Let the comparisons between gay men and goats begin...

[Hueij]

Exactly. I don't see any reason why parents shouldnt be able to select the best genes for their children.

Oh brave new world that has such people in it...

[Dr Strangelove]

I'd take the findings of this study with a grain of salt. They're not comparing the size of discrete organs like livers, kidneys and hearts, but instead they're measuring a collection of cell nuclei located in a portion of the brain jam packed with a multitude of similar collections. These collections of cell bodies, termed "nuclei" do not have clearly defined boundaries setting them apart from each other. (In the field of neuroanatomy the term "nucleus" refers to collections of nerve cell bodies concentrated in a location sufficiently to give the collection the appearence of forming a structure.) Consequently it's very difficult to accurately measure the size of the collection and the number of cell bodies contained within it. It's also very easy to introduce a degree of observer bias in such measurements. Similar findings garnered in human brains were not confirmed by researchers repaeting the studies.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Boddington's
"It's only in man's Religious society that they don't think it's natural."

Something happening in nature doesn't automatically make it natural. Goats and sheep can do some pretty unnatural things too.

Yeah, let's put all those gay animals down, it's only right, the unnatural little freaks of nature

Well there will be a reason for homosexuality in biological terms which is structural. What it's origins would be, well, that is anyone's guess, all that may occur is that certain factors may predispose someone to a certain sexuality. But to then get back to this pathetic reductionism of describing it as a 'disease'. Is homosexuality in some ways detrimental to the person? In high oxygen conditions in warm climates, sickle cell anaemia is actually a massive advantage, especially if heterozygous. A disease may pose some drastic advantages (ie, malarial resistance). You have to be careful with these kinds of descriptions also...

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by nationalist
No, but if procedures exist that allow a mother to prevent/repair this defect then I think that they should be allowed to perform it.

Perhaps then the 'predisposition to bigotry' gene can be edited out too. And wouldn't the world be a better place?

Thank goodness the British had Alan Turing on their side in WWII, or even more of your kind of thinking would be around today. Alan Turing was of course a big gay homosexual- and his 'defective' genius was invaluable in the cracking of the Enigma codes and the development of the Turing Machine test.

http://www.turing.org.uk/turing/

Perhaps instead of falling back on the usual dull dichotomy of heterosexual=natural=good
and homosexuality='unnatural'=bad, you might care to reflect on the societies and cultures (mostly non-Judaeo-Christian) which had/have a better understanding of the varieties of human sexuality. Given that foetuses start out with a female predisposition, are males a hormonal aberration? The assumption that the main purpose in human life is to reproduce, is a sad reductionist one- and no doubt responsible for many males assuming that clitoris is a character in a play by Euripides.

If it's a matter of siding with bonobo chimps who use sex for pleasure, I'll take their company over yours any day.

[Asher]

Turing's generally considered to be one of the fathers of computer science...

There's plenty of famous homosexuals that contributed lots to modern society. Boddington's will no doubt take the stance that while he is still valuable, he has a sexual defect that should be corrected (as this obviously hurts society, what with him being gay and all)

[Ming]

Hey Asher... believe it or not, Boddington's was the one questioning somebody else for calling it a defect. I know this might come as a shock...

[Asher]

That's what I get for not even reading his posts anymore, and only looking at the ones that looked rather intelligent (like molly bloom's)

I apologize to Boddington's then.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Dry

Boris, I agreed with you on all what you said here, but this last one, gay couples having children is for me still something hard to accept.
I think the problem is more complex than just bigotry.
From what I heard from psychologists, a child needs some kind of reference/example to discover and build up its sexual identity. When the child has a mother AND a father, it has an example of both (a choice!!).
I don't know much about gay couples (exept the popular picture of one playing the guy and the other playing the girl, but how true is it ...?), but I doubt that children of gay couple really have an objective example of both sexes.
I may well understand that a gay child of a hetero couple also has a problem of sexual identity, but think that statistically, more children will have problems if more children were raised by gay couples.

There is no empirical evidence to support your assertion, however. The studies I have seen of children reared by gay parents all show them to be normal, healthy children. Parents are not the only examples of "sexual identity" children are exposed to--every day, on tv, in movies, out in public--children are bombarded with the heterosexual norm. If anything, having gay parents would make a gay child's life easier in that he would not have to fear rejection from his parents like I or other gay teens have. There is no logical reason to think it would somehow adversely affect a heterosexual child. A key thing to remember is that most couples, straight or gay, raise children under the assumption the children are heterosexual or don't assume any sexual orientation at all. I doubt any couples ever raise a child under the assumption he is gay.

[Ramo]

Bods et. al are unnatural since they are abnormally stupid.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by nationalist
Maybe, but I think it is more likely a birth defect. Something that wouldn't have otherwise have happened if not for circumstances in the fetus' development.

If we assume that there is (in fact) a physiological difference then it is unlikely to be a 'defect'. 'Defects', especially those that reduce the chances of procreation, are quickly weeded out by natural selection. Strange as it may seem to some, there may be some unknown benefit, given the relatively high rates of homosexuality in humans and its appearance in (at least) many mammal species.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by molly bloom

and no doubt responsible for many males assuming that clitoris is a character in a play by Euripides.

but I would think that any male (non-nerd) who knew who Euripides was would know what a clitoris is.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by nationalist
Maybe, but I think it is more likely a birth defect. Something that wouldn't have otherwise have happened if not for circumstances in the fetus' development.

If we assume that there is (in fact) a physiological difference then it is unlikely to be a 'defect'. 'Defects', especially those that reduce the chances of procreation, are quickly weeded out by natural selection. Strange as it may seem to some, there may be some unknown benefit, given the relatively high rates of homosexuality in humans and its appearance in (at least) many mammal species.

[ThePantaloonDog]

This thread brought up a great Trainspotting quote:

In a thousand years, there will be no men and women, just ****ers, and that's fine by me.

[gsmoove23]

"It used to happen in old civilizations as well, that the king 'sodomized' new slaves to show his power above them"

I'm still crying. I just had this image come to mind of a king, sceptre in hand, crown on head in the act with a "subject" when the queen walks in. "Uhhh, let me explain..."

"From what I heard from psychologists, a child needs some kind of reference/example to discover and build up its sexual identity. When the child has a mother AND a father, it has an example of both (a choice!!)."

As a somewhat healthy child of a "broken" home I have a great skepticism when it comes to statistical, psychological child studies and ideas of statistically safer environments. In the end if a child has responsible and good parents or authority figures the child is far safer no matter what the combination of parents is.

What exactly does it mean anyway when a child is 20% or 5% more likely to be screwed up when he has gay/straight parents. It means alot of kids with gay parents are screwed up and alot of kids with straight parents are screwed up but this time we counted a few more from gay homes who were screwed up. I have yet to see this survey but I have seen others on other issues like it and I'm paraphrasing of course.

[Solly]

"It means alot of kids with gay parents are screwed up and alot of kids with straight parents are screwed up but this time we counted a few more from gay homes who were screwed up."

The chances are they are more likely to be screwed up with gay parents. I will find studies.