quote:Originally posted by ** Ahmad**: imagine all of the world is gays and lesbians,who could we reproduce?!
LOL, I don't think the world has reproducing problem, quite the opposite Especially in Egypt.
quote:Originally posted by ** Ahmad**: I do not care about them ,just i care when they spread their ideas,DISATER.
Can you tell me more, what ideas do you mean? If you mean their interest in the same sex, it doesn't work that way. No one can talk anyone into being gay or lesbian! Or can someone persuade you to be a gay I don't think so.
quote:Originally posted by ** Ahmad**: I do not agree that people are born as homos ,people are born as ordinary people.
I think there is scientific proof about that, so whether you agree or not doesn't change any facts. Besides - who really WANTS to be a gay/lesbian in Egypt since they are treated so badly here (and in other countries as well). It's not that you chose to be a gay/lesbian. Did you choose to be "normal"?
You know it's a shame. You really have no idea that your arguments are just not well thought out and laughable. I wouldn't even call them arguments. You the exact same crap as Ahmed. Void of any substance. [/QB]
What is a shame? Being a gay? That's your opinion.
As for your crap opinion - yes that's exactly so (bravo you saw it and understand) in some parts regarging my arguments. Why - I guess some people would have the time and show Ahmed some real arguments, but why bother? Crap for crap, that's what it is, he won't understand anyway. I won't waste my time and go googling for any studies or spend time here writing long responses to him. In fact, I actually should stop reading them so I wouldn't be wasting my time even for writing short crap responses Posts: 758 | From: Finland | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am still amazed at those who say that some people are born homosexual!!
Can you post a scientific study that says so ?
also at LF what are the animals that are born homsexual?
@cloud
the disaster in their ideas that they do not want any babies/no pregnancy no parental responsibilty......which is so selfish indeed imagine a world of gays and lesbinas !
they will not reproduce at all !disaster!
Posts: 2417 | From: Cairo | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
There will never be a world entirely made up of gays and lesbians, so what's your problem? As has been pointed out to you, tolerating homosexuals does not mean that everyone else will become homosexual too. It is NOT a contagious condition.
And what about barren people? What about monks and nuns? What about people who simply don't want to have children? Should we kill them too, or forbid them to "spread their ideas"? Should people who don't want to reproduce be forbidden to speak about their choice?
Besides, I am surprised that as someone who is supposedly so fond of scientific research, you are not being aware that overpopulation of our planet is currently a major issue, and that's what's going to lead to desaster. So why should we worry about a small percentage of people who don't want to reproduce? That is just ridiciulous.
Posts: 2803 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
also at LF what are the animals that are born homsexual?
Homosexual behavior is widespread amongst social birds and mammals, particularly the sea mammals and the primates
Bagemihl's research shows that homosexual behavior, not necessarily sex, has been observed in close to 1500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, and is well documented for 500 of them
posted
Btw., I forgot to add that there are many gay and lesbian people who love, want, and have children. Being homosexual does not mean the person has no desire to raise a child.
Btw., I forgot to add that there are many gay and lesbian people who love, want, and have children. Being homosexual does not mean the person has no desire to raise a child.
Many LGB people are parents through various means including current or former relationships, adoption, donor insemination, foster parenting, and surrogacy. In the 2000 U.S. Census, 33 percent of female same-sex couple households and 22 percent of male same-sex couple households reported at least one child under eighteen living in their home. Some children do not know they have an LGB parent; coming out issues vary and some parents may never come out to their children. LGBT parenting in general, and adoption by LGBT couples in particular, are issues of ongoing political controversy in many Western countries, often seen as part of culture wars between conservatives and social liberals. In January 2008, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that same-sex couples have the right to adopt a child. In the U.S., LGB people can legally adopt in all states except for Florida.
The scientific research has consistently shown that lesbian and gay parents are as fit and capable as heterosexual parents. Research has documented that there is no relationship between parents' sexual orientation and any measure of a child's emotional, psychosocial, and behavioral adjustment. The literature indicates that parents’ financial, psychological and physical well-being is enhanced by marriage and that children benefit from being raised by two parents within a legally-recognized union.
In 2006, the American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association and National Association of Social Workers stated in an amicus curiae brief presented to the Supreme Court of California:
When comparing the outcomes of different forms of parenting, it is critically important to make appropriate comparisons. For example, differences resulting from the number of parents in a household cannot be attributed to the parents’ gender or sexual orientation. Research in households with heterosexual parents generally indicates that – all else being equal – children do better with two parenting figures rather than just one. The specific research studies typically cited in this regard do not address parents’ sexual orientation, however, and therefore do not permit any conclusions to be drawn about the consequences of having heterosexual versus nonheterosexual parents, or two parents who are of the same versus different genders. Indeed, the scientific research that has directly compared outcomes for children with gay and lesbian parents with outcomes for children with heterosexual parents has been remarkably consistent in showing that lesbian and gay parents are every bit as fit and capable as heterosexual parents, and their children are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as children reared by heterosexual parents. Amici emphasize that the abilities of gay and lesbian persons as parents and the positive outcomes for their children are not areas where credible scientific researchers disagree. Statements by the leading associations of experts in this area reflect professional consensus that children raised by lesbian or gay parents do not differ in any important respects from those raised by heterosexual parents. No credible empirical research suggests otherwise. Allowing same-sex couples to legally marry will not have any detrimental effect on children raised in heterosexual households, but it will benefit children being raised by same-sex couples.
As noted by Professor Judith Stacey, of New York University: “Rarely is there as much consensus in any area of social science as in the case of gay parenting, which is why the American Academy of Pediatrics and all of the major professional organizations with expertise in child welfare have issued reports and resolutions in support of gay and lesbian parental rights”. Among these mainstream organizations are in the United States the American Psychiatric Association, the National Association of Social Workers, Child Welfare League of America, the American Bar Association, the North American Council on Adoptable Children, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychoanalytic Association, the American Academy of Family Physicians, in the United Kingdom, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, and in Canada, the Canadian Psychological Association.
quote:Originally posted by ** Ahmad**: I am still amazed at those who say that some people are born homosexual!!
Can you post a scientific study that says so ?
also at LF what are the animals that are born homsexual?
@cloud
the disaster in their ideas that they do not want any babies/no pregnancy no parental responsibilty......which is so selfish indeed imagine a world of gays and lesbinas !
they will not reproduce at all !disaster!
I posted studies of fetal reports but your selective reading alongside your selective thinking got in the way AGAIN.
I don't want to have babies and I am not a lesbian; am I still considered dangerous?
read this, delve into the scientific studies of the human brain note the symmetry Of homosexual brain resembles that of opposite sex.
If you consider arguing against scientists, given your track record of knowing virtually nothing, I may have to report you to the mod for being a copmplete moron.
Then... educate yourself on the scientific research that can be carried out in the womb... again, not breaking news!
Then go on to any childs webpage and study homosexuality in animals... really, this is common knowledge.
I have taught a grade 3 girl today who could join ES and write about gay animals!
Posts: 11097 | From: Cairo | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
There is initial punishment till they repent or they will get killed.
KILLING is ISlam is noteasy ,it is so hard to have the permission in Islam to kill anyone even if he killed someone.,it must go through long procedures to get this permission Do not forget that individuals do not have the right to kill,only authorities ,
Posts: 2417 | From: Cairo | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ** Ahmad**: I am still amazed at those who say that some people are born homosexual!!
Can you post a scientific study that says so ?
also at LF what are the animals that are born homsexual?
@cloud
the disaster in their ideas that they do not want any babies/no pregnancy no parental responsibilty......which is so selfish indeed imagine a world of gays and lesbinas !
they will not reproduce at all !disaster!
I posted studies of fetal reports but your selective reading alongside your selective thinking got in the way AGAIN.
I don't want to have babies and I am not a lesbian; am I still considered dangerous?
read this, delve into the scientific studies of the human brain note the symmetry Of homosexual brain resembles that of opposite sex.
If you consider arguing against scientists, given your track record of knowing virtually nothing, I may have to report you to the mod for being a copmplete moron.
Then... educate yourself on the scientific research that can be carried out in the womb... again, not breaking news!
Then go on to any childs webpage and study homosexuality in animals... really, this is common knowledge.
I have taught a grade 3 girl today who could join ES and write about gay animals!
sorry if I missed your report ,reading it ight now
Posts: 2417 | From: Cairo | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
also at LF what are the animals that are born homsexual?
Homosexual behavior is widespread amongst social birds and mammals, particularly the sea mammals and the primates
Bagemihl's research shows that homosexual behavior, not necessarily sex, has been observed in close to 1500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, and is well documented for 500 of them
posted
In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.
All praise and thanks are due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon His Messenger.
Dear questioner, we would like to thank you for the great confidence you place in us, and we implore Allah Almighty to help us serve His cause and render our work for His Sake.
We must be aware that in regulating the sexual drive Islam has prohibited not only illicit sexual relations and all what leads to them, but also the sexual deviation known as homosexuality. This perverted act is a reversal of the natural order, a corruption of man's sexuality, and a crime against the rights of females. (The same applies equally to the case of lesbianism)
Responding to the question, the eminent Muslim scholar Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, states the following:
The spread of this depraved practice in a society disrupts its natural life pattern and makes those who practice it slaves to their lusts, depriving them of decent taste, decent morals, and a decent manner of living. The story of the people of Prophet Lut (Lot) (peace be upon him), as narrated in the Qur'an should be sufficient for us. Prophet Lut's people were addicted to this shameless depravity, abandoning natural, pure, lawful relations with women in the pursuit of this unnatural, foul and illicit practice. That is why their Prophet Lut (peace be upon him) told them, (What! Of all creatures, do you approach males and leave the spouses whom your Lord has created for you? Indeed, you are people transgressing (all limits)!) (Ash-Shu`araa' 26: 165-166)
The strangest expression of these peoples' perversity of nature, lack of guidance, depravity of morals, and aberration of taste was their attitude toward the guests of Prophet Lut (peace be upon him); these guests were angels of punishment in human form sent by Allah to try these people and to expose their perversity. The Qur'an narrates the story thus: (And when Our messengers came to Lut, he was grieved on their account and did not know how to protect them. He said, 'This is a day of distress.' And his people, who had long since been practicing abominations, came rushing toward him. He said, 'O my people, here are my daughters. They are purer for you, so fear Allah and do not disgrace me in front of my guests. Is there not a single upright man among you?' They said, 'Thou knowest well that we have no right to thy daughters, and certainly thou knowest what we want.' He said, 'If only I had strength to resist you or had some powerful support!' Said (the angels) 'O Lut, truly, we are messengers of thy Lord; they shall not reach thee....)(Hud 11: 77-81)
Having said this, I should stress here that Muslim jurists have held differing opinions concerning the punishment for this abominable practice. Should it be the same as the punishment for fornication, or should both the active and passive participants be put to death? While such punishments may seem cruel, they have been suggested to maintain the purity of the Islamic society and to keep it clean of perverted elements.
Wa `alaykum as-salaamu warahmatullahi wabarakatuh.
In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.
All praise and thanks are due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon His Messenger.
Dear brother, thanks for your question. We hope that our answer will meet your expectations.
First of all, it should be clear that Muslim scholars are in agreement and have reached consensus—based on what has been revealed in the Qur’an and what has been authenticated in the Prophetic Sunnah—on prohibiting both gayness and lesbianism because in each of two actions there is an assault on the humanity of a person, destruction of the family and a clash with aims of the Lawgiver, one of which is the establishment of sexual instincts between males and females so as to encourage the institution of marriage.
In his response to the question, Dr. Muzammil Siddiqi, president of the Fiqh Council ofNorth America, states the following:
Homosexuality is sinful and shameful. In Islamic terminology it is called al-fahsha' or an atrocious and obscene act. Islam teaches that believers should neither do the obscene acts, nor in any way indulge in their propagation. Allah says, [Those who love (to see) obscenity published broadcast among the Believers will have a grievous penalty in this life and in the Hereafter: Allah knows, and you know not.] (Al-Nur 24: 19)
Normally, Muslims find it distasteful to get engaged in making the issue a fine topic of discussion because we know that sometimes evil is spread through discussion. When people hear a wrong and sinful act mentioned repeatedly, they get used to it and then slowly it looses its gravity in their minds and souls.
But nowadays this act has become a phenomenon. There are agencies and lobby groups that are working hard to propagate it and to make it an acceptable and legitimate lifestyle. For this reason it is important that we should speak against it. We should warn our youth and children from this devilish lifestyle. We should make it very clear that it is haram, absolutely forbidden, and that it kindles the wrath and anger of Allah.
The word 'homosexuality' is a neutral word. It does not convey its pejorative and sinful nature. This word is used nowadays as if it were just another type of normal sexual behavior.
In the Islamic literature, however, it is always referred to with its negative connotations. In modern Arabic literature it is called shudhudh which means 'abnormality'.
In our fiqh literature, it is referred to as the 'Behavior of the People of Lut' or `amal qawm Lut.
This immediately reminds a person that this is something bad that makes one subject to the punishment of Allah. No sooner had our minds get used to this idea than we develop a natural abhorrence towards it. Furthermore, when Muslims discuss this or similar haram acts, they often say, "A`adhana Allah min dhalik" or May Allah protect us from this. This is the adab that we should follow when we talk about it. We should call this behavior with its negative title and we should ask Allah's protection from it when we speak about it.
As far your second question about how we should deal with homosexuals, we should consider them people who get themselves engaged in a sinful act. We should deal with them in the same way we deal with any people who are involved in alcoholics, gambling or adultery.
We should have deep repugnance to their acts and we must remind and warn them. Those who insist on this lifestyle, consider it legitimate and feel 'gay pride', we should not associate with them and should not take them as friends. We should certainly avoid those people. If we see a person who has committed this sin and wants to repent then we should help that person as much as we can to get out of this evil. We should not leave him/her to the temptations of the Satan.
posted
This Article discusses the "Gay" Brain stuff:
The Zombie Media’s Hunger For Gay Brains
Brains! Give me gay brains! The global media has been moaning this week, arms outstretched and flailing, sightless eyes staring fixedly ahead.
You can hardly have missed this story.
We’ve been here several times before, most recently with the story about ‘gay drivers being as bad as women’, but the press clearly can’t get enough of this kind of ‘gay science’. Especially when it appears to confirm the popular, consoling and time-honoured view of gay men as women’s souls trapped in men’s bodies.
The only intelligent piece I’ve read on this story was by Mark Liberman, kindly forwarded to me by my friend David Halperin. It debunks the headlines about ‘gay brains’ rather, er, brainily.
It’s also worth pointing out that, as is usually with this kind of brain research, these differences – if they exist rather than being an artefact of sampling – have not been shown to be innate. The brain is ‘plastic’ and the differences in size could have been in effect ‘learned’, or be the product of behaviour and not t’other way around. That’s to say, shopping for shoes and salad with gal pals might increase the part of your brain that ‘processes emotion and language’. If this rather important proviso was mentioned in the news reports at all, it was right at the end.
And of course, you only have to think for less than a minute about the claim that gay men and straight women have the ’same brains’, especially when it comes to the area that ‘processes emotion’, to see a major flaw with this apparently ‘common sense’ finding. I mean, how many hetero women – or lesbians – have the same attitude towards emotion-free sex that gay men have?
Far more significant than the findings of the research was the way it was reported. As Liberman points out, none of the stories headlined with ‘Lesbian brains are the same as straight male brains’. Almost all of them were a variant of ‘Gay male brains the same as heterosexual women’s brains’
To be fair, most of the research in this area isn’t terribly interested in lesbians either. That’s because the problem that needs to be explained from a biological determinist point of view, is human males who don’t impregnate women – which is what ‘male’ means to such people – and instead, in their view, try to impregnate other men, or be impregnated by them. Women, on the other hand, only exist to be impregnated from a biological determinist point of view, so their ‘orientation’ is utterly irrelevant.
Which should tell you all you need to know about biological determinism.
Gays who hope that this kind of research will deliver them from the ‘it’s a choice’ religious right and ‘it’s unnatural’ homophobes are possibly jumping out of the moralist frying pan into the eugenic fire. Of course, they wouldn’t be the first. Magnus Hirschfeld (and also Karl Ulrichs) the ‘father’ of the modern gay rights movement believed that homosexual men were women’s souls trapped inside men’s bodies. Homosexuals should not be persecuted and criminalised, in Hirschfeld’s view, because they couldn’t help themselves, and, more to the point, as women trapped inside men’s bodies, they weren’t really homosexual at all – they were congenitally confused heterosexuals with a hormonal imbalance. When they had sex with another male they were trying, in their own ‘crippled’ way, to be faithful to their heterosexual impulses.
Then along came the Nazis, who largely agreed with Hirschfeld about crippled, congenital homosexuals not being real men, but had a rather different view about what this meant – i.e. degeneracy – and, of course, what to do about this. Which, in additin to concentration camps, included operating on them to find the causes of their heriditary weakness, and injecting them with massive quantities of male hormones (though the latter of course is something they pay good money for these days).
Back to the possibly eugenic future: In the real world, as opposed to the one of psychobiology, gay and straight men are more and more difficult to tell apart, both in terms of appearance, behaviour and even sexual practises. So I look forwards to the research into which part of the brain is responsible for straight men spending most of their sexual lives masturbating to online porn, or why so many of them favour anal or oral sex when confronted with an actual female – predelictions which, from a biological determinist point of view, aren’t really so different from homosexuality.
Human sexuality is far more perverse and cunning and kinky than poor square old biological determinists can ever accept, because for them heterosexuality is necessarilly the same thing as reproduction which is the same thing as sex. When much of human culture has been very energetically devoted to making sure that these things aren’t the same.
In a sense, homosexuality represents one of the crowning (over-) achievements of that energy. And perhaps that’s the very reason there remains such an intense, curious, and sometimes murderous, ambivalence about it – as shown by the countless and continuing attempts to explain it away. http://www.marksimpson.com/blog/2008/06/20/the-zombie-medias-hunger-for-gay-brains/
Heres another study on the "Gay" Brain stuff:
Annals of Essentialism: sexual orientation and rhetorical asymmetry June 18, 2008 @ 7:33 am · Filed by Mark Liberman under The language of science
There's been a lot of discussion, both in the mainstream media and on the intertubes, of a study that came out a couple of days ago in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: Ivanka Savic and Per Lindström, "PET and MRI show differences in cerebral asymmetry and functional connectivity between homo- and heterosexual subjects", PNAS, 6/16/2008.
And in this case, the study's rhetorical reception is more interesting than the study itself.
Let's start with a minor point of interest: the way that MSM editors chose to spin their headlines. Like the study's title in PNAS, the headline of the PNAS press release treated the four categories in the study equivalently: "Symmetry of Homosexual Brain Resembles That Of Opposite Sex, Swedish Study Finds". And a few news outlets took this same path: "Gay Brain Structure Similar to Straight Opposite Sex", Bloomberg; "Homosexual brain resembles that of opposite sex", AFP; "Scientists Link Brain Symmetry, Sexual Orientation", Wired News; "Gay brains structured like those of the opposite sex", New Scientist.
However, the great majority of headline writers took another approach.
Some laid it out as a discovery about homosexuals: "What the Gay Brain Looks Like", Time; "Scans see 'gay brain differences'", The BBC; "Brains of homosexuals are different", Times of India.
Others — the largest group — laid it out in terms of the similarity of homosexual men and heterosexual women: "Gay men and heterosexual women have similarly shaped brains, research shows", The Guardian; "Gay men and straight women share brain detail", Reuters; "Study: Gay Men, Straight Women Share Brain Characteristics", Fox News; "Gay men and heterosexual women have similar brains, study finds", The Telegraph; "Gay Men, Straight Women Have Similar Brains", Washington Post; "Scans find gays' feminine side is in the brain", Times Online; "Gay Men, Straight Women Have Similar Brains", National Geographic; "Why straight women and gay men get along so well", 680 News; "Gay Men, Straight Women Share Same Brain", eCanada Now; "Women 'share same emotional brain traits' as homosexual men", Daily Mail; "Gay men and straight women have similar brains", Salon.
I found only one headline that highlighted the similarity of homosexual women and heterosexual men, and this was a painful pun in the satirical IT rag, The Register: "Lesbians like straight men, researchers find". (Well, there was a blog post "Straight men and gay women have similar brains" by Daniel Cressey at Nature, making this same meta-analytic point about the distribution of headlines.)
There were no headlines of the form "What the straight brain looks like", or "Brains of heterosexuals are different, study finds".
Scientific American's headline was ambiguous, and false on both readings: "Study Says Brains of Gay Men and Women Are Similar". This might attribute similarity to "gay [men and women]", i.e. to gay men and gay women; or it it might be parsed as "[gay men] and women", i.e. gay men and women of whatever kind. Either way, it's wrong.
But much more interesting than the headlines, in my opinion, was the uniformly essentialist language in which all sources describe the study's results. In this respect, the journalists all follow the PNAS press release:
Ivanka Savic and Per Lindström, of the Department of Clinical Neuroscience at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden, now report that the brains of heterosexual men and homosexual women are slightly asymmetric—the right hemisphere is larger than the left—and the brains of gay men and straight women are not. [emphasis added]
It's natural to read this as a prediction about the brains of individual men and women. If you're a heterosexual male or a homosexual female, then your cerebral hemispheres will be slightly asymmetric. If you're a homosexual male or a heterosexual female, then your cerebral hemisphere will not have this property. Right? Nope, sorry, not even close.
Let's ignore the problematic assumption that all humans divide neatly into these four categories of sexual orientation, and assume that we're talking about people at the extreme ends of the Kinsey scale (though I don't think this is actually true of the study in question). [Added later: yes it was — the HeM and HeW were 0, the HoM 6, and the HoW 5.5 on the Kinsey scale — sorry, I missed that earlier.] What did the study actually find about brain symmetry? Here's the crucial table (click on the image for a larger version):
Among the 25 heterosexual males in the study, the average size of the right cerebral hemisphere was 624 cc, and the average size of the left cerebral hemisphere was 612 cc, or about 1.9% smaller. Among the 20 homosexual women in the study, the right hemisphere averaged 548 cc, while the left hemisphere averaged 543 cc, or about 1.5% smaller.
OK, "slightly asymmetric", we're with the program so far.
And the 25 heterosexual women averaged 581 cc on the right, and 581 on the left; while the 20 homosexual males averages 608 on the right and 609 on the left.
OK, check. Slight asymmetry for the straight males males and the lesbians, not for the gay guys and the straight women.
But wait a minute. There are those ± thingies, the "standard deviations". If the cerebral-hemisphere volumes are distributed "normally", as we would expect, and if the estimates of means and standard deviations in the table were actually the true population values values, then we can calculate what the expected distribution of hemispheric volumes (and the expected distribution of hemispheric asymmetries) will look like, for individuals within each sex-by-sexual orientation category. And when we do that, a completely different picture emerges.
For the heterosexual males in the study, the distribution of right and left hemispheric volumes is predicted to look like this
And among the individuals in this group, the right hemisphere will be greater than the left hemisphere about 57.9% of the time, while the left hemisphere will be greater about 42.1% of the time. (Assuming independence — which is an inappropriate assumption, since the variables are probably correlated…) This predicts that among the 25 HeM subjects in the study, 14 should exhibit the "characteristic" right-greater-than left asymmetry, while 11 do not.
For the 25 HeW women, since their average values are equal, half will be predicted to be asymmetrical in one direction, and half in the other — this predicts that 12 or 13 should show the right-right-than-left asymmetry supposedly characteristic of heterosexual males, while 12 or 13 do not.
If we do the same calculations for the means and standard deviations reported for the other categories, we get predictions that might have been presented as follows:
Rightward hemispheric asymmetry was found in the brains of 14 of 25 heterosexual males and 11 of 20 homosexual females, but in only 13 of 25 heterosexual females and 10 of 20 homosexual males.
How much media play do you think the study would have gotten, if the results had been spun like that?
Or to put it another way, how many readers of the media descriptions do you think understood the story in those terms?
[added later: As Brett points out in a comment, the fact that the hemisphere sizes are correlated means that assuming independence decreases the effect. To allow for this, I should instead look at the by-category means and standard deviations of their "asymmetry index" AI = (R-L)/(R+L), and estimate how often this will be greater or less than 0. This predicts results like:
Rightward hemispheric asymmetry was found in the brains of 18 of 25 heterosexual males and 17 of 20 homosexual females, but in only 11 of 25 heterosexual females and 10 of 20 homosexual males.
If that's how it came out, it's a more striking result — but still far from categorical…]
I'm not arguing that this paper's results are scientifically meaningless, just that they don't mean what nearly everyone reading the media coverage — and the PNAS press release — thinks they mean.
[While we're discussing the details of the study, I should point out one other possible issue. The authors tell us that "The inter-rater correlations was [sic] 0.85 … for cerebral hemispheres", which is not a wonderful number, given that we're looking for a one or two percent difference in samples of 20 or 25.]
The re-spun numbers I've just given are the likeliest outcomes given the cited means and standard deviations, but the actual counts were no doubt different, because with such small sample sizes, the outcomes for different samples are likely to vary quite a bit. The study's authors don't give us the actual numbers, but they do give some information to suggest that the situation is not quite as bad as my numbers suggest, though it is still a long way from the essentialist implications of their discussion:
A post hoc evaluation detected asymmetry exceeding two standard deviations of that in HeW (who were hypothesized to have symmetrical volumes) in 1 HeW, 4 HoM, 7 HoW, and 12 HeM.
I'm a bit puzzled about how 12 out of 25 HeM could wind up with asymmetries greater than 2 standard deviations, given a difference in means of 12 cc on standard deviations of 43 and 41, i.e. mean left and right hemispheres differing by about 0.28 standard deviations. Either there's something funny about the distribution, or I'm not understanding the statement correctly. But even on this way of presenting things, which I'm sure was selected to make the groups seem as different as possible, it's clear that we're looking at a graded set of differences, not a categorical distinction.
[added later: Oh, I think I see what they did. They're looking at the distributions of their "asymmetry index" (AI), (R-L)/(R+L), expressed in terms of the standard deviation of the AI for HeW, which was 0.005. Thus the average HeM AI of 0.012 ±0.02, which differs from 0 by 0.012/0.02 = 0.6 of a standard deviation in terms of its own standard deviation, differs from 0 by 0.012/0.005 = 2.4 if you measure it in terms of the variability in the HeW distribution. So if you look at the individual HeM AIs, it could well be true that almost half of them are more than two HeW standard deviations away from zero. If this is what they did, it's is tricky language at best, it seems to me…]
Where does this confusion come from? Well, there's statistical illiteracy on the part of flacks, journalists and the general public. And this ignorance is fertile ground for a certain kind of quasi-dishonest hucksterism on the part of the flacks (who are paid to make things seem more interesting), the journalists (who will get better placement for more interesting-seeming stories), and, alas, the scientists as well, who are also interested parties.
But from a more abstract perspective, perhaps the problem is a linguistic one. The modern English language lacks good resources for discussing sampled properties of groups, in the same way that the Pirahã language is inadequate for dealing with arithmetic (see "The Pirahã and us", 10/6/2007, for some additional discussion of this point).
You could argue that this is just a lexical and cultural problem. We already have words and phrases like "distribution" and "percentile" and "standard deviation" and "effect size"; maybe the problem is that most people don't understand these concepts, and even those that understand them don't bring them to mind when they should.
But I think it's not quite that simple. It's hard to banish plural nouns and other simple and natural ways of referring to groups, as in these quotations from the Savic and Lindström paper:
HeM and HoW showed a rightward cerebral asymmetry, whereas volumes of the cerebral hemispheres were symmetrical in HoM and HeW.
HeM and HoW had significantly asymmetrical hemispheric volumes … In contrast, no asymmetry was detected in HeW or in HoM.
And once statements of this kind are on the table, it's hard not to take them as shorthand for universally-quantified generalizations, or (more likely) assertions about group archetypes or prototypes.
I don't have a solution to propose. But it's clear to me that we have a problem.
[I should mention in passing that Savic and Lindström's results about PET-derived amygdala connectivity can't be evaluated in the way that I've evaluated their hemispheric asymmetry data, because they only present pooled group data, in which
Functional connectivity was defined as the extent to which normalized rCBF in seed VOIs covaried with pixel-based rCBF values across the investigated subjects. The normalized rCBF was extracted from circular (5-mm) VOIs covering the right and left amygdala … Significant covariations … were calculated by using the entire brain as search space (multisubject condition and covariate analysis within SPM2).
That is, they looked for covarying brain regions within all of the pooled data for heterosexual males, all of the pooled data for homosexual females, etc. As a result, I don't see any way to characterize the amount of individual variation within each sexual-orientation group, or to compare it to the differences between groups. Based on the nature of their experiments, and what I know about the amount of individual variation in such experiments, I suspect that if you tried classify individuals' sex and sexual orientation on the basis of this data, the results would not show any sort of crisp or categorical differentiation.
One other aspect of their study puzzled me. The most striking fact about the measured hemispheric volumes, it seems to me, were the differences between groups in overall brain size. Thus the total cerebral volumes were these
HeM 1236 HeW 1162 HoM 1217 HoW 1091
The fact that the heterosexual men's brains (well, the cerebral cortex parts) were about 6.4% larger than the heterosexual women's brains is as expected. But the fact that the heterosexual women's brains were on average about 6.5% larger than the homosexual women's brains was not something that I expected. (And the effect size in this comparison is apparently about 1.7-1.9, guessing from the standard deviations of the hemispheric measurements, which is a pretty big effect.) The heterosexual men's brains were about 1.6% larger on average than the homosexual men's brains. (Here the effect size is probably only about 0.4 to 0.5.)
The authors don't comment on this — maybe it's a well-known effect that I've missed, though I can't find it in a quick glance at the literature on the neurology of sexual orientation — but I wonder about it. If it's real, it's a much larger effect than the differences in asymmetry, and it presumably means something important. If it's an artefact of some sort that doesn't replicate, then it calls other aspects of the study into question.]
posted
yes I agree king and my study brings me to the conclusion that this thread has degenerated into a copy paste bunch of bollocks which shows you lot have NO way of thinking for yourselves or tolerating anything beyond your own area of experiences, which is sadly lacking.
-------------------- If you don't learn from your mistakes, there's no sense making them. Posts: 15090 | From: http://www.egyptalk.com/forum/ | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ayisha: this thread has degenerated into a copy paste bunch of bollocks which shows you lot have NO way of thinking for yourselves or tolerating anything beyond your own area of experiences, which is sadly lacking.
Indeed.
I fail to understand what Mr. al Qaradawi's or Mr. Muzammil Siddiqi's fatawa have to do with any of the points being raised here. And who cares about their opinions anyway? Posts: 2803 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ** Ahmad**: up till now all I have found is "Homosexual rare and exceptional in Animal kingdom!"
Are you referring to the wikipedia text linked above? Because that's not what it says there.
Homosexual behavior is widespread amongst social birds and mammals, particularly the sea mammals and the primates.
"Widespread" is the opposite of "rare and exceptional".
quote:Originally posted by Lady Ferret: I don't want to have babies and I am not a lesbian; am I still considered dangerous?
Well, according to Ahmad's logic, you are very selfish and should not be allowed to spread your disastrous ideas.
Imagine a world made up of people like you. Disaster and exctinction! You should be punished until you repent, if you don't, you should get killed.
Posts: 2803 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
The last link is a national geographic documentary!! Please do not humiliate yourself further and deny this basic well known fact.
Posts: 11097 | From: Cairo | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Lady Ferret:
I don't want to have babies and I am not a lesbian; am I still considered dangerous? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, according to Ahmad's logic, you are very selfish and should not be allowed to spread your disastrous ideas.
Imagine a world made up of people like you. Disaster and exctinction! You should be punished until you repent, if you don't, you should get killed.
Disatrous ideas I will repent on my deathbed... gives me more time to be an evil biatch.
Like the world will stop reproducing... like that will happen, how else will chavs get free houses and regular cash from the Government in England if they don't churn babies out Posts: 11097 | From: Cairo | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Homosexual Activity Among Animals Stirs Debate
Birds do it, bees do it, even educated fleas do it. So go the lyrics penned by U.S. songwriter Cole Porter.
Porter, who first hit it big in the 1920s, wouldn't risk parading his homosexuality in public. In his day "the birds and the bees" generally meant only one thing—sex between a male and female.
But, actually, some same-sex birds do do it. So do beetles, sheep, fruit bats, dolphins, and orangutans. Zoologists are discovering that homosexual and bisexual activity is not unknown within the animal kingdom.
Roy and Silo, two male chinstrap penguins at New York's Central Park Zoo have been inseparable for six years now. They display classic pair-bonding behavior—entwining of necks, mutual preening, flipper flapping, and the rest. They also have sex, while ignoring potential female mates.
Wild birds exhibit similar behavior. There are male ostriches that only court their own gender, and pairs of male flamingos that mate, build nests, and even raise foster chicks.
Filmmakers recently went in search of homosexual wild animals as part of a National Geographic Ultimate Explorer documentary about the female's role in the mating game. (The film, Girl Power, will be screened in the U.S this Saturday at 8 p.m. ET, 5 p.m PT on MSNBC TV.)
The team caught female Japanese macaques engaged in intimate acts which, if observed in humans, would be in the X-rated category.
"The homosexual behavior that goes on is completely baffling and intriguing," says National Geographic Ultimate Explorer correspondent, Mireya Mayor. "You would have thought females that want to be mated, especially over their fertile period, would be seeking out males."
Well, perhaps, in a roundabout way, they are seeking males, suggests primatologist Amy Parish.
She argues that female macaques may enhance their social position through homosexual intimacy which in turn influences breeding success. Parish says, "Taking something that's nonreproductive, like mounting another female—if it leads to control of a resource or acquisition of a resource or a good alliance partner, that could directly impact your reproductive success."
Sexual Gratification
On the other hand, they could just be enjoying themselves, suggests Paul Vasey, animal behavior professor at the University of Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada. "They're engaging in the behavior because it's gratifying sexually or it's sexually pleasurable," he says. "They just like it. It doesn't have any sort of adaptive payoff."
Matthew Grober, biology professor at Georgia State University, agrees, saying, "If [sex] wasn't fun, we wouldn't have any kids around. So I think that maybe Japanese macaques have taken the fun aspect of sex and really run with it."
The bonobo, an African ape closely related to humans, has an even bigger sexual appetite. Studies suggest 75 percent of bonobo sex is nonreproductive and that nearly all bonobos are bisexual. Frans de Waal, author of Bonobo: The Forgotten Ape, calls the species a "make love, not war" primate. He believes bonobos use sex to resolve conflicts between individuals.
Other animals appear to go through a homosexual phase before they become fully mature. For instance, male dolphin calves often form temporary sexual partnerships, which scientists believe help to establish lifelong bonds. Such sexual behavior has been documented only relatively recently. Zoologists have been accused of skirting round the subject for fear of stepping into a political minefield.
"There was a lot of hiding of what was going on, I think, because people were maybe afraid that they would get into trouble by talking about it," notes de Waal. Whether it's a good idea or not, it's hard not make comparisons between humans and other animals, especially primates. The fact that homosexuality does, after all, exist in the natural world is bound to be used against people who insist such behavior is unnatural.
In the U.S., in particular, the moral debate over this issue rages on. Many on the religious right regard homosexuality as a sin. And only this month, President Bush vowed to continue his bid to ban gay marriages after the Senate blocked the proposal.
Already, cases of animal homosexuality have been cited in successful court cases brought against states like Texas, where gay sex was, until recently, illegal.
Yet scientists say we should be wary of referring to animals when considering what's acceptable in human society. For instance, infanticide, as practiced by lions and many other animals, isn't something people, gay or straight, generally approve of in humans.
Human Homosexuality
So how far can we go in using animals to help us understand human homosexuality? Robin Dunbar is a professor of evolutionary psychology at the University of Liverpool, England. "The bottom line is that anything that happens in other primates, and particularly other apes, is likely to have strong evolutionary continuity with what happens in humans," he said.
Dunbar says the bonobo's use of homosexual activity for social bonding is a possible example, adding, "One of the main arguments for human homosexual behavior is that it helps bond male groups together, particularly where a group of individuals are dependent on each other, as they might be in hunting or warfare."
For instance, the Spartans, in ancient Greece, encouraged homosexuality among their elite troops. "They had the not unreasonable belief that individuals would stick by and make all efforts to rescue other individuals if they had a lover relationship," Dunbar added.
Another suggestion is that homosexuality is a developmental phase people go through. He said, "This is similar to the argument of play in young animals to get their brain and muscles to work effectively and together. Off the back of this, there's the possibility you can get individuals locked into this phase for the rest of their lives as a result of the social environment they grow up in."
But he adds that homosexuality doesn't necessarily have to have a function. It could be a spin-off or by-product of something else and in itself carries no evolutionary weight."
He cites sexual gratification, which encourages procreation, as an example. "An organism is designed to maximize its motivational systems," he adds.
In other words, if the urge to have sex is strong enough it may spill over into nonreproductive sex, as suggested by the actions of the bonobos and macaques. However, as Dunbar admits, there's a long way to go before the causes of homosexuality in humans are fully understood.
He said, "Nobody's really investigated this issue thoroughly, because it's so politically sensitive. It's fair to say all possibilities are still open."
quote:Originally posted by Ayisha: this thread has degenerated into a copy paste bunch of bollocks which shows you lot have NO way of thinking for yourselves or tolerating anything beyond your own area of experiences, which is sadly lacking.
Indeed.
I fail to understand what Mr. al Qaradawi's or Mr. Muzammil Siddiqi's fatawa have to do with any of the points being raised here. And who cares about their opinions anyway?
Copy and paste bunch of bollox... could not have worded it better myself.
I know of a gay Brit living in Alex, he and the locls up there are having a great time I found out last night he may come to Cairo for a weekend... boy will he have fun here.
Posts: 11097 | From: Cairo | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Originally posted by Lady Ferret: Ahmad, if you were the last man alive I woud definately become a lesbian
I reckon 'woud' is would and 'definately' would be definitely I assume...are you really British ?? or is it the 'Stella effect' ? Posts: 3219 | From: Wisdom comes with age, but sometimes age comes alone. | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Originally posted by Lady Ferret: I was a cockney according to you this morning.
so where do you really think I am from?
Huh ?? I never ever said you were a Brit., all I said was you had the style of a cockney, gibberish with letters missing out..
You must be from Heliopolis, well at least that's what your profile says.. Posts: 3219 | From: Wisdom comes with age, but sometimes age comes alone. | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lady Ferret: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Lady Ferret:
I don't want to have babies and I am not a lesbian; am I still considered dangerous? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, according to Ahmad's logic, you are very selfish and should not be allowed to spread your disastrous ideas.
Imagine a world made up of people like you. Disaster and exctinction! You should be punished until you repent, if you don't, you should get killed.
Disatrous ideas I will repent on my deathbed... gives me more time to be an evil biatch.
Like the world will stop reproducing... like that will happen, how else will chavs get free houses and regular cash from the Government in England if they don't churn babies out
I really ask myself why people do not like to hve babies?!
After all they were babies!
might be because they hate the idea that they were brought to life !
why did you change your name!
from LF to MF!
weird staff!
what heart do you have if you do not want some of those angelic creatures known as babies!
it makes my heart melt down when I look at those wonderful creatures,really. and you are Egyptian man too!
Posts: 2417 | From: Cairo | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, I am an Egyptian man and I hate the idea Iwas brought to life. You guys make such perfect sense that from now on I will just agree
I know plenty of ladies who do not want children. Some of us simply are quite happy with life as it is. I do not want to change my life. I am in my prime, partying and loving it.
Makes your heart melt down... oh god do I hate sappy boys!!! Grow some balls.
Posts: 11097 | From: Cairo | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that Qradawy Fatwa is almost RELIGIOUSLY CORRECT ,can you say something else?!
Posts: 2417 | From: Cairo | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't like cats much either... or most Egyptian food. I think it is called personal preference. sorry, for having one.
There was a 6 week old baby here yesterday!!! It shite, cried and screamed. HOW does that make anything melt other than your nose and ears.
Sorry Dude, if you are reading I will make it up to him when he is walking and talking I did tell you I don't like babies... so at is not much of a shock!!!
I think it is more selfish for poor families with no income to bring a child into a world where they cannot provide for it to the standard s/he deserves...
Right, I am off out to enjoy the life I have chosen and choose to keep. PARTY Posts: 11097 | From: Cairo | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ** Ahmad**: it is called mercy !!
You are constantly speaking about punishing and killing people ... for not believing what you believe in, for supposedly mocking prophets, for being homosexual, etc. pp. You have no empathy whatsoever for anyone who does not want to live, think, feel like you do.
And you have the nerve to talk about mercy?
Regarding having children as a sign of mercy -- there are countless orphans in this world who are in desparate need of a loving home and parents. It would be a sign of true mercy if people took one of those orphans and gave him or her a chance for a better future, rather than putting more children into this already overpopulated world.
There are countless people who have children out of entirely selfish reasons, wanting to procreate is not a sign of mercy at all.
Posts: 2803 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ** Ahmad**: it is called mercy !!
You are constantly speaking about punishing and killing people ... for not believing what you believe in, for supposedly mocking prophets, for being homosexual, etc. pp. You have no empathy whatsoever for anyone who does not want to live, think, feel like you do.
And you have the nerve to talk about mercy?
Regarding having children as a sign of mercy -- there are countless orphans in this world who are in desparate need of a loving home and parents. It would be a sign of true mercy if people took one of those orphans and gave him or her a chance for a better future, rather than putting more children into this already overpopulated world.
There are countless people who have children out of entirely selfish reasons, wanting to procreate is not a sign of mercy at all.
some people cannot have children either, do you judge those Ahmad???
I would consider adopting in the future. I have been in 3rd world orphanges as a volunteer and I would love to help out.
Ahmad would only show mercy till the kid was old enough to diagree then he would want it slayed in public!
Posts: 11097 | From: Cairo | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: On the other hand, they could just be enjoying themselves, suggests Paul Vasey, animal behavior professor at the University of Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada. "They're engaging in the behavior because it's gratifying sexually or it's sexually pleasurable," he says. "They just like it. It doesn't have any sort of adaptive payoff."
Matthew Grober, biology professor at Georgia State University, agrees, saying, "If [sex] wasn't fun, we wouldn't have any kids around. So I think that maybe Japanese macaques have taken the fun aspect of sex and really run with it."
The bonobo, an African ape closely related to humans, has an even bigger sexual appetite. Studies suggest 75 percent of bonobo sex is nonreproductive and that nearly all bonobos are bisexual. Frans de Waal, author of Bonobo: The Forgotten Ape, calls the species a "make love, not war" primate. He believes bonobos use sex to resolve conflicts between individuals.
Someone should send this study to Mr. al Qaradawi who claims that female animals only want to have sex during their fertile period and suggests that women are the same; supposedly their libido is significantly lesser than men's, thus polygamy is the perfect solution for the "always willing" males, and a really great thing.
It never ceases to amaze me how "eminent scholars" manage to completely disregard simple scientific facts and embarrass themselves by making the most ridiculous allegations, based on their personal preconceptions and ignorance. Posts: 2803 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
I wonder if you consider the real mercy for killing a killer!
Quran says that killing a murder is mercy and another life ,look at the verse.
Yes ,killing is mercy for certain situations indeed ,think deep you will find that .
and you issued some points about babies my answer ,yes I did some of them ,not all
for adopting cjildren ,it is prohibitted in Islam but it has another name known as Al-kafala,which is another concept.
I guess you have to get the real mening of the word Rahmah translated as mercy (btw,both of them are not precisely one one correspondance,the Arabic word has more deep meaing)
@LF,
you are talking about salying,yes it is mercy to kill him if he murdered someone ,
IT IS MERCY.
Posts: 2417 | From: Cairo | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am a pacifist, I don't actually believe in harming others*, I believe in punishment. Murder is murder, irregardless of why you are killing them.
In my new religion that you permitted me to invent ahmad, I would not allow anybody who kills other people or insects (except wasps and cockroaches) into my afterlife party
*Unless someone hurt my family and I would take their throat out with a spoon
- but in general... I don't believe we have the right to kill others.
Killing people is wrong so they must be killed... Quite funny how folk cannot see the backwards ass notion this gives off.
It is the same as when I see Mothers shouting at their children for shouting or smacking them for smacking someone else. Monkey see monkey do!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posts: 11097 | From: Cairo | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- If you don't learn from your mistakes, there's no sense making them. Posts: 15090 | From: http://www.egyptalk.com/forum/ | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Man Ferret: into my afterlife party
I would say something but never consider it offensive.
You are agnostic and the notion of afterlife means there is SOME GOD there ,Do you think you will have a party then ?
and somrthing else ,you posted vids for animals and you say they are homos,
since when we compare Humans to Animals?!
Even if animals were homos ,this does not make it ok to Humans,Animals kill each other ,so should humans kill each other too ? and you the one who hates killing?
or you take what you find good for your agenda and leave the others
Posts: 2417 | From: Cairo | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ** Ahmad**: I wonder if you consider the real mercy for killing a killer!
Quran says that killing a murder is mercy and another life ,look at the verse.
Yes ,killing is mercy for certain situations indeed ,think deep you will find that .
I have no clue what you are trying to say, those sentences are pretty much incomprehensible.
quote:Originally posted by ** Ahmad**: and you issued some points about babies my answer ,yes I did some of them ,not all
Good.
I still believe you have a very unrealistic view of what it means to have children. Bringing a child into this world is a huge, life-long responsibility, very rewarding but also extremely frustrating and exhausting at times.
Raising a child to become a happy, stable person and a productive member of society requires an enormous effort, and I noticed that people who are aware of this before having children, who are not cooing about every baby they see, often seem to cope much better with the reality of it than people who believe it's only about love, romance and cuddles, and having a cute little baby.
They dispel the fact that the baby and toddler stage is a very short one, that having a child also means coping with a rebellious teenager, or a young adult who might resent his parents or their values at some stage, and many other things. They don't think about how stressful even the cutest toddler can be, about temper tantrums, putting your own wishes and aspirations completely aside for a considerate amount of time and so on.
Not everyone is fit to be a parent, not everyone wants to be a parent, and that's fine, we all have a different path and purpose in life. It is definitely more responsible and "merciful" to be honest to yourself and stay childless than having a kid out of selfish reasons without thinking about the consequences, or having a kid just because you believe you have to, or because it's expected from the society you're living in. There are enough people in this world already who are completely screwed up because of the way their parents raised them, because they were psychologically or physically abused, or because their parents simply were not fit to raise them properly.
Posts: 2803 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ** Ahmad**: since when we compare Humans to Animals?!
For example when we claim that adulterers have to be stoned because the prophet saw a group of monkeys stoning an adulterous monkey.
Or when Mr. al Qaradawi says that women are "like cows, buffalos, or she-goats; they desire the stallion, ram, or bull only when they want to become pregnant. ... This is nature, and woman is this way too." See my post above.
Strange how people chose to take animals as an example when it suits their agenda, and dismiss their behaviour when it doesn't suit them.
Btw., you still have not answered the question about the disastrous ideas that homosexual people are supposedly spreading.
Posts: 2803 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ** Ahmad**: since when we compare Humans to Animals?!
For example when we claim that adulterers have to be stoned because the prophet saw a group of monkeys stoning an adulterous monkey.
Or when Mr. al Qaradawi says that women are "like cows, buffalos, or she-goats; they desire the stallion, ram, or bull only when they want to become pregnant. ... This is nature, and woman is this way too." See my post above.
Strange how people chose to take animals as an example when it suits their agenda, and dismiss their behaviour when it doesn't suit them.
so by that logic women who cant have children for whatever reason will never 'want' sex
quote:Btw., you still have not answered the question about the disastrous ideas that homosexual people are supposedly spreading.
quote:Originally posted by *Dalia*: Btw., you still have not answered the question about the disastrous ideas that homosexual people are supposedly spreading
I answered that !
I told you them having sex with others will Cause Humans to distinct also do not forget AIDS
Posts: 2417 | From: Cairo | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Especially in Egypt. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
I don't think so.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic