Oh, I can’t take it anymore. Another wonderful breakthrough that, if you believe hook, line and sinker will solidify what you have always known about being homosexual….well, almost anyway.
http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=2877509
I particularly like this observation:
“This is significant, she says, and fits with data showing that women are three times as likely as men to suffer from mood disorders or depression. Gay men have higher rates of depression too, she says, but it’s difficult to know whether this is down to biology, homophobia or simply feelings of being “different”.
Being different? They are no different then straight women, right? Are they trying to say straight women are different? Then what pray-tell? Straight men? Good observation don’t you think.
How about this one:
“They found that the patterns of connectivity in gay men matched those of straight women, and vice versa (see image, above right). In straight women and gay men, the connections were mainly into regions of the brain that manifest fear as intense anxiety.”
If straight men and homosexual women are alike, and straight women and homosexual men are alike then how about a simple understanding and solution. I know many couples were the man is dominating and the woman is meek and submissive. I know couples where the man is a “girly boy” (sissy when I didn’t know better and didn’t have PC about me) and the woman was more of a man then I could ever obtain. Then there was rough/gruff men/women couples and meek/mild men women couples. The important thing here is men/women couples. Just because a male thinks/feels more feminine, why would he be attracted to another MAN instead of the opposite sex?
The study proves nothing. So we might be born with more of the opposite sex’s feelings. Big deal. Doesn’t give us attraction for the SAME sex! Another lame liberal cop-out for justifing sin.
ACT, you are really over the top on this one.
“They are no different then straight women, right? Are they trying to say straight women are different?”
Are you saying that if a MAN feels like a straight WOMEN, that that’s not different than how a straight MAN feels? How about if someone feels like a cow, or an artichoke? Are you going to say “They are no different than cows (or artichokes)? Are they trying to say cows (or artichokes) are different?”
Or this winner of a quote: “So we might be born with more of the opposite sex’s feelings. Big deal. Doesn’t give us attraction for the SAME sex!”
Ok, so let me translate: “I’m a man, and I was born feeling like a straight woman. Straight women are attracted to men. But this can’t possibly mean that I’m attracted to men also? And if I am, it’s a ’sin’?”
ACT, your logic, as always, seems to come from an alternate universe. I, however, am willing to give you a break and say that if you were born in an alternate universe, I would expect that you would use alternate universe logic! I’m even sure God understands since I’m sure He made the alternate universe as well! I don’t even expect you to change. I might suggest, however, that you don’t flaunt your alternate logic on blogs since most of us are from this universe. I defend your right to, though! It’s just a friendly suggestion.
The attraction is not the sin, Sanity. Men, married or not, are normally attraced to women, but adultery is a sin. In fact, sex outside of marriage is a sin, no matter whom one finds attractive.
Sanity?
Thanks for the break. I’m glad that I have you around as my safety net. Now, if I could just get your reading comprehension up a few points.
We’ll say your left handed. In the old days they would have said there was something wrong with you (which would have been correct but for the wrong reason) and forced you to use your right hand as predominant. Now we know that it doesn’t matter. Some of us were born wrong brained and wrong handed (sorry, honey). No harm-no foul.
My alternate universe logic tells me that if you are wrong brained that there is someone out there just for you that is wrong brained also. 2 wrongs do make it right. If a male has female tendancies then there is a female with male tendancies and there is your balance. Why would a girly-male look for another male? The object is procreation, which, as a recent post of Jacks’ has just born out, is drastically on the decline in many cultures and nations. Now wouldn’t it be a shame if we just homosexualized ourselves (human race) right out of existance?
I’m banking on my alternate universe logic over your…….whatever it is. And thanks again for looking out for my best interest. You’re a wonderful liberal!
Act, ok, so gay men are supposed to hook up with gay women? Yeah, that’s a good solution. Maybe your alternate universe is a little further out than I thought.
Jack, yeah, but you won’t let them get married, so what you’re really saying is “Well, too bad, sorry you were born the way you were, but you’re simply not allowed to have sex. Ever. Unless it’s with someone you’re not attracted to.” Lucky for you that you were born “right”. Would you like it if someone said you could only have sex with men?
Oh, and of course it’s only about procreation. That’s why we’ve banned birth control, sex for men with low sperm counts, and sex for women after menopause. Based on your enthusiasm for the texas bigomists, I guess it’s ok for us old men to have lots of young wives and impregnate them as quickly and as often as we can!!
If my wife’s on the pill, what are my “Godly” recourses? Can I beat her? Take a mistress? What if she’s barren? Can I take a mistress then? Abraham did! Of course, if I’m told not to by an angel (or God) I won’t.
> Jack, yeah, but you won’t let them get
> married, so what you’re really saying
> is “Well, too bad, sorry you were born the
> way you were, but you’re simply not allowed to
> have sex. Ever. Unless it’s with someone
> you’re not attracted to.”
Yup. I didn’t make the rules. Same goes for heterosexuals, too. If you cannot find someone to marry, don’t have sex.
> Lucky for you that you were born “right”.
Luck had nothing to do with it.
> Would you like it if someone said you could
> only have sex with men?
Our likes and dislikes are not irrelevant. God calls us to do many things we do not like, and to refrain from many things we do like.
> Oh, and of course it’s only about procreation.
In general, yes.
> That’s why we’ve banned birth control, sex for
> men with low sperm counts, and sex for women
> after menopause.
In all those cases, procreation is theoretically possible. And it is generalization anyway. IN GENERAL, a male and female can procreate, while two people of the same sex cannot.
> Based on your enthusiasm for the texas
> bigomists, I guess it’s ok for us
> old men to have lots of young wives and
> impregnate them as quickly and as often
> as we can!!
This is a problem?
>If my wife’s on the pill, what are my “Godly”
> recourses? Can I beat her? Take a mistress?
Neither. If you believe that birth control is a sin, then it is your wife who is sinning. If she disobeys your direct command not to use the birth control, she is also sinning.
> What if she’s barren?
Then God has made her so for His reasons.
> Can I take a mistress then? Abraham did!
And how did that work out for him?
> Of course, if I’m told not to by an angel
> (or God) I won’t.
He has already told you not to, in the Ten Commandments. It was not God who told Abram to take Haggar, but Sarai.
Take your faith out of the equation and listen to Science. Open your eyes; you believe science only when it suits you, i.e. medical reasons – Take the book that was written by man for what it’s worth. Science has served you well, think about it.
Many of you, your family, friends or family members wouldn’t be here today if it wasn’t for the science.
HeyZeus,
When science fails, what’s left? That is what faith is about. I see you don’t have any of the answers, otherwise you could tell me GOD’s plan at all times. Time to ditch the BS and get a clue. By the way-are you here at this post’s topic because of science or religion?
This just in: “Liberals love sin and will stop at nothing to justify it!”
In other news: “Blogger writes nearly incomprehensible post, then demands readers comprehend it!”
More news later as it fits the print.
True faith is the absence of any need to invent it.
Science cannot tell us which behaviors are sinful and which are not.
BJ,
“Many of you, your family, friends or family members wouldn’t be here today if it wasn’t for the science.”
Science has also killed many people. Science is neutral. Like any piece of technology it can be used to save lives and takes lives. Chemicals have been used to enhance crop yields, this is science used well, chemicals have also been used to gas people.
“Take your faith out of the equation and listen to Science. ”
A toaster oven is the product of science, should I listen to it?
“A toaster oven is the product of science, should I listen to it?”
Only if it gives you the Mega-Millions winning number or the trifecta at the track!
Oh, Kiddin’. Glad you could drop by. The Swedes wrote the paper and did the research. I just brought it to your attention and gave some opinion. I surely knew that you could never comprehend. So which part didn’t you like?