First, I must say that I have no problem with this whatsoever.

Soooooo, let me wear whatever Halloween costume I want and shut the fuck up about it if makes you uncomfortable.

Ok?

Thank you, and have a nice day.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

It wasn't for Halloween, sir, though the drag queen was a little more drag-y and costumed than normal. But you're more than welcome to dress like a drag queen and read to homeless bums if you'd like. ;-)

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

They have an entire month for LGBTQ history?

Are you sure that's not in Canada? That sounds like something we would do here...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/...m_term=.56fda36b6c8e

"An online retailer has pulled a costume from its website that depicted Holocaust victim Anne Frank.


Screenshots of the costume for sale at HalloweenCostumes.com posted to social media show a smiling girl wearing World War II-era clothing and a beret. The costume was quickly criticized on Twitter. Carlos Galindo-Elvira, who leads the Anti-Defense League’s Arizona office said on Twitter that the costume trivializes Frank’s memory.


North Mankato, Minnesota-based Fun.com runs the website. Spokesman Ross Walker Smith tweeted Sunday that the costume had been pulled from the website. He explained that the company sells costumes for activities other than Halloween, like “school projects and plays.” He apologized for any offense caused by the costume.


Anne Frank is known for the diary she wrote while in hiding from the Nazis during the war."

My favorite part is the last sentence in this story about rage and offense...the author thought it needed to be said who Anne Frank was.

To be frank, most Americans probably don't know the difference between Anne Frank and Barney Frank. And I say that as a non Canuck.

Wasnt she married to Dodd Frank?

Guess these kids are ruined for life now. (pink font)

Ruined, no, but I do wonder why gyrations their parents have to do to explain the event to the children. Those rationalizations will be what ruins the kids, not the actual event.

What rationalization? "Yes, son, that's drag queen Satan."

It's adults who need rationalizations and explanations. I think kids would be totally down with this.

We have a local French festival here in town every summer and (for whatever reason) they always have a drag queen show.

We took my son and once of his friends to see the show. Everyone had a blast.

I have some friends (guys) that would be totally uncomfortable just seeing this show.

Those are the people that concern me.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

Ruined, no, but I do wonder why gyrations their parents have to do to explain the event to the children.

I'm an adult and I would like an explanation of why we need a month to celebrate the history of the LGBTQ. And I'd also like an explanation of why that, whatever it is, has to come into a school of young children and read to them and the purpose it serves.

You missed some letters. The pic with the FB post had an A and an I in there. Eventually they'll get the whole alphabet stuffed in.







(I'm joking, seems like a cool event)

---

maybe she's born with it, maybe it's chlorine
If you're injured and need some sympathy, PM me and I'm very happy to write back.
disclaimer: PhD not MD

Why not? What are you afraid of?

Damn. Could not have said it better. Lighten up America.

---

"The great pleasure in life is doing what people say you cannot do."

It’s a drag queen Satan. What further explanation do we need?

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

Why not? What are you afraid of?


It's funny. These days of you speak out against things that you don't want your children to see, you are either, afraid of something or intolerant. Those are the modern ways to get everyone to have the same opinions about everything. That way, no one can be offended.


I don't want my daughter to have a history month for LGBTQ because I think it's ridiculous. I also don't want schools to take the time to invite a transgender satan to read to my child because I think that's ridiculous too.


I don't have to accept everything just because most people do.

Kids see folks like this all the time....

I know, right. Its not like its a Christmas Tree or a nativity scene.

Yeah. Can you imagine the 10 commandments in school?

---

"The great pleasure in life is doing what people say you cannot do."

or a picture of a guy nailed to a cross while still alive... that would be sick!

Thankyou Sanuk

---

They constantly try to escape from the darkness outside and within
Dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good T.S. Eliot

If I had to bet, I would put my money on less than 50% of U.S. adults knowing who Anne Frank was.

I would guess to them it's just a person in a freaky costume.

#MeToo

If my kid was there I'd remove her right away.

No way do I want to deal with my kid having nightmares for the next month, I get woken up enough.

Two points.

1) This was a public library, not a school. It is one of those reading events for kids that their parents take them to.
2) I don't know about satan, I think that is a crab on her head. Would you have less of an issue if she looked like the picture below with blue hair?

Am I missing something? Where does the Satan aspect come from?

Perhaps we need to play audio of the event backwards. That's how we discovered Satan's prevalence back in the '80s.

---

"The right to party is a battle we have fought, but we'll surrender and go Amish... NOT!" -Wayne Campbell

Sanuk wrote:

It's funny. These days of you speak out against things that you don't want your children to see, you are either, afraid of something or intolerant.

But be fair, very often that attitude does mean a person is afraid or intolerant. It's worth anyone checking the reasons behind their morals every once in a while.





The question isn't whether you think it's ridiculous; it's what the reasons are that you think it's ridiculous. Maybe those are perfectly valid and sound reasons. Maybe they're not.



Darn right! I back you up all the way on that.

Okay, this is a digression, but did you know that the two people who were supposedly masterminding the giant Satanic daycare thing in the 80s were just released from prison?

For those of you who don't know, there were children who were saying that the husband and wife who ran this daycare were practicing satanic stuff. I can't remember how it started, but child psychologists were called in and questioned the children who told insane stories of sex parties, of children being chopped up, children being taken to other countries, children being killed and brought back to life before their parents picked them up. All kinds of stuff that would make you roll your eyes, but for some reason it turned into this big outrage and this couple was convicted and sent to life in prison. A court just nullified the ruling a little while ago, but the couple spent some 30 years in prison.

Crazy stuff. I remember that scare back when I was a kid when some of my parents' friends warned them against letting me play dungeons and dragons because I'd be worshipping Satan inside of a week.

But really, if Satan really looked like that drag queen, I think fewer people would be worshipping him/her/they/it. Maybe the Church should be promoting this kind of behavior!

I have read all of the posts up to here and this is really pretty simple. This is just another attempt to mainstream sexual perversion.

And, no, my kids would never be taken there if they were of the appropriate age. The appropriate age for this crap is about 25 years and up.

Greg

---

If you are a Canuck that engages in gratuitous bashing of the US, you are probably on my Iggy List. So, save your self a bunch of typing a response unless you also feel the need to gratuitously bash me. If so, have fun.
"Don't underestimate Joe's ability to f___ things up" - Barack Obama, 2020

Wait! The drag queen was having sex with someone there? I agree. That crosses a line.

Can you imagine the protests if they had someone dressed up as Christopher Columbus read to the kids? The horror!

A far more scary and psychologically disturbing photo is:

---

Remember - It's important to be comfortable in your own skin... because it turns out society frowns on wearing other people's

Or drowning to death all but a handful of mankind, as well as all animals except two or seven, depending on which OT source you use.

Apparently, your reading comprehension leaves a lot to be desired.

---

If you are a Canuck that engages in gratuitous bashing of the US, you are probably on my Iggy List. So, save your self a bunch of typing a response unless you also feel the need to gratuitously bash me. If so, have fun.
"Don't underestimate Joe's ability to f___ things up" - Barack Obama, 2020

If you're referring to the McMartin preschool trial, there was either an acquittal or charges dismissed against all but one. Ray Buckey was the only person convicted, and served 5 years, he was released more that 20 years ago.

If you think a picture of President Trump posing with a bunch of high school kids is scarier than a pic of a drag queen reading to children, you might be a victim of TDS.

Greg

---

If you are a Canuck that engages in gratuitous bashing of the US, you are probably on my Iggy List. So, save your self a bunch of typing a response unless you also feel the need to gratuitously bash me. If so, have fun.
"Don't underestimate Joe's ability to f___ things up" - Barack Obama, 2020

I was referring to the Kellers from Texas, but I got the dates wrong - wasn't late 80s, was 1991.

If you don't get that that's a joke, you might have a stick up your ass.

Got it.

My understanding that, with the McMartin case, most jurors though that there was some type of abuse going on, but that the recovered memories and satanic ritual abuse aspect was not believable. People since have grouped that with as akin to mass hysteria. Don't know about the Kellers in Texas.

It's tragic to think that some hysteria over a mythical evil may have allowed a real evil to go largely unpunished.

You're focused on sex. Pervert.

That's entirely possible. Mind clarifying the "sexual perversion" for those of us with poor comprehension skills?

From Guffaw? No, I am not inclined to think that was a joke. But, I might have a stick up my ass...wife accuses me of that from time to time.

Greg

---

If you are a Canuck that engages in gratuitous bashing of the US, you are probably on my Iggy List. So, save your self a bunch of typing a response unless you also feel the need to gratuitously bash me. If so, have fun.
"Don't underestimate Joe's ability to f___ things up" - Barack Obama, 2020

Yes, I mind. It appears that it would take far too long for you and you don't want to know my clarification anyway. You just want to argue.

Greg

---

If you are a Canuck that engages in gratuitous bashing of the US, you are probably on my Iggy List. So, save your self a bunch of typing a response unless you also feel the need to gratuitously bash me. If so, have fun.
"Don't underestimate Joe's ability to f___ things up" - Barack Obama, 2020

Actually, I'd rather debate than argue. It concerns me that perspectives like the one you're espousing are as prevalent as they are. I'm curious about that. Either I'm missing something, or possibly you're missing something. It would be interesting to see if we can find common ground.

I'm guessing that the way this guy is dressed signals to you that he performs sexual acts that you find objectionable. You probably don't care how someone dresses, but you are afraid that someone who doesn't share your sexual morals will communicate those sexual morals to others, and if this goes unchecked, too many people will be performing sexual acts you find objectionable. Maybe this leads to a change in moral norms that you would consider a "breakdown," or maybe you find the sexual acts themselves inherently dangerous to you, those close to you, or society in general. Thus, you object to the efforts of people who live this way to be seen as "normal."

Am I close, or way off?

Pfftt...big honking deal. The parents of these children knew what they were signing up for, what's the problem?

The whole Satanic daycare thing was a product of crazy psychological theories about repressed memories and a poor understanding about how suggestible children are when questioned about abuse etc. Coupled with misplaced trust in "experts." The "experts" the child psychologists had interviewed the kids so whatever they came up with became believable.

We have had similar problems with DNA evidence particularly when the field was in its beginnings when a "DNA expert" would testify there was a DNA match and the jury accepted it because the defense didn't understand that DNA match doesn't necessarily mean that person committed the crime when you don't use enough loci to ensure the match didn't occur just by random chance.

Years ago the was the statistic that half of women had experienced domestic abuse or something along those lines. And since the "experts" had said it was so it must be. Until someone asked how they came up with the statistic and it became clear it was meaningless.

This is quite maddening because we rely on experts to give scientific opinions about stuff we all cannot know about in depth.

BTW I thought the library reader looked more like a witch IMHO

---

They constantly try to escape from the darkness outside and within
Dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good T.S. Eliot

You probably don't care how someone dresses, but you are afraid that someone who doesn't share your sexual morals will communicate those sexual morals to others, and if this goes unchecked, too many people will be performing sexual acts you find objectionable. Maybe this leads to a change in moral norms that you would consider a "breakdown," or maybe you find the sexual acts themselves inherently dangerous to you, those close to you, or society in general. Thus, you object to the efforts of people who live this way to be seen as "normal."

That's pretty close for me but will add that if Drag Queens are teaching young children about LBBTQ month, we're way beyond worrying about a possible breakdown in society...

Fair enough. I see where you're coming from, but disagree with it. I've no doubt you've thought about the parallels with people who once thought interracial sex was objectionable and was an indicator of a breakdown of society. Or cultures where men were suddenly limited to one wife, against their religious teachings. There were even people who thought women being allowed to own property would lead to a lack of satisfaction for their husbands and lead to the moral breakdown of society.

It's far more likely than not that 25 years from now, nobody will even bat an eye that someone is gay or transsexual or a drag queen or whatever. They'll dig up old posts on the internet and marvel at them the way we read newspaper clippings about senators objecting to interracial marriage. The guy who cuts my hair is a drag queen on weekends, and my daughters saw him several times both in and out of drag as they were growing up. Do they care? Did it mess them up? No. Are they aware that people unlike them are people too? Yes. In their high school they both have transgender students in their classes. They both know gay and lesbian people. Is it an issue for them? No, and they're the ones who will be running the world in a generation.

I don't think we're "way beyond worrying about a possible breakdown in society." I think what you're seeing as a breakdown is more likely the slow act of recognizing that people with differences are still legitimate people.

It's funny, I've heard hundreds of claims about the degree to which sexual mores and morals might be passed on to other people but I've never met anyone who thinks that that's happened to them.

---

"Are you sure we're going fast enough?" - Emil Zatopek

This goes right back to the DEAR GOD, WHAT BATHROOM SHOULD THEY USE?!? threads... Both my kids have had classmates 'switch teams' ~ it's a bit awkward at first getting used to new names/pronouns, but beyond that it rates a big fat 'Meh' to them. Again, it's only the adults who are freaked out.

NAILED IT!!

Er, uh wait...

did a school invite the speaker in? or, per the article, did the speaker read at a public library on a Saturday?

---

____________________________________
https://lshtm.academia.edu/MikeCallaghan

http://howtobeswiss.blogspot.ch/

There is lots of stuff that kids would get used to and say meh. We could have people walking around naked in public schools and after awhile kids would be meh. Not sure that in of itself makes things appropriate. Given that the prevalence of transgender is less than one percent I'd say its a bit weird that both your kids have had kids switch teams. Maybe its becoming a thing at their school.

---

They constantly try to escape from the darkness outside and within
Dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good T.S. Eliot

I'm always surprised how divorce is nothing to my kids since so many of their friends have divorced/remarried parents. I didn't have any friends when I was kid with divorced parents. At the other end of spectrum, both of my kids think smokers are low lifes and avoid them like the plague.

I'm kind of wondering why we're dedicating a month to the celebration of the history of a group of people who are largely all put together based on who they like to have sex with. Of course, that also raises the question of why we lump homosexuals, bisexuals, transgenders, and whatever else, all into one group. Which further raises the question of why homosexuals and bisexuals would want to be lumped into the same group as transgenders, and whatever else.

Just one big mess.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

I think that y'all are intermingling religion and spirituality with constitutional rights and personal liberties. Normalizing this kind of dress/behavior/sexual conduct is the only concern that I have with the pictured person. I am nobody to tell the pictured person how to behave, but he/she also should have no platform on which to tell me or my children how to behave.

If parents think that it's a good idea to have this person read to their child as someone who is revered because he/she is brave, courageous, outspoken, etc., then those parents lack proper judgment.

My best friend got divorced and his daughter has not spoken to him for two years. Kids understand the threat divorce is to their well being. We want our kids to think divorce is no big deal it is more convenient for us. We even send them to therapy to have them get over it.

---

They constantly try to escape from the darkness outside and within
Dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good T.S. Eliot

I'd guess normalizing this behavior is exactly the point of the event (and LGBT history month). It's a way to show kids that their society includes LGBT individuals. That's just a fact on which we can all agree: society includes these folks.

I recognize that you see this as somehow telling kids how to behave. I don't see that myself. I think that it's more about telling kids that if they are likewise oriented, that they are not alone.

I once asked a friend how did he "know" he was gay? His response: the same way you know you're straight; the same way you know with every fibre of you are wired for heterosexuality.
My point is that this is not behavior you can teach. You're LGBT or you're not. Hair and makeup have nothing to do with it. I know some don't share this belief. I'm not sure how to reconcile with that.

Perhaps we can agree that asking someone to hide who they are seems out of place in modern society. And perpetuating the belief that people thus oriented are abnormal is cruel.
Kids continue to kill themselves in response to the crippling isolation and stigmatization they suffer due to their orientation. A drag queen reading books at a voluntary event seems a small price to pay.

This reminds me of an utterly unrelated bit of trivia I heard today.

When the fork was first introduced in Venice it was condemned as being heathen and an affront to moral society.

"God in his wisdom has provided man with natural forks – his fingers. Therefore it is an insult to Him to substitute artificial metallic forks for them when eating. -St. Peter Damian"


The noblewoman who brought the forks to Venice died a few years later and it was seen as vindication that the forks were indeed an unholy evil that would destroy society.

You assume that children's sexual orientation is predetermined, while I think that a child's choice can be fashioned depending on the stressors, lessons, and the things/people that they interact with and the ideas that they are exposed to.

Let the LGBTs do their thing, they just don't need to do their demonstrations and casting calls in efforts to persuade children to think that such behavior should be imitated or that such behavior is normative (intentionally didn't use the word normal, b/c I'm fine with society thinking that LGBT is normal).

you know a lot of time could have been saved if you had simply stated you were a fucking moron from the outset.

That's unfair. He was on track to be very smart as a kid but a moron read him a book once and...you know the rest...

---

"Are you sure we're going fast enough?" - Emil Zatopek

Ding ding ding. Breton wins the internet!!!

---

===============
Proud member of the MSF (Maple Syrup Mafia)

Are you serious? I really want to start calling you names, but that would put me on on your level. Your post would fit nicely on the trollish comments section of most web stories. You made no statement to substantiate your disagreement with my position, but instead you simply tried to insult me- as if that somehow wins you points on the internet... I bet you voted for T-Rump?

I find your insinuation that sexual preference can be "fashioned," imbecilic, lacking in any kind of reasoning, and representative of the kind of things fucking moron say.

Is that better?

I agree name calling isn't a substitution for reasoned debate. But it is the lavender room. And it was pretty funny. ;)

But back to your response: I get that not everyone sees sexual orientation as hard wired. But, with respect, that's just a belief. One you're entitled to. But an opinion not based on fact. Rather, its a position informed by a massive effort to rewrite history. Evidence of LBGTQ goes back thousands of years. Some indigenous languages have non-binary gender pronouns. And examples of same-sex sexual bevaiour across many species is rife in scientific literature. Religious dogma and some key historical figures did a masterful job of burying/obscuring the evidence and ratcheting up the hysteria but, like evolution, there's a solid grasp of human sexuality.

With respect, your statements about normalcy and fashioning orientation are antiquated. And not only out of touch with the body of knowledge on sexuality but also way off the mark with respect to psychology.

Anyways, glad to see an openess to discuss perspectives. Would love for you to get on the train. There are bigger fish to fry:
https://www.vice.com/...lture-not-your-trend

The name calling might now have been nice, but here try this:


It might help with that sick burn Bretom gave you.

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

No dumbass. You are so black and white. I speak from experience (experience that I know others have had from discussing this topic) that I personally wasn't sure about MY sexual orientation and that if my childhood had been that of some folks that I know where one parent is gay or that I'd been adopted by gay parents that maybe I would have chosen to have sex with men instead of women.

You are so closed minded that you either cannot see the obvious or that you cannot read between the lines. You really should check your preconceived notions.

You read and comprehend the message that you want to comprehend so that you can demonize my personal expression and insinuate that I am advancing some hateful agenda because it seems like that you think that I am proposing to brainwash gays so that they no longer are gay, but what you are missing/not realizing is that that person's decision was already made.

I think that people should be free to decide for themselves their sexual identity without outside influence. And I don't think that anyone will disagree that children can be influenced to think a certain way.

1. You are literally the first person I have ever heard describe their own sexuality as a choice they made at some point in their life. I am NOT doubting you but that is remarkable to me.

2. How does "without outside influence" square with being raised without exposure to LGBTQ people? If a kid is raised in an exclusively heterosexual environment and has no inkling that any gay or mixed feelings they may have might be anything but a shameful aberration...isn't that the strongest sort of outside influence?

EDIT to add: if you are arguing that were raised in a straight household so chose to be straight, but may have chosen to be gay had you been raised in other circumstances, if there a bit of "thank goodness that..." in your position or am I projecting? In other words, if you'd had two raging queens for Dads and we stipulate that that somehow led you to choose to be gay and you were happy as such...why is that a worse outcome?

---

"Are you sure we're going fast enough?" - Emil Zatopek

Evidence that something is present across a long stretch of history is hardly proof something is hardwired. Animals also do lots of things humans do not or should not so that doesn't tell me much either. I will readily accept that both sides of the debate have a vested interest in presenting their version of history.

I would also debate that we have a solid grasp of human sexuality. The long term effects of novel new family structures that were not the norm 30 years ago are yet to be seen. In the 70s we were told if you are unhappy get divorced the kids will be better off. They are quite adaptable they will be okay. Subsequent studies showed maybe not so.

We really don't have any idea what the long term effects of allowing people to change their anatomy will be if they feel they are transgender. Will it make them feel better 20 or 40 years from now, will they be less likely to commit suicide? We don't know. People still accept that 10 percent of the population is gay if you ask millennials they think its higher than that. The reality is it is more like 2-4 percent and the 10 percent number came from Kinsey's surveys of populations that were not at all representative of the general population. But the 10 percent rightly or wrongly was used because a higher number presented a more convincing argument that being gay is normal.

---

They constantly try to escape from the darkness outside and within
Dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good T.S. Eliot

I'm impressed with the legs this thread has had since my OP, one in which I was mostly joking about the end of our run as country. Glad to see that people here have taken it so seriously. ;-)

That said, a few observations after reading through everyone's posts.

-- There's a difference between sexual orientation (i.e. heterosexuality, homosexuality, all the other "ality" stuff) and gender. As long as you're not hurting yourself or someone else, knock yourself out when it comes to orientation, because what you're doing in that regard is basically none of my business.

-- As far as we know, there are only two genders. Anything else is a mental illness, in my opinion.

-- Certain interest groups are doing their level best to conflate and confuse the admittedly fluid rules for sexual orientation with hard-and-fast rules for gender, as if such things are interchangeable and that XX and XY chromosomal pairings make absolutely no difference, both physiologically and psychologically. This couldn't be farther from the truth of things, as regards our gender.

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

Guys living a straight life who previously had sex with men do not usually go around bragging about it. Whereas most gay men are open about it now days.

If you look at studies, you can find that over half the male population sometimes have dreams about having sex with men. Also about 1/3 of all men have had sex with another man in their lifetime, but only about 2-10% say they are gay.

So it pretty easy to believe that there are large numbers of men who see sexuality as a choice. And in reality behavior is a choice for all men. Now is there really even a sexual orientation, or is that part of the story one tells themselves about ther own sexual behaviors.

Most of the men I know who are gay decided to leave the wives and live a gay live in their 40's or later. prior to that they raised families. Perhaps this is so because it was not appropriate to live as a gay man in society in the past so they chose to live straight lives. Or maybe they like getting more sex with men than they could get with there now old wives.

As they said on tv show House, people lie about sex. So I doubt we can really ever know all the true factors at play with sexual desires and behavior.

It comes down to the type of evidence. The scientific community has been publishing on the biological factors that shape orientation for 30+ years now. Research on other species supports the role hormones play in how species members are wired.


There's no debate. And it's not history. There's science and then there's the people with uniformed opinions making normative statements stemming from religious dogma.


Family structures have no impact on sexual orientation. Zero. It's established that biological factors influence orientation. Full stop.


Well luckily, there's a ton of research on what happens when you don't allow people to express the sexuality. A ton. None of it good. I agree that there's a need for gender reassignment to be tracked. But your point is an arguement that supports further research.


Not sure I follow here. Are you highlighting the effort to repress any evidence supporting the legitimacy of homosexuality?

Anyways, great discussion!

Also about 1/3 of all men have had sex with another man in their lifetime

I have read that too but don't believe it.

Agree. I think that it leads to additional and harmful confusion as the children begin to develop the sexuality for which they were wired since before they were born.

You are obviously on some sort of crusade. It is you who are making dogmatic statements. My short version like most issues that a socially controversial both sides could probably go on and on about evidence yada yada. I'm not interested in doing it.

---

They constantly try to escape from the darkness outside and within
Dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good T.S. Eliot

You also like to drop a bomb and watch the fireworks. Not that there is anything wrong with that ):)

---

They constantly try to escape from the darkness outside and within
Dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good T.S. Eliot

I think this is your quote.

First off, I don't consider sociology hard science. No way to really measure what is going on in families / relationships, there are too many factors to know what causes what.

However studies have shown families with strong mother influences, i.e. the mom runs the house, are more likely to have children who identify as gay.

Also studies show that families with multiple siblings, it is more likely the youngest will be gay. They try to say this because of some worn out uterus idea. if so it may be biological. But I don't think there is strong proof of that. I suspect have several older siblings could affect how you grow up, either you picked on or doodled after. So certainly family dynamics could explain this too.

Also higher iq correlates with being gay. Is that biological, or do people with higher IQ get encouraged more to go against societal norms.

As I said, I think it is some interesting ideas, but I don't think you can really say it is biological, environmental, or a combination.

But I think statement that it is all biological does not match current data/theories. Why is it so important to you to think it is all biological?

What percent would you believe. Certainly research varies but 20-25% is supported by other research. Do you think a lot of men would share this intimate detail with you?

Socially controversial? Sure. We're talking about one group dictating how another group can express themselves, love one another, raise kids, etc.

That's why it's important.

But science isn't dogma.

Research isn't a crusade.

And only one side is presenting evidence.

Here's what we do know. People's attitudes about sex and sexual behavior aren't changing all that much. Most boys like girls, and most girls like boys. Generally, people today are simply more tolerant of differences in sexual behavior, though it's not necessarily the case that they're more accepting of those behaviors.

Most of this other stuff is an argument about the fringes of some piece of fabric, from what I've seen.

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

What percent would you believe. Certainly research varies but 20-25% is supported by other research. Do you think a lot of men would share this intimate detail with you?

I would guess a lot lower than 20 - 25% but that's just my guess which is probably as accurate as many studies. I can't count how many studies have been proven wrong in my lifetime for one reason or the other, usually because someone has a certain bias to inflate or deflate figures. And who participates in these studies? I've never been asked and no one I know (not that I know a lot of people) has ever been asked, so I'm curious who they are asking.

I just take these kind of sociological questions with a big grain of salt.

Wow. Great stuff.


Agreed. Not hard science. But I'm referring to the sequence of events. Current research says that biological factors in utero determine sexual orientation.


Yes! And environmental factors definitely impact the mother. But there isn't yet the degree of understanding required to state how or to what extent. So sociology (a soft science?) could help inform (maybe?). However, it doesn't change the fact that the impact on the sexual orientation of the individual happens in utero.


I believe that research is converging toward identifying the chromosome responsible for sexual orientation. At one point it was thought that there was a abnormality at the gene level (X,Y) that resulted in homosexuality. Since then, they have moved away from that idea and think a separate gene is in play.


That's a really interesting question. I dont know the answer. I've read intelligence is nature/nurture. You are born with certain abilities and the in which you are raised informs the degree to which you'll reach your potential. Maybe that's the case with sexual orientation: you're born gay or straight and society shapes the extent to which you reach your "potential". Lots of research on folks repressing their sexuality. But I don't know either way.


It's not important to me. What is important to me is a conversation on facts. And the conclusion of the scientific community is that it's biological. If tomorrow, research demonstrated that sexual orientation was determined by societal factors, or libray readings by drag queens, I'd accept that too.

Counter to your question, I have a completely sincere question (or two) of my own: Is a biological origin a difficult thing to accept? If you're not convinced by current research, what would it take to convince you?

Of the 3 kids I'm aware of, we know 2 of the families fairly well (first-name basis w/ both parents, know what they do for a living, mingled at other social events, etc). They're all well-educated, professional, drive nice mainstream cars w/o a bunch of subversive bumper stickers, etc ~ point being, not the sort anyone would raise an eyebrow and suspect them of fomenting gender rebellion or taking their kids to a satanic drag queen reading day at the library. Shit just happened, which I'm sure was not the preferred option for any of them since at a minimum it's a big fucking hassle, but they were loving and supportive and so are the rest of their peer groups (both kids and parents). Like I said, it's a little awkward getting used to new names/pronouns, but hardly such a silly example as walking around naked at skool; nobody else would even know there was anything 'unusual' unless you already knew them before the switch.

Not this stupid argument again... So what does that make a priest, since they (theoretically, at least) abstain from all sexual behavior? (Obviously not all uphold the standard.) If there are only 2 choices, and they partake of neither, what 'orientation' does that leave?

Or, do they actually HAVE an orientation (either way), always and forever, but simply suppress acting out on it? (At least the good ones, anyway.)

Biological factors certainly have a strong influence on sexual orientation. Stress affects hormones and brain chemistry, which affect biological composition, which affect sexual orientation, so your statement is not wrong.