Wednesday, March 19, 2008 | Reason : In the News | print version

God's cure for gays lost in sin

by SMH

Thanks to Gordon Wong for the link.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/bspecial-investigationb-gods-cure-for-gays-lost-in-sin/2008/03/18/1205602385236.html

God's cure for gays lost in sin

Former residents say separation contracts, a ban on physical contact and teachings by an 'ex-gay' are part of Mercy Ministry's attempts to stamp out lesbianism in its flock, reports Ruth Pollard.

WHEN Mercy Ministries says it helps young women with "life-controlling issues", it means in part that it aims to teach them not to be lesbians.

In line with the Hillsong Church's strict doctrines teaching that homosexuality is an affliction that can be cured, Mercy Ministries is keen to ensure there is no lesbianism under its roof. It issues "separation contracts" to young women who make friends with each other and prevents any form of physical contact between residents.

"While I was there, we received much teaching on the evils of gay and lesbian lifestyles," said Naomi Johnson, who spent nine months in the ministry's Sydney house.

As someone with no issues about her sexuality, she was perplexed by the ministry's continuing focus on the issue.

"In particular, there was an ongoing teaching video series by Sy Rogers an 'ex-gay' - now reformed - married Christian," she said.

Rogers - an American who conducts speaking tours on Christianity and sexuality- spoke at Hillsong Church's Sense and Sexuality Workshop in Sydney last September and is due to address its Colour Your World Conference next year.

"Sy will bless you with his insights into identity and the heart," the Hillsong website says.

"Happily, homosexuality can be turned around," Mr Rogers says in a clip of his show, Turnaround, on youtube.com. "Homosexuality is out of tune with religion; it is not what God planned for human sexuality."

On its application form, Mercy Ministries used to ask young women if they had been involved in lesbianism, next to the question on whether they had been involved in prostitution. They changed that in 2006 to ask "have you ever been involved in any form of same-sex relationships?".

Another former resident, who did not wish to be identified, said: "Girls were asked on the application form, as well as in a telephone interview, if they have ever had lesbian or bisexual relationships. They asked if I had

been involved in drug abuse, witchcraft, or lesbianism. They bunched them in together like that."

In the house, residents were prevented from having any form of physical contact - no comforting hugs, no shoulder to cry on - and even though there were three young women to each bedroom, they were not allowed to change clothes if another person was in the room, she said.

Mercy Ministries denies it runs an "ex-gay" program, and Hillsong has stopped running its "ex-gay" program, called Living Waters, although both organisations remain staunchly conservative - anti-abortion and anti-gay.

The Herald asked Hillsong to explain its teachings on homosexuality. No response had been received last night.

One former member of Hillsong, who held several "leadership positions" in the church, revealed that he was shunned when he disclosed his homosexuality.

"The ostracising that occurred by fellow worshippers was severe," said the man, who asked not to be identified. "As soon as I came out my entire social network decided the best way to deal with the situation was to stop all communication with me.

"The only hope I had was my family and friends who were extremely supportive as they were not Hillsong members."

Hillsong Church taught that the devil inspired people to act on homosexual desires, he said.

"Hillsong believes that homosexuality is not normal and not a part of God's design for mankind - their belief is that it should be fixed and it's something that can be removed from someone's life."

One option presented to the man was to force himself into a heterosexual relationship. In the meantime, he was removed from his leadership role in the church and isolated.

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 | Permalink

Comments 151 - 200 of 272 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

151. Comment #146885 by Steve Zara on March 19, 2008 at 2:11 pm

Comment #146876 by Mitchell Gilks

What are the advantage of nipples exactly in men?

Getting rid of nipples in men would have been hard without getting rid of them in women too.

Also, nipples in men aren't without their functions.

How about the appenddix?

A function seems to have been found for the appendix - a reservoir of helpful bacteria to help re-populate the gut after infection!

It is true that advantageous traits can overwrite neutral ones, but they don't necessarily.

Good point.

I am definitely no expert, so I could be wrong though.

And this sentence alone puts you above 99.9% or more of those who post on the internet, and why I have respect for people like you.

I could be wrong too!

Other Comments by Steve Zara

152. Comment #146887 by funkybeatt on March 19, 2008 at 2:14 pm

I strongly feel the above article is incredibly weak, and gives a very one-sided and inaccurate representation of the work of Mercy Ministries. Perhaps we need to appreciate the work of this charity before we start condemning them?

Mercy Ministries is an international NPO "providing homes and care for young women suffering the effects of eating disorders, self harm, abuse, depression, unplanned pregnancies and other life controlling issues."

Not along wrong with that if you ask me. I would strongly recommend reading their response to Ruth Pollard's article on their website: http://www.mercyministries.com.au/pages/preview.asp?pvid=1949&plid=95

Other Comments by funkybeatt

153. Comment #146888 by al-rawandi on March 19, 2008 at 2:16 pm

Also, nipples in men aren't without their functions.

Steve, I am not even going to ask.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

154. Comment #146889 by Rachel Holmes on March 19, 2008 at 2:17 pm

See Al, this just shows how manly you are.

My girlfriend would be even prouder of you. It's all I can do to stop her turning the living room into something Barbie would find tasteless.

Glad to see you're into pink as well, Mitchell. I'm still trying to take in the manga refs. Let's not go onto hentai, eh?

Other Comments by Rachel Holmes

155. Comment #146892 by forksmuggler on March 19, 2008 at 2:22 pm

I like pink donuts and Christmas cookies too. I associate the color with a delightful flavor as well.

And I associate the color with a delightful part of the female anatomy. (I'll assume, perhaps incorrectly, that that's not the flavor al is referring to.)

I remember when I was about 4 or 5 years old, pink was my favorite color. That is until one of my playmates informed me that pink is "a girl's color." I remember being ashamed of myself and no longer regarded the color as my favorite. (OK, one-two-three: "Awwhh!") Don't worry, I'm over it now.

Other Comments by forksmuggler

156. Comment #146893 by Apathy personified on March 19, 2008 at 2:23 pm

funkybeatt,
Maybe, just maybe, we don't think that this mental torture is doing people any good, and that the help they give is very conditional.
Do you believe the scientology 'help' programs are only of benefit to the vunerable people who enrol in them?

Other Comments by Apathy personified

157. Comment #146894 by Teratornis on March 19, 2008 at 2:24 pm

In reply to comment #146843 by Frankus1122:

It seems curious that homosexuality would continue to be present in a population when there does not seem to be any way homosexual genes (if there are such things) would be passed to the next genereation.

Does it also seem curious that Down Syndrome would continue to be present in a population when there does not seem to be much way that the trisomy of chromosome 21 would be passed to the next generation?

I'm not trying to be disrespectful here, just pointing out that Down Syndrome is common enough to be familiar to all of us, but nobody wonders about what sort of evolutionary advantage it would confer. (Which doesn't rule out the possibility, of course, I'm just pointing out that few people would think to ask that question. And of course asking the question might imply a bit of a naturalistic fallacy, as if showing that a trait does confer a reproductive advantage somehow legitimizes it. Not that I can blame people with stigmatized traits from looking for every possible political advantage. Certainly, the fundagelicals don't want to hear that homosexuality has a molecular cause. Apparently that would be a "loss" for them, although it's not entirely clear why. Christians bet on the wrong horse of geocentrism, but that didn't seem to dent their armor.)

Traits that affect minorities of a population need not confer any advantage.

Also, homosexuality itself (the phenotype) need not confer an advantage for the alleles that presumably cause it (or predispose to it) to confer an advantage.

For example, suppose there are alleles that cause male offspring to be gay, or to be more likely to become gay. Maybe the same alleles expressed in their heterosexual sisters somehow increase their reproductive success. If so, then maybe the reproductive payoff to the sister would compensate for the reproductive loss of the brother. (If it can be shown that opposite-sex siblings of gay people are more likely than average to be straight, there might be something to this bit of pure, unfounded conjecture.)

If it turns out that the same alleles cause both men and women to be gay, then I think the adaptationist explanation has a bit more explaining to do. If each sex has different "gay" genes, then it might easier to pass them on via the unaffected siblings.

A somewhat related example is how sickle-cell anemia is not advantageous, but getting one copy of its recessive allele confers greater resistance to malaria.

This sets up a push-me, pull-you type of conflicting selection in a population, where it's good to get some of the "bad" gene but not too much.

Of course I am not making any naturalistic-fallacy-type value judgments on anyone's sexuality. Just speculating on what might have given rise to the current observed diversity.

Other Comments by Teratornis

158. Comment #146896 by Colwyn Abernathy on March 19, 2008 at 2:24 pm

"And I usually slowly work my way to the nipples Al."

DO go on... ;)

Other Comments by Colwyn Abernathy

159. Comment #146898 by mundusvultdecipi on March 19, 2008 at 2:28 pm

FAO: Rachel Holmes

Rachel - you might find the following material of assistance:

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/frontpage/2006/0519/1146660078132.html

and

http://www.dcu.ie/news/dcutimes/summer_0507/p24.pdf

Other Comments by mundusvultdecipi

160. Comment #146899 by Colwyn Abernathy on March 19, 2008 at 2:28 pm

Mercy Ministries is an international NPO "providing homes and care for young women suffering the effects of eating disorders, self harm, abuse, depression, unplanned pregnancies and other life controlling issues."

See, there's that life-controlling again. Do they prohibit touch amongst these women as well? I'm sorry, their stance on homosexuality completely turns me off to whatever good they may do. Even Hamas built schools and helped the poor, that doesn't excuse them from using children as shields, or shooting an innocent in cold blood simply because he was accused of passing information to the Israelis.

Other Comments by Colwyn Abernathy

161. Comment #146901 by funkybeatt on March 19, 2008 at 2:30 pm

Mental torture? Where did that come from? That wasn't even in the article, let alone having anything to do with MM.

All I'm saying is don't take this article as a balanced view of MM's work. I think its best speaking to those who have been through their rehab programs to find out whether or not their work is valuable. I personally know people here in the UK whose lives have been transformed with the help of MM.

Other Comments by funkybeatt

162. Comment #146904 by Colwyn Abernathy on March 19, 2008 at 2:34 pm

And I personally know a card carrying member of the Church of Satan. A good friend of mine, who rawks the house. See what I did there?

Other Comments by Colwyn Abernathy

163. Comment #146905 by Rachel Holmes on March 19, 2008 at 2:34 pm

Thank you mundusvultdecipi - that's exactly the sort of stuff I need.

Other Comments by Rachel Holmes

164. Comment #146906 by Wosret on March 19, 2008 at 2:37 pm

I just wanted to push that I didn't know (and was hoping you wouldn't say, "then don't say anything about it, as that is an objective issue, and opinions don't matter") because I remember reading about nuetral traits somewhere, but can't remember now, and don't remember it in all that much detail anyway, so I didn't want you to push me. My memory could be wrong, it has been many times in the past

Though I do think it is fair to give your views on whether sexual preference is genetic or developed, because I that isn't something that is known about. So it is up for discussion.

I realised that the nipple point had that issue when I posted it, but I couldn't think of anything else besides appendix and tailbones, and I remember reading somewhere that they held support you when they sit down or something. So I didn't want to just say appendix. I didn't know that a purpose was found for it.

I always seem to do this, when I find what I preceive to be a problem, even if it is a non-issue or I agree I can't leave it alone. I shouldn't have even bothered with talking about whether or not homosexuality has selective advantage, as I already took the position that it isn't genetic.

I think that the basis for sexuality is surely, but the focuse of one's sexual desires I just think is a different thing.

As for what % gay...well I don't think any. There are things that I'm attracted to that men just don't have. Stomachs and lower backs for instance, that would require extensive cosmedic surgery, and likely bone reconstruction for a male to aquire. So pragmatically, I don't think any. Perhaps in principle, like 5%. Because I've seen some examples of trangendered individuals in anime that were hot enough. They had all the right shapes that I found them attractive.

For instance I'd do everything to Waporif http://miezaru.donmai.us/post/show/169186/kiss-morinas-saipaco-shower-simoun-waporif (one with the black hair)

Though I highly doubt that there is a real world example of him. If there were though, I wouldn't have any problem with that. So, I think that makes me maybe 5% gay.

Other Comments by Wosret

165. Comment #146909 by al-rawandi on March 19, 2008 at 2:39 pm

forksmuggler,

I do not find the donuts to be similar in taste to the piece of anatomy to which you refer.

That also comes to mind when I think of pink, but I wasn't going to be the one to bring it up.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

166. Comment #146912 by secondsoprano on March 19, 2008 at 2:41 pm

18. Comment #146590 by Pathfinder

Homosexuality is abnormal, it rules out procreation

and 119. Comment #146843 by Frankus1122

Frankus, I'm sorry to link you with Pathfinder in any way, but really, you both srsly lack imagination.

Homosexuality has nothing to do with reproductive capacity. It is perfectly possible (and indeed relatively common) for "gay" sperm and/or "lesbian" ova to make a baby:

1. Heterosexual intercourse by choice [just because a lesbian decides to have sex with a man to get pregnant doesn't make her any less gay]

2. Heterosexual intercourse by force [ditto lesbians who are raped]

3. Assisted insemination [very, very easy, and can be done in the privacy of your own home with no medical intervention required - please advise if more detail required]

4. Artificial conception with medical assistance.
[eg IVF]

Other Comments by secondsoprano

167. Comment #146913 by funkybeatt on March 19, 2008 at 2:41 pm

Colwyn: In agreement with the Hamas example, inexcusable.

And it's fair enough that your stance on homosexulaity turns you off, but surely one can't rubbish the work of an organisation just because of one view they hold?

Was the work of Martin Luther King Jr, Mother Theresa, David Livingstone, William Wiberforce (etc) invalid just because of their views on homosexuality?

Other Comments by funkybeatt

168. Comment #146915 by Wosret on March 19, 2008 at 2:48 pm

Rachel, it isn't hentai. Hentai is anime porn. Sexually explicit material. While yuri/shoujo-ai is normal anime, varying over several genres, it just has lesbian characters (the gay equivolent is called yaoi). Either as main characters or side characters.

Shoujo-ai is mainly emotional, and often involves relationships that have absolutely no explicit sexuality in them, it is all implied. The Bee Train 3 girls with guns series "Noir" "Madlax" and "El Cazador de la Bruja" are shoujo-ai for instance, where they aren't explicitly gay, but they are very emotionally attached and in love, though they don't actually kiss or anything.

While yuri generally means overtly gay, but not necessarily pornographic. They may have slight nudity in them, and some kisses, but it doesn't get explicit like Hentai.

Many of the shows aired on television.

Oh, here is something I doubt you knew, two of the characters in "Salor Moon" are lesbians, and life together. They are the first lesbian couple to be shown in an ongoing series on network television. They down play it and make them cousins in the english version, but in the japanese version they're lovers.

Other Comments by Wosret

169. Comment #146919 by Rachel Holmes on March 19, 2008 at 2:52 pm

Hi Mitchell, that's why I didn't want us to move onto hentai! I find your avatar pleasant, which hentai isn't.

Other Comments by Rachel Holmes

170. Comment #146922 by Apathy personified on March 19, 2008 at 2:53 pm

funkybeatt, see 'They prayed to cast Satan from my body' on the features list of this website, it was posted 17th Mar 2008.

You didn't answer my question,

Do you believe the scientology 'help' programs are only of benefit to the vunerable people who enrol in them?

If you feel strongly enough about an issue, maybe it does diminish anything else they do, that'd be a personal choice though.

If you know people who have benefitted from MM, and are the stronger for it, fair enough, very good work them. But by benefit, do you mean that they are now mental slaves to christianity, and their whole well being is entwined with a religious belief, as that is exetremely unhealthy, especially long term.

Other Comments by Apathy personified

171. Comment #146925 by al-rawandi on March 19, 2008 at 2:56 pm

secondsoprano,

Ooooohhhh you are being slippery.

I am sure that he meant "homosexual sex" does not yield children. Meaning two men or two women.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

172. Comment #146926 by Wosret on March 19, 2008 at 2:57 pm

Secondoprano, there is a great movie about just that called "Love my life" it is a Japanese life action movie based on the manga on the same named. It is about a lesbian women in university who comes out to her father, who tells her that he is gay, and her mother (now dead) was a lesbian. They got together because they both wanted to have a baby, but still persued homosexual relationships, and just stayed friends.

I thought that it was a great movie.

Other Comments by Wosret

173. Comment #146928 by Colwyn Abernathy on March 19, 2008 at 3:00 pm

And it's fair enough that your stance on homosexulaity turns you off, but surely one can't rubbish the work of an organisation just because of one view they hold?

It isn't the view or the stance, it's the actions they take to "correct" a "problem" that isn't one. They force their worldview on vulnerable, confused women, causing more harm than good. This is reprehensible.

Was the work of Martin Luther King Jr, Mother Theresa, David Livingstone, William Wiberforce (etc) invalid just because of their views on homosexuality?

Irrelevant. And don't bring up Mother Theresa, there've been books written about her hypocrasy. For example Martin Luther King didn't proclaim homosexuality as a disease.

EDIT: Blockquote fixed. Sry! :(

Other Comments by Colwyn Abernathy

174. Comment #146932 by Wosret on March 19, 2008 at 3:03 pm

Yes, Rachel, but yuri is to hentai what anime is to hentai. Yuri has no more relation to hentai than any other anime. The only relation is that they are both animations done in Japan. Just like live action hollywood film doesn't equate to porn, because it is live action, and produced in hollywood.

Nothing I mentioned had anything to do with hentai.

Other Comments by Wosret

175. Comment #146935 by Apathy personified on March 19, 2008 at 3:04 pm

I can't be bothered to argue with funkbeatt tonight, i'm just gonna talk about pink shirts, nipples and lesbian porn anime with everyone else.

Other Comments by Apathy personified

176. Comment #146937 by Wosret on March 19, 2008 at 3:07 pm

Colwyn, also, I should mention that one of Kings close friends, and a major figure (hopefully someone can help me with the name, as I can't remember names) was arrested and jailed for two months for being caught in a homosexual act. I really think that there is far more evidence that King didn't have any problem with homosexuality than that he did.

Other Comments by Wosret

177. Comment #146939 by funkybeatt on March 19, 2008 at 3:07 pm

Apathy: In all my ignorance I will admit that I don't know what you mean by "scientology 'help' programs"!?! I'm happy to learn though!

By benefit I mean: once self-harming, now understanding their self-worth. Once depressed, now motivated by purpose in life. Once bound by eating disorders, now healthily enjoying food!

As for being "mental slaves to Christianity", better to be a slave to the most loving person ever to walk the earth than a slave to drink, drugs, self-image etc. That said, I'm not a slave, I'm a follower of Christ, and it's the most liberating and free I've ever been!

Other Comments by funkybeatt

178. Comment #146944 by secondsoprano on March 19, 2008 at 3:12 pm

Mitchell - re "Love my life" - yes, I agree, that was a great movie!

Other Comments by secondsoprano

179. Comment #146945 by Wosret on March 19, 2008 at 3:13 pm

The more important point is though, that supposing King was a homophob, as well as many other people that did good things. That would in no way excuse their bigotry, and ignorance, or the harm caused by their idiocy.

I don't think it down plays any good they might have done, but it also doesn't begin to excuse the bad they are doing.

Though what good any religion does in this day and age is highly suspect in my opinion.

Other Comments by Wosret

180. Comment #146951 by Apathy personified on March 19, 2008 at 3:19 pm

The 'Church of Scientology' (haha, yeah right) runs very similar programs to this, take vunerable people, then throw a youe world view down their throats, without properly dealing with the problem. To be fair, as MM is a charity, i'm gonna guess it doesn't take all their worldly possessions (or anything, maybe) as scientology does.

True, self-harmers not self-harming, etc, is definately a better position for them to be in, but surely a problems arise if their whole mental support structure comes from a belief in God, what if they lose a beleif in God, would they then have the strength not to go back to the position they were in?

I think we disagree most on the last point the most though,
1. He's not always loving, some new testament passages have Jesus being a real c**t
2. I question your statement that belief in what is effectively a bronze age myths as being liberating.
We may have to agree to disagree on this last part

Other Comments by Apathy personified

181. Comment #146952 by secondsoprano on March 19, 2008 at 3:19 pm

Ooooohhhh you are being slippery.

I am sure that he meant "homosexual sex" does not yield children. Meaning two men or two women.

Yes, well, who knows what Pathfinder "means" (I'm not even going to speculate on what he would make of me being slippery ...)

Other Comments by secondsoprano

182. Comment #146954 by Rachel Holmes on March 19, 2008 at 3:21 pm

Mitchell - my apologies. I didn't mean to cause offence. Japanese animation is a whole unknown area to me!

funkybeatt, I think you'll find that a lot of us here, of all sexual orientations, found escaping from religion (or from a supposed "relationship with God", if that's how you prefer to think of your faith) to be liberating. I know I did.

Other Comments by Rachel Holmes

183. Comment #146966 by Wosret on March 19, 2008 at 3:33 pm

Rachel, there is no need to apologize, and you didn't cause offence. I merely wanted to explain the difference. As it is an important distinction, not like they are somewhat different, but completely different things altogether. You can understand how you couldn't let someone calling "apples" "oranges" go.

I hope that I didn't come off as offended, or aggressive at all. Because I didn't mean to.

We all have areas that are completely unknown to us, that is why I felt the need to explain. :)

Other Comments by Wosret

184. Comment #146969 by crazy~horse on March 19, 2008 at 3:36 pm

from the mercy ministries website:

"Do you have to be a Christian / religious / go to church to come to Mercy Ministries?
No. Any young woman regardless of her religious or spiritual background is welcome to apply to our program.
As our program is based on Christian principles the young women in the program are involved in a local church and attend other Christian based activities during the week. When living at Mercy Ministries young women are required to participate in all aspects of the program."

i think special attention needs to be paid to that last sentence. sounds to me like: "you don't have to be christian to come here, but we're damn sure going to do whatever we can to convert you".

Other Comments by crazy~horse

185. Comment #146975 by mmurray on March 19, 2008 at 3:45 pm

Just out of interest what do people make of the teenage fondness for using `gay' to mean broken in some away. eg `my phones out of credit -- man that's so gay'.

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

186. Comment #146978 by Bonzai on March 19, 2008 at 3:49 pm

Steve,

Absolutely. All the great ape species show homosexual behaviour. It probably has something to do with support from non-reproducing uncles and aunts for child-rearing couples, and also social cohesion. Well, someone has to write the musicals and design the clothes!

Actually, why must a trait have any adaptive advantage? This seems to be a fallacy of the strong adaptationists. I find "explanations" such as gays are good as uncles sound completely made up and are not supported by any independent evidence.

There has to be, otherwise it would not be there.

I am not an extreme adaptationist (every aspect of an organism has to be selected for), but if we are going to give up on the idea that evolution is going to select for reproductive behaviour, we might just as well give up on evolution altogether.

Homosexuality is not "selected ", it is not even a hereditary trait like baldness,--what is the adaptive advantage of being bald btw?.

Being gay is not the same as being sterile.In many instances they do have children and their children don't turn out to be gay.--there is no evidence that they do. You may say the "gay gene" is recessive, but until there is evidence for that it is just speculation.

While homosexuals prefer having sex with same sex partners, it is not that they are physically incapable of having sex with members of the opposite sex or that they abhor the idea of having children,--some do,just like some heterosexuals too. Historically, in many cultures procreation and sexual preferences are two separate issues. Being homosexual is no big deal if you fulfill your obligation to have kids.

I think we are carrying too many culturally specific assumptions into this kind of discussions,

Edit If we accept the strong adaptionists' premise we can pose the question differently, why are there heterosexuals who want to have sex but don't want children? What is the genetic basis for an absence of the paternal or maternal instinct?

Other Comments by Bonzai

187. Comment #146979 by Goldy on March 19, 2008 at 3:54 pm

There has to be, otherwise it would not be there.

Maybe - the societal thing helps. I did put a lot of "think" and "maybe" in my piece :-) But I don't see it as, say, as important as skin colour or eye colour in the grand scheme of things. It is there in all populations (and species, I believe) and it does not affect the population growth any. Maybe I'd put it there with hairiness :-)
These are, however, my personal views.
Male nipples - good temperature sensors, great for stimulating and for hanging nipple rings on ;-) As Steve said, kinda hard to get rid of them as women actually use theirs for feeding children. Bit like those useless blanked off spaces in economy cars to remind you what you saved your money on when you didn't by the higher spec cars :-)
Right, back to the grindstone - work does get in the way. At least there's some religious festival coming up that gives me a few days off :-)

Other Comments by Goldy

188. Comment #146984 by Wosret on March 19, 2008 at 4:06 pm

Just out of interest what do people make of the teenage fondness for using `gay' to mean broken in some away. eg `my phones out of credit -- man that's so gay'.

A habit I picked up while living in Halifax for a year about 5 years ago. Meaning lame, or stupid, or just not good. It took awhile to kick, as you get used to using expressions without thinking.

I think now that it is insulting, and insensitive. So I'd rather just be a nice guy and not use it like that anymore.

Other Comments by Wosret

189. Comment #146985 by Frankus1122 on March 19, 2008 at 4:07 pm

I am sure that he meant "homosexual sex" does not yield children. Meaning two men or two women.

That's what I meant.
I am sometimes dim but not that unintelligent.

Comment #146894 by Teratornis:

Does it also seem curious that Down Syndrome would continue to be present in a population when there does not seem to be much way that the trisomy of chromosome 21 would be passed to the next generation?

Good point.
However, it does seem a bit curious or interesting or worthy of investigation as well. I do not know why Down's Syndrome occurs as often as it does.
Is there a reason as there is for sickle cell?

I have indicated that there is research being conducted to find out exactly what the adaptive advantage is for the 'gay gene(s)'.

Or perhaps I should say for those genes(s) that can also express themselves in ways that lead to the organism being gay. Or gay-ish.

Other Comments by Frankus1122

190. Comment #146988 by mmurray on March 19, 2008 at 4:10 pm

Bit like those useless blanked off spaces in economy cars to remind you what you saved your money on when you didn't by the higher spec cars :-)

Ah that explains it. My parents skipped on the breasts option. Damn.

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

191. Comment #146989 by Bonzai on March 19, 2008 at 4:10 pm

Frankus,

There is no indication that children of homosexuals are more likely to be homosexuals themselves,--yes, many homosexuals do have children. Until there is any concrete evidence that it does pass on, there is no ground to compare it with hereditary traits such as sickle cell, let alone to find it adaptive advantage.

Other Comments by Bonzai

192. Comment #146991 by Greyman on March 19, 2008 at 4:15 pm

Homosexuality - PRACTISING homosexuality, is a sin, as you no doubt know from your Leviticus.

No. It's not a sin according to Leviticus, it's an abomination. Just like shellfish!

Other Comments by Greyman

193. Comment #146992 by secondsoprano on March 19, 2008 at 4:16 pm

189. Comment #146985 by Frankus1122 on March 19, 2008 at 4:07 pm

I am sure that he meant "homosexual sex" does not yield children. Meaning two men or two women.

That's what I meant.
I am sometimes dim but not that unintelligent.

Yes, but my point (and Bonzai's at 186) was that "being homosexual" is not related to "being unable to have children". You suggested that there was no way gay genes (if there are such things) could be passed on.

Clearly there are plenty of ways, as Bonzai and I have tried to show.

Sorry to be so insistent on this, but I think it is important to correct people who say "gays can't have children".

For the fundies and lawmakers, it is very easy to slip from

(1) "gays can't [physically] have children" to

(2) "gays shouldn't [morally] have children" to

(3) "gays must be prohibited [by law] from having children".

If we firmly demonstrate that (1) is wrong, we are better placed to argue against (2) and (3).

Other Comments by secondsoprano

194. Comment #146998 by Frankus1122 on March 19, 2008 at 4:29 pm

I have not said or implied that gays can't, shouldn't or be prohibited from having children.

I am not suggesting that "gay genes" cannot be passed on. I am wondering why they are there.

I am thinking this through here.
If there are genes that express themselves only in that they cause the organism to be homosexual then I cannot see how they would be passed on. (I realize gay people can reproduce; they normally do not).
Therefore the genes that express themselves in some people as homosexuality may have some other adaptive features if expressed differently (because of environmental factors or the presence of other genes or whatever - I don't know) in another person.

Other Comments by Frankus1122

195. Comment #147002 by Bonzai on March 19, 2008 at 4:39 pm

There is no such thing as "homosexual sex", whatever gays and Lesbians can do in bed heteros can and do do too and they don't produce any children even when practiced by heterosexuals.

The most profound question of the day

Should I say "don't produce any children" or "don't produce any child"? "Don't produce any child" seems grammatically more correct but doesn't sound right. :-)

Other Comments by Bonzai

196. Comment #147005 by Bonzai on March 19, 2008 at 4:47 pm

Frankus

I am not suggesting that "gay genes" cannot be passed on. I am wondering why they are there.

How do you know they are there?

If there are genes that express themselves only in that they cause the organism to be homosexual then I cannot see how they would be passed on. (I realize gay people can reproduce; they normally do not).

That is a big "if" and "normally" only in our culture.

Other Comments by Bonzai

197. Comment #147006 by Goldy on March 19, 2008 at 4:48 pm

Should I say "don't produce any children" or "don't produce any child"? "Don't produce any child" seems grammatically more correct but doesn't sound right. :-)

Think the "any" implies more than one child, hence children. Don't produce a child/don't produce any children, that sort of thing.

Other Comments by Goldy

198. Comment #147007 by Goldy on March 19, 2008 at 4:49 pm

Good question - the hippocampal studies might suggest there is a genetic component. As it is, the sexuality one has isn't really chosen - you are what you are, as it were, which suggests, at least to me, that there is a genetic component.

Other Comments by Goldy

199. Comment #147009 by Bonzai on March 19, 2008 at 4:54 pm

the hippocampal studies might suggest there is a genetic component

Three possible rejoinders

1) Correlation is not causation, there may be a correlation of the presence of some structure and certain behaviour but it doesn't prove one causes the other.

2) Having a "genetic component" is not the same as saying that there is a gay gene. I think the connection leading from genes to sexual behaviour is complex and convoluted, it is not like your eye colour or nose shape.

3) Because of 2) I think it is premature and wrong headed to speculate if there is any adaptative advantage for homosexuality, it can be the secondary expression (by-product) of a whole bunch of other unrelated things.

Like I said, gays do have children even in our society though less common and there is no evidence that their children are more likely to be gay themselves.

Other Comments by Bonzai

200. Comment #147014 by Frankus1122 on March 19, 2008 at 5:03 pm

We are the way we are because of our genes and how those genes are expressed and to some extent because of the environment in which those genes develop.

Therefore if you are homosexual there is, I think, at least in part, a genetic basis for that.
You don't simply move into the big city and become gay.

Other Comments by Frankus1122

Reload Comments | Back to Top