Steve Oh: It’s Not About Being Gay, It’s About Hijacking Christianity


1) When a religious denomination declares that they accept homosexuality, well good for them.

2) But when a religious denomination declares that they are true, loving, rightly guided Christians and that Christianity accepts homosexuality, they are in effect accusing every other Christian denomination of being false, hateful and wrong on Scripture and doctrine for not accepting homosexuality.

Steve Oh sums up my views nicely in this letter in Malaysiakini, specific excerpts:

Gay or straight we all have to deal with our sexuality
Steve Oh
Sep 29, 10
1:43pm

Malaysiakini writer, Helen Ang, commented in one of her columns, ‘My take: If Bangsar Malaysians want to puff out their chests like roosters and point everyone to admiring their tail feathers of ‘Liberal Compassion’, go right ahead. But in the case of them bashing conservative Christians as being ‘fundamentalists’ and ‘full of hate’ for objecting to the gay Reverend’s insistence that Christian teachings have no issue with homosexuality, I, (even as a non-Christian) find it to be too much to stomach.’

I am not interested in discussing the gay issue, only setting the record straight on Christianity’s view on homosexuality… My primary concern is to correct the gay Christian heresy not homosexuality, an ancient practice already denounced by Christianity and even Islam, the country’s official religion. Hong said many left Christianity implying they could not stomach its traditional stand against homosexuality.

Well, many also forsook Jesus when he told them things they could not accept. And that is the litmus test of faith – shape up or ship out. You can’t change religious dogmas to suit yourselves. But you can be saved from the wrath of God if you repent. My views were published in a letter some weeks ago. Ultimately gays with spiritual needs and who find comfort in Christianity will do better to adopt sound teaching than the fluffy faith of a false Christianity.

It is one thing to be gay, as it is a fundamental right to be whatever people choose to be, but it is another matter to misrepresent Christianity. If gays are not prepared to pay the price of discipleship by following sound teaching they should examine themselves and see if they are really in the faith.

I am a friend of gays and want those who want to be Christian to have the real thing not a counterfeit Christianity of which there are many in the world today.

The Bible is not a sex manual but a book of religious truth and moral guidelines and we know it says homosexuality is wrong because God created a man and a woman and gave them the command to procreate. Sex is not only for procreation but recreation as the Bible also suggests but within the sacred institution of marriage between a man and a woman.

If people enjoy anal sex, that is their business but it does not negate the scientific view that the anus is not made for sex and there is the risk of damaging the body part and anal intercourse makes one more vulnerable to catching an infection from the act, gay or straight.

Before we lose sight of the real debate it is not about gays. It is about the hijacking of Christianity by certain gays.

His points gel with my arguments in Bible Passages That Oppose Homosexuality – Including the Words of Jesus and God Himself (particularly the parts about procreation and recreation within marriage, under ‘THE MAN HIMSELF – JESUS CHRIST’ section).

The context of his letter is to do with what I debated with Yuki over a long time ago.

On infection rates thru anal sex, see the statistics at Public Health Hazards That Should be Banned: Smoking vs Homosexuality.

And as for my post title, it’s inspired by similar themes in Who Is Hijacking Whose Christianity?.


53 Responses to “Steve Oh: It’s Not About Being Gay, It’s About Hijacking Christianity”

  1. Zack T Says:

    I can see Ron or Robert coming here to share some of their wisdom…. again.. haha

  2. Zack T Says:

    Is Steve Oh a Christian or just someone who is rather knowledgeable about Christianity? Cause in one statement he wrote “even as a non-Christian”.. but yet, his understanding of the Christian’s position is a lot better than even some of the regular non-Christian commentors in this blog…

  3. Scott Thong Says:

    No no, he’s talking about Helen Ang in that line. I’ve bolded it for better clarity.

  4. Simon Thong Says:

    Steve Oh is a christian, a Penang boy who studied and worked in NZ and now lives in Perth, Australia. He and I have been friends since 1975. Solid in faith and understanding.

  5. Robert Says:

    Thanks for the intro, Zack. Homosexuality is a genetic condition, not a lifestyle choice. Enjoy.

  6. Zack T Says:

    I’m curious,Robert.

    Can you explain to us how that is so?

    What is the science behind this ‘genetic’ condition of homosexuality?

    Honestly, I’ve yet to see any such documentary explaining and showing such things.

  7. baraka Says:

    Fruit flies are among the most sexually proficient creatures on earth. Their ability to produce a new generation in two weeks has made them the darlings of genetics researchers for nearly a century. Put a male fruit fly into a bottle with a female, and he doesn’t waste any time before getting down to business.

    So it’s a bit bewildering to watch the behavior of certain fruit flies at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland. There, in the laboratories of biologists Ward Odenwald and Shang-Ding Zhang, strange things are happening inside the gallon-size culture jars. In some experiments, the female flies are cowering in groups at the top and bottom of the jars. The males, meanwhile, are having a party–no, an orgy — among themselves.

    With a frenzy usually reserved for chasing females, the males link up end-to-end in big circles or in long, winding rows that look like winged conga lines. As the buzz of the characteristic fruit fly “love song” fills the air, the males repeatedly lurch forward and rub genitals with the next ones in line.

    What’s going on?

    Without a wink or a chuckle, Odenwald claims that these male fruit flies are gay — and that he and Zhang made them that way.
    http://www.skeptictank.org/gaygene.htm

  8. Simon Thong Says:

    Are people fruit flies?

  9. baraka Says:

    Genetically speaking, people and fruit flies are surprisingly alike, explains biologist Sharmila Bhattacharya of NASA’s Ames Research Center. “About 61% of known human disease genes have a recognizable match in the genetic code of fruit flies, and 50% of fly protein sequences have mammalian analogues.”
    http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2004/03feb_fruitfly/

  10. baraka Says:

    Genetically speaking, people and fruit flies are surprisingly alike, explains biologist Sharmila Bhattacharya of NASA’s Ames Research Center. “About 61% of known human disease genes have a recognizable match in the genetic code of fruit flies, and 50% of fly protein sequences have mammalian analogues.”…
    http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2004/03feb_fruitfly/

  11. baraka Says:

    The Fruit Fly in You
    http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2004/03feb_fruitfly/

  12. pomegranate Says:

    We have a lot in common.
    That’s why fruit flies, known to scientists as Drosophila melanogaster, are commonplace in genetic research labs. They can be good substitutes for people. They reproduce quickly, so that many generations can be studied in a short time, and their genome has been completely mapped. “Drosophila is being used as a genetic model for several human diseases including Parkinson’s and Huntington’s,” notes Bhattacharya.
    http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2004/03feb_fruitfly/

  13. baraka Says:

    The Fruit Fly in You

    February 3, 2004: Fruit flies are bug eyed and spindly, they love rotten bananas, and, following orders from their pin-sized brains, they can lay hundreds of eggs every day.

    We have a lot in common.

    see captionGenetically speaking, people and fruit flies are surprisingly alike, explains biologist Sharmila Bhattacharya of NASA’s Ames Research Center. “About 61% of known human disease genes have a recognizable match in the genetic code of fruit flies, and 50% of fly protein sequences have mammalian analogues.”

    Right: Side by side, a female and a male fruit fly.

    That’s why fruit flies, known to scientists as Drosophila melanogaster, are commonplace in genetic research labs. They can be good substitutes for people. They reproduce quickly, so that many generations can be studied in a short time, and their genome has been completely mapped. “Drosophila is being used as a genetic model for several human diseases including Parkinson’s and Huntington’s,” notes Bhattacharya.

    They’re about to become genetic models for astronauts.

    -NASA

  14. Simon Thong Says:

    Can they be good substitutes for people? Scientists think so, but that’s good enough for me. The match isn’t close enough.

  15. tangerang Says:

    Human connection

    Fruit flies share nearly 60% of human genes and are studied by thousands of scientists around the world. The reason is that fruit flies and humans use the same or similar genes to develop into adults. And the short life cycle of the fly makes it an ideal subject for genetic experiments.

    Professor Gerry Rubin, from the University Of California, Berkeley, worked with the Celera Genomics Corporation to decipher the fruit fly’s DNA sequence: “They can become addicted to alcohol, cocaine and other drugs. They have a wake-sleep cycle like humans do. They have complicated rituals of behaviour.

    “So in many ways they’re really fully functional animals with a brain and behaviour, in addition to sharing many of the biochemical pathways humans have.”
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/647139.stm

  16. tangerang Says:

    “When we understand the neural circuits of a fruit fly’s brain, we will be able to know which neuronal cells or genes go wrong and then fix them,” he said.
    http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2010/07/25/2003478800

  17. Simon Thong Says:

    Correction: what those scientists say are NOT good enough for me.

    “So in many ways they’re really fully functional animals with a brain and behaviour, in addition to sharing many of the biochemical pathways humans have.” My objection is that this reduces humans to the level of fruit flies. Reductionism.

    “When we understand the neural circuits of a fruit fly’s brain, we will be able to know which neuronal cells or genes go wrong and then fix them,” he said. Yes, fix them IN FRUIT FLIES. And yes, keep playing around in the lab with flies but stop being deluded. From fruit flies to you? ahem.

    If it is so simple as arguing from fruit flies to humans, why does the FDA require such lengthy testing and stringent procedures (including finally testing on humans) before approval of any new drug?

  18. tangerang Says:

    What Five FDA Letters Mean for the Future of DTC Genetic Testing
    http://www.genomicslawreport.com/index.php/2010/06/11/what-five-fda-letters-mean-for-the-future-of-dtc-genetic-testing/

  19. tangerang Says:

    The preacher, in his Sunday sermon, used “Forgive Your Enemies” as his subject.
    After a long sermon, he asked how many were willing to forgive their enemies.
    About half held up their hands.

    Not satisfied, he harangued for another twenty minutes and repeated his question…
    This time he received a response of eighty percent.

    Still unsatisfied, he lectured for fifteen minutes and repeated his question.
    With thoughts of Sunday dinner, all responded except one old gentleman in the rear.

    Mr. Jones, are you not willing to forgive your enemies?”

    “I don’t have any.”

    “Mr. Jones, that is very unusual. How old are you?”

    “Eighty-six.”

    “Mr. Jones, please come down in front and tell the congregation how a man can live to be 86 and not have an enemy in the world.”

    The old man teetered down the aisle and slowly turned around.

    “It’s easy. I outlived all of them….”

  20. Zack T Says:

    “Gay Gene Hoax” by Ryan Sorba

    www massresistance.org/docs/gen/08a/born_gay_hoax/index.html

  21. Simon Thong Says:

    Do you mean? http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/08a/born_gay_hoax/index.html

  22. Dongwook Choi Says:

    Results

    We generated a mutant mouse specifically lacking the fucose mutarotase (FucM) gene. The FucM knockout mice displayed an abnormal sexual receptivity with a drastic reduction in lordosis score, although the animals were fertile due to a rare and forced intromission by a typical male. We examined the anteroventral periventricular nucleus (AVPv) of the preoptic region in brain and found that the mutant females showed a reduction in tyrosine hydoxylase positive neurons compared to that of a normal female. Furthermore, the mutant females exhibited a masculine behavior, such as mounting to a normal female partner as well as showing a preference to female urine. We found a reduction of fucosylated serum alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) in a mutant embryo relative to that of a wild-type embryo.
    Conclusions

    The observation that FucM-/- female mouse exhibits a phenotypic similarity to a wild-type male in terms of its sexual behavior appears to be due to the neurodevelopmental changes in preoptic area of mutant brain resembling a wild-type male. Since the previous studies indicate that AFP plays a role in titrating estradiol that are required to consolidate sexual preference of female mice, we speculate that the reduced level of AFP in FucM-/- mouse, presumably resulting from the reduced fucosylation, is responsible for the male-like sexual behavior observed in the FucM knock-out mouse.
    http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2156/11/62

  23. lust4life Says:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOO7fGoKY_I&NR=1

  24. Zack T Says:

    Humans are 50% genetically common with bananas…

    http://www.thingsyoudontneedtoknow.com/dnabananas.html

    Genetic similarities mean nothing, cause just 1% difference is enough to kill us, or make it impossible for us to exist/live in the first place…. if you know how much 1% actually amounts to in actual number, not percentile.

  25. Jamie Says:

    Well, you can’t expect the spiritually blind to recognize how these things are driven by spiritual forces. Much of these things are likely due to the influence of spirits as much as due to environment and genes. People just aren’t aware of it.

    Take out those spirits and voila! No more attraction to those of the same sex.

  26. Jamie Says:

    Anyway, going back to purely secular explanations…

    Homosexuality is not a genetic condition. It is the result of an interaction between certain genes and their expression based on what happens around them.

    In other words, it’s an epigenetic condition, not a genetic condition.
    😄

  27. Mad Bluebird Says:

    Look how NEWSREEK tried to claim the bible approves of gays WHAT TOMMY ROT

  28. PersoninNY Says:

    Simon Thong: Stating that humans and fruitflies have fundamental similarities is not reducing humans to the level of fruitflies, any more then assessing the events in one’s childhood in order to better understand their behavior in adulthood is reducing them to the level of chldren. It’s just a basic understanding that while it is important to take new factors into account, understanding the most basic\common constitiuents of a system is quite invaluable, in order to better understand it.

    Zack T: It’s not just genetic similarities that are assessed with regards to figuring out the genetic basis of various phenomena. Indeed, how similar genes interact with each-other and with thier enviornments to prodce various features and behaviors is important as well. Basically, the genetic similarities that we share with fruit-flies are more meaningful than those we share with bananas, because the ways that the shared genes in fruit-flies interact with eachother and their enviornment are more similar to the ways found in humans, as opposed to say, the genetic and enviornmental reactions in fruit.

  29. Zack T Says:

    PersoninNY,

    Like I said, genetic similarity means nothing because 1% difference can mean life or death or the complete impossibility for us to exist in the first place… When you actually know how much that 1% actually amounts to in numbers, not in percentile.

    Chimpanzees are over 90% similar, but doesn’t mean that you can easily change 1% of their genetic code to become more human. Even if chimpanzee was to be 99% genetically the same as humans; that 1% difference between chimpanzees and humans can amount to over millions or even billions of gene codes. And God created our genes in such a way that one small mistake in the genes (i.e. arrangement of the amino acid or whatever) can mean fatality.

    Try covering about 40% of genetic difference between humans and those fruitflies.

  30. Simon Thong Says:

    Dear PersoninNY, I have few problems with your words, “any more then (sic) assessing the events in one’s childhood in order to better understand their behavior in adulthood is reducing them to the level of chldren (sic)”.

    However, that’s not in the same category as “Stating that humans and fruitflies have fundamental similarities is not reducing humans to the level of fruitflies”.

    In the first case, we are dealing with the SAME person. In the second case, we are JUMPING FROM FRUITFLIES TO HUMANS. Some people would say that that’s comparing apples and pears.

    I would say that that’s reductio ad absurdum, a mode of argumentation that seeks to establish a contention by deriving an absurdity from its denial, thus arguing that a thesis must be accepted because its rejection would be untenable. In this case, it refers to arguing that I must accept the thesis that “humans and fruitflies have fundamental similarities is not reducing humans to the level of fruitflies” because of your second statement “any more than assessing the events in one’s childhood in order to better understand their behavior in adulthood is reducing them to the level of chldren”.

  31. PersoninNY Says:

    Zack T: Did you catch any of the ‘enviornment and intergentic interactions’ part of that? If not, here it is: It’s not just genetic similarities, but how our similar genes also interact with eachother and their enviornments to govern the development of the being. In other words, these genetic similarities are important not just because they’re there, but also because how they (said similar genes) interact with eachother and their enviornments to govern our development, is similar in us, as it is in many other animals; fruit flies and lesser apes included.

    Simon Thong: Call it whatever you’d like, but it’s just a matter of scale. Extrapolate the basic principle between ‘child and adult’ (things that are a little different, but share similar qualities) enough, and you’ll eventually end up with different beings (things that are very different, but share fundamental qualities). It’s not absurd either, on account of my second comparison is completley reasonable. Either way, regardless of whether or not you agree with the analogy, the principle is still the same: While it is important to take new factors into account, understanding the most basic\common constitiuents of a system is quite invaluable, in order to better understand it.

  32. Simon Thong Says:

    It is not a matter of scale; a matter of scale would mean a matter of size, and in this case, comparing similar things. Child and adult could be stretched to foetus and old man. Fruitflies and humans are living beings BUT not in the same category. You may wish to think that they are. I don’t think that they are.

  33. Zack T Says:

    Here’s the problem, PersoninNY.

    Despite how similar or exactly the same whatever genetic interaction, whatsoever.. you still have over 40% of genetic differences to cover. Regardless.

    it’s like comparing a wooden shelf and a wooden chair. Yes, there are ‘genetic’ similarity of over 50%… and yes the interaction these ‘genetic’ whatever are practically the same… it still doesn’t mean you can easily change something in the chair, and then somehow believe you can do the exact same thing with the shelf. And this is with inorganic items.

    The genetic difference is too large to even consider the possibility of just adding or subtracting a little something (like the fruitfly) from/into our brain and cause us to become homosexual.
    First of all, you don’t even know if the fruitflies are acting homosexually due to their inability to recognize gender, an error in their sensory organs (mistakening males or females, vice versa), or that they are sincerely attracted to the same gender.

  34. PersoninNY Says:

    Simon Thong: It is a matter of scale, and I’ve already explained why. I’ve already acknowledged the differences, but conversely, I’ve already explained why the principle is the same. Overall, though Humans and fruitflies are quite different, were similar enough where it matters to make a few reasonable inferences about the human condition by studying theirs. Indeed, we’re both RNA & DNA-based, metabolic, metazoic, gill-less, organic, multicellular, bilateraly symmetrical social animals, whose beings are governed quite a bit by our genetic and epigenetic behaviors. It’s not bringing us down to their level, so much as it is acknowledging facts.

    Zack T: Here’s the problem, Zack T. I’ve acknowledged that there are great genetic differences between humans and fruitflies, but I’ve already explained why these are irrelevent. Indeed, changing something in one system does not automatically mean that changing a similar facet in a similar system will automatically result in the same changes. However, if you strip the sytems down to thier most basic\common\shared constituents and apply said changes, it may not produce the exact same results, but it could certainly provide an explanation of origin. Indeed, I can’t add a shelf to my chair, and expect it to be a very efficient storage item. However, given their similar shared frame it’s reasonable to assume that if I cut off one of the pegs of my shelf and it falls over, then the same thing will happen to my chair–a dissimilar piece of furniture, which shares a similar 4-leg frame.
    I’m not going to argue about the gay fruitfly thing. Homosexuality is a polygenic and epigenetic abnormality, which is not regulated by the transcription of one gene. Yes, there are numerous other factors, and this must be considered. However, the example with the fruitflies is just a way of searching for common ground, via analysis of the lowest common denominator. The study (it seems like) was just looking for homosexual behavior. It’s various potential causes are a different matter.

  35. Zack T Says:

    PersoninNY,

    Now your ‘cutting one leg off’ example will surely produce similar result, but that’s a PHYSICAL factor.. not the same as what we’re arguing about; genetical.

    Genetical factors are far more complicated than just ‘cutting off a leg’.

    And no, it doesn’t serve to explain anything, because one still doesn’t know why those fruitflies acted in such a manner? Was it really a genuine attraction to the same gender, or was it error in their sensory organs, or error in identifying male or female?

  36. Scott Thong Says:

    I don’t think there’s even such a concept as ‘attraction’ in the human sense for fruit flies. So Zack’s question is relevant – just one change in the fruit flies’ other, non-brain functions could cause them to go for other males. I believe even among mammals, dousing a log with female pheromones will drive males into a mating frenzy with dead wood.

    It’s similar to how a blind man hit on a girlish-voiced guy. Or an unaware man might with a ‘babe’ from Thailand…

  37. PersoninNY Says:

    Zack T: Genetic factors ARE physical factors. Granted, they’re more complex then simple ‘Do ‘A’, get ‘B” reactions, but at it’s heart, the priniciple is the same. And yes, it does serve as an explanatory experiment, bcause it did (at the very least) identify a potential (epi)genetic origin for homosexual behavior. Motivations are more difficult to determine, and thus require more in-depth research projects, so that wasn’t relevent for this study. All that mattered was that homosexual behavior was evidenced to have some kind of genetic rationale.

    Scott: Though culture, cognitive ability, behavioral tendencies, personal preference, internal mechanisms, sophistication, and past experience all play a role in mate choice for higher animals, the same basic principles for attraction are remarkably uniform for pretty much all eumetazoans.

  38. Simon Thong Says:

    Though culture, cognitive ability, behavioral tendencies, personal preference, internal mechanisms, sophistication, and past experience all play a role in mate choice for higher animals, the same basic principles for attraction are remarkably uniform for pretty much all eumetazoans.-PersoninNY.

    You sound so eloquent. But pray, explain whjat basic principles for attraction are you referring to?

  39. Zack T Says:

    PersoninNY,
    When I said ‘physical factor’, I meant the higher level physique of the creature.. legs, arms, head, brains, internal organs… Physical parts of the body that are generally the same in every creature… just like furnitures are often made of wood, have legs, usually has a back, a flat top of sorts, etc.
    If you cause a physical change, naturally the result would be similar with any other furniture… in our case, if you behead any creature, generally it would kill the creature (unless you’re a cockroach, in which case, you can survive for a week or so, and then die of hunger; which shows that even the physique of insects are somewhat different from humans, no? Ever have some guy walking around headless still interacting with people or ‘shagging’ people (which a beheaded cockroach can still do)?)

    When I said genetic, I meant the nitty and gritty microscopic lower levels of our ‘physical’ factor… Things you do on a low-level genetic level are far more complicated and far more unpredictable, compared to the higher level physical parts of our biological vessels.

    First of all, it’s not about motivation, but really understanding the effect of what has been done on the low-level scale.
    If I add this ‘thing’ to the brain, this is the result… now why did this ‘thing’ cause such a result?
    Was it because this ‘thing’ affected the brain by degrading some of the parts of the brain that handles the sensory organs?
    Or was it that it effected the brain’s ability to perceive genders correctly; now males are females, and vice versa?
    Or did it REALLY cause the fruitfly to actually think males are attractive and females are for losers?

    Frankly, even if I were to accept it a good comparison to compare fruitflies to humans, you wouldn’t know why that experiment caused such a result.
    Convert that to the actual reality of the issue, human brains are far more complex compared to a fruitfly’s! It is always said that an average person is only using 10% of their brain capacity/capabilities…. and scientists can probably understand up to 50% of how the brain works (while another 50% probably is not examinable; can you examine the mind?)

    What’s more.. We have something known as ‘intelligence’, the ability to decide for ourselves and even go against our natural instincts.
    That’s something science can’t measure or even come to understand how our brain functions in such ways. We just know that we do!
    A person who was once homosexual can choose to be hetero… a hetero can choose to become bi or homo. It’s not a genetic issue, it’s a issue of choice!
    In the case of supposedly people who believed they were homo since young… that’s about it… belief. The circumstances of their growing led them to believe that homosexuality is normal or more preferred.
    And for those who choose to crossdress, well that’s due to the perspective that “I’m acting like the opposite sex, therefore I should/will dress like them.”
    And for those who decided to have their sex changed, well, that’s due to the fact that our technology are now advanced enough to allow such procedures.

    Nothing genetic. In fact, the bible did mention that homosexuality was a form of punishment by God, unto the people who did not acknowledge Him as a Creator…

    Romans 1:26-27,
    “Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.”
    (Context begins at Romans 1:28; the passage is all about God as the Creator and His wrath upon those who choose not to acknowledge Him as such)
    (Whoever, don’t mistaken me to say God caused homosexuality; He allowed them to be taken in by lust and by sin that destroys/corrupts God’s perfect creation)

    Now look at the theory of evolution and how ‘central’ this theory has been in almost every field of science… There are a lot of people who don’t want to acknowledge God as the Creator…

  40. PersoninNY Says:

    Simon Thong: Basically, numerous biochemical factors. I’m just remaining intentionally vague, on account of I’m not terribly motivated to go into that kind of thing right now.

  41. Zack T Says:

    Though culture, cognitive ability, behavioral tendencies, personal preference, internal mechanisms, sophistication, and past experience all play a role in mate choice for higher animals, the same basic principles for attraction are remarkably uniform for pretty much all eumetazoans. ~PersoninNY

    My response to you somehow went into the waiting list for some reason.. so just wait until Scott approves my comment.

    Anyway… I find it odd that you mentioned:
    1- culture
    2- cognitive ability
    3- behavioral tendencies
    4- personal preference
    5- internal mechanisms
    6- sophistication
    7- past experience

    and then say basic principles for attraction are uniform across the board for “eumetazoans”… I’m gonna assume you meant all these ‘genetic’ factors?

    Although there are genetic similarities, does that mean just these gene codes that are similar between species are enough to allow us to figure out the ‘genetics’ of homosexuality??

    As I mentioned in my ‘awaiting’ response, the human brain is far more complex than fruitfly’s (as well as pretty much every other animals/insects/biological creatures) because we have ‘intelligence’ that allow us to make choices and even decide to go against our natural instincts.

    That alone will make any possible connection between genes and homosexuality seem irrelevant, because it is far easier for a human to decide he/she is attracted to the same gender, than it is for one to actually be attracted sexually to the same gender naturally (i.e. from young).

  42. Zack T Says:

    oh.. failed to mention what’s odd about your comment…

    you listed 7 different possible factors for ‘how people come to be homo’….
    but then you say ‘basic principles’ (i assume you meant only ‘genetics’) is enough to answer that question.

  43. Simon Thong Says:

    # PersoninNY Says:
    October 22, 10 at 8:58 am

    Simon Thong: Basically, numerous biochemical factors. I’m just remaining intentionally vague, on account of I’m not terribly motivated to go into that kind of thing right now.

    Yea, I’m also not motivated, i.e, I’m not motivated to discuss with someone who beats around the bush.

  44. PersoninNY Says:

    Zack T: The purpose of that comment was to basically illustrate that even though there are more factors which govern our internal and external behaviors, at our core we share basic similarities which affect the nature of our being more than previously thought. I’m not just talking about just genetic factors either, for as previously mentioned, it’s not just genetic similarities which allow a connection to be made; similarities with regard to regulation of development, interaction with eachother, and enviornmental effects on expression are important as well. Seeing as how we share important similarities with regard to the aformentioned bit on genetic behaviors, this does allow a connection to be made. It’s not the end-all in terms of figuring this puzzle out, but it is something.
    Indeed, the human brain is remarkably complex, and we do possess a certain sophistication, intelligence, and behavioral adaptability which is not often seen in other animals to the extent that it is seen in us. However, this does not negate the fact that at our core, we share the most basic governers of our mental and physical behaviors with other animals. With this in mind, it is not unreasonable to assert that behavioral tendencies shared with other animals may result from similarities in our most basic behavioral regulators. This is espescially true when similarities are shared, despite radical differences in our current enviornments.
    With that being said, the connection between genes and homosexuality is not irrelevent, on account of (as previously mentioned) we are governed by our most basic components to a greater degree then previously believed. Indeed, on account of we have more knowledge about the factors which affect a situation, we are better able to make decisions which are more beneficial then simple instinct. However, even the processes governing higher decision making are govened by very basic elements, so those are to be examined, if abnormalities are to be fixed. Overall, it’s beneficial to look at more simple, similarly-constructed system, because the lack of interference of other variables (unique to us) will allow a better understanding said system’s most fundamental construction, components, and execution.

    As previously mentioned, I was just talking a about simple genetic basis for homosexual behavior, sans other factors. As previously mentioned, sine fruit-flies are spared of many of the numerous factors which govern human decision-making, looking at the most basic constituents of their similarly-constructed systems, may help us to better understand the core of ours.

  45. PersoninNY Says:

    Simon Thong: I’m not beating around the bush; I’m just not knowledgeable enough about the specifics of behavioral ecology and the biochemistry of attraction to delve into it at this time.

  46. Zack T Says:

    And in the end, you’re comparing a small black/white TV from the first few years of its creation… to that of the latest 3D cinema.
    Or comparing the black/white cartoon of Mickey Mouse… to that of Pixar’s Toy Story 3.

    And this is within the same category of ‘types’ of object; TV with Cinema or 2d animation with 3danimation.

    We’re talking about fruitflies (insects) and humans (far from being as ‘simple’ as an insect’s biological structure).

    In the end, the differences outweighs the possibility of a similar explanation for the case of the fruitflies’ homosexual behavior… which is still unknown the reason WHY they resulted such behavior.
    Without knowing the WHY, it’s pointless to argue it can offer an explanation for homosexual behavior in humans.

  47. PersoninNY Says:

    Zack T: And in the end, you’re completley missing the point, assuming you’re not simply refusing to see it. Don’t bother using inanimate objects as a comparisson–they aren’t subject to the same pressures we are, so how they change is irrelevent in this context. That being said, I’ll cut the specifics, and put it simply: Despite our differences, we share numerous similarities. When trying to figure out the origin of an abnormal behavior, in order to determine its origins, it pays to look at a more simple, yet similarly constructed system. Why? Because said simpler system is free of most of the extraneous unique features of ours, while still maintaining the same basic functions, composition, and principles. Why does this matter? Because it allows us to determine not only if a shared behavior is innate, but what it is caused by in other organisms; an important point of knowledge, since it allows us to more easily look for corresponding features in humans, and assess whether or not a similar mechanism is in place.
    Once again, we’re not as simple as fruit-flies, but the similar construction in our most basic systems allows us to better compare causes, and potentially determine origins. Basically, since we’re similar where it matters, a detected abnormality in their genetic system which resulted in homosexual behavior, may very well correspond to a similar abnormality in ours. We certaintly differ greatly, but we’re similar enough where it matters to infer certain things about our condition, from studying theirs. If we really were as dissimilar as you propourt[sp], they would not be as valuable in genetic research as they are. Argue the point if you want, but you’re wrong in this regard, and I’ve explained why numerous times.
    With regards to the homosexuality in fruit-flies, based on the study (I read the article), it seems like it’s just a simple courtship mistake. If the mechanism hasn’t been found yet, just give it time.
    Also, you’re wrong about much of what you said about sexual orientation being a choice, and much of what you said towards the end of the comment you made at 7:59. Other animals have intelligence, and can resist their urges too. Personally, I’m too tired to cover it all now, so I’ll have to return to it later.

  48. Simon Thong Says:

    # PersoninNY Says:
    October 22, 10 at 12:05 pm

    Simon Thong: I’m not beating around the bush; I’m just not knowledgeable enough about the specifics of behavioral ecology and the biochemistry of attraction to delve into it at this time.

    It seems to me that you want to eat your cake and still have it.

    On the one hand, you can say that
    “we’re not as simple as fruit-flies, but the similar construction in our most basic systems allows us to better compare causes, and potentially determine origins. Basically, since we’re similar where it matters, a detected abnormality in their genetic system which resulted in homosexual behavior, may very well correspond to a similar abnormality in ours”;

    and on the other hand, you can say “’m just not knowledgeable enough about the specifics of behavioral ecology and the biochemistry of attraction to delve into it at this time”.

    Well, I’m tired, too, worn out, in fact, by your circumlocution. Goodbye till you say something clear, precise and non-contradictory. Don’t just “sound” knowledgeable, be knowledgeable. Don’t just mouth some impressive-sounding scientist, analyze it.

  49. PersoninNY Says:

    Simon Thong: Way to take that statement out of context. I was referring to this statement, specifically:

    “You sound so eloquent. But pray, explain whjat basic principles for attraction are you referring to?”

    I wasn’t talking about my knowledge of behavioral ecology or the biochemistry of attraction on the whole, I was just referring to this statement in particular. I obviously have some knowledge of both, as evidenced by my many lengthy passages above (and I’m not ‘mouthing’ anyone; these were conclusions I came to of my own accord).
    I’ll put it like this: it’s much harder for me to have to go into the work of the likes of Desmond Morris, Steven Buss, and RA Turner, and simplify specific points of lengthy and complex models in order to demonstrate something, then it is for you to half-understand what I’m trying to say, and invent some obscure and\or un\mis-informed rationale for rejecting it. That’s what I meant by my unwillingness to do that. Is that a ‘clear, concise, and non-contradictory’ enough explanation?

  50. Zack T Says:

    PersoninNY, (btw, my response has been approved and posted)

    And you’ve failed to understand the point I was making regarding TV-cinema and 2d-3d.

    There are similarities between 2D animations and 3D animations too…
    BUT knowing how 2D animation works, does not mean you know how 3D animations work. The complexity is too far apart.

    In the end, it’s not me who’s missing the point or overlooking it.

    I can just not even bother to argue about the irrelevance of the ‘genetic similarity’ part…. and just argue that the genetic difference is more than enough to sink your case.

    Like I said.. put the % into actual numbers (even just 1%) and you will get more than millions and even billions… One minor ‘incorrect’ change, and it could lead to fatality or a crippling condition of sorts.

    Then there’s the problem of what you called earlier ‘motivation’.
    Let’s say, we were to ‘play’ around with human brains, adding or taking out something, and somehow resulted in the person acting a homosexual way..
    at least we not only can observe his behavior but also ask him why he’s acting in such a way; e.g. real attraction to male, fail to identify females from males…
    and also then experiment to see whether his sensory organs have changed or fail to work properly, thus leading to failure to be attracted to the scent of the opposite sex, etc…

    For the case of the fruitfly, you can only ‘guess’ why they are acting such a way.

    Just like it has been pointed out by someone… you can easily make a dog shag a log and you wouldn’t call the dog a “log-o-sexual”, or shag someone’s leg and call it “legosexual”.

    And yes.. living creatures have intelligence too.. but to the extent of natural instincts. Try starting a fire with lots of smoke and lead a wild animal to the smoke.. it’ll run, thinking there’s a big fire around.
    Unlike humans, our intelligence allows us to analyse and not just act on natural ‘reflex’ to a circumstance.

    Homosexuality is not a ‘natural reflex’ in the sense that it is genetically embedded in a person. The person’s sexuality is all depended on his/her personal choice and decision.

    Even a man with an extra X-chromosome can choose to live like any other normal male and be attracted to and marry a female.

    It’s not the genes! It’s psychological!

  51. PersoninNY Says:

    Zack T: And once again, you’re seeing right through the point. Inanimate things like animation and various non-living objects are not subject to the same pressures we are, so your comparison is irrelevent. Having worked as an animator however, I can tell you that you are wrong in that comparison too; understanding how to animate in traditional animation does make working with 3-D animation more succinct, and easy to understand. Indeed the primary difference between the two is the method by which characters and backgrounds are rendered. The basics, however (drawing storyboards, using frames to display actions, adding background props, layering, coloring, using stills and models as references to consistintely[sp] draw characters, etc.) are shared between both.
    Of course you’re not going to understand everything there is to understand about 3-D animation just by expertise in 2-D animation, but once you realize how similar they are at their core, it’s just a matter of finding corresponding counterparts and manipulating them accordingly. Your argument is like stating that knowing how to add and subtract is irrelevent to learing calculus, since ‘the complexity is too far apart’. It’s just a matter of numerous incremental changes, built upon a familiar base.

    Don’t bother arguing the ‘Genetic similarity part’, since it’s clear to me that you still have no idea what you’re talking about, even though I’ve explained its relevence numerous times. Yes, even one percent of our DNA is millions of base pairs, and yes, changing some parts of our ative DNA can result in deleterious occurences, but here’s what you’re missing; those millions of base pairs we share, are shared by our fruitfly counterparts. The only difference is expression; what these genes regulate, code for, and ‘oversee’ is effectivley identical in us, and corresponds to some of our genetic code as well. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

    Regarding motivation, I’ve already told you why it’s irrelevent in this study. As previously seen however, it seems like I’ll just have to tell you again; they weren’t looking for a macroscopic-physiological rationale for the fruit-flies behavior, as much as they were just looking for a simple basis in genetics. It’s very possible that the portion of genes they altered had some kind of effect on the systems you mentioned, and that could explain it as well. For the most part however, they were just looking for a simple genetic basis in why the systems that regulate mating behavior became corrupted–that’s it. Did you even read this article? If not, read it again; you’re clearly not understanding it. The whole log-and-leg sexual thing is irrelevent, too. They’re just describing behavior. The behavior was homosexual in nature; if you want to get into the whole essence of ‘Truly gay’, don’t bother–it’s irrelevent. Again, they’re just describing behaviors.

    No, other animals also have the ability to critically assess a novel situation and form novel rules for neutralizing said situation, just like we do (also known as problem solving, and critical thinking). Granted, it’s probably not as pronounced in them, but it’s quite well-developed. We just have greater access to more information about our situations, and are thus able to make more rules accordingly. There’s no real reason to state that if a feral animal saw a bond fire it would still run away if it knew that it was a stationary fire with no real ability to harm it.

    Sexual preferences–just like other preferences–are to some degree, embedded in one’s genetic makeup. Indeed, even if we have more flexibiliy with regards to how we will act and what we will like, dislike, etc. in various situations, since these are regulated by basic systems, they will invariably play a role in how one eventually turns out. Additionally, external enviornment plays a role as well.
    All-in-all, basic, mindless mechanisms play a role in how we eventually turn out, with our control over some aspects being more voluntary then with others. If the systems affected are related to something dealing directly with reproduction and\or survival (sexual preference, preferred food, preferred friends, how to interact with others, etc.), then said systems are set from early on, and damage to them tends to lead to irreversible tendencies. However, systems which relate indirectly to immediate survival and\or reproduction (What major to study, what car to buy, which game to play) are more easily malleable, since they were never important enough to become as innate as those directly regulating immediate survival and\or regulation.
    All-in-all, systems as innate as those regulating sexual preference are as able to be voluntarily controlled, as whether or not you see color, taste victual items, breath faster in an area of lowered oxygen, or have feeling in your body. Many aspect of our being can be voluntarily controlled, but when the systems are innate enough, this isn’t always the choice.

    After all, can you just choose to stop liking your favorite food, or not feel pain?

  52. Zack T Says:

    PersoninNY,

    2d-3d

    I meant the method of rendering the 2d or 3d… knowing how 2d works, does not do anything in animating 3d… One by paper (olden days)… the other, by computer (far more complicated now)..
    Try doing 3D animation with just lots of paper. You can’t.

    Homosexual behavior in an animal (let alone an insect) is irrelevant unless you actually know their motivation for it.
    I’ve said this numerous times, even if they behave as such (shagging a log, leg or same gender), it doesn’t mean anything unless you know why they’re doing it.

    I’ve seen my two male dogs; one tries to shag the other. Then someone who is FOR-homo-genes, would point out, “Hey! See! Animals do have homosexual behaviors, thus homosexuality is natural!”
    And I would say, “That’s because that ‘gay’ dog of mine has never gotten to know a female dog besides its mother, which was separated from it since it was about one years old only. It has been living a sheltered life (never allowed out of the house/compound) and we never brought in any new dogs (let alone a female one). So, being a growing male, of course the hormones are raging and causes my dog the ‘need’ or rather, the urge to shag the other male.”

    Nothing genetic… nothing natural. Just the psyche..

    This isn’t getting anywhere… You don’t seem to be getting the point of my arguments (cause your counter did not hit what I was trying to point out), and you think I’m not hitting your points either.
    So we’re both hitting air here, it seems.
    So, I’m done. Thanks for the discussion.

  53. PersoninNY Says:

    Wrong again; paper is used in the production of 3-D animation (traditionally-drawn objects are augmented with computer graphics), and most 2-D animation is done on computers these days, so your argument is still invalid.

    In this study, the reason for the homosexual behavior was known though, and was clearly evidenced to have had a genetic basis. If anything, it was a plus to use more simple animals, on account of since you know that they don’t have any complex psychological or cognitive issues contributing to their behavior, you’re pretty much garaunteed that it’s due pretty much exclusivley to mindless mechanisms, as opposed to choice.

    Regarding the dogs, the person who is ‘FOR homo genes’ would be absolutley correct in their assertion that under certain circumstances, homosexual behavior does arise in non-human animals. Better yet, since you know that your dog is not struggling with any kind of extesential[sp] personal crisis, you know that there is at least some basis in simple genetics. It doesn’t make your dog gay, but it does mean that the propensity for homosexual behavior under the right circumstances is innate. Indeed, if all the dog needed was sexual stimulation, he could easily have achieved such a goal without another dog, let alone a male.

    Our genetics govern more then we were previously willing to accept, so yes, it is to some degree an innate feature. Additionally, ‘natrual’ just means ‘occuring in nature’, so homosexual behavior is natrual. Necrophilia is too, oddly enough.

    All-in-all, this absolutley is not going anywhere; you don’t have a good enough understanding of this subject to discuss it accuratley, and you keep using the same tired arguments even after I (and other commenters, as seen above) have shown you why they’re wrong. It’s been a nice excercise in critical thinking, but I’m tired of repeating myself, and real-life duties are calling.
    Take care, and God bless.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: