|
The Gospel according to Saint Thomas has a
homosexual bent to Jesus and no one knew anything about those female Baal altars
in the Israeli homes, since the bible mentions nothing of it.
Contemporary archeology turned them up. Today Lillith is a character on a
TV show but everyone knows Abraham and Isaac. You are referring to
official histories but the men have been the writers and controllers of
that. The same is true of the heterosexual population.
This has been gone over before and I've made my point except for one last
thing. There are always three histories going at once in Western
Society. The official polite history, the common agreement
history and the vulgar history. Vulgar coming from the same root
that vulva, vulgate, etc. meaning wound. Valhalla is even a
derivitive "Hall of the Wounded." The Vulgar is
usually the most complete while the common is the contemporary
acceptable. The Polite is the one that carries forward in
sacred and academic texts until someone finds an altar to Baal Ashtoreth in
a middle class first century group of homes. That changes things and
gets us back to the wound. In this society the most wounded of the
day are called "Gay" and that should say something in
itself.
I won't comment any more on
this.
REH
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2003 7:52
AM
Subject: [Futurework] Gay at birth?
Before anybody attempts to shoot me down by
quoting the article in today's New York Times, all I would say is that
I agree with the writer, Nicholas Kristof. There are two few studies involving
too small a number of experimental subjects to make any sort of judgement yet.
And, as he also writes, there's a great deal of emotional capital tied up in
this matter of proving a genetic link and experimenter bias is likely to be
very high in this particular sort of investigation. However, if there
were a specific linkage I would have thought that something definite would
have been found by now -- and this would be able to be confirmed very
readily.
For my part, I'm prepared to say that the degree of
homosexuality we see around us today is probably far greater than at any time
in history and this bespeaks something very unusual, such as high stress. (Or
it could be the large amount of artificial contraceptive hormones that are
being dispensed into our sewage systems and some from thence into our drinking
water. This is certainly becoming a serious matter in England where many fish
are found to be changing into females.) Anyway, for the time being,
homosexuality is certainly hardly mentioned in the literature, apart from
being mentioned in a few individual cases such as Michael Angelo, Alexander
the Great, etc.
Keith Hudson
<<<<
GAY AT
BIRTH?
Nicholas D. Kristof
Some people say we should settle gay
rights disputes on the basis of the Old Testament. I say we should rely on
blinking patterns.
In case you've misplaced your latest copy of
Behavioral Neuroscience, there's a fascinating article about how people blink.
It turns out that when males and females are exposed to a loud noise, they
blink in somewhat different ways --except that lesbians appear to blink like
men, not like women.
The study (peer-reviewed but based on a small
sample) is the latest in a growing scientific literature suggesting that
sexual preferences may be not simply a matter of personal preference but part
of our ingrained biology. Indeed, some geneticists believe that sexual
orientation in men (though not women) may be determined in part by markers in
the Xq28 chromosomal region.
One needs to be wary of these kinds of
studies, partly because researchers drawn toward this field may have
subconscious biases of their own. Moreover, many of the studies on the
biological basis of homosexuality are flawed by small numbers or by the
difficulty of finding valid random samples of gays and
heterosexuals.
Still, while the data has problems, it is piling up --
there are at least seven studies on twins. If there is a genetic component to
homosexuality, one would expect identical twins to share sexual orientation
more than fraternal twins, and that is indeed the case. An identical twin of a
gay person is about twice as likely to be gay as a fraternal twin would
be.
Earlier this year, the journal Personality and Individual
Differences published an exhaustive review of the literature entitled
"Born Gay?" After reviewing the twin studies, it concluded that 50 to 60
percent of sexual orientation might be genetic.
Many studies also
suggest that sexual orientation may be linked to differences in brain anatomy.
Compared with straight men, gay men appear to have a larger suprachiasmatic
nucleus, a part of the brain that affects behavior, and some studies show most
gay men have a larger isthmus of the corpus callosum -- which may also be true
of left-handed people. And that's intriguing because gays are 39 percent more
likely to be left-handed than straight people.
Now look at your
fingers. Men typically have a ring finger that is longer than the index
finger, while in women the two are about the same length. However, two studies
have suggested that lesbians have finger-length ratios that are more like
those of men than of women.
Studies suggest that ring-finger length has
to do with the level of androgens in the womb, and that may help explain
another puzzle of homosexuality a male is more likely to be gay if he has
older brothers. It doesn't matter if he has older sisters, but for each older
brother he is about 33 percent more likely to be gay. Some scientists
speculate that a woman's body adjusts the androgen level in her womb as she
has more sons, and that the androgens interact with genes to produce
homosexuality.
O.K., these theories are potentially junk science until
the studies are replicated with much larger numbers. But we also shouldn't
ignore the accumulating evidence.
"There is now very strong evidence
from almost two decades of `biobehavioral' research that human sexual
orientation is predominantly biologically determined," said Qazi Rahman, the
University of London researcher who led the blinking study. Many others don't
go that far, but accept that there is probably some biological
component.
Gays themselves are divided. Some welcome these studies
because they confirm their own feeling that sexual orientation is more than a
whim. Others fret that the implication is that homosexuals are abnormal or
defective -- and that future genetic screening will eliminate people like
them.
For me the implication, if these studies are to believed, is
different It is that something is defective not in gays, but in discrimination
against them.
A basic principle of our social covenant is that we do
not discriminate against people on the basis of circumstances that they cannot
choose, like race, sex and disability. If sexual orientation belongs on that
list (with the caveat that the evidence is still murky), then should we still
prohibit gay marriage and bar gays from serving openly in the armed
forces?
Can we countenance discrimination against people for something
so basic as how they blink -- or whom they love?
New York Times --
25 October 2003
Keith Hudson, Bath, England, <www.evolutionary-economics.org>, <www.handlo.com>, <www.property-portraits.co.uk>
|
