Same-sex marriage in Sweden/Gays in military

[Frame57]

Brain scan studies of Homosexual men have shown that the amygdala resembles that of a Heterosexual woman. This would indicate the there is an abnormality, which the scientific community had correctly concluded years ago.

[antikristuseke]

Originally Posted by Frame57

Brain scan studies of Homosexual men have shown that the amygdala resembles that of a Heterosexual woman. This would indicate the there is an abnormality, which the scientific community had correctly concluded years ago.

Could you point me in the way of those peer reviewed papers, please?
(this is genuine curiosity, not sarcasm)

[porphy]

Originally Posted by Frame57

Brain scan studies of Homosexual men have shown that the amygdala resembles that of a Heterosexual woman. This would indicate the there is an abnormality, which the scientific community had correctly concluded years ago.

The history of comparing anatomical structures (brain or otherwise) between men and women do have some not so impressive credentials when it comes to the conclusions drawn. Within medicine, anatomy and physiology it wasn't that long ago women were looked upon as a less perfect or less developed form of man... a kind of abnormal creature.

If the brain scan results are valid, it could simply mean that this is quite a normal and frequent occurrence in the human species. If widespread it is a biological variation, or maybe the result of different hormonal exposure. Anyhow, the phenomenon (if it should be viewed as "the cause" of homosexual disposition) has obviously been part of human history for a very very long time. I would be careful with the word abnormal in this context, what does it mean here? That it's uncommon or that it's something faulty?

There are plenty of perfectly normal variations within biological species, that can't easily be classified as a disorder or disease. The way the human species propagates naturally involves and results in not fully clear cut divisions between male and female, so finding some traits that we connect to a "male" or "female" body or behaviour in a man is to be fully expected, not necessarily something abnormal in a strong sense.

Apart from that, sexual orientation and preferences are things which obviously are quite open to influences during life as well. Just have a look at what heterosexual males find possibly sexually interesting... It would be interesting to see how a try to trace every sexual behaviour back to, and explained through, biological factors present from birth, would fare. Probably not very convincing.
Oh, wait, that has already been tried in vain and with some pretty lame results since the birth of the clinic.

cheers porphy

[Skybird]

Porphy,

I do not know about that amygdala thing, but if there is such a hardcoded abnormity, it would make sense. Somehow the switched polarity of reactions to biochemical signals as I tried to describe above, must have a hardcoded origin. The Amygdala (plural, it is two regions) have to do with emotions, fear, the subconsicous assessement of conflicts, threats and dangers, and feelings of pleasure, and sexual arousement.

And if such an abnormity correlates with different sexual orientation, then it is not just a cosmetic thing like different teint of people's skins, but a functional difference indeed, that in this case collides with the general design of survival mechanisms our species that depends on heterosexual reproduction. In Thailand you can find a significantly higher population of hermaphrodites that show both male and female sexual body characteristics. That does not make them a normality in our race. and if it is about "featuzres" that maybe even are man-made, like the proverbial brain-damaged hill-billies in a godforsaken region where a family clan practices incest since generations, it also does not make the imbecile a norm just because he exists.

I did not heared of differences in the amygdalas before, but I know that the chemcical differecnes in reaction patterns (homosexual men reacting to male pheromones like heterosexual men react to female pheromones) are real and a proven solid fact.

I think people here should listen more to what Henry said. I had two gay colleagues at university, too, and although I am not gay, we came along and formed a lose friendship easily, without problem. They said in general the same things , like Henry: "We are different to you, stop trying to make us as "normal" as you are, we are not. We are against gay marriage, for that is not what marriage and family is about. We hate gays and lesbian parading in the streets almost naked on Christopher street days, that is offensive to the cultural norms of our civilisation."

Normality is not acchieved by telling different people constantly how normal one considers them to be. Normality is in normal, unirritated action and deed, and not ignoring differences - but also not making a big thing of them, if that can be afforded.

[Frame57]

Info on Brain scans can be found at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm and was also reported in World Science April 29th 2009.

[porphy]

Hi, some of my further thoughts on the subject. Not really meant to pick on you Skybird, but you will serve as my stalking horse at the moment.

I do not know about that amygdala thing, but if there is such a hardcoded abnormity, it would make sense. Somehow the switched polarity of reactions to biochemical signals as I tried to describe above, must have a hardcoded origin. The Amygdala (plural, it is two regions) have to do with emotions, fear, the subconsicous assessement of conflicts, threats and dangers, and feelings of pleasure, and sexual arousement.

Sure, heterosexuality and homosexuality can be explained the same way, if one prefer to concentrate on the biology of sexuality.

And if such an abnormity correlates with different sexual orientation, then it is not just a cosmetic thing like different teint of people's skins, but a functional difference indeed, that in this case collides with the general design of survival mechanisms our species that depends on heterosexual reproduction.

I'm not so sure biology teaches that being aroused by the same sex collides with the general survival mechanisms of our species. Of course if everyone did this, it would be true, but that is not the case. Fact is that homosexuality has been around a very long time without, for what it seems, colliding with the species survival. On the contrary, there have been people arguing that a genetic disposition like this must have been selected for as beneficial, through kin selection, and as such it even might be of importance for the species survival in a evolutionary perspective. Population genetics shows how genetic dispositions, which seems to contradict the passing on of the the individual genes, still can be explained as a result of natural selection. The classic example, although different from human reproduction and homosexuality, is the sterile ant workers. I'm not advocating that this is the case with human homosexuality, but just want to point out that biology can give a lot of different answers. In fact, it is my view, that almost any opinion about man and society can be dressed up in biological arguments, and that has already been done to a great extent if you look into the history of politics and biology. As such biology is not the final arbiter.

In Thailand you can find a significantly higher population of hermaphrodites that show both male and female sexual body characteristics. That does not make them a normality in our race. and if it is about "featuzres" that maybe even are man-made, like the proverbial brain-damaged hill-billies in a godforsaken region where a family clan practices incest since generations, it also does not make the imbecile a norm just because he exists.

Of course not. But my point was that a lot of things which deviate from the norm are quite normal in biology. I would guess homosexuality, if indeed it can be reduced to biology, is quite normal in that sense. Hence my warning about using the word abnormal, as it can easily be understood as simply faulty, which isn't that clear according to an evolutionary approach. It's also worth noticing that even if one prefer the same sex, there is nothing wrong with the organs of reproduction. Gay men can produce children just as heterosexual men, and lesbian women can give birth to children. Human hermaphrodites on the other hand are mostly sterile. Incestuous relations usually brings out recessive traits for for genetic diseases, and I can't see that calling homosexuality normal in a certain sense is the same as saying that the "imbecile" resulting from prolonged incestuous relations is the norm just because he exists.

Also norm and normal are concepts that really invites confusion. Norms are generally understood as prescribed things, and saying that homosexuality is normal among humans doesn't imply that it should be the norm. On the other hand being less than normal among humans doesn't by default mean that I can't argue the same rights to what most people find essential in life, like having or raising children, or have the same legal rights from living together in a marriage, or if a Christian be married by a priest. Of course the answers too the questions like, "should gay marriage be allowed?" "Should priests conduct the marriage?" should lesbians be allowed to adopt and raise children?" can't be known by a simple look at how things are now.

In Sweden it is only 88 years since women were allowed to vote. You don't have to dig very deep to find all kinds of bizarre arguments against their right to vote, biological and others (brains and intelligence, giving birth and being mothers, the nature of the family etc.) Might be food for thoughts when anyone find it simply natural that homosexual people should be satisfied with "don't ask don't tell" or living a life without children in their family.

I did not heared of differences in the amygdalas before, but I know that the chemcical differecnes in reaction patterns (homosexual men reacting to male pheromones like heterosexual men react to female pheromones) are real and a proven solid fact.

Maybe it is so, but sexuality, heterosexual or other, obviously involves a lot more than the unconscious smell of male or female pheromones. For example looking at what you find to be an attractive member of the human race, or feeling attracted to a special personality.

I think people here should listen more to what Henry said. I had two gay colleagues at university, too, and although I am not gay, we came along and formed a lose friendship easily, without problem. They said in general the same things , like Henry: "We are different to you, stop trying to make us as "normal" as you are, we are not. We are against gay marriage, for that is not what marriage and family is about. We hate gays and lesbian parading in the streets almost naked on Christopher street days, that is offensive to the cultural norms of our civilisation."

Well, I certainly agree that we should listen more to people who are gay and have a lived experience of what that means in our society. But they are not all saying the same thing though, so I can easily pick and choose something which conforms with my own view of family life, for example. The quote you have from your friends tells me nothing more than that they look at themselves as different and not normal, and I can guess a little about their views of what a family should be, and that they find public nudity offensive. That could have been the opinion of anyone in society being part of a special social group.

Normality is not acchieved by telling different people constantly how normal one considers them to be. Normality is in normal, unirritated action and deed, and not ignoring differences - but also not making a big thing of them, if that can be afforded.

[/quote]

I don't really agree at all with that last paragraph. First thing is, I don't really understand your concept of normality, it seems to dervive from a kind of physiological view. "Normal unirrtated deed and action", what is that? Actions and deeds have mostly been viewed as results of some kind of external or internal irritaion. What would count as unirritated actions?

Second thing, I don't think homosexual people want to achieve the tag normal or normality by any available means, but I guess that some of them want to take part in what very many people on earth find is a normal life, that is to marry, excersie their religion, have children and live in a family. But then some of the arguments against these claims boils down to, "You are not normal, so please don't make all that noise, and by the way I don't want to pay for anything of this".

Puh, that was a long write up. I have no idea how you can keep going with your sometimes massive and frequent posts, Skybird. Please don't crush me by sheer volume, I will not be able to keep up with this kind of writing.

cheers porphy

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by OneToughHerring

Well that's not very nice.

I don't think it was supposed to be. It's a sick mentality to think this is a good thing.

-S

[Morts]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

I don't think it was supposed to be. It's a sick mentality to think this is a good thing.

-S

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

I don't think it was supposed to be. It's a sick mentality to think this is a good thing.

-S

What do you mean exactly, kinda lost me there.

You see, funny thing is, there is this mentality in Finland according to which "all Swedish men are homosexuals". Which isn't true of course but is repeated anyway.

You hear this especially when Sweden beats Finland in ice hockey.

[Skybird]

Porphy,

I just mean that just because a physiological or physical abberation from a norm exists, this does not make it a norm in itself. The phenomenological existence of an exception to the rule may be called "normal" in the meaning of that it could happen, could appear, could take place, but nevertheless it is not necessarily a norm euqla to that to which it is an exception. Albinos also a reality, both people lacking pigments in their skin, or in their eyes - or both. Nevertheless that is in not the way our genetical design is meant to be, and even can cause disadvantages. Albonos are noi norm for our specie'S design - they are a copy of our design that happened to have been reproduced with a fault. Genetic mutations can be caused by environmental influence, but thexy can also take place atb random, due to an accident in the genetic reproduction sequence, and then eventually being carried over to the offspirngs of that individual. And medicine knows quite some of these egnetical diseases - and usually you would not call them "normal" in stati9ng that they are a norm of our design, the natural intnetion of how we were meant to be like, genetically. If homosecxuality is caused by differences in the hardware, it may be like this, too, thew thiung one could argue over is if this automtically makes it a "disease". IMO it does not, although that also has something to do with the subjective experience of suffering due to this aberation from a norm. but in a country of blin people, the seeing man would be called the ill, too - does this chnage the fact that nevertheless man's genetical design is such that man is meant to have two eyes for stereoscopical eye-view? Are hemophiliac people nromal in that they represent an evolutionary intended design feature of our species? Hardly. With homosexuality, it is the same, in my understanding, and it suffers sometimes more sometimes less disadvantages from it, but I cannot see a single positive advantage from it. In a homosexual world, individuals would be unable to carry over their genes to the next generation in a natural way, although this is a basic principle of life on earth: genetical copying. Not too mention the suffering from communal constellatios and social system in a heterosexual world.


Homosexuality does nothing for the survival of the species, for it does nothing to help the species to reproduce: it even cannot reproduce, our species's design is to survive as a species by heterosexual reproduction. From evolution's standpoint, it is not anything else but a failing blueprint, unable to live on. When talking of survival, I do not mean "fight or flight", or something, but reproduction. Without reproducing, our species would die within 2-3 generations, for obvious reasons. If homosexuality would be normal in your understanding, it would be able to survive by itself - but it cannot.

Homosexuality can be found as a phenomenen appearing in many mammal species. But in no mammal species it is "normal", but appears to take place in form of a violation of the norm, or violation of a rule - not because it is intended by the genetical rule/design/evolutionary intention. It is a genetic accident, something like that, an accident that does not cvause a retarded mind or three arms and four eyes, but an unproductive sexual orientation. We also fail to understand or to demonstrate any evolutionary advantage for the individual from being homosexual, or to see an advanatge from it for the social context and the community in which the homosexual individual lives. Society wins nothing from the example of homosexuality, but history shows that it can be able to tolerate it, like we also tolerate somebody having something harmless like a flu. But with animals you often see that it allows the animal to gain relief from sexual energetic pressure that it cannot relieve by mating with an individual of the other gender when such an matching partner is not avialable. Whether it be there are no female animals around, or they are all being "reserved" by other male partners.

Homosexuality may appear with a certain frequency, but I completely fail to see why that makes it a norm in itself, or even a norm euqal to that of heterosexuality, or makes it appear to be normal with regard to the genetical design of the species. that some genetical abberations in diseases come together with a positive side effect, in some cases is true, for example sichel-cell-anemia raises your immunity to Malaria, however, nobody so far has been able to show such effects for the majority of known diseases - or for homosexuality. Such examples as I just gave, are expections to the rule which appear with a certain frequency - they are not part of the content of the rule itself.

You can also eventually see a broken-down car driving home on just three tires. that does not make it normal. The norm is that a car has four tires. Anything less is called a malfunctioning car. To what ammount the driver cares, is his business. just when he drives in public on three tires, security concerns become valid - and then it is the community's business as well.

I agree on your last remarks on "desires to share the majority's way of normal living". but I cannot help it, family and marriage are terms reserved for certain social constellation which define these terms, and these constellations nevertheless also are of vital importance for the communal interest and the oingoing exoistence of the society. A person being born with a crippled leg maybe also desires to be "normal" and to compete in running competitions, but his leg is simply against that. he will not grow a new, healthy leg just becasue he wishes for it. Nobody should hinder gays or lesbians to live together if they want, all fine and okay with me, and if one dies, he/she shall even have the right to leave his possessions under the same regulations and conditons like they are legally valid for heterosexual couples, for God's sake: okay, do it like that if that makes them happy and forms social peace Just when they want the same privileges and finacial support and material boni and legal protection that the far mor important institutions of family and related marriages enjoy, and are guaranteed to be given in several Wetsern constitutions - then I become willing to start a fight. and as I said and as Henry also said: quite some many homosexual themselves argue against seeing family as such an arbitrary thing that it could be used as a term to describe homosexual relations as well, maybe even adopting children. This is where my understanding ends and turns into determined rejection.

I think those "representaives" of gay/lesbian lobby organisations we use to see on tV, are not representing a majoirty of their subcommunity, like the hyperaggressive, provoking nudity at Cristopher street Day alöso probably is not representing a majority of their sub-community's general sexual attitude. It's just that they are so incredibly noisy, and the majority that just wishes to live in peace and normality, unrecognised by the general public, does not wish to start a high profile in the media, spoiling their privacy and adressing the media themselves by that.

for heaven's sake, start making such a fuss about these things, guys, and start to please the lobby orgnaisation only, they are little more than noisemakers. just let homosexual couples live in peace and do not make a show of how tolerant about them you are. I am very sure that this is what the vast majority of them wants. - Would you like to see reports about yourself constantly in the media, and people always telling you at every damn opportunity that they think you are "nevertheless very much okay", and that they "nevertheless accept you" and consider you to be "normal"? Hardly.

[Freiwillige]

Yup, its true. All this girl had to do was serve and keep her mouth shut but nope....She had to let her commanders know she was gay as a rainbow. I dont understand why it is such an issue to keep your sexuality to yourself in the Military.

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/05/08/...ask-dont-tell/

I found this online too.
DO NOT READ UNLESS YOU HAVE A SENSE OF HUMER!

The new military anthem for homosexuals sung in tune to the green berets

"Falling fairies from the sky,
I broke my nail oh how I could cry!
Dont you like how my tushie sways,
We are the fags of the queen berets!
Obama's words upon our ears,
"You guys have rights, be proud you're queers!"
I once was scared, now I'm Okay,
Cause I'm a fag in the Queen Berets.
Put silver earclips on our nuts;
We love the pain, now spank our butts!
The way you walk is awfully cute;
I sure would love to pack your chute!
Back at home, a young wife waits,
Her Queen Beret just won't go straight;
For his team he stays undressed,
Spreads his legs, and lies on his chest.
This Army stuff is really slick;
Free clothes, bunk beds, and lots of d*#ks.
When we retire, we'll still get paid;
We thank you, Obama, from the Queen Berets!:rotfl:

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by porphy

Puh, that was a long write up. I have no idea how you can keep going with your sometimes massive and frequent posts, Skybird.

My tip: a team of good ghost-writers. And get a better corrector than I got.

[Biggles]

Originally Posted by Skybird

just let homosexual couples live in peace and do not make a show of how tolerant about them you are. I am very sure that this is what the vast majority of them wants. - Would you like to see reports about yourself constantly in the media, and people always telling you at every damn opportunity that they think you are "nevertheless very much okay", and that they "nevertheless accept you" and consider you to be "normal"? Hardly.

[Platapus]

Good. The DADT policy was ill-conceived.

I had a gay roommate when I was in Korea. Didn't bother me any more than having a heterosexual roommate.

[Zachstar]

Well im sure this thread will fill with its share of homophobic bigots soon so I will just make my view known.

DADT is bullcrap. Our military is weaker when part of its ranks fears for even saying the word gay for fear of reprisal or dismissal. And on top of that even if it was valid back in the day. Its completely crap now that society has moved much fruther towards accepting homosexuality.

Nobody gives a rats ass if someone is gay or lesbian in a warzone with IEDs and hostiles disguised as civilians. Nobody will give a rats ass if we go to war in Iran and they face a much stronger militant force.

DADT is going to be nulled. Maybe not this year but soon as homophopia perishes faster than racism did in the aftermath of the civil rights movement.

Oh just to let it be known. Zachstar <<---- Straight not narrow!