More evidence of a biological basis for homosexuality.

[Aurelian]

Here's an interesting story. A new study indicates that the brains of gay men react to human pheromones in the same way that women's brains do. Read on, MacDuff.


NYT May 10, 2005

For Gay Men, an Attraction to a Different Kind of Scent
By NICHOLAS WADE

Using a brain imaging technique, Swedish researchers have shown that homosexual and heterosexual men respond differently to two odors that may be involved in sexual arousal, and that the gay men respond in the same way as women.

The new research may open the way to studying human pheromones, as well as the biological basis of sexual preference. Pheromones, chemicals emitted by one individual to evoke some behavior in another of the same species, are known to govern sexual activity in animals, but experts differ as to what role, if any, they play in making humans sexually attractive to one another.

The new research, which supports the existence of human pheromones, is reported in today's issue of The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by Dr. Ivanka Savic and colleagues at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm.

The two chemicals in the study were a testosterone derivative produced in men's sweat and an estrogen-like compound in women's urine, both of which have long been suspected of being pheromones.

Most odors cause specific smell-related regions of the human brain to light up when visualized by a form of brain imaging that tracks blood flow in the brain and therefore, by inference, sites where neurons are active. Several years ago, Dr. Savic and colleagues showed that the two chemicals activated the brain in a quite different way from ordinary scents.

The estrogen-like compound, though it activated the usual smell-related regions in women, lighted up the hypothalamus in men. This is a region in the central base of the brain that governs sexual behavior and, through its control of the pituitary gland lying just beneath it, the hormonal state of the body.

The male sweat chemical, on the other hand, did just the opposite; it activated mostly the hypothalamus in women and the smell-related regions in men. The two chemicals seemed to be leading a double life, playing the role of odor with one sex and of pheromone with another.

The Swedish researchers have now repeated the experiment but with the addition of gay men as a third group. The gay men responded to the two chemicals in the same way as did women, Dr. Savic reports, as if the hypothalamus's response is determined not by biological sex but by the owner's sexual orientation.

Dr. Savic said that she had also studied gay women, but that the data were "somewhat complicated" and not yet ready for publication.

The finding is similar to a report in 1991 by Dr. Simon LeVay that a small region of the hypothalamus is twice as large in straight men as in women or gay men. The brain scanning technique used by the Swedish researchers lacks the resolution to see the region studied by Dr. LeVay, which is a mere millimeter or so across. But both findings suggest that the hypothalamus is organized in a way related to sexual orientation.

The new finding, if confirmed, would break ground in two important directions, those of human pheromones and human sexuality.

Mice are known to influence each other's sexual behavior through emission of chemicals that act like hormones on the recipient's brain and so are known as pheromones. Hopes by the fragrance industry, among others, of finding human pheromones were dashed several years ago when it emerged that a tiny structure in the nose through which mice detect many pheromones, the vomeronasal organ, is largely inactive in humans, having lost its nervous connection with the brain.

Researchers interpreted that to mean that humans, as they evolved to rely on sight more than smell, had no need of the primitive cues that pass for sexual attractiveness in mice. But a role for human pheromones could not be ruled out, especially in light of findings that women living or working together tend to synchronize their menstrual cycles.

Some researchers see Dr. Savic's work as strong evidence in favor of human pheromones. "The question of whether human pheromones exist has been answered. They do," wrote the authors of a commentary in Neuron about Dr. Savic's report of 2001.

Dr. Catherine Dulac, a Harvard University biologist who studies pheromones in mice, said that if a chemical modified the function of the hypothalamus, that might be enough to regard it as a pheromone. She said the Swedish study was extremely interesting, even though "humans are a terrible experimental subject." She noted, however, that the researchers used a far higher dose of the armpit chemical than anyone would be exposed to in normal life.

If human pheromones do exist, Dr. Savic's approach may allow insights into how the brain is organized not just for sexual orientation but also for sexuality in general.

"The big question is not where homosexuality comes from, but where does sexuality come from," said Dr. Dean Hamer, a geneticist at the National Institutes of Health.

The different pattern of activity that Dr. Savic sees in the brains of gay men could be either a cause of their sexual orientation or an effect of it. If sexual orientation has a genetic cause, or is influenced by hormones in the womb or at puberty, then the neurons in the hypothalamus could wire themselves up in a way that permanently shapes which sex a person is attracted to.

Alternatively, Dr. Savic's finding could be just a consequence of straight and gay men's using their brain in different ways.

"We cannot tell if the different pattern is cause or effect," Dr. Savic said. "The study does not give any answer to these crucial questions."

But the technique might provide an answer, Dr. Hamer noted, if it were applied to people of different ages to see when in life the different pattern of response developed.

Dr. LeVay said he believed from animal experiments that the size differences in the hypothalamic region he had studied arose before birth, perhaps in response to differences in the circulating level of sex hormones. Both his finding and Dr. Savic's suggest that the hypothalamus is specifically organized in relation to sexual orientation, he said.

Some researchers believe there is likely to be a genetic component of homosexuality because of its concordance among twins. The occurrence of male homosexuality in both members of a twin pair is 22 percent in nonidentical twins but rises to 52 percent in identical twins.

Gay men have fewer children, meaning that in Darwinian terms, any genetic variant that promotes homosexuality should be quickly eliminated from the population. Dr. Hamer believes that such genes may nevertheless persist because, although in men they reduce the number of descendants, in women they act to increase fertility.

[TheJian]

Could that be why thay are gay?.......I would have given them that info for half the cost...

[Byzantine Prince]

I think gayness is a mental hormonal disorder. It doesn't make sense for someone to be choosing to be gay nor that they are born gay. I think drugs will one day be able to fix this bug(sounding like a TW modder there). ~D

[ICantSpellDawg]

I think gayness is a mental hormonal disorder. It doesn't make sense for someone to be choosing to be gay nor that they are born gay. I think drugs will one day be able to fix this bug(sounding like a TW modder there). ~D

i partially agree with you
i believe that it is a choice that is easier to be made by some than others

i, personally, get turned on by anything that is capable of playing with my mister happy

there are certain things that i try to make as un-appealing as possible due to my "morals"

i welcome any attempt to find a biological link to homosexuality
i,however, have seen no strong evidence that it is biological and much more evidence (even personally) that it is a choice that is addictive and can take the place of natural heterosexual desires.

but im no scientist

[Papewaio]

Dr. Hamer believes that such genes may nevertheless persist because, although in men they reduce the number of descendants, in women they act to increase fertility.

This is an interesting part. Genes have to make the most of what body they are in. Male/Female, Child/Adult.

So if the increase in fertility in females is equal to or greater then the decrease in fertility in males then those genes have a chance to propagate.

Essentially these are female biased genes. They want to mate with a male, produce children and they are more fertile to boot. However slip them into a male and you have someone who wants to mate with a male, produce children and the are obviously at this point unable to have children.

Another version is possible of the female biased genes. If they also increased fertility in males proportionally more then it increased the chances of being gay. If that was the case it would spread through the population.

[Big_John]

... so are you saying that women are driving men to gayness????

well, i used to be a scientist.. but not a behavioral biologist, geneticist, nor neuroscientist... anyway i'm sure drugs can be developed that change our behaviors in ways much more drastic than simply switching our sexualities. i don't see a huge amount of difference between sexual preference being biologically determined and saying that it's a hormonal disorder. from what i understand, the body's hormonal environment is at least partly tied to gene expression. and yes, i said "hormonal environment".




https://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y9/dem0819/yeah.jpg

[Adrian II]

i, personally, get turned on by anything that is capable of playing with my mister happy:stunned:

[Ja'chyra]

More evidence of a biological basis for homosexuality.

No it's not.


The different pattern of activity that Dr. Savic sees in the brains of gay men could be either a cause of their sexual orientation or an effect of it. If sexual orientation has a genetic cause, or is influenced by hormones in the womb or at puberty, then the neurons in the hypothalamus could wire themselves up in a way that permanently shapes which sex a person is attracted to.

Alternatively, Dr. Savic's finding could be just a consequence of straight and gay men's using their brain in different ways.

Don't shout, I'm just saying, I don't really care either way.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Id like to know at what age this can be seen at. Can it be seen from birth or did they test known gay men. Isnt it possible that this something the body developes because of acting gay? If its there as a baby we could then diagnose people who are gay at a very young age and tell the parents so they dont put pressure on the child to be straight. So far this proves nothing.

[A.Saturnus]

Id like to know at what age this can be seen at. Can it be seen from birth or did they test known gay men. Isnt it possible that this something the body developes because of acting gay? If its there as a baby we could then diagnose people who are gay at a very young age and tell the parents so they dont put pressure on the child to be straight. So far this proves nothing.

I agree with that. We would need to know when this distinction develops. Though I want to point out that we can diagnose people who are gay at a very young age.

[Duke Malcolm]

I always thought that gayness was something to do with too many hormones of the wrong persuasion affecting the brain...

[bmolsson]

Poor gays, now their hormons are on trial........ ~;)

[Aurelian]

On the issue of the direction of cause and effect in this study...

The author of the study, Dr. Savic did note that:


The different pattern of activity that Dr. Savic sees in the brains of gay men could be either a cause of their sexual orientation or an effect of it. If sexual orientation has a genetic cause, or is influenced by hormones in the womb or at puberty, then the neurons in the hypothalamus could wire themselves up in a way that permanently shapes which sex a person is attracted to.

Alternatively, Dr. Savic's finding could be just a consequence of straight and gay men's using their brain in different ways.

Dr. Savic isn't willing to rule out the idea that the different patterns of activity could be due to behavioral differences.

However, in the next line we read:


Dr. LeVay said he believed from animal experiments that the size differences in the hypothalamic region he had studied arose before birth, perhaps in response to differences in the circulating level of sex hormones. Both his finding and Dr. Savic's suggest that the hypothalamus is specifically organized in relation to sexual orientation, he said.

The existence of hypothalamic size differences before birth (and therefore before there would be any opportunity to exhibit homosexual behavior by choice) would seem to indicate that what we are dealing with here are biological differences that develop in vitro, rather than structural differences that develop due to behavior later in life.

If this is true, and homosexual men are simply men who are born possessing physical brain structures and hormonal responses that attract them to men, then homosexuality is not a moral choice anymore than our heterosexuality is a moral choice. They simply are gay in the same sense that black people are black. The only choice made than is whether they are true to their own sexual programming, or whether they choose to "pass" as a heterosexual in the same way that some mulatos used to pass as white.

Of course, in addition to those people who are simply wired a particular way 'in vitro', there may be some who develop elements of their sexual tastes during their formative years. Just as with any fetish, it might be possible to 'learn' to be excited by homosexual behavior if one were introduced to it during ones early years. Everyone has their particular sexual kinks and it seems unlikely that they are all biologically determined. Something of that kind must have happened amongst the Spartans, and in other societies where homosexual behavior was relatively common.

However, we've all met people who acted REALLY gay from an early age. In those cases, where behavior and the whole aspect of the personality predates adolescence, I'd be inclined to conclude that the homosexuality in question HAS to be biological in origin.

[Paul Peru]

They simply are gay in the same sense that black people are black. The only choice made than is whether they are true to their own sexual programming, or whether they choose to "pass" as a heterosexual in the same way that some mulatos used to pass as white.

Good comparison. In "The Second Racist Crackpot Church" they routinely pray for black people to be cured. :devilish:

[Pindar]

I love the use of all the conditionals: might, may, could etc. Since it seems that 'is' is being conflated as an 'ought' I assume any similar data for incest, polygamy and pederasty would be equally embraced. It's just like skin pigment I hear. The logical flaws never end.

[A.Saturnus]

I love the use of all the conditionals: might, may, could etc. Since it seems that 'is' is being conflated as an 'ought' I assume any similar data for incest, polygamy and pederasty would be equally embraced. It's just like skin pigment I hear. The logical flaws never end.

There is evidence in abundance that the main factor for incest is severe childhood misadaptation. The causes for pederasty are less clear, but genetic influences may play a role. Polygamy is just a cultural thing.
I'm not certain who confused 'is' and 'ought' here, it seemed to me that we're discussing a scientific topic here and not an ethical one. I for one think the causal basis of homosexuality is an interesting subject.

[Beirut]

Id like to know at what age this can be seen at. Can it be seen from birth or did they test known gay men. Isnt it possible that this something the body developes because of acting gay? If its there as a baby we could then diagnose people who are gay at a very young age and tell the parents so they dont put pressure on the child to be straight. So far this proves nothing.

My mother said she knew my brother was gay when he was three years old.

Mothers are smarter than any scientist ever invented.

[Pindar]

There is evidence in abundance that the main factor for incest is severe childhood misadaptation. The causes for pederasty are less clear, but genetic influences may play a role. Polygamy is just a cultural thing.
I'm not certain who confused 'is' and 'ought' here, it seemed to me that we're discussing a scientific topic here and not an ethical one. I for one think the causal basis of homosexuality is an interesting subject.

The main factor for incest is "severe childhood misadaptation"? Is that the explanation for the Ancient Egyptian practice? Does this mean there is no biological component, or that if there were, one would still see the practice as a negative.

Polygamy is just cultural? Most would agree the standard man desires or has an inclination for multiple partners. It seems the argument surrounding gay lifestyles typically starts with an inclination for same gender partners. From this, the question arose about biological determination. If so, wouldn't it also be reasonable to explore other sexual impulses along similar lines? In the U.S. the sexual rhetoric is that biology equals acceptability. Based on that position: other normally understood deviant behaviors would also be redeemed.

If the topic is just 'scientific' by which I assume it means: simple biological causality, then I assume desirability or justification is not on the table. Got it.

I think the causal basis is also interesting.

[Devastatin Dave]

Until a baby falls out of some homosexuals anus, homosexuality is not normal, no matter what liberal wet dream you wake up from.

[Byzantine Prince]

Until a baby falls out of some homosexuals anus, homosexuality is not normal, no matter what liberal wet dream you wake up from.
*splirt*

[JAG]

Until a baby falls out of some homosexuals anus, homosexuality is not normal, no matter what liberal wet dream you wake up from.

Why does having a baby = humanity and 'normality' - whatever that is! Do women who cannot give birth be charged as abnormal? Disturbing point of view Dave.

[Devastatin Dave]

Why does having a baby = humanity and 'normality' - whatever that is! Do women who cannot give birth be charged as abnormal? Disturbing point of view Dave.
Not as disturbing as someone that considers having sex in orafices that shit pummels out of "normal".

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Do women who cannot give birth be charged as abnormal?

Well they are arent they? ~:confused:


My mother said she knew my brother was gay when he was three years old.

She knew he had this Pheromones thing going on. I doubt it. They dont even know. he question was when could you notice this not when do you notice their gay.


Mothers are smarter than any scientist ever invented.

Depends on the mom and the scientist. I believ that a mother could drive her child to be gay just by believing that they were born gay and treating them that way. This is why teaching that gay is ok is dangerous. Of course this is only my opinion. Its one thing to say dont look down on or bash gays . Its an entirely another matter to say that gay is normal just like heterosexuality and has just as much validity as far as behavior goes.

[A.Saturnus]

The main factor for incest is "severe childhood misadaptation"? Is that the explanation for the Ancient Egyptian practice? Does this mean there is no biological component, or that if there were, one would still see the practice as a negative.

When we speak of incest, we usually mean sexual abuse within the family. Although also called incest, the Ancient Egyptian regal tradition of kin marriage is something conceptual different that shouldn't play a role in this discussion. Generally, I think the causal explanation shouldn't affect the evaluation of a phenomenon. We should avoid naturalistic fallacies.


Polygamy is just cultural? Most would agree the standard man desires or has an inclination for multiple partners. It seems the argument surrounding gay lifestyles typically starts with an inclination for same gender partners. From this, the question arose about biological determination. If so, wouldn't it also be reasonable to explore other sexual impulses along similar lines? In the U.S. the sexual rhetoric is that biology equals acceptability. Based on that position: other normally understood deviant behaviors would also be redeemed.

Polygamy doesn't necessary have anything to do with sexual impulses. The fact that in some cultures polygamy is normal, while in others not, can hardly be attributed to biological determination, thus it's cultural. That also doesn't necessary mean men in monogamous cultures have less sexual partners.
Any rhetoric that biology equals acceptability is of course fallacious, just as the opposite. My argument would rather be that homosexuality isn't deviant at all, just an example of diversity, independently of the cause.

[GoreBag]

I think gayness is a mental hormonal disorder. It doesn't make sense for someone to be choosing to be gay nor that they are born gay. I think drugs will one day be able to fix this bug(sounding like a TW modder there). ~D

But if it occurs naturally, can it really be considered a bug?

[Pindar]

When we speak of incest, we usually mean sexual abuse within the family. Although also called incest, the Ancient Egyptian regal tradition of kin marriage is something conceptual different that shouldn't play a role in this discussion. Generally, I think the causal explanation shouldn't affect the evaluation of a phenomenon. We should avoid naturalistic fallacies.

Incest is sex with close relatives. The label applies when and where it occurs. Investingating a biological component to the phenomena should be possible with this as with any other sexual activity.

Naturalistic fallacy question begging isn't an issue.




Polygamy doesn't necessary have anything to do with sexual impulses. The fact that in some cultures polygamy is normal, while in others not, can hardly be attributed to biological determination, thus it's cultural. That also doesn't necessary mean men in monogamous cultures have less sexual partners.

Polygamy has nothing to do with sexual impluse? Amazing.



Any rhetoric that biology equals acceptability is of course fallacious, just as the opposite. My argument would rather be that homosexuality isn't deviant at all, just an example of diversity, independently of the cause.

I don't know how your using deviant.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

This thread is funny.
Kudos.

[A.Saturnus]

Incest is sex with close relatives. The label applies when and where it occurs. Investingating a biological component to the phenomena should be possible with this as with any other sexual activity.

Certainly. But all things the label applies to are not equal. Causal investigation for one underlying concept are irrelevant for another. Egyptian customs nonwithstanding, the accepted explanation for sexual abuse within the family is childhood misadaptation.


Polygamy has nothing to do with sexual impluse? Amazing.

Not directly, no. Ask bmolsson.


I don't know how your using deviant.

For psychologists, deviant usually includes a negative evaluation. Mountain climbing for example is uncommon behaviour, but not deviant.

[ICantSpellDawg]

For psychologists, deviant usually includes a negative evaluation. Mountain climbing for example is uncommon behaviour, but not deviant.

we are not psychologists
we are lay people

you people need to come up with your own words - because you use them incorrectly


deviant:
Differing from a norm or from the accepted standards of a society.

n.
One that differs from a norm, especially a person whose behavior and attitudes differ from accepted social standards.

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/deviant

www.dictionary.com/deviant


*********************************



you may argue that homosexuality is not "wrong" but IT IS DEFIANTLY DEVIANT

to say otherwise is misleading and shows a poor understanding of the definition of the word

we have a lexicon for a reason

please abide by it so that you do not confuse patrons
they will spout off the same foolishness



mountainclimbing, i guess, would be "informally deviant"

[Devastatin Dave]

Anyone one here of any babies popping out of the butt of anyone yet? Guess its still not a natural thing, let me know when that baby comes out. Libs, make sure you don't abort the evidence...

[bmolsson]

Just for the record. Polygamy is normal. Actually more normal than only having one partner. Men who argue that polygamy is not normal and sinful are just losers that can't manage their time efficient..... ~;)
Women who argue the same are just afraid not to get a time slot in the agenda..... ~D

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Just for the record. Polygamy is normal.

No its not. But it seems messing around is. One wife is more than enough for any man. Its in us men to spread our seed to the winds ~D

[A.Saturnus]

please abide by it so that you do not confuse patrons
they will spout off the same foolishness

No, I won't. That is as if you would urge a physicist to use "force" only in a non-scientific way. I am a scientist and I will use scientifically. Note that the lexicon definition is ambiguous: "Differing from a norm or from the accepted standards of a society"
Both terms are not aquivalent. Furthermore, the first term is, if taken precisely, trivial because everyone differs from a norm. The second term is more congruent to the way I used the word. The point I was making above is that homosexuality should be within the accepted standards of our society.

In addition, I must say that quoting some lexicon to shove concepts around is a bad way of argueing IMO. People who insist to call homosexuality "deviant" don't do so because homosexuality is not the most common form of sexuality and "to deviate" just means to differ. They do so because they want to marginalize homosexuals.

[A.Saturnus]

Naturalistic fallacy question begging isn't an issue.

Could you tell that Dave please?


One wife is more than enough for any man

Just speak for yourself...

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Just speak for yourself...

I think I speak for most men. Those who have more than one are deviants ~D

PS by one I mean one at a time ~;)

[Ser Clegane]

I think I speak for most men.

I certainly wouldn't want two wifes :help:

... two women might be something different though :wink3:

[Adrian II]

I think I speak for most men. Those who have more than one are deviants ~D

PS by one I mean one at a time ~;)Those who have only one wife are already halfway on the road to perdition...
And God knows I love each and every cobblestone of it! ~D

[ICantSpellDawg]

No, I won't. That is as if you would urge a physicist to use "force" only in a non-scientific way. I am a scientist and I will use scientifically. Note that the lexicon definition is ambiguous: "Differing from a norm or from the accepted standards of a society"
Both terms are not aquivalent. Furthermore, the first term is, if taken precisely, trivial because everyone differs from a norm. The second term is more congruent to the way I used the word. The point I was making above is that homosexuality should be within the accepted standards of our society.

In addition, I must say that quoting some lexicon to shove concepts around is a bad way of argueing IMO. People who insist to call homosexuality "deviant" don't do so because homosexuality is not the most common form of sexuality and "to deviate" just means to differ. They do so because they want to marginalize homosexuals.



if you use your own definitions of words, this contravenes the purpose of language as a tool of communication

i would like to see the "scientific" definition of deviant/deviance

i am just saying that if you are going to deny the direct, common and widely understood meaning of a word - shouldnt you be able to find a precedent for the new definition?

why dont we start calling things that are the color "red" "blue" instead?
words have meanings so that we can speak on the same level

i dont understand why some people need to argue against the meaning of words.
why dont you either use a new word or simply rationalize that the concept of "acting outside the social boundries of acceptable behavior" is not such a bad thing?

please do not deny the meaning of a word

[Big_John]

"Differing from a norm or from the accepted standards of a society"

there's nothing wrong with that first definition, as long as you define the parameters of the norm. since we are talking about sexual preference, the norm can be defined; it is simply the most common expression of sexuality. the numbers may be suspect, but certainly we can look at statistics for hetero- and homosexual behavior to determine that heterosexuality is the more common mode, and therefor the norm. other forms of sexuality (including homosexuality) would be deviant simply because they deviate from that norm.

but, imo, to attach any kind of moral or ethical meaning to that deviation would require a lot of conjecture.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Well I for one see homosexuality just as deviant as beastiality or pedophilia and more deviant than incest which in reality is only deviant by modern standards. Why dont we just accept them all? Who are we to judge people by who or what they have sex with or what turns them on?

[Byzantine Prince]

By ancient standards homosexuality is normal as well as incest. I'm pretty sure pedophilia was not that frawned upon either.

I believe that Julius Caesar liked it from behind. ~;)

[Idomeneas]

I'm pretty sure pedophilia was not that frawned upon either.

Yes it only carried the sentence to death by law, as well as homosexuality. Im not saying it wasnt happening. But it was shamefull and could get you killed even if the partener was slave. Thats why the word kinaidos for gay it meant the one who causes shame. Thats for Greece offcourse. Maybe you had other cultures in mind.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

Could you tell that Dave please?



Just speak for yourself...
you know sat, scientists have discovered a food that decreases a womans sex drive by 95%, it's called the Wedding Cake

[Byzantine Prince]

I'm pretty sure pedophilia was not that frawned upon either.

Yes it only carried the sentence to death by law, as well as homosexuality. Im not saying it wasnt happening. But it was shamefull and could get you killed even if the partener was slave. Thats why the word kinaidos for gay it meant the one who causes shame. Thats for Greece offcourse. Maybe you had other cultures in mind.
Well not all Greece had laws against it. You can't tell me Thebes had laws against it. If I'm not mistaken they encouraged it there. Macedon was loose with it too. And pedophilia was rampant as well even if it was against the law.

I was also refering to Rome though. They could do whatever they wanted. They were even more promiscous then us. And let's not forget Persia with their trafficing of children as sex slaves.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Well not all Greece had laws against it. You can't tell me Thebes had laws against it. If I'm not mistaken they encouraged it there. Macedon was loose with it too. And pedophilia was rampant as well even if it was against the law.

No it wasnt. And yes Thebes had laws against it. You could be a homosexual in ancient Greece but you had to declare yourelf as so. Sort of a dont ask dont tell policy. But if you did you lost most of your rights as a citizen. If you didnt and they found out, it was death for you. Yes the were very tolerant and encouraging of it.

[A.Saturnus]

please do not deny the meaning of a word

I don't. A word can have several meanings. That yours is from a lexicon doesn't make it better. BTW, why don't you point out to Gawain that he uses the word against the "direct, common and widely understand meaning"?
I must say I question your intentions TuffStuff. You appear to me like someone who insists that "negro" is after all a semantically correct term for a black person.

[Papewaio]

i am just saying that if you are going to deny the direct, common and widely understood meaning of a word - shouldnt you be able to find a precedent for the new definition?



Lets see the online dictionary definitions of definition:

def·i·ni·tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (df-nshn)
n.

A statement conveying fundamental character.
A statement of the meaning of a word, phrase, or term, as in a dictionary entry.
The act or process of stating a precise meaning or significance; formulation of a meaning.

The act of making clear and distinct: a definition of one's intentions.
The state of being closely outlined or determined: “With the drizzle, the trees in the little clearing had lost definition” (Anthony Hyde).
A determination of outline, extent, or limits: the definition of a President's authority.

The clarity of detail in an optically produced image, such as a photograph, effected by a combination of resolution and contrast.
The degree of clarity with which a televised image or broadcast signal is received.

So even definition has multiple definitons :dizzy2: .

Get used to having words having more then one meaning.

This is why scientists have a more 'precise' definition of a word within a discipline.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I don't. A word can have several meanings. That yours is from a lexicon doesn't make it better. BTW, why don't you point out to Gawain that he uses the word against the "direct, common and widely understand meaning"?
I must say I question your intentions TuffStuff. You appear to me like someone who insists that "negro" is after all a semantically correct term for a black person.


Negro might be a word to describe a black person
and i might not use it because of its negative connotations

but i would never say that they were NOT NEGROS

i would probably not refer to a homosexual man as a faggot
if you were going to tell me that they were not a bundle of sticks that is one arguement
but that does not mean that they are not a "faggot" by another definition (at least one of the official definitions)


deviant is different - it is not derrogatory
it is simply a fact

we are using the word in its strictest form - to clear it up for you

[Byzantine Prince]

Hehe, I once used the word niggard and I got censored. That was entertaining. :laugh:

Gawain why do you hate gays so much? Are they taking away taxes, are they bothering you in some way shape or form(do they talk to you inappropriately?)?

[Kaiser of Arabia]

Hehe, I once used the word niggard and I got censored. That was entertaining. :laugh:

Gawain why do you hate gays so much? Are they taking away taxes, are they bothering you in some way shape or form(do they talk to you inappropriately?)?
I get hit on by gay guys all the time. They must think I'm gay.

I'm 100% serious.

[Byzantine Prince]

You should be flatered. Hey if they think you are worthy of their attention then maybe some girls might as well. ~;)

[Kaiser of Arabia]

Actually things are going well with chicks for me.
So yeah it's all good.
(at least half of my friends are chicks)

Anyway....gay guys scare me. Its like.......GET YOUR HAND AWAY FROM MY PANTS/

[Byzantine Prince]

Afraid you're gonna like it? ~;)

[Kaiser of Arabia]

Not really. By that time mi balls are numb so it wouldn't matter much anyway.

[hrvojej]

Actually things are going well with chicks for me.
So yeah it's all good.
(at least half of my friends are chicks)

Anyway....gay guys scare me. Its like.......GET YOUR HAND AWAY FROM MY PANTS/
Homosexual acts are one of the ways to assert/exhibit/exert dominance, among other things. Hence you may feel threatened.

Don't worry, as with everything, self-confidence will suffice for you to retain your control of the situation in all but the most extreme cases. ~:cheers:

[Kaiser of Arabia]

Homosexual acts are one of the ways to assert/exhibit/exert dominance, among other things. Hence you may feel threatened.

Don't worry, as with everything, self-confidence will suffice for you to retain your control of the situation in all but the most extreme cases. ~:cheers:
And the extreme situations are what switchblades are for ~:cheers: :bow: ~:)

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Gawain why do you hate gays so much?

What gives you the idea I have any hate for them at all? ~:confused:

[ICantSpellDawg]

What gives you the idea I have any hate for them at all? ~:confused:


hatred of homosexuals is a bad thing
i am flattered when gay men come on to me or ask me out
you can resent politically active ones, but understand them

i simply disagree with them and believe that their behavior is sad and DEVIANT

[Byzantine Prince]

What gives you the idea I have any hate for them at all? ~:confused:
Your incessant bashing of them and your disgust towards them is a clear indicator.

[Papewaio]

Your incessant bashing of them and your disgust towards them is a clear indicator.

How about a homeless african homosexual?

[Byzantine Prince]

Where? *takes out small plastic gun*

~D

I like homosexuals IMO. They don't bother me the least bit, unlike a lot of people here. I think homophobia is a lot worse then anything I stand for(IMO).

[kiwitt]

So some gays brainwaves are different from non-gays, that only proves they think differently to non-gays, which we already knew.

This still doesn't prove it is "natural". The act of sex was orginally for reproduction. The fact it is also enjoyable for many of us is why we haven't all died out yet. One's sexual activity is a personal choice. And we can accept their personal choice so long as it doesn't harm minors or against another's will.

[Proletariat]

Yeah, homophobia is ten times worse than stereotyping Africans, wanting HIV victims to be slaughtered along with the homeless, and applauding 9/11.

[Byzantine Prince]

Yeah, homophobia is ten times worse than stereotyping Africans, wanting HIV victims to be slaughtered along with the homeless, and applauding 9/11.
Finally someone who understands. :smitten:


My favorite part was when you made up all those lies.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Your incessant bashing of them and your disgust towards them is a clear indicator.

I find the act of putting a penis in someones anus fairly disgudting yes but that doesnt mean I hate them as people. Where do I ever bash them? Its like Islam, another sacred cow. If you dont think their the best thing since sliced bread your a homphobe.

[Papewaio]

I find the act of putting a penis in someones anus fairly disgudting yes but that doesnt mean I hate them as people. Where do I ever bash them? Its like Islam, another sacred cow. If you dont think their the best thing since sliced bread your a homphobe.

Actually I think it is Hindi with the sacred cow... ~D :book:

Yes I do know that is where the term comes from

[ICantSpellDawg]

I find the act of putting a penis in someones anus fairly disgudting yes but that doesnt mean I hate them as people. Where do I ever bash them? Its like Islam, another sacred cow. If you dont think their the best thing since sliced bread your a homphobe.


"Gay people are the worst thing since smashed bread"

[bmolsson]

Well I for one see homosexuality just as deviant as beastiality or pedophilia and more deviant than incest which in reality is only deviant by modern standards. Why dont we just accept them all? Who are we to judge people by who or what they have sex with or what turns them on?

I actually can't see any problem in any type of sex as long as it's made between consent adults. A horse can't be seen as that, neither can a 5 year old daughter. If there is a 30 year old guy who want's to marry mom, what the heck let him do it........ ~;)

[Ja'chyra]

Actually things are going well with chicks for me.
So yeah it's all good.
(at least half of my friends are chicks)

Word of advice though K, drop the chick thing, unless the US is different from here.


Yes it only carried the sentence to death by law, as well as homosexuality. Im not saying it wasnt happening. But it was shamefull and could get you killed even if the partener was slave. Thats why the word kinaidos for gay it meant the one who causes shame. Thats for Greece offcourse. Maybe you had other cultures in mind.

What about Sparta?

I don't think there should be anything like gay rights, treat everyone the same and all these problems will go away. I hate the fact that my employers has working groups for gays, blacks, women, disabled you name it we've got it. If they spent as much time sorting the problems out as they do on committee meetings we wouldn't have any problems.

Hell, our union has a womens advisory committee even though the Chairman and vice-chair are both women.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

What about Sparta?

What abour Sparta? If you were gay there and didnt come out of the closet and they found you hiding there you were dead.