual response.
• Females are rarely pedophiles or rapists. While I’m sure it’s plausible to postulate some conundrum of an explanation to cover both lesbians and gays under the same dogma it’s a kluge that doesn’t match the physical evidence.
• Men and women have an X chromosome, women lack a Y chromosome. To infer Rape and Pedophilia are innate sexual response due to the Y chromosome makes sense, because women lack the Y Chromosome!!!
• I don’t know why you want to throw transsexuals into the mix, a parrot can mime voice inflections. Most kids like to wear costumes. By large kids imitate gestures of people they admire. Anyone who of their own volition takes a regiment of hormones, surgical implants, and (eeeyuuuu) cuts their genitals off has an identity issue.

dk: Statutory rape is seldom prosecuted because it makes daddy a criminal. I find it difficult to reconcile teaching a 13 year old how to play house, then criminalize an 18 & 15 year old for playing house. To be honest, I'd criminalize sex for anyone attending a public high school. When a high school student becomes sexually active they’ve put their future and their progeny’s future in jeopardy.
dk: When anyone teaches doctrine as scientific fact its wrong, and when public schools teach doctrine as scientific fact its called state sponsored propaganda.

Note: MSM men who have sex with men are homo. WSW women who have sex with women are homo.

[ January 09, 2002: Message edited by: dk ]</p>