Homosexuality & Anterior hypothalamus

Discussion in 'Human Science' started by ArtofWar, Dec 20, 2005.

  1. Happeh Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,263
    Sure it is. Who controls USA media, corporations, politicians and judges? Israel.

    When something goes wrong, the people at the top always take the blame. Whether they actually did it or not, they are in charge, so they take responsibility.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Buddha1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,219
    Perhaps you can convince the scientific community to look at this new cause of 'homosexuality'. They are looking for all kind of wierd ideas.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Dec 22, 2005
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    So getting really drunk so you fall over will do it?I didn't know that.
    Is that what occured in your case?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Buddha1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,219
    You didn't? It's an age old way to become (or to make your pal) part time 'gay' --- and it works everytime!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Get a drink, talk about girls and jerk off with your pal because there are no girls available at the moment.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  8. Happeh Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,263
    Don't have to. They already have. I can tell by the studies being released. I said I have been talking about this for 5 years. I sent messages to scientists and the FDA. There are 3 new scientific studies that in a roundabout way relate to what I talk about.

    Maybe it is Karma. Maybe we all have the same idea at the same time. Maybe someone read my stuff and got inspired. No way to really know.
     
  9. Happeh Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,263
    Are you an adult? You know your point is silly. Why say something purposefully foolish?
     
  10. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    I have been purposely foolish to highlight your own unintentional foolishness. I did not expect you to understand or appreciate it, for I was laughing at you, not with you.
    Since you do not appear to value my opinion, these remarks should not cause you even momentary discomfort.
     
  11. Happeh Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,263
    You can laugh all you want. Doesn't make you right. If your mind opens at some point, and you wish to discuss the issue, let me know.

    Otherwise, you can sit in your chair in front of your computer and laugh all you want. I am easy to get along with. Go ahead and laugh away.
     
  12. Hercules Rockefeller Beatings will continue until morale improves. Moderator

    Messages:
    2,720

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Oh that's great. Now there are two lunatic crackpots crapping on about homosexuality.<P>
     
  13. Buddha1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,219
    I don't see how what Happeh is crapping about is any more crappy than the 'anterior hypothalamus' or theory or "PPI" or 'pheromones' theory. Just because the other crap has got the sanction of 'science' and carry fancy sounding names don't make them any better!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  14. Buddha1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,219
    What Happeh is talking about are myths circulated by religion in the past. 'Anterior Hypothalamus' and "PPI", are myths created by modern science. They both serve to persecute sex between men. But admittedly, Science takes the cake.
     
  15. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Messages:
    24,066
    This thread started rather promising with even a correctly spelled thread title and a promise of scientific content. But now it is time to sit back and brake out the popcorn and watch the comedy unfold.
     
  16. Buddha1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,219
    You want some scientific hogwash?
     
  17. Buddha1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,219
    Let's talk about another study which tries to forcefully tries to concretise this artificial divide, by openly and blatantly misrepresenting and misinterpreting their own finding. And the media lapping up to strengthen its heterosexualisation agenda. (I'm beginning to believe --- also based on the way western media is behaving in my own country --- that media is the biggest player in the heterosexualisation of a society):

    So this study seeks to measure PPI (for details click here) --- the Pre-pulse inhibition which is believed not to be a learned response and can really prove for us eventually, that 'gays' are indeed different. A little manipulation here and there and it should do the trick.

    So, this guy Quazi Rahman, together with his team gathers a huge amount of sample --- commensurate with the importance of the study he is undertaking --- all of 59 people including homos, heteros, lesbian butches and heterosexual (sic) women.

    As for his collection of 'homosexual' (sic) men, no doubt (considering the final analysis he gave) most of his collection included the typical feminine gendered males that homosexual community is made up of, although he does not mention their gender. Science does not give gender, importance. It's not your gender that makes you behave differnently ---- sheesh, it is your sexual orientation (sic) that does. Of course the same does not apply to the 'heterosexual' samples. They will never include a transvestite or a transexual heterosexual in their 'heterosexual' sample. Well, after all 'trans' have a different 'social' identity, so here they are ruled out because of their feminne gender.

    And it really does not matter, if the macho 'heterosexual' guy they picked after confirming that his behaviour tallies with Rambo of the movie fame, after the study, picks up a guy from the 'homosexual' sample for some fun during the weekend, after giving his girlfriend an excuse. Of course, he'd just be experimenting.

    So, after all this hard work and 'careful' sampling, what result do they get: --- That lesbians are greatly different from 'heterosexual' women, but (the following underlined sentence is a link)no statistically significant difference between gay (sic) and heterosexual (sic) men . (What! inspite of all the careful sampling of fem queens and macho heteros!)

    So you'd think that this would mean that they cannot go ahead with their all important objective of giving scientific stamp to the 'othering' and feminising of same-sex behaviour as yet --- not on the basis of this theory. But you're are mistaken.

    His own results don't prevent the Rahman guy from giving scientific approval to this divide. He gives sweeping generalisations and talks about, ".....a brain basis of sexual orientation", and goes on to claim in the published paper that his study supports the "vast amount of growing evidences" (apparently his are added to the heap!) that show that 'homosexuals' (sic) are different from 'heterosexuals' (sic).

    And although his research proves nothing of the sort for men, he quickly jumps to his conclusion (which he had soooo expected from his studies but was disappointed) that : (in his own words!) ".....on those occasions that gays and lesbians do present with psychiatric problems, they often show disorders that are typical of the opposite sex," Rahman says. Gay men, for example, may be more likely to suffer depression, anxiety and eating disorders than their straight counterparts, while lesbians may be more vulnerable to substance abuse than heterosexual women."

    If you're wondering how his research establishes this, he is just forwarding his opinions along with his research work so that his opinions also get publicity side by side.

    In the meantime, if you ever feel depressed or anxious or develop eating disorders when you're stressed, do examine the possibility that you could be gay --- the scientific opinion heavily points to the possibility.

    And 'real' men, you know what is the 'manly' stuff to go to a psychiatrist with --- why of course substance abuse! That is the latest test of your masculinity!

    His research also 'establishes' (God knows how!) that 4% of men and 3% of women are 'homosexuals'.

    The best part is that in the end he has the cheeks to sermon the following:
    "It's important not to draw too many generalizations. "It's not that the gay brain is like the heterosexual brain of the opposite sex. It seems to be a mosaic of male and female typical traits," Rahman says. "Because we're looking at humans, thing are always more complicated that you would expect."

    Science thou are indeed great!
     
    Last edited: Dec 26, 2005
  18. Buddha1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,219
    I've edited the above, so pl. read again. The underlined sentencess refer to links.
     
  19. Buddha1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,219
    Even NARTH agrees that these scientists are dishonestly trying to ascribe biological basis of gender onto a so-called biological basis of 'sexuality'.

    According to this link:

    The factors identified in this and other studies seem to be factors that masculinize females and feminize males, which results in gender-atypical development.

    Yet an October 6, 2003 article by reporter Amanda Gardner in Health Day News, and trumpeted on the internet by Yahoo, mischaracterizes the study's scope and findings with the headline, "Startling Study Says People May Be Born Gay."


    My own comment: If they compared 'heterosexual' transgendered people with who they call 'homosexuals' they'll find them sharing the same biological traits.

    And if they compared what they call 'heterosexuals' (whether or not this category really exists) with macho 'gays' (sic) they will again find no difference.
     
  20. Buddha1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,219
    Yet this small number of difference that they encoutnered can easily be noticed in any two groups, however similar! E.g., you could have divided the 'heterosexual' group into two, and done the study again. Chances are that the results of one of the groups will be slightly different from the other.
     
  21. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Messages:
    24,066
    You don't believe in science and yet you quote a scientific study to support your beliefs.

    btw:
    Do you know why scientists often include such a sentence? It's because of people like you.
     
  22. Buddha1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,219
    Spuriousmonkey, I'm sure you're not so much dumbo or ignorant about my viewpoint as you're faking to be. Are you deliberately trying to mislead. Of course I'm not supporing the above scientists. I'm claiming that the scientists are misleading us. I have quoted the study only so that the reader can see for himself what I'm saying --- of how scientists sometimes mislead.

    Have you really read the piece above before shooting your post?

    Sure, I was not the one who made the a very generalised claim like "Homosexuality is a failure biologically" and then slipped off when asked to prove! That's generalisation.

    And if you noticed, the scientist quoted above while cautioning against generalising --- goes off to do exactly the same.
     
  23. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    homosexuality literaly means "same sex"
     

Share This Page