Gay Penguins & their desire to be parents

[Professur]

Bugger the penguins, it's the sheep we have to worry about.

Source

The team's probing of the workings of the minds of these furry Friends of Dorothy indicate that they have smaller ovine sexually dimorphic nuclei (oSDNs) than their straight counterparts.

These nerve cells are found in the hypothalamus, which is - among other things - responsible for sexual behaviour. Apparently, rams who prefer the company of ladies have larger oSDNs packed with more neurons.

Team leader professor Charles Roselli said: "This particular study, along with others, strongly suggests that sexual preference is biologically determined in animals, and possibly in humans.

 

[Gato_Solo]

Bugger the penguins, it's the sheep we have to worry about.

Source

This type of news comes out from time to time (I've seen it 3 or 4 times over the past 10 years), and it never pans out. When they have something conclusive, rather than probable, I'll believe that it's nature, not choice. Until then, it's nothing but conjecture.

 

[Gonz]

Nature or nurture is irrelevent. It' still a choice. 3 major options-hetero, homo or none. Choose.

 

[AlphaTroll]

This type of news comes out from time to time (I've seen it 3 or 4 times over the past 10 years), and it never pans out. When they have something conclusive, rather than probable, I'll believe that it's nature, not choice. Until then, it's nothing but conjecture.

Homosexual behaviour of animals in the wild has been widely reported for some time - eg. dolphins, orangotans and in some cases even among lions. Whether or not their genetic make up has anything to do with it is rather important since a lack of proof that their genetics differ from other animals of the same species with heterosexual tendencies (in other words if it's a choice) would mean that these animals are capable of rational thought - a trait that has thus far been exclusively human.

 

[freako104]

Nature or nurture is irrelevent. It' still a choice. 3 major options-hetero, homo or none. Choose.

what about bi?

 

[Gato_Solo]

Homosexual behaviour of animals in the wild has been widely reported for some time - eg. dolphins, orangotans and in some cases even among lions. Whether or not their genetic make up has anything to do with it is rather important since a lack of proof that their genetics differ from other animals of the same species with heterosexual tendencies (in other words if it's a choice) would mean that these animals are capable of rational thought - a trait that has thus far been exclusively human.

Actually, the genetic differences are important for another reason entirely. Humans aren't dolphins/orangutans/lions/etc, and, when a homosexual human dies, and the brain is actually donated, they find that, in almost all cases, that there is no deviation from the norm in the hypothalmus.

As long as Gonz, rather than me, brought this up, does that now mean that homosexuality is treatable? I know that this can be taken 2 ways, and I want to clarify before Thulsa Doom goes on a lengthy rant about equality and freedom of choice.

1. If homosexuality is treatable, does that make it a disease or abnormality?
2. If some don't want the treatment, does that make them products of nature or the environment?
3. If those 'cured' of their homosexuality prefer to remain homosexual, does that mean the treatment failed, or that the person is mentally unstable?

Please don't take these questions the wrong way. They are not an attempt to say that homosexuals are mentally ill, physically ill, or anything else. These questions are for honest appraisals/answers and not for the rants or trolling that I'm sure some of you will post. Thank you for your consideration.

 

[Professur]

what about bi?

That's always been the sticking point.

Gato, Add this to your list. If a child is found to have that leaning, is it permissable for the parents to require it to be treated?

Actually, that could be argued for either source, couldn't it? After all, for a long time, being gay was considered a mental illness.

 

[Gato_Solo]

That's always been the sticking point.

Gato, Add this to your list. If a child is found to have that leaning, is it permissable for the parents to require it to be treated?

Actually, that could be argued for either source, couldn't it? After all, for a long time, being gay was considered a mental illness.

I know. That's another thing that brought these questions forth. That's also why I put the word 'if' in bold. I don't want any misunderstandings.

 

[Thulsa Doom]

As long as Gonz, rather than me, brought this up, does that now mean that homosexuality is treatable? I know that this can be taken 2 ways, and I want to clarify before Thulsa Doom goes on a lengthy rant about equality and freedom of choice. [/b]

aw but ranting is so much fun. And you filled this post with way too many acquiescent qualifiers to inspire me to rant. come on Gato you can do better then that.

1. If homosexuality is treatable, does that make it a disease or abnormality?

Do you mean if homosexuality is alterable? I would say most anything is alterable. having a big nose is alterable/treatable and a lot of people feel a lot better about themselves when they have an operation to change the size of their nose. But does that mean that having a big nose is like having syphilis or something? Personally i dont think so.

Anyway something is only considered an official disease if it is established as such by the APA diagnostic classification DSM 4 thingamabobber. And wasnt homosexuality removed from this classification in the 70's or something? So unless its voted back in i dont think it will ever be considered a disease, “treatable” or not. at least no sooner then being left handed is considered a disease. theres probably some parallels going on in the brain for both those things.

There see how tame that was? And you were all worried.

 

[Mare]

Hey! As long as their happy-guess that's all that counts..Let them live, and be happy together.


I don't feel homosexuality is a disease..Isn't it a choice?

 

[Professur]

Doomie, they classify alcoholism a disease, don't they? Same deal.

 

[freako104]

Hey! As long as their happy-guess that's all that counts..Let them live, and be happy together.


I don't feel homosexuality is a disease..Isn't it a choice?

thats where the controversy comes in. Some say it is a choice some say no.



Prof how is it equal to alcoholism? noone is hurt by it. people are hurt by alcohol and drug abuse.

 

[Professur]

Really? I didn't know that.

Alcoholism is a prediliction to substance abuse. They've found genetic traits that seem to indicate that some people are more easily addicted than others. Now they've found similar biological evidence (see above) pointing towards gayness.

Not that either is a lock on the behavior. I've a huge background with alcohol, having lost many relatives to it's lure. I haven't touched a beer in months, despite having some in the house. Similarly, many closet gays, or late bloomers may have the trait, but resist it.

That would be how.

 

[freako104]

they are probably in the closet since they are worried about the ridicule they will face. I stll do not see any similarities. if you didnt know about the abuse thing you prolly arent paying attention. look at abusive relationships then look where alcoholism plays a role.

 

[Professur]

It was sarcasm.


The relationship is in the way doctors look at things. With respect to finding gayness to be a disease. That's what I was talking about. They call alcoholism a disease. I refute that point. They say that there's a genetic predisposition towards it. I say it's human weakness and low moral fiber. They say that alcoholics can't help themselves. I say they damn well can.

I can apply each statement to gayness too. Therefore gayness should have no more trouble being declared a disease than alcoholism had.

I hope that clarifies the point for you.

 

[MrBishop]

1. If homosexuality is treatable, does that make it a disease or abnormality?
2. If some don't want the treatment, does that make them products of nature or the environment?
3. If those 'cured' of their homosexuality prefer to remain homosexual, does that mean the treatment failed, or that the person is mentally unstable?

I'll go at these point by point.

1. I'd have to agree with Thulsa here. I would think that 'alterable' is a better term. Treatable is a word associated with disease or abnormalities, non? By using that term...you gently push the reader into thinking that homosexuality is a disease or abnormailty (Negative trait). There are quite a few who think that homosexuality is a negative trait. Although I have nothing against homosexuals per se, I tend to think of it this way. It's negative because it doesn't help propogate the species.

 

[Gotnolegs]

It was sarcasm.


The relationship is in the way doctors look at things. With respect to finding gayness to be a disease. That's what I was talking about. They call alcoholism a disease. I refute that point. They say that there's a genetic predisposition towards it. I say it's human weakness and low moral fiber. They say that alcoholics can't help themselves. I say they damn well can.

I can apply each statement to gayness too. Therefore gayness should have no more trouble being declared a disease than alcoholism had.

I hope that clarifies the point for you.

This is of course complete bollocks.

Alcoholism is a physical addiction. That is a medical "condition" if not a disease. Moral fibre has nothing to do with it. Some people are genetically predisposed to be more sensitive to the addictive properties of alcohol in the same way that some popel get addicted to opiates instantly and some take a long time if at all.

Being gay however much you disapprove cannot in any be accurately described as a physical addiction.

 

[MrBishop]

1. If homosexuality is treatable, does that make it a disease or abnormality?
2. If some don't want the treatment, does that make them products of nature or the environment?
3. If those 'cured' of their homosexuality prefer to remain homosexual, does that mean the treatment failed, or that the person is mentally unstable?

2. If you don't want to be changed through medecine from what you were born with? Many people don't trust doctors or scientists...even for the common cold. People are frightfully afraid of surgery but will go through with it because it may save their lives. Homosexuality isn't life-threathening.

I'm sure that many gay men and women when told that their homosexuality can suddenly be "cured" through this drug/surgical procedure/DNA alteration whould feel fairly hesitant, non?

It'd be a fairly scary procedure and life-altering more so than most procedures. If you were gay and became straight...what would happen to your partner(s), your friendships (who might not understand why you left them to join the majority) *Emotional decision*. You'd have to change your dating habits, your style of clothing or hair, perhaps even your neighbourhood....

I would think that basically uprooting yourself entirely would be a fairly negative sensation and many would refuse the treatment out of fear.

Many others would refuse because the mere existance of the treatment means that their entire life had just been reduced to a genetic error which can be fixed with a shot/pill/surgery.

There is a huge culture based from homosexuality. It would basically collapse.

In aanswer to your question...it would make them products of both. Nature because it's cureable and environment because of the fear assocaited with the cure.

 

[MrBishop]

1. If homosexuality is treatable, does that make it a disease or abnormality?
2. If some don't want the treatment, does that make them products of nature or the environment?
3. If those 'cured' of their homosexuality prefer to remain homosexual, does that mean the treatment failed, or that the person is mentally unstable?

3. If they go thorugh the treatment and the treatment is deemed succesfull by the medical practitioners that administered it*No errors during the procedure/correct doseage/no side-effects*, and the person returns to his previous behaviour...we can probably state two thing.

either -
the treatment failed because it was badly administered and never noticed or because the whole thing never worked in the first place.

or

The treatment worked, but despite having no more homosexual tendencies, the individual was so 'used' to being/acting gay that they are unable to make the transition from one lifestyle to another. This second option would be similar to today's gay man/woman who decide to live out a straight lifestyle because they cannot come out of the closet.

An interesting thing came to mind - if a person is gay, but prefers to remain heterosexual, is that person mentally unstable?

 

[freako104]

It was sarcasm.


The relationship is in the way doctors look at things. With respect to finding gayness to be a disease. That's what I was talking about. They call alcoholism a disease. I refute that point. They say that there's a genetic predisposition towards it. I say it's human weakness and low moral fiber. They say that alcoholics can't help themselves. I say they damn well can.

I can apply each statement to gayness too. Therefore gayness should have no more trouble being declared a disease than alcoholism had.

I hope that clarifies the point for you.

it does thanks. I had thought you meant it as it being a disease. there are those who feel it is a mental disease. I thought you were in that boat. sorry about that