Zen101
Thank you for actually listening and trying to understand my view point and line questioning before thinking i’m a prejudice pig. I respect your answer to my question because you use logic instead of defensive taunts and insults. When I brought up anal sex I was using it as an example when explaining that vaginal intercourse in more natural because of vaginal secretions. I wasn’t commenting on how it’s wrong or stinctly for gay intercourse. The same with oral sex.
Scylla:
How did I justify it? By saying if you were born with the gay gene you’re a mutation? Why isn’t that true? Did I ever say gay people were bad? Did I ever say I didn’t agree with it? NO. I’m trying to base this entire debate on science. Read Zen101 because he seems to be able to explain my point of view much clearer then I can.
Esprix:
I fail to see how you can say a male couple is just as physically compatible as a male/female couple. But I do respect your opinion even though you feel I have no basis for this debate
read Zen101’s comment on mutations. Your getting defensive because you don’t like the word, but if you were born with the “gay gene” your a mutation…weither you like it or not. I’m not insulting you. Stop being so damn defensive
Actually, many of us think you are an illiterate prejudiced pig. Please keep those correctly spelled terms in mind.
Please. You are saying it is wrong and you are using fallacious reasoning to do it. You have no support for your claims and ignore anyone who says differently.
You are not basing this on science. You are basing it on your flawed ideas which seem to be more based in your own personal biases than rationality or science. There has been no scientific fact, just your empty hypothesizing.
Do you know what a hypothesis is? Do you realize it has to be proved before it can move beyond that point? Do you have opposable thumbs, or are you trying to still grow them?
You don’t have basis for this debate. A male couple in fact has something over a female/male couple… we can give and recieve. We are not limited to just getting screwed, but we can screw as well. Now, I know that your wife can put on a harness and strap one on, but that really isn’t the same thing. I think Satan was right… repressed homo wanting some dick. But I say that with love. Really and truly. And may lightning strike George W. Bush if I am lying.
when did i say homosexuality is wrong? NEVER. Now i know I’ve mistyped some words but NEVER said it was wrong. I’m just speaking common sense. Saying that i have no reasoning to support that vaginal sex is more natural then anal sex is WRONG. I’ve had vaginal sex with girls AND anal sex with girls. To me it’s common sense. So since your so persistence in personal insults, why don’t you stop reading this post and go find a hamster to play with. Or have you had a bad experience with one already?
It amazes me how bold you guys are over this computer. From a few simple comments i managed to piss every gay person off who read my post but i didn’t ONCE say homosexuality is BAD and it shouldn’t exist. Zen101 supported a few of my views but yet I’ve seen almost no comments directed towards him. why is that? Do you fine me calling you mutants offensive? FINE. But the next time you suffer from a bloody anus think about how natural lubrication would’ve made it so much easier
OK, I’m gonna do something I’m gonna regret in the morning.
I’m gonna post and not bash on Rook. In fact, I want to defend him on certain points.
I am training to be a Geneticist and a physician, and I teach a Human Sexuality Elective at a top-20 medical school.
Anal sex :
No matter how good it feels, the anus was not designed for sex. It was designed for defecation. Sorry. This is not passing judgement, it is a simple fact of biology.
After the anal verge, about 1 inch into the anus at the pectinate line, the epithelium changes from keratinized stratified squamous (like the skin) into simple columnar colonic epithelium. The vagina is stratified squamous, like the mouth (non keratinized). Due to the intracellular connections, stratified squamous is much more hardy and friction-resistant than simple columnar. Also, the watery vaginal secretion lends lubrication during sexual arousal. The stratified squamous epithelium and the vaginal microbial milleu also give extra protection against sexually transmitted disease.
IMHO : The prostate location abutting (ha ha) the anterior wall of the rectum is a happy coincidence. Another happy coincidence is that the innervation of the skin around the anus is by the sacral nerves S3 and S4, which also innervate the genitals.
So – anal intercouse is not wrong – that would imply a judgement. It is just, well, not the most advantageous situation.
Now, being gay is natural. I’d bet that it is even advantageous to a society to have homosexual members. I’ve seen it in horses. I’ve seen it in Cape Buffalo. I’ve seen it in bonobo pygmy chimpanzees.
Homosexuality is as natural as talking. Here’s why. While reproduction deals with individuals, evolution deals with populations. There is no individual benefit for talking to other people – if you are strong enough, you can still wrestle a mate. But, in order to maintain a population with order (and thus increase overall survivability of the individuals), we develop things that are advantageous to the population. Homosexuality is one of those, from the evidence I’ve seen. Whether it is an epigenetic (hormones, environmental cues, etc.) or a genetic phenomenon does not matter – it happens, and extensive work has shown you can’t change it. So, IMHO there is some reason why it happens, and that is because it is advantageous to the population.
So calling it “against nature’s intent” and a “mistake” and “detrimental to species survival” is somehow not calling it wrong? Just because you’re not calling in immoral does not mean you’re not denigrating it.
You’d probably have fewer problems with the law if you hadn’t just admitted in a public forum to having sex with children. Proofread, proofread.
Um, moderators? I do believe the above is Pit material.
For the record, I’m straight. The Straight Dope Message Board is about fighting ignorance. You have repeatedly been shown scientific evidence for a genetic basis of homosexuality, including an article by Cecil Adams himself. Yet you ignore all of these, start talking about anal sex, and wonder why people call you prejudiced.
He hasn’t been blabbering without backing up his statements. The only thing you’ve posted that wasn’t complete conjecture was that anal sex has a higher incidence of causing bleeding.
Read a book. And take your head out of your ass.
Yes, I think we do find that offensive.
Bloody anus? I’ve never had one from getting fucked. I was fucked twice last night. My ass is just fine, thank you very much. Ok… ass poll time. Who here who has gotten anally screwed has had a bleeding ass?
Why is it that gay people are expected to be constantly defending ourselves and justifying our existence and always expected to come up with some sort of “explanation” as to why we are what we are, and what went “wrong”?
When I look at most straight people, I wonder why they’re incapable of relating emotionally and romantically with members of their own gender. Are they genetic mutations, or did something go wrong when they were in their formative years? Did straight people have bad experiences with members of the same sex, and that’s why they “turned” straight?
Rook, there seems to be some conflicts in your statements. You stated earlier that homosexuality is a choice. Your logic for this is that the design of genetilia and sex hormones negates the possibility of “natural” homosexuality.
So in essence, we have no control over our body’s urge to procreate, therefore we can be nothing other than heterosexual. However, at the same time we have conscious control over our bodies’ responses to stimuli, therefore can choose to be homosexual?
So, which is it? Control or no control? Choice or genetic mutation?
Just to get overly personal for a moment…
As a woman, I can tell you that vaginal secretions cannot be turned on like a faucet. I don’t sit and think, “ok, I will secrete now”. No, I need stimuli. A illogical as it may sound, the thought of men, the sight of men, or the closeness of men doesn’t do it for me. Like anyone else, I react to hormones and pheronomes, just not in a way that you would predict.
Why is this so? I haven’t the foggiest. Being gay didn’t naturally endow me with a degree in genetics.
Homosexuality exists as a natural phenomenon, and you haven’t provided any scientific evidence that would demonstrate that it doesn’t. If you want people to argue on scientific terms with you, bring science into your argument and people will respond in kind. Thus far, your arguments have a reflected a philosophical slant.
Finally, the reason I’m responding to you and not Zen101, is that I agree with Zen101. It doesn’t bother me to discuss the science aspect. However, I am troubled when the discussion turns to the value of the mutation. It places me, and others like me, into the position of justifying our existence. A very uncomfortable position to be in.
hastur:
Rook:
[Moderator Hat ON]
Cool it, guys. Actually, one more insult, even a sneaky one, and this is going to visit Alpha, Lynn and John in the BBQ Pit. Rook, if this goes into the Pit you will get your ass flamed the likes of which you have never seen; it’s easy to insult when the rest of the posters are generally kept from returning fire out of respect for the rules of this forum, but there aren’t any rules against personal insults in the Pit. The rest of you, this is your chance to dispell a little ignorance here rather than just making him cling harder to his preconceptions. Your call.
[Moderator Hat OFF]
With all due respect, Gaudie, you’ve seen him not reply to direct questions taken to him, you’ve seen links submitted to him for his approval go uncommented on, and you’ve seen him go from a question to bringing up every negative and (stereo)typical response a homophobe would say.
I don’t see someone here who wants to have his ignorance erradicated. I see someone who came here to get validation of his views, and to lash out when he doesn’t get it.
A troll, essentially.
I, myself, am done responding to this individual. I’m sure this pleases you, Gaudie…
Yer pal,
Satan
*TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
Six months, two weeks, three days, 3 hours, 40 minutes and 9 seconds.
8006 cigarettes not smoked, saving $1,000.76.
Extra time with Drain Bead: 3 weeks, 6 days, 19 hours, 10 minutes.
I slept with a REPUBLICAN moderator!*
Hope spring eternal, Satan. 
Hey, he hasn’t even argued for outlawing homosexuality, like ORIONASSterisk did! Anyone can flame someone they don’t like…I thought we were Great Debaters. ::cue stirring music:: Poly, Gaud bless 'im, has even translated Rook’s posts into English for us! 
[sub](I can’t resist. I just can’t. The syntax, grammar and spelling are just sooo bad…)[/sub]
Okay, Rook, first of all, you said,
However, in your very first sentence in the OP, you stated,
I realize this is probably just an oversight rather than a blatant lie but I think it says much about the way you think.
Now, I just have to ask this question. If, as you repeatedly say, you:
and
and
and that you are
and
and to sum it all up, you
then my question is:
WHY THE HELL DO YOU CARE???
Either you are lying about the fact that you are not an ignorant, stubborn, homophobic bigot OR you are just trying to bother and irritate people.
Which is it?
If I was straight I’d marry you. Instead, I bequeath to you the Mighty Sceptre of Clue which you can beat a clue into people with. Use your new power liberally and beat a conga into the heads of the clueless.
Edwino, a brilliant post. Gaudere, you’ve hit on my Secret Mission in Life: to try to make what people say understandable to each other! (On the occasions they are trying to impart intelligence, that is.)
One thing Rook has done positively here: he’s made a lot of people see FriendofGod in a more positive light!
Rook, I’m going to say this quite simply, and I believe the moderators will back me up on it:
This forum exists for the dispelling of ignorance, like the rest of the board. If you make an assertion, you are expected to back it up with facts. You will notice that Edwino did precisely that, in extensive detail. And that his conclusion is far different from the one you seem to hold.
Item: “being gay is a choice.” Well, not on the anecdotal evidence of every gay person who has chosen to address the subject. In a non-confrontational atmosphere, most of them will admit that whether to practice any given sexual activity is in fact a choice. But the orientation, what and whom is desired and why, is not.
Item: “it’s unnatural.” Well, this depends greatly on what your definition of “natural” is. If sex were totally for procreation, you certainly would have a point. I gave some behavioral theory that indicates it is not. You’ve chosen not to address it. If gayness is “unnatural” then nonhuman animals, clearly “natural,” would not indulge in it.
Is it abnormal? Certainly. “Normal” in statistics is behavior engaged in by a majority of the population, and gay people are in a minority. But every one of us is abnormal in some way – we each do some things that the majority does not. (All we males constitute a minority, being 49+% of the population to the 51-% female majority, and I’m sure you can list off a series of things that only males do.)
As for your avowals of having nothing against gays, I remain quite skeptical. Your posts sound extremely homophobic and ignorant. (Please note that I am not calling you that – I’m describing my impression of the statements you’ve posted to this board. If you care to change anyone’s opinion, support your assertions with facts, debunk – if you can – the arguments put against you, and treat the other posters with respect (which they will reciprocate if and when you do.)
As the point has already been driven home, several times over and in several different ways, by my esteemed colleagues, I don’t see a reason to rehash it. Obviously you’re not getting it, and, frankly, I feel sorry for you since you seem to have such a limited, stunted view of the wide range of human sexuality.
Esprix
Actually, I wasn’t referring to your “mutation” comment at all - I was referring to your “most homosexuals choose to be gay” statement. It’s wrong. Flat-out. Completely. Do a little research before making these kinds of spurious statements. As I said, if you’re going to stand by this stance, we here at the SDMB expect some reliable support for it; otherwise, you’re making a fool of yourself.
From a purely genetic point of view, if homosexuality were actually only a matter of DNA, it still wouldn’t be a “mutation,” as it occurs naturally and often in nature, but the term is perfectly applicable to anything that occurs outside of what otherwise occurs naturally in Nature; homosexuality just isn’t one of them (again, as has been stated and re-stated many times over in this thread).
Personally, I wouldn’t mind being a genetic mutation. “X-Men” would take on entire new meanings… (Mmmm, Cyclops… :D)
Esprix
Rook: Please show us studies that prove that 4-10 year old choose to be homosexual.
Obviously they know all about what it means at that young age to be able to choose between differing orientations.
Actually, that’s not true, either, and I’ve done a little research on this. The anus (and I hope edwino can back me up on this - and thanks to him for a great, informed, intelligent post on the matter) has an extraordinarily strong musculature - you’d be amazed what you can put up there without having any problems. I just have three words - lube, lube, and lube. Unless you’re doing it raw, there is no more or less tearing of tissue than vaginal intercourse.
Esprix
Babe, you rock! 
Esprix