What is wrong with some people? A story from Uganda

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Proposed legislation would impose the death penalty for some gay Ugandans, and their family and friends could face up to seven years in jail if they fail to report them to authorities. Even landlords could be imprisoned for renting to homosexuals.

A draft law currently going through parliament in Uganda has prompted controversy far beyond East Africa.

These are some of the provisions of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill:

* Gay men and lesbians convicted of having sex would be sentenced, at minimum, to life in prison.
* Homosexuals who have sex with a minor may receive the death penalty.
* Anyone who knows of homosexual activity taking place and fails to report it risks up to three years in prison.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/news/2009/12/091218_gay_uganda_law_wt_sl.shtml

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2009/12/09/2009-12-09_while_us_debates_gay_marriage_uganda_considers_ death_penalty_for_homosexuals.html

Meanwhile former Wales and Lions captain Gareth Thomas has broken one of the major taboos that surround sport by revealing he is gay.

So it would seem that some of us are moving in the right direction for gay rights while some nations go scarily in the wrong direction.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/welsh/8421956.stm

[Hondo]

Who is moving in the right direction? Obviously Uganda sees homosexuality as a major threat to it's culture and it's state social services. Uganda is not the only nation that takes a dim view of homosexuality and many deal with it severely. Islam isn't terribly fond of it either and has put people to death over it.

The western tolerance of homosexuality is largely a by product of the individual rights that sprang from the "if it feels good, do it" battle cry of the 60s and 70s. However, that tolerance is being sorely tried by the gay rights ever more militant "in your face" attitude. People in the USA have grown weary of the gay, same sex marriage demands. In every state where it has been on the popular ballot, it has been defeated. So far it has been also rejected by every upper court appeal in areas where it was snuck in by other means. Most people will tolerate it if it is practiced quietly in the background.

Any way you look at it and regardless of any argument you want to make for it, it is an unnatural condition about which the majority have little sympathy. Homosexuality is extremely rare in other animal species and I suppose an argument could be made that amongst humans, it is a free will choice. Any animal homosexual couple, on it's own, is unable to reproduce and would become extinct upon the deaths of the couple. Nature or God or Allah if you prefer has not, that we know of, created any such species.

[Dave B]

Wow. Firsty neither God nor Allah created anything, and secondly there's plenty of evidence of animals in the wild practicing homosexual behavior. Of course it's comparitively rare in nature as evolution depends of reproduction to survive, but it does happen.

Humans are able to seperate sex and reproduction, so if two consenting adult humans of whichever gender want to get jiggy then that should never ever be a matter for state or religious interference.

[Hondo]

If it feels good, do it.


Rest my case.

[Garry Walker]

So it would seem that some of us are moving in the right direction for gay rights while some nations go scarily in the wrong direction.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/welsh/8421956.stm

Well, whilst I personally find homosexuality repulsive (and I am most certainly against any adoption by gays and gay marriage), then shooting them for this is obviously sick.
If they want to shoot somebody, shoot the promoters of gay prides, something that disgraces the whole gay community.

[Macd]

Well, whilst I personally find homosexuality repulsive (and I am most certainly against any adoption by gays and gay marriage)

Why?

[Garry Walker]

Why?

Because
1) Marriage should be between a man and a woman
2) A kid should have both a father and a mother. Not two mothers or two fathers.

[Macd]

I just want to point out that people are born gay and do not get turned gay like people suggest. I am secure enough in my own sexuality to be able to accept gay people for what they are. Human beings, who have not asked to be the way they have turned out.

Quite frankly I'm appalled by some of the views expressed on this thread against gay people. The fact that Uganda is punishing people for something that they can't help, means I am happy in the knowledge that none of my hard earned cash will ever go to this country in the future. Other cultures don't accept gayness because they are guided by out of date, meaningless religions based on ideals laid out in times of primitive existence.

There have been Gay people in society since the beginning of Man Kind, its just now its tolerated. People didn't admit it years ago and lived in marriages under a lie. Face it people, its flawed DNA that makes a select few what they are.

Couldnt agree more with everything said here. Especially the bold part. This is what happens when religion is allowed to have influence in the civilised world.

You wouldnt sentance a man to death for being black would you?
or say that a black man couldn't marry a white woman.
Because that's the way i'm seeing some of the views here.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Because
1) Marriage should be between a man and a woman

Says who?



2) A kid should have both a father and a mother. Not two mothers or two fathers.

Oh yeah. I'm sure two chavs (or in most cases just one chavy mother) in a inner-city council flat living on benefits are going to be able to bring a child up better than two gay/lesbian people who have worked hard to get themselves a decent job.


I went to gay pride this year in Blackpool. It was brilliant. I got loads of free condoms. :)

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Any way you look at it and regardless of any argument you want to make for it, it is an unnatural condition about which the majority have little sympathy. Homosexuality is extremely rare in other animal species and I suppose an argument could be made that amongst humans, it is a free will choice. Any animal homosexual couple, on it's own, is unable to reproduce and would become extinct upon the deaths of the couple. Nature or God or Allah if you prefer has not, that we know of, created any such species.

You have just embarrassed yourself with that last paragraph.

[Roamy]

"Save the Monkey" This law comes from the environmentalists :laugh: :laugh:

Lets see uhmmmmm How many people have they killed in Uganda in the last 10yrs?? Probably need to know chinese arithmetic to solve this question.

Disgusting country needs aid and supervision from the EU. So what is the hold up???

[Hondo]

I would argue that a certain amount of humans are gay because they choose to be, DNA be damned. The perspective of being comfortable in your own sexuality has nothing to do with governmental and religious bias against homosexuality. The government doesn't care if you like gays or don't like gays any more than they care about you being upset about their expenses. At this time, AIDS is largely considered a disease spawned and spread by the homosexual community. AIDS costs the government a lot of money, taxpayer money. In addition, homosexuality does not generate any new taxpayers. They will take the noble stand of saying their actions are to protect the population and their culture over the long term. In a sense, they are correct. As for me, I could give a rat's ass one way or another. However, being a renegade and running outside or against the established norms has always carried the price of the denial of certain benefits through the bias born of distrust, distaste, or fear. Like the individual, society also has certain rights. Ex-felons have trouble getting jobs, a small herd of scruffy bikers gets turned away from a motel although none are wearing colors, all prices paid for bucking the system.

If you check around on some other nations you'll find a general lack of tolerance.

Beyond that, Uganda, like many countries in that part of the world, are not famous for making sound political policies.

[Hondo]

You have just embarrassed yourself with that last paragraph.

I fail to see how I have embarrassed myself. Did I say something untruthful?

[Brown, Jon Brow]

I fail to see how I have embarrassed myself. Did I say something untruthful?

You are trying to claim that people choose their sexuality which is untrue.

You clearly know nothing about about this subject and I find it scary that people that have this lack of knowledge are allowed to vote on laws that effect the lives of real people.

[Hondo]

You are trying to claim that people choose their sexuality which is untrue.

You clearly know nothing about about this subject and I find it scary that people that have this lack of knowledge are allowed to vote on laws that effect the lives of real people.

If look again closely, you will see that I think some, not all, have freely chosen homosexuality.

Are you prepared to state, as complete fact, that every person involved in homosexual activity has been forced into it by genetic defect alone and none participate through free will choice?

[Brown, Jon Brow]

If look again closely, you will see that I think some, not all, have freely chosen homosexuality.

Are you prepared to state, as complete fact, that every person involved in homosexual activity has been forced into it by genetic defect alone and none participate through free will choice?

I think it is far more common for a homosexual to choose a heterosexual lifestyle because of pressure from society to live a straight life, rather than the other way.

And saying that some people have chosen to have gay sex doesn't stop your earlier comment that homosexuality is 'unnatural' being untrue.

[Robinho]

I would argue that a certain amount of humans are gay because they choose to be, DNA be damned. The perspective of being comfortable in your own sexuality has nothing to do with governmental and religious bias against homosexuality. The government doesn't care if you like gays or don't like gays any more than they care about you being upset about their expenses. At this time, AIDS is largely considered a disease spawned and spread by the homosexual community. AIDS costs the government a lot of money, taxpayer money. In addition, homosexuality does not generate any new taxpayers. They will take the noble stand of saying their actions are to protect the population and their culture over the long term. In a sense, they are correct. As for me, I could give a rat's ass one way or another. However, being a renegade and running outside or against the established norms has always carried the price of the denial of certain benefits through the bias born of distrust, distaste, or fear. Like the individual, society also has certain rights. Ex-felons have trouble getting jobs, a small herd of scruffy bikers gets turned away from a motel although none are wearing colors, all prices paid for bucking the system.

If you check around on some other nations you'll find a general lack of tolerance.

Beyond that, Uganda, like many countries in that part of the world, are not famous for making sound political policies.

OMG, you've actually said that some homosexuals choose it to be rebels, like being a criminal or a motorcycle gang member, just to be different?!?!

and that they are mainly responsible for the spread of AIDS? (never mind a complete lack of sex education in large portions of Africa and a religious upbringing that does not allow the use of contraceptives)

i consider your views some of the worst reasoned and most backward i have ever had the misfortune to read, i am actually apalled

[Robinho]

If look again closely, you will see that I think some, not all, have freely chosen homosexuality.

Are you prepared to state, as complete fact, that every person involved in homosexual activity has been forced into it by genetic defect alone and none participate through free will choice?

how about every personwho is a Homosexual is born into it and has no choice, no matter how much they might have fought it. some people who are incredibly open sexually and seek gratification in any way possmight engage in both hetero and homosexual activity, but are not actually gay - they may choose that lifestyle but no-one who is soley homosexual chooses that route to be different. you can choose religon, you can choose your job (to some extent), you can choose your car or where to live, or your football team. You don't choose to be gay. if you are, you might choose to be open, accept it and be happy with your life, in the face of extreme prejudice, but your can't choose the urges that govern your sexuality

[Macd]

@Fiero 5.7

Out of interest: A) Where in the US are you from?
B) Religious?
C) Do you actually know any gay people?

[Hondo]

@Fiero 5.7

Out of interest: A) Where in the US are you from?
B) Religious?
C) Do you actually know any gay people?

This started as a question about the Ugandan Government policy, of which I attempted to provide an answer. Somehow, this has been turned into an issue of my personal beliefs. For the record:

I don't give a rat's ass if somebody is gay or not. It does not affect the quaility of my life one way or another.

A) Texas

B) No

C) Yes I do.

Uganda, the same culture that brought you the British trained Idi Amin, is free to do anything they want as a matter of national policy. If you object to their policies, I'd suggest you not visit Uganda.

[Hondo]

A quick trip through Wikipedia produces the following:

These countries, areas, and regions can use the death penalty for homosexuality:
Saudi Arabia
the UAE
Pakistan
Mauntania
Northern Nigeria
Suden
Yemen
Somalia in areas controlled by Sharia Law
Areas under Taliban control
Iran

According to wikipedia, Iran has executed more than 4000 people for homosexuality since the 1979 revolution.

A large number of countries provide for fines and/or imprisonment.

It's not like Uganda has been the first to think of this.

[Robinho]

that makes it ok then, lets start on those with Downs Syndome, Autism, Red Hair, Left Handed, Short Sightedness etc

[Hondo]

that makes it ok then, lets start on those with Downs Syndome, Autism, Red Hair, Left Handed, Short Sightedness etc

If that's what a governing body chooses to do and their population does not stop them and/or the world doesn't intervene, then yes, if made a punishable offense under their penal code, it makes it ok.

[Macd]

If that's what a governing body chooses to do and their population does not stop them and/or the world doesn't intervene, then yes, if made a punishable offense under their penal code, it makes it ok.

So, While it was law in the USA keeping the blacks down was ok, cos noone opposed that....

[Eki]

According to wikipedia, Iran has executed more than 4000 people for homosexuality since the 1979 revolution.


"Uganda, the same culture that brought you the British trained Idi Amin, is free to do anything they want as a matter of national policy. If you object to their policies, I'd suggest you not visit Uganda."

You could replace Uganda with Iran there. I wish somebody had replaced it with Iraq before 2003 and said to Bush "Iraq, the same culture that brought you the US backed Saddam Hussein in the 1980s, is free to do anything they want as a matter of national policy. If you object to their policies, I'd suggest you not visit Iraq."

[Mark in Oshawa]

Well Eki, I am not going to bite on you dragging Iraq and Bush into this. It has nothing to do with this topic.

First off, Uganda is getting lots of bad publicity and scorn from western nations as it should be for what it is doing. Wish they were harder on places like Saudi Arabia too. That said, Islam doesn't go for open homosexuality, although there is lots of evidence of abuse and child molestation in some of those repressive cultures.

Should Uganda be doing this? No..of course not. Whether you are gay or straight, the state shouldn't have any bearing on what you do behind closed doors as a sexual being. Our former Prime Mininster Pierre Trudeau when asked about gay rights once said "The state has no bearing on what happens in the bedrooms of the nation" and for the most part, he was right. Might have been the only time I agreed with him.

Now, that said, should a modern democracy accept gay marriage? No...at least calling a marriage. The state SHOULD give Gays all rights and benefits when it comes to their pensions, state entitlements and the like. IF you have a constitution and human rights code in most civilized nations, there is nothing there that justifys the state interfering or discriminating in this fashion. Some of you may not like it, but there it is.

On the same hand tho, I don't want to see the state dictating to churchs to sanction Gay marriage either. If a gay person wants to be in the Catholic faith, he better realize he isn't a good catholic. Their rules dictate against it. (their rules dictate the priests leave the altar boys alone too but they haven't always followed THAT. Still doesn't change the ideal). If a gay couple wants to marry, there are churches that accept and they should go there. The state shouldn't interfere in religion as long as the religion is not a) taking state funds and b)not discriminating in such a way to deny a person's human rights. Since it isn't a human right to have ANY church marry a couple, the state shouldn't sit on a church to sanction a gay marriage. A civil cermony or liberlized churches will do the job.

What is happening in Uganda is their business as Fiero pointed out. We can rightfully crucify them as barbaric, but short of invading and changing things, we are on the outside looking in.

Furthermore, I don't think any more than a very small majority of homosexuals would choose that lifestyle for the headaches it causes, and if you were in Uganda, there is no way any one would choose that sexual choice as an idea of fashion. Gays are part of the human condition due to our advanced DNA, advanced mental capacity. There is more latitude for the human condition to branch off into such things.

Gay rights are a tender issue, but if a society is going to be advocating free speech, and freedom of religion and human rights, than the gays have to have their rights protected, no matter how annoying some gay rights activists can be.

[Malbec]

At this time, AIDS is largely considered a disease spawned and spread by the homosexual community.

Its quite scary how many people believe this nonsense.

Since the late-80s AIDS is largely a disease of HETEROsexuals, the gay community having taken appropriate precautions ASAP to avoid being wiped out.

The vast majority of new AIDS patients are heterosexual guys who sleep around, or IV drug abusers. I guess many of those heteros are the same types who feel AIDS will never hit them because its a gay disease right?

[Malbec]

I would argue that a certain amount of humans are gay because they choose to be, DNA be damned.

Thats not where current scientific thought is heading, if anything it looks like certain events during gestation and early childhood might be the determining factors, events that would be out of an individuals control.

There isn't much evidence if at all that being gay is a 'choice'.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Thats not where current scientific thought is heading, if anything it looks like certain events during gestation and early childhood might be the determining factors, events that would be out of an individuals control.

There isn't much evidence if at all that being gay is a 'choice'.

Maybe being BI is a choice, but one only has to talk to a Gay male in particular to realize no one would subject themselves to that much potential abuse as a fashionable decision.

I agree Dylan, I suspect it is a gene gone astray that causes it. IT isn't a logical evolution of DNA, but rather a dead end since Gays cannot obviously reproduce.

[Eki]

IT isn't a logical evolution of DNA, but rather a dead end since Gays cannot obviously reproduce.
Many of them can, since many of them have reproduced while being "in the closet". This isn't either this or that case either (or you're either with us or against us case). For most it's something in between.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Many of them can, since many of them have reproduced while being "in the closet". This isn't either this or that case either (or you're either with us or against us case). For most it's something in between.
Eki, they reproduced the old fashioned hetero way. Two men together will not get preggers, so it is in theory, an evolutionary dead end, as is two lesbians. It isn't a judgement, it is just the reality of it. Evolution for whatever reason has happened with humans in the last 2000 years to create a small percentage of people with their sexual wires crossed. No point in discriminating against them, but don't see a point in glorifying this either. It is what it is....and at least in my nation and yours, it is ok to be gay (as Seinfeld said: "not that there is anything wrong with it.").

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Maybe being BI is a choice, but one only has to talk to a Gay male in particular to realize no one would subject themselves to that much potential abuse as a fashionable decision.

I agree Dylan, I suspect it is a gene gone astray that causes it. IT isn't a logical evolution of DNA, but rather a dead end since Gays cannot obviously reproduce.

This doesn't mean that animals can't be homosexual and not reproduce. I bet there is some breeding in the animal kingdom due to a straight animal raping a homosexual animal :erm:

[Hondo]

So, While it was law in the USA keeping the blacks down was ok, cos noone opposed that....

That is correct, under the law. Laws and legal rights often do not fit every individual's idea of what is moral or morally right.

[BeansBeansBeans]

Homosexuals do not choose to be homosexual. The only choice they have is whether to live as a homosexual or remain in the closet and endure a thoroughly miserable existence. Thankfully, the former is becoming more acceptable so the latter has become rarer.

I'm straight. I didn't choose to be, I just am. Anybody who thinks that there is a choice to be made about one's sexuality must be bi-sexual.

[Mark]

Personally I am very much against the people who are against homosexuality, if you see what I mean!

What right does anyone have to tell someone else who they can and cannot have a relationship with? It's those intolerant people who should be expelled from any decent society.

Quite frankly I'm disgusted at some of the attitudes shown on this thread.

[BeansBeansBeans]

Personally I am very much against the people who are against homosexuality, if you see what I mean!

Homophobophobic?

[Rudy Tamasz]

It's those intolerant people who should be expelled from any decent society.

Right. In any decent society tolerant people should not tolerate the intolerant ones!

[Mark]

Right. In any decent society tolerant people should not tolerate the intolerant ones!

Yeah, hang the intolerencers! I do like a bit of recursion.

[Hondo]

"Don't hate nothing at all, except hatred..."

-Bob Dylan aka The incredible Zimmerman

I will assume my "attitude" is the one so despicible here and I'm really puzzled as to why. I have already stated that one's sexual choice is of no concern to me, and it isn't. What I have referred to as homosexual by choice has now been redefined as bisexual. Okay, I'll except that from this vast panel of experts but if you get caught indulging your bisexual whims in Iran, I don't think they will accept the argument that you just do this for fun every now and then. I'll accept that fulltime homosexuality is a genetic problem if you accept that some homosexuality is practiced on a hedonistic whim of one or more of the participants. The fact that there are people that have been in homosexual relationships over a long term and then moved on to a heterosexual leads me to believe that choices can be made. Actress Ann Heche (sp?) comes to mind.

Other than that, my comments have been more from the "devil's advocate" viewpoint about what governments can do and will do. The Ugandan government is doing what it feels it needs to do about something they see to be a major problem and I'd bet a big part of it concerns AIDS regardless of whether Dylan H approves of it or not.

Just as you are gobsmacked that a society could be so intolerant of such things you believe to be harmless, there are societies that are equally gobsmacked you could be so tolerant pf things they believe will destroy you.

As far as I go, you can go back through my entire history on this forum and not find anything where my personal opinion has been for homosexuality or against homosexuality. I just don't care. To me, it's not an issue.

This thread was about how Uganda could do such a thing. That is what I attempted to answer.

The real answer should probably be "It's Uganda, what did you expect?"

[Roamy]

Yea and just think - without them
Very little would be going on in Hollywood
San Francisco and Seattle would be rural communities
The EU would be a developing nation
We would have no democratic party.
All women would pull their hair back into a ponytail
Vancouver BC would be a small fishing village

How am I doing Mark?? :)

[Hondo]

Thats not where current scientific thought is heading, if anything it looks like certain events during gestation and early childhood might be the determining factors, events that would be out of an individuals control.

There isn't much evidence if at all that being gay is a 'choice'.

Here again, playing devil's advocate, a bunch of current scientific fact just got the crap kicked out of it in Copenhagen.

Your paragraph, to a less than careful reader, would look as though this was all proven fact, instead of theory and speculation based on observation.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Do you choose which girls turn you on? No. It just happens.

[BeansBeansBeans]

There are five or six gay people I'd class as close friends or family (they're great gift-buyers, by the way) and all of them say something like "I first realised I was gay when I was 15, 16...etc". Nobody says "I first decided I was gay..." I've said it before and I'll say it again: Fiero - If you've made the choice to be straight then you must have some sort of homosexual feelings. Otherwise there's no choice to be made is there?

[Mark in Oshawa]

This doesn't mean that animals can't be homosexual and not reproduce. I bet there is some breeding in the animal kingdom due to a straight animal raping a homosexual animal :erm:

Jon, first off, the only animals that rape are humans. We are the only species that has sex for reasons OTHER than reproduction. The higher primates are the only members of the animal kingdom that show any homosexual behaviour. There is no RAPE in the animal kingdom. Rape is a human behaviour based on our desire. That sex for sex's sake or in the case of Rape, power.

Homosexuality is one offshoot our of our complex brain, emotional control circuitry and advanced emotions. I stand by the idea it is part of the human condition. Not better or worse, just part of it.

[Hondo]

Yes, I believe in some cases, a choice is made. Are you prepared to state as absolute fact that no person in the world is involved in a homosexual relationship by choice? If you ever get sentenced to a prison term, one phrase you'll hear a lot is "gay for the stay"

[Mark in Oshawa]

"Don't hate nothing at all, except hatred..."

-Bob Dylan aka The incredible Zimmerman

I will assume my "attitude" is the one so despicible here and I'm really puzzled as to why. I have already stated that one's sexual choice is of no concern to me, and it isn't. What I have referred to as homosexual by choice has now been redefined as bisexual. Okay, I'll except that from this vast panel of experts but if you get caught indulging your bisexual whims in Iran, I don't think they will accept the argument that you just do this for fun every now and then. I'll accept that fulltime homosexuality is a genetic problem if you accept that some homosexuality is practiced on a hedonistic whim of one or more of the participants. The fact that there are people that have been in homosexual relationships over a long term and then moved on to a heterosexual leads me to believe that choices can be made. Actress Ann Heche (sp?) comes to mind.

Other than that, my comments have been more from the "devil's advocate" viewpoint about what governments can do and will do. The Ugandan government is doing what it feels it needs to do about something they see to be a major problem and I'd bet a big part of it concerns AIDS regardless of whether Dylan H approves of it or not.

Just as you are gobsmacked that a society could be so intolerant of such things you believe to be harmless, there are societies that are equally gobsmacked you could be so tolerant pf things they believe will destroy you.

As far as I go, you can go back through my entire history on this forum and not find anything where my personal opinion has been for homosexuality or against homosexuality. I just don't care. To me, it's not an issue.

This thread was about how Uganda could do such a thing. That is what I attempted to answer.

The real answer should probably be "It's Uganda, what did you expect?"



I got what you were pointing out immediately Fiero. My only difference with you is on it being involuntary, but in the case of Bisexual behaviour, I do believe that is a choice. Then again, maybe it isn't either. We know there is study after study on this sort of stuff. Look at people who are pedophiles. Are THEY making a conscious decision or are they compelled by urges they cannot hold back and they lose control? There is a multitude of reasons for a lot of sexual activity, some voluntary, some just nature taking control.

I do agree with you tho that we keep forgetting other socieites view sexualilty and another behaviours we tolerate with an intolerant view. Funny, the same people who get all bent out of shape and say "how dare they?!" often are the same ones saying in the case of Iraq or Afghanistan that it is wrong for us to impose our values of democracy and equality on their society.

I see nothing but hypocracy if you say we shouldn't tolerate Ugandans killing Gays, yet think it is wrong to try to give Iraq a functioning democratic society. Either you want to defend human rights and decency or you are going to chicken out when it means you might have to fight for your rights.

This would be no different than the Allies hearing about the Jews being decimated in Europe deciding they didn't need to conquer all of Germany because it would be too messy and it wouldn't be right to impose our values on the Nazi's. It is a right in our modern societies to not be persecuted or attacked for our sexual choice among consenting adults. Either we stand behind it, or we don't.

[BeansBeansBeans]

Are you prepared to state as absolute fact that no person in the world is involved in a homosexual relationship by choice?

No.

I'm in a straight relationship by choice, but that doesn't mean I chose to be straight.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Thats not strictly true Mark..

A notable example is bottlenose dolphins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bottlenose_dolphin), where at times, a herd of bachelor males (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bachelor_herd) will 'corner' a female.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sexual_behaviour#cite_note-49Furthermore, in a zoo where it is common practice to put newly captured dolphins in with dolphins who are established in their enclosures, other species of dolphin are never put in together with bottlenoses because the bottlenose dolphins frequently torment and rape them.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sexual_behaviour#cite_note-50 The behaviour is also common in some arachnids (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arachnid) (spiders), notably those whose females eat the males during sex if not tricked with food and/or tied down with threads,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sexual_behaviour#cite_note-51 and in some herbivorous (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbivore) herd species or species where males and females are very different in size, where the male dominates sexually by sheer force and size.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sexual_behaviour

Animals such as Kangaroo's and primates are known to masturbate for self gratification and not linked with a reproduction erge... :)

Perhaps. Still all high functioning mammals tho, with more radical behaviour the smarter the animal is. Still cant imagine there is too many rapes of GAY animals, if any. We are getting side tracked here. The point is most of this behaviour is a HUMAN behaviour. Bottlenose dolphins and the odd other animal masturbating are rare exceptions. What is more, we don't know and cannot know what is driving these behaviours. We cannot know if it is a decision based on whim, what feels good or just a straight biological urge when presented with a set of circumstances. Only the human species devotes large amounts of its brain to thinking about the next time it can get lucky; and it has nothing to do wanting to actually procreate. We spend MORE time trying NOT to procreate while having sex.....no other animals do THAT.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Jon, first off, the only animals that rape are humans. We are the only species that has sex for reasons OTHER than reproduction. The higher primates are the only members of the animal kingdom that show any homosexual behaviour. There is no RAPE in the animal kingdom. Rape is a human behaviour based on our desire. That sex for sex's sake or in the case of Rape, power.

Homosexuality is one offshoot our of our complex brain, emotional control circuitry and advanced emotions. I stand by the idea it is part of the human condition. Not better or worse, just part of it.

It's a common myth that animals don't have sex for pleasure.

http://www.nytimes.com/1992/02/18/science/dolphin-courtship-brutal-cunning-and-complex.html?sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

[Mark in Oshawa]

It's a common myth that animals don't have sex for pleasure.

http://www.nytimes.com/1992/02/18/science/dolphin-courtship-brutal-cunning-and-complex.html?sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

How would you know? You ask your cat if she wanted to get jumped on the fence last night? I have watched enough shows on a lot of this stuff, and Cats don't have sex just for the heck of it. They do it because the female is in heat. They may ENJOY the act, or they may not, we will never know, but spare me this notion that all animals have human emotional responses to the sexual act. All you need to know is that if you spay a female cat, males wont come up to her. She gives off no hormonal urges or scent to the males. Males are not jumping her because they want to get lucky, they were doing it to make kittens.

[Hondo]

My female lab is spayed and male dogs have no interest in her. I haven't had an urge to jump her but will keep her away from Brown, Jon Brow as he doesn't question the nature of his urges.

I'm getting lectures on tolerance from people I'm pretty sure I've seen be intolerant of people referred to as "chavs" and "travelers".

[Mark in Oshawa]

The real issue here tho isn't that Homosexuality is a choice or not, we pretty much all agree that for all intensive purposes it is involuntary. The problem is we don't know how to understand cultures, mainly in the Middle East who don't tolerate it. Heck, we even have people who would peresecute Christian churchs who see it as a sin, even tho none of those churchs actually do anything but say how bad it is.

We may not like the fact not everyone is as enlighted or libreal about this, but a fine line MUST be drawn between opinion on this, and imposing one's views. We must tolerate the fact in our society some groups, such as the RC church and others do NOT accept homosexualty. That said, as long as they don't deny the right of a homosexual to have civic equality or attack them (This is Uganda's crime against humanity), it is alright to not like the whole concept of homosexualty. Still isn't right, but you cant make people THINK as you do.

It is why it is so complex and emotional. Up til a few generations ago, it was a crime against society or at least openly attacked in countries now where it is celebrated in the open. You cannot change a society over night, nor can you expect primative societies to make that change easily.

Uganda, Iran and others are commiting crimes really against the human condition BUT at least we can understand why they do it. We know our society did much the same not 100 years ago. Change isn't easy and it takes generations on something like this. It is a weakness of many in the gay rights movement that they forget the tolerance of their preference is a new one. They automatically assume we should all embrace and love the fact they exist. It isn't my job to embrace or encourage it. It is what it is...part of the human condition.

[Hondo]

We seem to be getting side tracked here and this has nothing to do with homosexuals. I have friends who are gay and they are sure they would not be if they had the choice. Sure you get people who like to dabble but for the majority its well out of their control.. :)

Ok. I had a lady that lived with me for 6 years. After the first year, she told me her brother in San Francisco wanted to come visit and stay at our house. Ok, whats the problem? "He's gay" "So?" Her previous boyfriend didn't react to her brother very well. Anyway, her brother and his partner came out and stayed a week and we all had a great time. It got to be a twice a year thing. I never saw either of them lamenting about being gay, their lifestlye, or anything negative.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Ok. I had a lady that lived with me for 6 years. After the first year, she told me her brother in San Francisco wanted to come visit and stay at our house. Ok, whats the problem? "He's gay" "So?" Her previous boyfriend didn't react to her brother very well. Anyway, her brother and his partner came out and stayed a week and we all had a great time. It got to be a twice a year thing. I never saw either of them lamenting about being gay, their lifestlye, or anything negative.

That is like my wife's cousin. She has lived with her partner for years, but wouldn't bring Marg to any family events. Through an eventual thawing of her attitude (the cousin was afraid we wouldn't accept her partner, it wasn't us) Marg is now part of the family, and one of my favourite people. Society is learning....and sometimes the Gay's have to accept that we accepted them maybe more than they realized.

[Captain VXR]

If look again closely, you will see that I think some, not all, have freely chosen homosexuality.



Only bisexuals :)

[BeansBeansBeans]

sometimes the Gay's have to accept that we accepted them maybe more than they realized.

I'd like to thank you Mark, on behalf of the Gay's (sic).

[Roamy]

Gareth Thomas the Welsh rugby player who has over a hundred caps for Wales has admitted he is gay. This must have been an extremely tough thing to do, especially in the environment he has chosen for a career IMO. Thomas has a wife and children and has obviously been living with this secret for many years. Its nice to see through the media how much support he has from teammates and fans alike, and the contrast between a country like the UK and Uganda.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/6851558/Gay-rugby-players-have-nothing-to-fear-from-following-Gareth-Thomass-lead.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/default.stm

yea he put a additional handle in the "Scrum"

[GridGirl]

I have lesbian cousin who is accepted by the family. She and her now wife got married on a beach in Scotland in August. We didn't go but that was only because they wanted a quiet wedding. It was so low key that the only people who saw it was themselves, the minister and their two witnesses. My cousin had male partners before she came out. She seems happy althogh I do tend to think that the new puppy they have recently purchased is a baby substitute of sorts. C'est la vie.

[Malbec]

Here again, playing devil's advocate, a bunch of current scientific fact just got the crap kicked out of it in Copenhagen.

Your paragraph, to a less than careful reader, would look as though this was all proven fact, instead of theory and speculation based on observation.

What happened in Copenhagen is purely political, namely due to China not wishing to be shackled in any way and finding a very convenient person to take the blame in Obama. It had nothing to do with science.

My suggestion that being gay is a result of maternal hormonal imbalances during particular periods of gestation (not genetic) is one that is born out by autopsy studies of gay males compared to heterosexual males and females, and studies of maternal hormone levels. The evidence behind that is quite a lot stronger than yours which appears to be merely anecdotal.

Re: AIDS, statistics show that over 90% of people who contract it are heterosexual. Based on that its a little difficult to claim its a gay disease isn't it?

The reason I find your suggestion that AIDS is a 'gay' disease offensive is that that kind of complacency among straight men makes them vulnerable as they don't take the same precaution. That is why most people who get AIDS now are straight. Ultimately that ignorance costs unnecessary lives. Pointless isn't it.

[Mark in Oshawa]

What happened in Copenhagen is purely political, namely due to China not wishing to be shackled in any way and finding a very convenient person to take the blame in Obama. It had nothing to do with science.

My suggestion that being gay is a result of maternal hormonal imbalances during particular periods of gestation (not genetic) is one that is born out by autopsy studies of gay males compared to heterosexual males and females, and studies of maternal hormone levels. The evidence behind that is quite a lot stronger than yours which appears to be merely anecdotal.

Re: AIDS, statistics show that over 90% of people who contract it are heterosexual. Based on that its a little difficult to claim its a gay disease isn't it?

The reason I find your suggestion that AIDS is a 'gay' disease offensive is that that kind of complacency among straight men makes them vulnerable as they don't take the same precaution. That is why most people who get AIDS now are straight. Ultimately that ignorance costs unnecessary lives. Pointless isn't it.

I defer to you on the Maternal hormonal imbalance theory but I would be curious to know what causes then that imbalance, and why a family could have 3 tough hetero kids and one gay one? Interesting.....

[Robinho]

I have lesbian cousin who is accepted by the family. She and her now wife got married on a beach in Scotland in August. We didn't go but that was only because they wanted a quiet wedding. It was so low key that the only people who saw it was themselves, the minister and their two witnesses. My cousin had male partners before she came out. She seems happy althogh I do tend to think that the new puppy they have recently purchased is a baby substitute of sorts. C'est la vie.

the most shocking thing about this post - They have beaches in Scotland?!!?!

[Hondo]

What happened in Copenhagen is purely political, namely due to China not wishing to be shackled in any way and finding a very convenient person to take the blame in Obama. It had nothing to do with science.

My suggestion that being gay is a result of maternal hormonal imbalances during particular periods of gestation (not genetic) is one that is born out by autopsy studies of gay males compared to heterosexual males and females, and studies of maternal hormone levels. The evidence behind that is quite a lot stronger than yours which appears to be merely anecdotal.

Re: AIDS, statistics show that over 90% of people who contract it are heterosexual. Based on that its a little difficult to claim its a gay disease isn't it?

The reason I find your suggestion that AIDS is a 'gay' disease offensive is that that kind of complacency among straight men makes them vulnerable as they don't take the same precaution. That is why most people who get AIDS now are straight. Ultimately that ignorance costs unnecessary lives. Pointless isn't it.

Observation in some, half, or most, combined with hypothesis does not constitute absolute fact or cause. It represents another potential branch of the tree. What would you like to go into next? The majority of homosexuals have brown eyes, therefore... give me a break. I am equally amazed that even one you absolutely refuses to believe that a human being could choose homosexuality simply because they like it. What is that based upon?

Go back to 1970 and see how many diagnosed mental disorders were accepted then and see how many are accepted now. Somebody figured out there is big money in making excuses for those that don't behave like the majority and "treating" them for their disorder(s).

As for AIDS, I think most would agree that it's intial introduction and spred was through the gay community. Any thinking person should have realized immediately how quickly it was going to spred into the addict community and then heterosexual community. If I somehow gave you the impression that I believe AIDS to be a strictly homosexual disease spred only by homosexuals then I will apologize for that although I don't recall being that specific.

But this is not about what Fiero thinks or believes, it is about what Uganda thinks and believes and although I haven't read any of it, I'd bet fousto's life that within the legislation AIDS and or HIV are mentioned.

Here's a suggestion, instead of busting my chops about what you think I believe, go have an informative chat with the Ugandan Ambassador nearest you and enlighten him as to the cause and effect of their problem.

[BeansBeansBeans]

I am equally amazed that even one you absolutely refuses to believe that a human being could choose homosexuality simply because they like it. What is that based upon?

Jesus wept.

If someone likes indulging in homosexual acts then they are gay!

[Mark]

The beaches in Scotland are some of the best in the world IMO. The climate however, is not!

[Macd]

the most shocking thing about this post - They have beaches in Scotland?!!?!

yes about 300 miles of them...

[Mark in Oshawa]

The HIV virus was originally discovered in Africa in 1940. The first known AIDS victim was recorded in 1959, and it is known that the HIV virus mutated from the SIV virus only found in monkey's. It is not known how this virus was transferred but there is the obvious theory of course. The virus is originally from the animal kingdom and has found its way into the human race, and is not an illness born in the Gay comunity. It was thought to have been spread through blood storage and transfusions performed in Africa in the late 1950's and its partial spread is known to be blamed on unprotected sex in both sexual origins. I think media attention on famous gay celebrities who have contracted the virus have helped to create this myth that it is a homosexual desease. People like Rock Hudson and Freddie Mercury are the most famous of course, and this has only helped sculpt this public opinion.

I would like to see more awareness of this carried out in schools as there is clearly a huge lack of understanding on the subject.



Henners, Where I think Fiero is making his case is that it was through the great losses in the Gay community that we became more aware of AIDS. The Gay community IS more suceptable to the transmission of aids (gay males by "gay") because of the nature of the sexual contact. It is the most risky behaviour for this disease transmission UNLESS precautions are taken. Once THAT happens and did, the Gay community have this under control. They learned. Hetero's tend to be suceptable under the "it cant happen to me theory"...and we know how well THAT works.

I suspect Fiero's point is the Ugandans are just as likely having this draconian law to stop AIDS ( that is their theory, not mine), and when you consider the spread of AIDS in Africa, they are likely desparate to stop it. Too bad they are missing the greatest spread of it through Hetero populations, but that is to their discredit. Still doesn't change the fact they feel like they do, and it is their country.

[Malbec]

I defer to you on the Maternal hormonal imbalance theory but I would be curious to know what causes then that imbalance, and why a family could have 3 tough hetero kids and one gay one? Interesting.....

Basically the structure of the brain is laid out early in the fetus' development, and the structure differs between males and females. The strongest factor by far in deciding the brain structure is the sex of the fetus, but it looks like there is some sensitivity to maternal hormones, if the levels are altered (ie higher than normal oestrogen for male fetus' and testosterone for female ones) then there is a chance the baby may go on to become gay. How can those hormone levels go askew? No idea I'm afraid.

This isn't the only factor of course, events during childhood and adolescence can also have a strong influence.

[Malbec]

I am equally amazed that even one you absolutely refuses to believe that a human being could choose homosexuality simply because they like it. What is that based upon?

Of course people become gay because they like it, as far as I'm aware noone has been forced to become gay against their will (gay rape excepted of course). Equally, the fact that I like women makes me straight. That doesn't explain why gay people prefer same sex and straight people prefer the other. Saying that gay people are gay because they like it is a statement of the obvious, not an explanation for why they are gay and more importantly whether its a choice born of free will or whether they are wired that way.

That last point is the most important one, if it is a choice born of free will and can be overridden by self-discipline, then a society that deems homosexuality to be offensive could be said to be in a reasonable position to punish it. If it is simply the way people are made then it is unreasonable to punish it for those particular societies.


If I somehow gave you the impression that I believe AIDS to be a strictly homosexual disease spred only by homosexuals then I will apologize for that although I don't recall being that specific.

That was indeed the impression you gave. No problem with your clarification though.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Basically the structure of the brain is laid out early in the fetus' development, and the structure differs between males and females. The strongest factor by far in deciding the brain structure is the sex of the fetus, but it looks like there is some sensitivity to maternal hormones, if the levels are altered (ie higher than normal oestrogen for male fetus' and testosterone for female ones) then there is a chance the baby may go on to become gay. How can those hormone levels go askew? No idea I'm afraid..

I wonder if a woman taking estrogen treatments for whatever reason gets pregnant and THAT cause's the issue, or is it for the most part a natural occurance? It must be natural for gays have been around for eons (Alexander the Great being one); but I do wonder if our constant monkeying around with the female homones for various medical reasons maybe has been a factor at times as well? Interesting stuff....I do know understanding this has made me more aware of gays in society and their rights but I still stand by the fact we have to be very careful to not oppress religious groups in this great rush to political correctness. There is a point where there is room for everyone's opinion, even if it is as seen as "wrong".


This isn't the only factor of course, events during childhood and adolescence can also have a strong influence.

I suspect the die is cast while the child is in the womb. Gays I have met have always known they were "different" and didn't understand why their urges didn't match what society told them, but they knew it was there, even before puberty.

[Malbec]

I wonder if a woman taking estrogen treatments for whatever reason gets pregnant and THAT cause's the issue, or is it for the most part a natural occurance? It must be natural for gays have been around for eons (Alexander the Great being one); but I do wonder if our constant monkeying around with the female homones for various medical reasons maybe has been a factor at times as well?

You could be right, although a woman who produces her own oestrogen should not be getting supplements, only women who don't should be. You could also point the finger at many hormones used in, say, the food industry which are structurally similar to oestrogen although again there isn't a proven link. I was thinking more of unexplained surges in the mother's own oestrogen levels or testosterone levels in the case of lesbians.

[Mark in Oshawa]

You could be right, although a woman who produces her own oestrogen should not be getting supplements, only women who don't should be. You could also point the finger at many hormones used in, say, the food industry which are structurally similar to oestrogen although again there isn't a proven link. I was thinking more of unexplained surges in the mother's own oestrogen levels or testosterone levels in the case of lesbians.

I always figured it was a genetic mutation that caused it, but I suppose this hormonal surge would do the trick.....

Since there are equal numbers of lesbians and gay males roughly, whatever causes it must be a constant in a sense. Or am I wrong on the numbers of lesbians and gays? I am getting out of my element here......just theorizing.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

I always figured it was a genetic mutation that caused it, but I suppose this hormonal surge would do the trick.....

Since there are equal numbers of lesbians and gay males roughly, whatever causes it must be a constant in a sense. Or am I wrong on the numbers of lesbians and gays? I am getting out of my element here......just theorizing.

I thought that there were more lesbians. Or maybe I just have bad taste in women!

I heard that high testosterone levels in the womb can increase the chance of the child being a lesbian. Almost all of by lesbian friends have longer ring fingers than index fingers which is a sign of higher testosterone levels.

I think the causes are thought to be different in gay men. I think you are more likely to be gay if you have 2 or more older brothers. I have 2 older brothers and i'm the arguable more 'girly' than my older two. :erm:

[Mark in Oshawa]

I thought that there were more lesbians. Or maybe I just have bad taste in women!

I heard that high testosterone levels in the womb can increase the chance of the child being a lesbian. Almost all of by lesbian friends have longer ring fingers than index fingers which is a sign of higher testosterone levels.

I think the causes are thought to be different in gay men. I think you are more likely to be gay if you have 2 or more older brothers. I have 2 older brothers and i'm the arguable more 'girly' than my older two. :erm:

That's just to be counteracted by my wife's 3 brothers. All three played hockey with the youngest being the most talented; not to mention he ran track, was a running back good enough to attract recruiters from universities, and he had about umpteen gazilliong women around him.

Most gay males are not the youngest or oldest as a rule...the only thing they have in common is they are gay. One only has to look at Adam Lambert, the runner up in last season's American Idol. Oldest of 3 kids, only one gay, and he is physically quite tall. It is only his voice that gives him away...that and the makeup....which is part of the rock/pop persona. I would think it would be hard to use any stereotype of gay behaviour to decide anything, and where they are born in the pecking order of siblings likely isn't much either.

As for you meeting more Lesbians....maybe it is just you are attracted to em? Just saying...lol..

I could say something really bad right now, but I don't want to be banned...lol...

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Here is an interesting film on the nature versus nurture argument.

l6P1Gzo1Xbo&feature=related

[Magnus]

I must say i really don´t care that much. Do what you want, as long as you do not hurt another person. It´s nothing more to it than that. Anmd if gay people wants to get married. Fine with me. Its a thing between them and the god they have chosen as theirs.
I am not sure abt the adoption yet, but I guess many straight parents can be the parents from hell asweel, and I guess most criminals were broght up by straight parents.
My five thousands dollars...

[Mark in Oshawa]

I have always been of the theory it is nature, not nurture, and Barrowman's visit with the two 12 year old twins in the video pretty much confirms it. One kid a typical boy with macho leanings, and the other kid pretty much trying to be a girl, yet identical physically to his brother. Puts a curveball into Dylan's post on this being hormonal. Both kids should be the same really you would think.

Mom not being very "girly" also puts the nurture and child's enviroment out the window, which I am not surprised by. I know of a couple who eschwed a lot of the typical ways to raise kids, using words insteand of confrontation, not being really into sports, yet their kids are all jocks and the boys are all macho while the sister is a girly girl into ballet. Kids will be what they are sometimes, despite nurture.

[Robinho]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8429699.stm

interesting support for the rights of the Ugandan gay community from the Anglican Church

[Robinho]

and a story from 2003 - this is not a new problem, i'm kind of ashmaed that i knew so little about it until now

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/3216229.stm