Wow, good rant.

Comment by Mistress Redpen

	From: elissa_carey	Date: July 19th, 2005 12:40 pm (UTC)		(Link)

Very nice, indeed.

(Reply) (Thread)

	From: jhubert	Date: July 19th, 2005 12:51 pm (UTC)		(Link)

While we do have prejudice over here as well, I'm glad that there is no sign of the sort of "moral outrage" that seems to be popular in the USA these days. When civil unions for homosexuals were introduced, the conservative parties argued against it, but most citizens simply shrugged it off.

It's simply not a hot button issue around here, for which I am grateful.

(Reply) (Thread)

From: cweaselle	Date: July 19th, 2005 02:04 pm (UTC)		(Link)

All I can say is wow. Well, and maybe that this woman deserves a cookie. What a powerful statement.

(Reply) (Thread)

	From: aeforge	Date: July 19th, 2005 04:35 pm (UTC)		(Link)

And then, on the ugly flipside, you get people like this:

http://uk.gay.com/headlines/8787

*sigh*

(Reply) (Thread)

From: (Anonymous)	Date: July 19th, 2005 06:56 pm (UTC)		(Link)

Thanks for linking to that, chadu. It was, as a previous poster said, powerfully stated.

I encountered an acquaintance (not a friend) recently, who was bemoaning the number of openly gay doctors in our small town. With a straight face, I told him I believed it was because of the MD conspiracy. Innocent young gays and lesbians, I explained, are being "recruited" or SEDUCED into the foul and perverted medical lifestyle. These white-coated fiends hang around high school biology classes and career fairs, flaunting their high incomes, nice houses and BMWs, and so forth.

Hopefully, he'll never speak to me again...

Hopefully, he'll never speak to me again.

(Reply) (Thread)

From: (Anonymous)	Date: July 19th, 2005 06:57 pm (UTC)		(Link)

Hopefully, I'll learn to edit my posts properly.

Hopefully, I'll learn to - you get the picture.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

	From: artbroken	Date: July 19th, 2005 08:24 pm (UTC)		(Link)

Wow.

Just beautiful.

(Reply) (Thread)

	From: timgray	Date: July 20th, 2005 05:56 am (UTC)		(Link)

Ooh, to the blackboard. A point for the good side. *scribble*

*alters score for bad side when no-one's looking*

(Reply) (Thread)

	From: zonemind	Date: July 20th, 2005 09:27 am (UTC)		(Link)

Hmm...

See, I think it is a choice. Heterosexuality, I mean. Mostly. There are always caveats when dealing with these sorts of basic humanity things. Still, I know I stood at a bifurcation in the road and picked which direction I would go. (Which inevitably means I'm assumed by an annoyingly large number of lefties to be closeted. Trust me, this is not the case.)

If sex with robots is a multimillion dollar industry, then it seems to me that there's more to this than just a switch that on most people is flipped to heterosexual and on the unfortunate few (I say "unfortunate" because whether or not it should suck to be gay it does suck to be gay) gets flipped to homosexual. And, as an avowed Darwinist, I'm kind of uncomfy with anything that so blatantly interferes with the succesful continuation of the genome.

None of which serves to make gay-bashing any less evil. (I voted in favour of gay marriage when it came up in my state. Lost, of course. But I voted on the side of the truly righteous anyway.)

(Reply) (Thread)

	From: fub	Date: July 20th, 2005 02:39 pm (UTC)		(Link)

And, as an avowed Darwinist, I'm kind of uncomfy with anything that so blatantly interferes with the succesful continuation of the genome.
Homosexuals do not conceive children of their own, but they do add their resources to the tribal resource-pool. A tribe with a certain percentage of homosexuals will be better off than a tribe without: they add, and take less because they don't need to raise children.

As such, there is a perfectly reasonable evolutionary explanation for why having homosexuals in your tribe is a good thing for you.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

	From: archangelbeth	Date: July 20th, 2005 04:58 pm (UTC)		(Link)

Even better, being the sister of homosexual males -- they provide for family, and the continuation of the family genetics, without having descendants themselves. Potentially a useful evolutionary strategy, so long as one keeps producing female children as well as less-likely-to-breed male ones. (Which takes a maternal toll, but.) Of course, there needs to be a selection of heterosexual and bisexual males to breed with...

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

	From: chadu	Date: July 20th, 2005 05:14 pm (UTC)		(Link)

Of course, there needs to be a selection of heterosexual and bisexual males to breed with...

I have a theory that in close populations that have an overwhelming (whatever value this is, I don't know) percentage of one gender, pheromones or other genetic cues of surrounding people affects infants in utero via the mother, which flip the sexual orientation switch accordingly.

That is, if a pregnant women is surrounded by a large number of men, if the fetus is female, nothing happens. If the fetus is male, it has a good chance of being wired gay.

On the other hand, if a pregnant women is surrounded by a large number of men, if the fetus is male, nothing happens. If the fetus is female, it has a good chance of being wired gay.

But I'm not a genetic scientist.

CU

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

	From: lysystratae	Date: July 22nd, 2005 12:47 am (UTC)		(Link)

It's an interesting theory, nonetheless... personally, I think we're all basically bi

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)


	13 comments or Leave a comment