A Cars forum. AutoBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto makers » Chrysler
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! ___________mixqec



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #231  
Old November 14th 04, 02:36 PM
Matt Whiting
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

linda wrote:
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>> Daniel J. Stern wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 14 Nov 2004, linda wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Matthew Whiting wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> All of the homosexuals who are now happy heterosexuals. If it was
>>>>> biological, they couldn't change their preference. If even one does
>>>>> change, and many more than one have, then the biological argument goes
>>>>> out the window.
>>>>> Matt
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Matt, Read your statistics and failures... also, read how many
>>>> homosexual men marry homosexual women. are they hiding something?
>>>> or is
>>>> this just the perfect unions?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It's no use, Linda; Matt places more trust in dogma than in science.

>>
>>
>>
>> Actually, as an electrical engineer and computer scientist who works
>> in an R&D facility of a Fortune 1000 company, I depend on science
>> rather often. However, I'm talking real science, not junk science.
>> Got any real science to support a genetic/biological basis for
>> homosexuality? I've asked for data about three times here and have yet
>> to see anything.
>>
>> Matt
>>

>
>
> Just a matter of time, Matt... and you will be eating your words....
>
>
> Annu Rev Sex Res. 2002;13:89-140.
>
>
> A critical review of recent biological research on human sexual
> orientation.
>
> Mustanski BS, Chivers ML, Bailey JM.
>
> Department of Psychology, Indiana University, Bloomington 47405, USA.
>
>
> This article provides a comprehensive review and critique of biological
> research on sexual orientation published over the last decade. We cover
> research investigating (a) the neurohormonal theory of sexual
> orientation (psychoneuroendocrinology, prenatal stress, cerebral
> asymmetry, neuroanatomy, otoacoustic emissions, anthropometrics), (b)
> genetic influences, (c) fraternal birth-order effects, and (d) a
> putative role for developmental instability. Despite inconsistent
> results across both studies and traits, some support for the
> neurohormonal theory is garnered, but mostly in men. Genetic research
> using family and twin methodologies has produced consistent evidence
> that genes influence sexual orientation, but molecular research has not
> yet produced compelling evidence for specific genes. Although it has
> been well established that older brothers increase the odds of
> homosexuality in men, the route by which this occurs has not been
> resolved. We conclude with an examination of the limitations of
> biological research on sexual orientation, including measurement issues
> (paper and pencil, cognitive, and psychophysiological), and lack of
> research on women.


Ha, ha, ha.. If this is the compelling biological evidence, then I'm
not holding my breath worrying about eating my words...


Matt

Ads
  #232  
Old November 14th 04, 02:36 PM
Matt Whiting
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

linda wrote:
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>> Daniel J. Stern wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 14 Nov 2004, linda wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Matthew Whiting wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> All of the homosexuals who are now happy heterosexuals. If it was
>>>>> biological, they couldn't change their preference. If even one does
>>>>> change, and many more than one have, then the biological argument goes
>>>>> out the window.
>>>>> Matt
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Matt, Read your statistics and failures... also, read how many
>>>> homosexual men marry homosexual women. are they hiding something?
>>>> or is
>>>> this just the perfect unions?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It's no use, Linda; Matt places more trust in dogma than in science.

>>
>>
>>
>> Actually, as an electrical engineer and computer scientist who works
>> in an R&D facility of a Fortune 1000 company, I depend on science
>> rather often. However, I'm talking real science, not junk science.
>> Got any real science to support a genetic/biological basis for
>> homosexuality? I've asked for data about three times here and have yet
>> to see anything.
>>
>> Matt
>>

>
>
> Just a matter of time, Matt... and you will be eating your words....
>
>
> Annu Rev Sex Res. 2002;13:89-140.
>
>
> A critical review of recent biological research on human sexual
> orientation.
>
> Mustanski BS, Chivers ML, Bailey JM.
>
> Department of Psychology, Indiana University, Bloomington 47405, USA.
>
>
> This article provides a comprehensive review and critique of biological
> research on sexual orientation published over the last decade. We cover
> research investigating (a) the neurohormonal theory of sexual
> orientation (psychoneuroendocrinology, prenatal stress, cerebral
> asymmetry, neuroanatomy, otoacoustic emissions, anthropometrics), (b)
> genetic influences, (c) fraternal birth-order effects, and (d) a
> putative role for developmental instability. Despite inconsistent
> results across both studies and traits, some support for the
> neurohormonal theory is garnered, but mostly in men. Genetic research
> using family and twin methodologies has produced consistent evidence
> that genes influence sexual orientation, but molecular research has not
> yet produced compelling evidence for specific genes. Although it has
> been well established that older brothers increase the odds of
> homosexuality in men, the route by which this occurs has not been
> resolved. We conclude with an examination of the limitations of
> biological research on sexual orientation, including measurement issues
> (paper and pencil, cognitive, and psychophysiological), and lack of
> research on women.


Ha, ha, ha.. If this is the compelling biological evidence, then I'm
not holding my breath worrying about eating my words...


Matt

  #233  
Old November 14th 04, 06:20 PM
James C. Reeves
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"linda" > wrote in message
...
|
| TO ALL:
| Homosexuality is an accepted lifestyle nowadays with a proven biological
| causation. For too long homosexuality has been considered a form of
| "deviant sexual behavior". Those making these accusations should examine
| the history books and the psychological research. Throughout our history
| going all the way back to ancient Greece, homosexual relationships have
| existed. The term "lesbian" comes from a Greek island called "Lesbos"
| where many such couples lived. An overwhelming amount of research has
| been done showing that homosexuality has a biological causation; not yet
| determined a genetic one, biological one. The easiest way to think of it
| is as a hormonal switch that gets thrown one way or the other. And if
| you think about it, it makes logical sense. Consider many gays and
| lesbians you've seen. NOT ALWAYS, but at times, secondary sexual
| characteristics resemble the opposite sex. In other words, homosexual
| males may have softer voices. Lesbians may have strong cheekbones and a
| more masculine body shape. It's all affected by those hormone switches.
| And why would someone choose to be gay. Do people analyze the
| situation..."Let's see, I can be discriminated against, ridiculed by
| friends and co-workers, rejected by my family, told I'm going to hell by
| the church, subjected to beatings by gay bashers...hmmm, sign me up!"
| Now, there will be odd cases where people experiment with different
| types of sex, but you can't just teach people to be gay or not gay for a
| lifetime.

And history points to what primarily caused of the demise of those "great
civilizations"?


  #234  
Old November 14th 04, 06:20 PM
James C. Reeves
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"linda" > wrote in message
...
|
| TO ALL:
| Homosexuality is an accepted lifestyle nowadays with a proven biological
| causation. For too long homosexuality has been considered a form of
| "deviant sexual behavior". Those making these accusations should examine
| the history books and the psychological research. Throughout our history
| going all the way back to ancient Greece, homosexual relationships have
| existed. The term "lesbian" comes from a Greek island called "Lesbos"
| where many such couples lived. An overwhelming amount of research has
| been done showing that homosexuality has a biological causation; not yet
| determined a genetic one, biological one. The easiest way to think of it
| is as a hormonal switch that gets thrown one way or the other. And if
| you think about it, it makes logical sense. Consider many gays and
| lesbians you've seen. NOT ALWAYS, but at times, secondary sexual
| characteristics resemble the opposite sex. In other words, homosexual
| males may have softer voices. Lesbians may have strong cheekbones and a
| more masculine body shape. It's all affected by those hormone switches.
| And why would someone choose to be gay. Do people analyze the
| situation..."Let's see, I can be discriminated against, ridiculed by
| friends and co-workers, rejected by my family, told I'm going to hell by
| the church, subjected to beatings by gay bashers...hmmm, sign me up!"
| Now, there will be odd cases where people experiment with different
| types of sex, but you can't just teach people to be gay or not gay for a
| lifetime.

And history points to what primarily caused of the demise of those "great
civilizations"?


  #235  
Old November 14th 04, 06:25 PM
James C. Reeves
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

This and the other post at this level appear to me to be far from conclusive in
either direction. You could still argue a cultural/learned component in these.


  #236  
Old November 14th 04, 06:25 PM
James C. Reeves
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

This and the other post at this level appear to me to be far from conclusive in
either direction. You could still argue a cultural/learned component in these.


  #237  
Old November 14th 04, 06:46 PM
linda
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> "linda" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Daniel J. Stern wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 14 Nov 2004, linda wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>It's no use, Linda; Matt places more trust in dogma than in science.
>>>
>>>
>>>>i guess you are right.. it is a shame, too..
>>>
>>>
>>>It is, really. Have you heard or read some of the horror stories of

>
> severe
>
>>>emotional scarring from those who've been suckered into the "ex-gay"
>>>movement?
>>>

>>
>>yes, i have... there is even a "homosexuals anonymous".. and they have a
>>14 step program, heck, alcoholics only get 12. doesn't sound quite
>>right... does it?
>>I am cutting and pasting most of the following: so don't think i am
>>smart: (Ted, you are right, i am not intelligent enough to hold a
>>conversation with a peanut, much less you..)
>>

>
>
> I never said you wern't intelligent enough to hold a conversation with
> a peanut.

ok, you never said it, however, you made me feel it.


If you recall I strongly emphasized that you needed to have
> your internal philosophies worked out so that they were not inconsistent,
> before you started posting on a topic.

My internal philosophies are not consistent on a lot of matters, that i
am working on. thanks to you and having made me aware that i was
inconsisent, i am questioning all that i have learned in the past years..

If you recall that was right
> before you stopped e-mailing me privately.

I did not stop emailing you privately, i sent you an email. you did not
respond. the second email that you sent, however, i did not get to
respond to since Matt was not here to take care of my computer glitch.
i had the best argument, well documented and my philosophy was
consistent with what i believe. however, since my computer glitch, i
lost everything....and unfortunately, i do not remember what it was that
we were supposed to be discussing. please resend if you still have the
last email you sent, and i will do my best to respond intelligently..
(but please let me be lazy and not use the shift key, pay attention to
the content rather than the capitalization.)

>
> In any case, if you hold with the idea of a biological basis for
> homosexuality,
> you are going to have to also hold to the idea of a biological basis for
> both hetrosexuality, and for bisexuality, in order to be internally
> consistent.

i might be wrong, but i think that goes without saying.. or at least
that was kinda the way i was going. there is something, biological that
switches one way or the other. I am sorry if i did not make myself
clear. i will try harder next time.

>
> And if you are then consistent there is a perfectly reasonable explanation
> for Matt's assertion that there are a lot of homosexuals that are now happy
> hetrosexuals. And that is simply that these people are not, in fact,
> hetrosexuals. What they are, is they are bisexuals, who have decided to only be with
> partners of the opposite sex, and don't realize that they are bisexuals, or
> are ignoring that they are bisexuals, and are claiming to be hetrosexuals.


i agree...


>
> In any case, as you know this is one area that I tend to agree with Matt -
> that
> there is no physical/genetic reason to explain homosexuality. I see lots of
> evidence that homosexuality AND hetrosexuality and bisexuality is a choice,
> but little evidence that it is physical/genetic. However, just because I
> think
> the evidence points to it being a choice, doesen't mean I think that there
> is
> any evidence that this is a choice that occurs later in life or even as late
> as
> adolescence. Nor do I believe that there's credible evidence that this
> choice
> is one that the person has much control over.


I believe that Daniel is sitting at his computer laughing his ass off at
us for arguing for and against him.. trying to prove, disprove his
sexuality. of course, i have no documentation for this.. unless Daniel
wants to verify???? Daniel????
I also believe, that science, and i deal with science every day, being
in its infancy, will one day verify, document, prove that what i and
others believe to be biological/genetic is true. please research this
specific topic: SEXUAL ORIENTATION, MALE Gene map locus Xq28
I found an article in PubMed after looking at the Human Genome under
genetics of different behavioral traits.

Are you still laughing your ass off Daniel? i would be too...

>
> I certainly remember myself as a very young pre-adolescent. The very first
> time I ever saw a nudie picture of a naked woman, AKA pornography,
> I got hard. And this was quite some time before I started growing hair
> around my pubes, etc.



that is not a pretty picture... however, i get your point.. you
apparently are heterosexual, by choice?
>
> And as a parent I have watched both my children, both son and daughter,
> under the age of 2, obviously getting a charge out of touching themselves.


it is nice that you are not telling them that it is "dirty" to touch
themselves.....
>
> So I pretty much think that the idea that children are asexual and have no
> sexual feelings until adolescence to be a big bunch of dogcrap perpetuated
> by really sexually screwed up adults.


I never said it was.. i remember feeling those feelings when i was a
child..

>
> We know that a great deal of things happen in the womb and in the first
> 6 months of life that are essentially programming. If you look at people
> that have really deviant, to the point of sicko, sex patterns, such as
> abusing
> children, not being able to get hard unless they are whipping their partner
> to
> the point of drawing blood, etc. it seems that there's a coorelation between
> these folks
> and really screwed up home lives, and/or sex abuse when they are young.
> Another way of saying this is that if you want to take a child and warp
> them into a sexually sicko adult, you have a really good chance of doing so
> if you get started abusing them really, really young.



I don't believe this to be true, otherwise, i would have been an
alcoholic, abusive, child molester. and i am not any of those things.
there is proof that in families where abuse takes place, environmental
influences make family members different, rather than making them more
similar to one another.
>
> What we can draw from this is that there is evidence that external
> environmental
> factors can program in certain kinds of sexual proclivities, if those
> factors
> are present during conception/incubation/early childhood development.
>

Granted. The Ted Bundy's of the world... But how can you explain a Jeff
Dahmer? he was raised in a very loving family (or so they say on Larry
King Live)...

> SO, it would not surprise me in the least if 50 years from now some
> researcher
> announces that if you want to increase your kids chances of being straight,
> then have them listen to 4 hours of Mozart a day while they are a developing
> fetus, and if you want to increase their chances of being gay, have them
> listen to 4 hours of Richard Simmons workout tapes while they are a
> developing fetus.
>

Give me Lynnard Skynnard everytime!!!!!!! hey, my mom listened to Hank
Williams while she was pregnant with me, what does this make me?

> Now, where Matt and I differ, however, is that Matt apparently believes that
> if someone is programmed to be gay, that they can later in life choose to
> switch back, and that furthermore them switching back is somehow in the
> interests of society. I don't believe that the first supposition has worked
> when
> dealing with cases of repeated child abusers, indicating that the
> supposition
> is totally bogus. And, I think the second supposition is a bunch of
> bull****,
> and is completely without merit.
>
> Ted
>
>


Still laughing, Daniel?
  #238  
Old November 14th 04, 06:46 PM
linda
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> "linda" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Daniel J. Stern wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 14 Nov 2004, linda wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>It's no use, Linda; Matt places more trust in dogma than in science.
>>>
>>>
>>>>i guess you are right.. it is a shame, too..
>>>
>>>
>>>It is, really. Have you heard or read some of the horror stories of

>
> severe
>
>>>emotional scarring from those who've been suckered into the "ex-gay"
>>>movement?
>>>

>>
>>yes, i have... there is even a "homosexuals anonymous".. and they have a
>>14 step program, heck, alcoholics only get 12. doesn't sound quite
>>right... does it?
>>I am cutting and pasting most of the following: so don't think i am
>>smart: (Ted, you are right, i am not intelligent enough to hold a
>>conversation with a peanut, much less you..)
>>

>
>
> I never said you wern't intelligent enough to hold a conversation with
> a peanut.

ok, you never said it, however, you made me feel it.


If you recall I strongly emphasized that you needed to have
> your internal philosophies worked out so that they were not inconsistent,
> before you started posting on a topic.

My internal philosophies are not consistent on a lot of matters, that i
am working on. thanks to you and having made me aware that i was
inconsisent, i am questioning all that i have learned in the past years..

If you recall that was right
> before you stopped e-mailing me privately.

I did not stop emailing you privately, i sent you an email. you did not
respond. the second email that you sent, however, i did not get to
respond to since Matt was not here to take care of my computer glitch.
i had the best argument, well documented and my philosophy was
consistent with what i believe. however, since my computer glitch, i
lost everything....and unfortunately, i do not remember what it was that
we were supposed to be discussing. please resend if you still have the
last email you sent, and i will do my best to respond intelligently..
(but please let me be lazy and not use the shift key, pay attention to
the content rather than the capitalization.)

>
> In any case, if you hold with the idea of a biological basis for
> homosexuality,
> you are going to have to also hold to the idea of a biological basis for
> both hetrosexuality, and for bisexuality, in order to be internally
> consistent.

i might be wrong, but i think that goes without saying.. or at least
that was kinda the way i was going. there is something, biological that
switches one way or the other. I am sorry if i did not make myself
clear. i will try harder next time.

>
> And if you are then consistent there is a perfectly reasonable explanation
> for Matt's assertion that there are a lot of homosexuals that are now happy
> hetrosexuals. And that is simply that these people are not, in fact,
> hetrosexuals. What they are, is they are bisexuals, who have decided to only be with
> partners of the opposite sex, and don't realize that they are bisexuals, or
> are ignoring that they are bisexuals, and are claiming to be hetrosexuals.


i agree...


>
> In any case, as you know this is one area that I tend to agree with Matt -
> that
> there is no physical/genetic reason to explain homosexuality. I see lots of
> evidence that homosexuality AND hetrosexuality and bisexuality is a choice,
> but little evidence that it is physical/genetic. However, just because I
> think
> the evidence points to it being a choice, doesen't mean I think that there
> is
> any evidence that this is a choice that occurs later in life or even as late
> as
> adolescence. Nor do I believe that there's credible evidence that this
> choice
> is one that the person has much control over.


I believe that Daniel is sitting at his computer laughing his ass off at
us for arguing for and against him.. trying to prove, disprove his
sexuality. of course, i have no documentation for this.. unless Daniel
wants to verify???? Daniel????
I also believe, that science, and i deal with science every day, being
in its infancy, will one day verify, document, prove that what i and
others believe to be biological/genetic is true. please research this
specific topic: SEXUAL ORIENTATION, MALE Gene map locus Xq28
I found an article in PubMed after looking at the Human Genome under
genetics of different behavioral traits.

Are you still laughing your ass off Daniel? i would be too...

>
> I certainly remember myself as a very young pre-adolescent. The very first
> time I ever saw a nudie picture of a naked woman, AKA pornography,
> I got hard. And this was quite some time before I started growing hair
> around my pubes, etc.



that is not a pretty picture... however, i get your point.. you
apparently are heterosexual, by choice?
>
> And as a parent I have watched both my children, both son and daughter,
> under the age of 2, obviously getting a charge out of touching themselves.


it is nice that you are not telling them that it is "dirty" to touch
themselves.....
>
> So I pretty much think that the idea that children are asexual and have no
> sexual feelings until adolescence to be a big bunch of dogcrap perpetuated
> by really sexually screwed up adults.


I never said it was.. i remember feeling those feelings when i was a
child..

>
> We know that a great deal of things happen in the womb and in the first
> 6 months of life that are essentially programming. If you look at people
> that have really deviant, to the point of sicko, sex patterns, such as
> abusing
> children, not being able to get hard unless they are whipping their partner
> to
> the point of drawing blood, etc. it seems that there's a coorelation between
> these folks
> and really screwed up home lives, and/or sex abuse when they are young.
> Another way of saying this is that if you want to take a child and warp
> them into a sexually sicko adult, you have a really good chance of doing so
> if you get started abusing them really, really young.



I don't believe this to be true, otherwise, i would have been an
alcoholic, abusive, child molester. and i am not any of those things.
there is proof that in families where abuse takes place, environmental
influences make family members different, rather than making them more
similar to one another.
>
> What we can draw from this is that there is evidence that external
> environmental
> factors can program in certain kinds of sexual proclivities, if those
> factors
> are present during conception/incubation/early childhood development.
>

Granted. The Ted Bundy's of the world... But how can you explain a Jeff
Dahmer? he was raised in a very loving family (or so they say on Larry
King Live)...

> SO, it would not surprise me in the least if 50 years from now some
> researcher
> announces that if you want to increase your kids chances of being straight,
> then have them listen to 4 hours of Mozart a day while they are a developing
> fetus, and if you want to increase their chances of being gay, have them
> listen to 4 hours of Richard Simmons workout tapes while they are a
> developing fetus.
>

Give me Lynnard Skynnard everytime!!!!!!! hey, my mom listened to Hank
Williams while she was pregnant with me, what does this make me?

> Now, where Matt and I differ, however, is that Matt apparently believes that
> if someone is programmed to be gay, that they can later in life choose to
> switch back, and that furthermore them switching back is somehow in the
> interests of society. I don't believe that the first supposition has worked
> when
> dealing with cases of repeated child abusers, indicating that the
> supposition
> is totally bogus. And, I think the second supposition is a bunch of
> bull****,
> and is completely without merit.
>
> Ted
>
>


Still laughing, Daniel?
  #239  
Old November 14th 04, 07:11 PM
linda
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

James C. Reeves wrote:
> "linda" > wrote in message
> ...
> |
> | TO ALL:
> | Homosexuality is an accepted lifestyle nowadays with a proven biological
> | causation. For too long homosexuality has been considered a form of
> | "deviant sexual behavior". Those making these accusations should examine
> | the history books and the psychological research. Throughout our history
> | going all the way back to ancient Greece, homosexual relationships have
> | existed. The term "lesbian" comes from a Greek island called "Lesbos"
> | where many such couples lived. An overwhelming amount of research has
> | been done showing that homosexuality has a biological causation; not yet
> | determined a genetic one, biological one. The easiest way to think of it
> | is as a hormonal switch that gets thrown one way or the other. And if
> | you think about it, it makes logical sense. Consider many gays and
> | lesbians you've seen. NOT ALWAYS, but at times, secondary sexual
> | characteristics resemble the opposite sex. In other words, homosexual
> | males may have softer voices. Lesbians may have strong cheekbones and a
> | more masculine body shape. It's all affected by those hormone switches.
> | And why would someone choose to be gay. Do people analyze the
> | situation..."Let's see, I can be discriminated against, ridiculed by
> | friends and co-workers, rejected by my family, told I'm going to hell by
> | the church, subjected to beatings by gay bashers...hmmm, sign me up!"
> | Now, there will be odd cases where people experiment with different
> | types of sex, but you can't just teach people to be gay or not gay for a
> | lifetime.
>
> And history points to what primarily caused of the demise of those "great
> civilizations"?
>
>

There are many different factors; longevity (lifespans being shorter),
illness, climate changes, wars, to name a few.. however, there are many
theories, nothing that i can find that will document exact reasons. can
you find exact reasons? please send them to me. I need to have all the
info i can in order to develop my consistent belief.

lw
  #240  
Old November 14th 04, 07:11 PM
linda
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

James C. Reeves wrote:
> "linda" > wrote in message
> ...
> |
> | TO ALL:
> | Homosexuality is an accepted lifestyle nowadays with a proven biological
> | causation. For too long homosexuality has been considered a form of
> | "deviant sexual behavior". Those making these accusations should examine
> | the history books and the psychological research. Throughout our history
> | going all the way back to ancient Greece, homosexual relationships have
> | existed. The term "lesbian" comes from a Greek island called "Lesbos"
> | where many such couples lived. An overwhelming amount of research has
> | been done showing that homosexuality has a biological causation; not yet
> | determined a genetic one, biological one. The easiest way to think of it
> | is as a hormonal switch that gets thrown one way or the other. And if
> | you think about it, it makes logical sense. Consider many gays and
> | lesbians you've seen. NOT ALWAYS, but at times, secondary sexual
> | characteristics resemble the opposite sex. In other words, homosexual
> | males may have softer voices. Lesbians may have strong cheekbones and a
> | more masculine body shape. It's all affected by those hormone switches.
> | And why would someone choose to be gay. Do people analyze the
> | situation..."Let's see, I can be discriminated against, ridiculed by
> | friends and co-workers, rejected by my family, told I'm going to hell by
> | the church, subjected to beatings by gay bashers...hmmm, sign me up!"
> | Now, there will be odd cases where people experiment with different
> | types of sex, but you can't just teach people to be gay or not gay for a
> | lifetime.
>
> And history points to what primarily caused of the demise of those "great
> civilizations"?
>
>

There are many different factors; longevity (lifespans being shorter),
illness, climate changes, wars, to name a few.. however, there are many
theories, nothing that i can find that will document exact reasons. can
you find exact reasons? please send them to me. I need to have all the
info i can in order to develop my consistent belief.

lw
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! _____________---_gadkypy Michael Barnes Driving 4 January 4th 05 07:47 PM
Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! ___________ mixqec [email protected] Chrysler 37 November 18th 04 05:18 PM
Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! _____________---_ gadkypy Paul Antique cars 3 November 9th 04 07:54 PM
Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!!___________ mixqec indago Chrysler 7 November 8th 04 06:05 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:40 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.