The Latest

dobson's new anti-gay web site

James Dobson's Focus on the Family has launched a new anti-gay web site in response to the Gill Foundation's campaign.


Boston Bud said...

The Gill foundation's ad is so much more clever and creative. Those silly bigots can't even come up with their own ad, they have to copy others.

Mark D. Snyder said...

I love the ads adn think they are wicked clever... but how effective do you think the "we were born that way" argument is?

I have doubts because I know many people do move along the "spectrum" of sexual orientation sometimes, and there will always be a few who say they chose it. I think maybe the point should be that it doesn't matter how we ended up gay, we deserve equality no matter what.


Lynne said...

Gayness, as far as I can tell, IS a spectrum - only about 10% of the population on either end is 100% straight or 100% gay, was the stat I last heard. The majority people are "mostly gay" or "mostly straight." This probably gives rise to the bulk of homophobia - we often most hate that which we see in ourselves, and so therefore to combat it, some must become militantly against it.

There's evidence (again, last I heard) that stress factors in the womb are a huge factor in sexual orientation. From a evolutionary standpoint (of course many anti-gay types are also don't believe in evolution...) this makes PERfect sense.

If a pregnant woman is under stress - whether that's flight-or-fight stress (tigers chasing you regularly all the way to office stress), vitamin/food deficiency, dehydration (which most of America experiences chronically), or stress brought on by living in tight quarters with a high concentration of population, it is imperative (in our pre-civilization evolution) to trigger a response, to this scarcity of resources, in the expectant mother, such that some higher percentage of offspring are not going to reproduce upon reaching adult stage, thus lightening future burden on available resources.

This is why a pregnant doe's body will reabsorb her fetus in a harsh food-scarce winter, or why some populations of bunnies (known for procreating themselves to scarce resources) produce gay offspring. I expect we are no different and developed the same mechanisms (I bet in a stressed human population you also see a higher instance of miscarriages as well). So yes, you are probably born with your sexual orientation determined already, it having been decided in the womb (this SERIOUSLY explains the identical twin's likeliness of being gay too, I'd like to know if the chances for fraternal twins is also higher).

But you know, that would be, like, science and stuff. Those people are troglodytes. They would be the sort of people who would condem Galileo to life imprisonment of course.

Lynne said...

Oh and I should add - if you want to produce non-gay offspring (or have a lower chance of it anyways) if you are a troglodyte, then when you decide to become pregnant, make sure you drink 8-10 8oz glasses of water a day, eat whole grains, greens, and other vitamin-rich non-processed foods with decent proteins and all the right fatty acids and complex carbs you need, and meditate every day. Since these are things troglodytes do not do generally (it's soooo...HIPPY!) I expect we will continue to see a substantial percentage of gay offspring. Fine by me, as I see no difference between gay and straight people for purposes of determining how to interact with them.

But troglodytes have no one to blame but themselves for their gay offspring as I see it. *grin*

Mark D. Snyder said...

the spectrums... (my place marks ar the Xs)

sexual orientation

attracted to males attracted to females

gender identity

male intersex female

gender expression

masculine feminine

As you can see we can all land anywhere along the spectrum thus creating thousands of combinations. Gender expression is typically the most fluid of the bunch.

laurel said...

Lynn, you only have to look at the LGBT population at large to see that sexual orientation is NOT related to the desire to procreate. Many gay people deliberately have their own biological children ('life will find a way'?). So although your hypothesis (that resource limitations result in gay offspring who don't further add to the population) is interesting, and I applaud your willingness to look at humans in context with other animals, it probably wouldn't stand up to rigorous testing.