How do Ron Paul supporters feel about homosexuality?

[heavenlyboy34]

I'm your best fiend ever. Lemme borrow some money.

If you repair the job market so I can find a job, I'll lend you some $$.

 

[asimplegirl]

Does it really matter whether I believe someone is straight or gay due to their environment, genetics or simple choice?

I don't think so.

Even if being gay is a choice, that's no reason not to give them the same rights as those who are born into or choose heterosexuality. I don't get what the end goal of the "choice" vs. "genetics" debate is. Either way, you're still stripping another human being of their rights based solely on who they choose to have sex with.

I've met people who I would guess were gay from birth, I've also met people who I think were influenced by their environment. I'm not an expert on it, nor do I care to be.

This was worded just perfectly, and I could not agree more.

 

[ForLiberty-RonPaul]

Quote:
Originally Posted by ForLiberty-RonPaul
i'm sure these types of scenarios occur more often than reported. I'm currently reading "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" and I was surprised to learn that there were bunches (not bunchies) of gays in the S.S. Like actual troopers. The really off the wall type of people. I think that when you live in a society that says you are "wrong" then some may compensate by over doing it in the other direction. To prove their non-gayness or to -poke out your eye if it causes you to sin- .... kinda thing.

This was imprinted upon the SS through the Thule Society, but it was the desired orientation for the SS: ultimate warrior; must understand that it is based upon the Platonic era Greeks--the effeminate were disdained/exterminated in the camps. The influence of the occult-aspects [hidden and difficult to see] of Greek homosexuals on Nazi culture was best explained by contemporary German psychoanalyst, Wilhelm Reich in his 1933 classic, The Mass Psychology of Fascism [put this book on your reading list]:


Quote:
Among the ancient Greeks, whose written history does not begin until patriarchy has reached a state of full development, we find the following sexual organization: male supremacy...and along with this the wives leading an enslaved and wretched existence and figuring solely as birth machines. The male supremacy of the Platonic era is entirely homosexual...The same principle governs the fascist ideology of the male strata of Nazi leaders (Bluher, Roehm, etc.). For the fascists, therefore, the return of natural sexuality is viewed as a sign of decadence, lasciviousness, lechery, and sexual filth...the fascists ...affirm the most severe form of patriarchy and actually reactivate the sexual life of the Platonic era in their familial form of living...Rosenberg and Bluher [the leading Nazi ideologists] recognize the state solely as a male state organized on a homosexual basis."

Extremely effective, like the male-supremacy Spartan homosexual military cult as well, not addressed per se in '300', but their results/lethality speak across time.

So then I have a question. Those who have been setting up fascist states throughout human history have made homosexuality a benchmark of that state. Therefore, men who were not born gay nevertheless, in order to "fit in" or follow orders, engaged in homosexual behavior. Would millennia after millennia of "acting" gay change your DNA so that your offspring would eventually behave that way without coaxing? (Basically *forced natural selection)

To survive in a homosexually dominated fascist state you had to act gay, therefore altering your offsprings' DNA over 1000's of years. ?????


Of course that raises the question of Who was the first flamer?

 

[amy31416]

This was worded just perfectly, and I could not agree more.

Thanks. I just don't understand why some things are even a debate, or why people care so much what other people are up to in the bedroom. It just seems completely artificial.

I can understand people getting bent out of shape about life or death issues like war, healthcare, abortion, etc., but getting torqued over homosexuality just doesn't make sense.

 

[amy31416]

If you repair the job market so I can find a job, I'll lend you some $$.

I need some lab rats. The pay ain't great, but the fringe benefits are "interesting."

Just doing my part.

 

[asimplegirl]

Thanks. I just don't understand why some things are even a debate, or why people care so much what other people are up to in the bedroom. It just seems completely artificial.

I can understand people getting bent out of shape about life or death issues like war, healthcare, abortion, etc., but getting torqued over homosexuality just doesn't make sense.

I know. Politically, it's none of your business, even if personally you don't agree with something.

And even when you personally don't agree with something it is easy to avoid contact with said issues so you don't even need to think about it. It just doesn't effect you.

I am glad to see that other people feel the same way.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I need some lab rats. The pay ain't great, but the fringe benefits are "interesting."

Just doing my part.

what kind of experiments do you do? drugs? physical therapy? etc?

 

[amy31416]

what kind of experiments do you do? drugs? physical therapy? etc?

What? You want me to ruin the surprise? That's half the fun!

 

[heavenlyboy34]

What? You want me to ruin the surprise? That's half the fun!

lolz

 

[ShannonOBrien]

So then I have a question. Those who have been setting up fascist states throughout human history have made homosexuality a benchmark of that state. Therefore, men who were not born gay nevertheless, in order to "fit in" or follow orders, engaged in homosexual behavior. Would millennia after millennia of "acting" gay change your DNA so that your offspring would eventually behave that way without coaxing? (Basically *forced natural selection)

To survive in a homosexually dominated fascist state you had to act gay, therefore altering your offsprings' DNA over 1000's of years. ?????


Of course that raises the question of Who was the first flamer?

Natural selection can only occur through sexual selection. That means that any action you take during your life is not going to affect your or your children's DNA. For example, if you dye your hair blonde, that doesn't mean your children's hair will be blonde. However, if people find blondes more sexually attractive, then people with naturally blonde hair are naturally more likely to produce over thousands of years or more. So if we apply that to the homosexuality question, it becomes clear that even if there were such a thing as a gay gene, it wouldn't be very likely to get passed on. So any state propaganda on homosexuality is not going to have any affect on our genetic code. The best and most interesting book I ever came across that gets through all the brainwashing disinformation the media tries to spout is "Wonderful Life" by Stephen J. Gould. It's the first and best book I ever read about this.

 

[brandon]

Is not being gay a choice?

 

[Anti Federalist]

Huzzah, another chance to use this:

 

[ForLiberty-RonPaul]

Natural selection can only occur through sexual selection. That means that any action you take during your life is not going to affect your or your children's DNA. For example, if you dye your hair blonde, that doesn't mean your children's hair will be blonde. However, if people find blondes more sexually attractive, then people with naturally blonde hair are naturally more likely to produce over thousands of years or more. So if we apply that to the homosexuality question, it becomes clear that even if there were such a thing as a gay gene, it wouldn't be very likely to get passed on. So any state propaganda on homosexuality is not going to have any affect on our genetic code. The best and most interesting book I ever came across that gets through all the brainwashing disinformation the media tries to spout is "Wonderful Life" by Stephen J. Gould. It's the first and best book I ever read about this.

Well the hole in that argument is "Who made the first blonde person?" We know that long term exposure to the sun can "bleech" your hair. So it seems to me an external force of some kind can alter your DNA. And we aren't talking about 1 or 2 generations but dozens and dozens.

And instead of reading about the "Gay", i suggest you simply go and ask as many gay people as you can to find out why they think they are gay.

 

[Anthony T]

did somebody put a gun to your head?

Nope. Its just that I am not sexually attracted to women and never have been -- only to guys.

 

[ShannonOBrien]

Well the hole in that argument is "Who made the first blonde person?" We know that long term exposure to the sun can "bleech" your hair. So it seems to me an external force of some kind can alter your DNA. And we aren't talking about 1 or 2 generations but dozens and dozens.

And instead of reading about the "Gay", i suggest you simply go and ask as many gay people as you can to find out why they think they are gay.

What you are talking about is called "Lamarckianism"and it was debunked by Darwin a long time ago. The first blondes came about because of small changes over time. For example, take the Giraffe. Lamarck believed that that the Giraffe got a long neck because in its lifetime it had to stretch its neck to reach leaves that were high up in the trees and then had offspring that were born with the long necks. But this was debunked by Darwin who said that there was a population of Giraffes and maybe a couple of them had slightly longer necks. These Giraffes with the slightly longer necks could reach the higher leaves, so they could consume more leaves, have a longer life and produce more offspring. Then the offspring had longer necks and could reach the higher leaves as well, consume more leaves, have a longer life and produce even MORE offspring. This is of course, occurring over a very long period of time.

So it is the same with blondes. There was a population of humans. A few of them or maybe even one of them had a mutation (which is common in all species, an example of a modern day mutation would be that a rare number of people are resistant to HIV) that gave them slightly blonder hair color. The men or women were sexually attracted to this slightly blonder hair color and had more children with the blonde. So then a new generation of slightly blonde children exist and then THEY are popular to breed with and even MORE blonde children are born.

 

[H Roark]

You know, I've always been curious as to whether homosexuality was something a person was predisposed to genetically or whether it was an acquired behavior. So I decided to write a research paper on this topic for my human sexuality class in college and I concluded that the sexual preference of an individual is predetermined, making homosexuality an innate attribute of one’s character. However I do want to warn you that I limited my research to men only, because the evidence for female homosexuality is not as strongly supported as with men. Below are excerpts from my paper of the most significant evidence... Let me say that this still does not justify the governments involvement and a groups attempt to redefine the exclusively religious institution called marriage.

Genes are a powerful means as to answering the old age question, is homosexuality a choice? Genes may not be the only determining factor, but they do predispose individuals to desire same-sex relationships. Richard Pillard, a professor of psychiatry at Boston University, and J. Michael Baily, an assistant professor of psychology at Northwestern University in Evanston, Illonois conducted a study on 110 random pairs of twins in which one twin was gay. Since identical twins share an exact copy of each other’s DNA sequence; it should be observed that if one twin is gay then the other brother should be gay as well, if in fact genes are to be the sole determinant of sexual orientation. Out of the 56 pairs of identical twins, 52% of the co-twins were also gay, but out of 54 pairs of fraternal twins, only 22 of the co-twins were gay (Hamer 28). Although not all of the identical brothers of twins that were homosexual were also homosexual themselves, this finding does prove the theory that homosexuality is influenced by genes. More specifically, there was to be found a small region of the X chromosome which a high proportion of gay brothers shared.

The most remarkable scientific find done by Dr. Dean Hamer regarding genes and homosexuality has to do with the identification of a region called Xq28 on the X chromosome. The name of the region comes from the chromosome (X), the arm of the chromosome (q), and the position of the arm (28) (Hamer 121). It is a gene that is passed down through the female line of a family tree, since males can only inherit one X chromosome which comes from their mother. For instance, a gay man who ends up having children may not have any gay sons, but his sister is likely to have a gay child and so on. Evidence for this theory lies in the higher than usual percentage (37%) of Dr. Dean Hamer’s gay subjects whom are maternal cousins thru their aunts. Because the gay version of the gene at Xq28 can be linked to homosexuality only in men and not women, it is possible that it enhances the heterosexuality in women. If that were true, it further explains the persistence of the gay gene, because women who are hyper heterosexual would be more inclined to have more sexual intercourse and therefore more gay sons.

The brain, the most intriguing organ of the human body has been learned to be different among men and women, in particular the size of an area named INAH-3. A small group of cells called the third Interstitial Nucleus of the Anterior Hypthalmus (INAH-3) has been discovered to be significantly larger in men than in women. LeVay, a neuroanatomist hypothesized that there would be a similar difference, or dimorphism, related to sexual orientation; that is, that INAH-3 would be larger in heterosexual than in homosexual men (Hamer 161). His hypothesis was supported when the results of his study concluded that INAH-3 in the gay men were the same volume as in the women, or two to three times smaller than in the straight men. Genes or the anatomy of the brain are not the only biological forces at work in deciding the sexual orientation of an individual.

There is much coverage about the influence that hormones have over one’s sexual desires. It is known that testosterone is the hormone that gives men their masculine characteristics and estrogen is the hormone that gives women their feminine characteristics. It is also known that the development of a child within the womb can be its most vulnerable time and that the well-being of the mother usually translates to the well-being of the growing child. Several studies have shown that pregnant rats confined to small living quarters and subjected to intense sensory stimulation have higher levels of blood-borne stressors adrenaline, corticosteroids and adrenocorictrophic (ACTH) hormones. These stress hormones freely cross the placenta and block the synthesis of fetal testosterone, leading to inverted sexual behavior or bisexuality in their offspring (McKnight 30). Gunter Dorner, Director of the Institute of Experimental Endocrinology in Berlin revealed that men born during the WWII war-time period in Germany had a higher incidence of homosexuality than within the twenty years after the war.

Dorner and his associates then conducted a study on the mothers of heterosexual, bisexual and homosexual men and found that two-thirds of the mothers of male homosexuals easily recalled severe stressors such as the death of a close friend or relative, interpersonal difficulties such as divorce or separation, or several financial difficulties. In contrast, one one-third of the bisexual and less than 10 percent of the heterosexual sample reported such instances (McKnight 30)

 

[ForLiberty-RonPaul]

What you are talking about is called "Lamarckianism"and it was debunked by Darwin a long time ago. The first blondes came about because of small changes over time. For example, take the Giraffe. Lamarck believed that that the Giraffe got a long neck because in its lifetime it had to stretch its neck to reach leaves that were high up in the trees and then had offspring that were born with the long necks. But this was debunked by Darwin who said that there was a population of Giraffes and maybe a couple of them had slightly longer necks. These Giraffes with the slightly longer necks could reach the higher leaves, so they could consume more leaves, have a longer life and produce more offspring. Then the offspring had longer necks and could reach the higher leaves as well, consume more leaves, have a longer life and produce even MORE offspring. This is of course, occurring over a very long period of time.

So it is the same with blondes. There was a population of humans. A few of them or maybe even one of them had a mutation (which is common in all species, an example of a modern day mutation would be that a rare number of people are resistant to HIV) that gave them slightly blonder hair color. The men or women were sexually attracted to this slightly blonder hair color and had more children with the blonde. So then a new generation of slightly blonde children exist and then THEY are popular to breed with and even MORE blonde children are born.

Well, whether it was debunked or not I don't know. However, considering what I was originally talking about I think forced-natural selection is still possible. I would guess that homosexuals are far out numbered by heterosexuals, meaning that homosexuality is definitely not the "norm". Your case with the giraffes is transmutable.

---
ex: --> I'm a dictator who's all about the male dominated society. So much so that I shape my civilization to degrade women. They are factories to produce babies, nothing more. On the flip side of that I tell all the men in my society to have relations with other men only. Those caught with women will be killed.
---
In this extreme (maybe) case, you have only those willing to engage in homosexual behavior lifted up and those not willing, killed. It's not as simple as a giraffe reaching for fruit. If this society persisted for a time, young men would grow up wired for much gayness. They wouldn't know any different. Brain chemistry would literally be mutated.

So I guess I'm not talking about pure Darwinism, but some kind of psychological-Darwinian-bohemian cross breed of some sort. All theoretical and unprovable.

 

[TonySutton]

Studies have shown that over tens of thousands of years the ratio of handedness among humans was about 10:1. Although there was an odd dip over the last few centuries to about 3%. A recent study shows left handedness is again approaching 10%. A study has attributed the following factors in this dip.

Left-handers suffered severe prejudice during the 18th and 19th centuries and it was often "beaten out" of people

In adulthood, left-handers were often shunned by society, resulting in fewer marrying and reproducing

As prejudice declined in the 20th century, the number of natural left-handers who stayed left-handed increased

I will suggest it is possible a similar issue exists with regards to sexual orientation. Social pressures may cause bi and gay men and women to hide their sexuality and live a life that is contrary to how they are "wired."

 

[lucius]

bump

 

[Matt Collins]

Oh great you can help me with my audio equipment set up! I got Digital Performer!

UGH... DP is great for MIDI but it's not intuitive at all and has what I consider a very steep learning curve (at least compared to something like ProTools).