Actually, although I can understand how doing such a study would cause people who are anti-homosexual to use it in their "cure" arguments, I am still for them conducting such studies because they would give us more of an idea of what it is about en utereo environments that affect things like homosexuality and intersexism. We already know that hormonal environments in the uterus affect the sexuality of the fetus, so the argument that "homosexuality is unnatural" already falls apart there. This kind of a study would give further evidence in that regard. Although, since we're talking about affecting fetuses, obviously the results are not going to necesarily be about a "cure" so much as they are trying to set the fetus up to be heterosexual. Any parent willing to go to such lengths to prevent having a homosexual child is probably the best people to *not* let have a homosexual child anyway.

Another thing is, since the development of genitals, as well as other physical issues can be developed in a fetus due to hormonal environments, I think that is another good reason to let such a study continue. They may be worried about the effects this could have on discrimination, but such a restriction could hinder the studies done on preventing genital deformities, under development, and other related issues that develp as a result of the presence of some of the same hormones.

So ... I disagree with restricting a study based on this (although, it would probably be more practical to do the study on mice before taking it to rams).

Indeed, they would be using the un-natural to cure the ... uh, ... un-natural (now found to be natural)?

Sit back and watch the doublethink. We'll see science go from irrelevant to relevant to irrelevant again over the span of 12 seconds, and do so several times. Some people can't afford to be honest with themselves. Reality will hopefully sneak up and bite them in the ass eventually.

As for homosexuality, when you see in nature what you previously thought unnatural, you have to change your definition of "nature".

I'm not a biologist, but I don't think that's exactly the way it is. Somebody else will have to link some real scientific info on this, but I'm pretty sure there's never been an established bi-sexual state in fetuses.

In any case, if this research were going on in a sane country, I'd probably not have too much of a problem with it. Since it's going on in The United States of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, I'm sure it's going to be directed towards further hatred of homosexuals, even if the researchers don't intend that to happen.

Leave it to Christianity to take something natural and make it into the worst possible thing.

I find these studies interesting. I certainly think there is nothing unnatural about homosexuality, but that really doesn't matter when all is said and done.

Even if homosexuality were a choice, it would still be that individual's right to make that choice. I really cannot understand why everyone is so damn concerned with what consenting adults do with their genitals.

If homosexuality is caused by an abnornal hormone environment, then it is Satan workd, since all things that go wrong in this world is the result of his work, introducing sin in the world.

Since technology can be used to deal with things that go wrong, a believer could say it is indeed a weapon to fight Satan, but a God given one (through our God given intelligence)

Fixing fetues' sexual preferences would be like taking penicilin.

I think this is eugenics and I don't like it. Maybe homossexals are really important and we should not mess with that, for the time being.

I think most people are born asexual, actually, and that environments in the uterus predispose individuals to particular sexual attractions when they hit later hormonal changes in life. I think this based on the evidence that I have seen on sexual development and corrolations between hormonal uterus environments and particular sexual developments and behaviors.

I'm just guessing here, but, are you bisexual? And at what point did you choose to be a bisexual? What kinds of motivations would there be for an individual to choose homosexuality? Since homosexuality is a reference to attractions, which is based on arousal responses in human beings and since most human beings are unable to exert complete control over their arousal responses to stimuli, how can it be that people are "choosing" homosexuality?

Thought as in a cognitive process? What about animals that are incapeable of such? A ram can't look across a fence and say, "damn that guy sure has some sexy phallic horns over there, I'd like to dip my stick into his brownie!" They don't have the cerebral capacity to do such, and I think that it is a safe bet that the same thing goes for humans.

it is thought by whom? Now to me, for issues such as personal rights and opportunities, I don't think that it should matter if it is a choice, however, I don't think it is. Also, what information are you using to support the notion of bisexuality being the natural state?

Based on what evidence? You think a fetus sitting in a womb made a conscious decision and thus changed the fetal hormonal environment?

How does an infant express their sexual preferences?

Well if you just change a few words you can make a case that people are bisexual polygamous zoophiliacs by nature, and only choose to have homo/heterosexual monogamous homospecies relationships.

I just wanted to see what you had to say about that fact and whether you'd stand by it after it had been pointed out.

I mean, I couldn't care less about bisexual polygamous zoophilia. Not my personal taste but to each their own.

It's kinda embarassing to say this while using a dolphin as an avatar (don't get the wrong idea about me), but dolphins have been known to actually start it with people. If that's not a display of consent, I'm not sure what is. And I guess while I'm at it, dolphins are bisexual polygamous and don't show much species-prefrence, so I guess if animals in nature are what determines "natural" a case could be made for bisexual polygamous zoophilia being natural that way too.

I don't know exactly how you'd define "complex".

I read a convincing piece that said that dolphins communicate based on frequency to form words instead of what we use, what we would call "voice" (ah vs ee is actually a change in the shape of the sound wave) and what the writer called the "time-domain". It would explain how dolphins have been known to communicate extremely complex ideas so quickly, because they can hear and create such a wide range of frequencies that they have much more "bandwidth" available. I'm not sure if it's the most complex but it's complex enough to be worth putting out there.

Really this is a bit off-topic though. Thread was kinda about sexuality. If you wanna keep talking about animal communication we could start another thread.

Well, I've met many many experimental heterosexuals ...

Indeed, although anal sex on men is not a strictly homosexual thing, and homosexuals don't strictly have sex anally. Heterosexual men often experiment with their anus and homosexuals often resort to oral sex, mutual masturbation, etc. Female homosexuals often perform tribidism. In fact, there's probably as many homosexual sexual positions and options as there are heterosexual.

But that's a non-sex-quitor. Just because you think people shouldn't exclude others sexually doesn't mean we're all born bisexual. In fact, I highly doubt that is the case. Infants, though they do have some forms of sexual expression as they enter their toddler years, don't seem to express sexual preferences. Nor do they seem to have arousal reponses based on people around them. This leads me to believe that they are not bisexual, but are asexual, and that certainly makes more sense, and is supported by data on child sexual development.

First thing is first - you can't answer such questions without first proving that homosexuals choose homosexuality.

On the contrary, many homosexuals don't choose to persue anything in regards to their homosexuality. Homosexuality doesn't necesarily describe who you persue, it describes who you become aroused by.

I agree with the animosity towards bigotry, but I disagree with how you're getting there.

I have not heard of a study on neuroscience that shows that concept of blood flow, and I'm a bit skeptical of such. If you have a reference, please let me know. I only ask that you find the reference because it is your claim, and not mine.

On thoughts changing hormones ... well, that is a bit more complex. In reality your brain, your thoughts, and all these hormones that we talk about are all a part of a very complex set of chemical reactions that occur in our brains and bodies. You don't really have much control over it overall. However, there does seem to be some indicate that a few of these reactions can be influenced by things you do. Not very many of them can, but just a *few* can. For example, when you think about sex, there is going to be a release of hormones that affect your physiological responses to arousal, that tell you what feels "good," that increases hormones that effectively increase your feelings of trust and affection towards another, and that relate to a variety of other reactions that you typically would experience from sexual stimulation. There are other systems in your body that can be affected similarly, but after each one your body "recovers" or tries to restore something called "homeostasis," your body tries to restore the typical hormonal balance of your body. This creates a kind of "high" then "low" then normalization of the body. Hence, when you are sexually stimulated, you have a large arousal response and you feel that throughout your body, then after orgasm it is like the body/brain lags (a refractory period is often associated with this, but some people will just experience a relaxed phase), and then after that your body slowly goes back to whatever state it was in before. So, yeah, your thoughts can affect hormone levels in a sense, but not in the way that you were implying.

You seem to be confusing sexual acts with arousal responses. These are not the same thing. Homosexuals have an arousal response towards people of the same sex only. They don't have to have sex with people of the same sex for this to occur.

Knowing that sexuality is not a right/wrong dilemma doesn't automatically imply that people are bisexual.

That doesn't seem to make sense. Arousal responses are what determines sexuality.

I don't think it is a biological problem at all - but studies in sexuality can be important in understanding the reasons why some things are, and may even give us some insights on human health and sexuality issues. In the case of the study that is being considered on Rams, it is being done in order to improve the reproductive capacity of animals that we use for food.

The more that you mention this blood flow study, the more I'm wondering if some study was misinterpretted and you're getting the results of that misinterpretation. In general, though, it isn't a good idea to just accept when people tell you those things. Finding a reference and going from there would be helpful.

That doesn't make sense. I don't think that infants are bisexual (which is a sexual preference in the context of talking about humans) and I don't think they are equally masculine and feminine, either. Their physical traits other than their genitals are indeed very similar, however, their genitals do an ok job of differentiating them from each other. Unless we're talking about a hermaphrodite ... then perhaps there is more of a case towards an equally masculine and feminine person.

Actually, conditioning can take place en utero ... Aside from that, though, more likely than not there is a combination of factors that lead to the male/female cultural separation that we see in people now. It is true that cultural memes play a role in how we perceive those who are sexually different, but it isn't necesarily entirely so. Studies done on hormones and how they affect people do seem to indicate that people with particular gender differences and who happen to have particular hormonal compositions will have reactions specific to those hormones. For example, it has been shown that oxytocin increases trust and bonding mechanisms - oxytocin is a hormone that is increased in women who are pregnant, are going through labor, and/or are breastfeeding. The higher levels of oxytocin in women probably does make their behaviors somewhat different than a man's. We also know that the hormone testosterone, in higher levels (which occurs in some men) is corrolated with more aggressive behavior. So femininity and masculinity is not *just* due to conditioning or environmental factors. There is, however, a natural tendency for humans to behave in manners congruent with those who are around them. Sometimes this means they attempt to alter innate behaviors in order to be like other people (like homosexuals trying to train themselves to be heterosexual) - but that is often counter-productive. Thus, we know that some environmental factors can affect behavior, and some environmental factors cannot change behavior.

Most conditioning is not conscious conditioning.

Dahmer had a psychological disorder. After his crimes were uncovered there was evidence that came out of the investigation that showed that he was probably disturbed from childhood - not because of social restrictions, but because something was wrong with his brain.

The point of examining "fags brains" is not to determine if one side is right or if another is wrong. In fact, it isn't unlike finding the area of the brain that is related to what tastes we find reinforcing. We learn about it to learn about the brain and how the brain works.

Since sexual drives are what makes us have sex and having sex is what enables reproduction. While it is true that reproduction shouldn't matter in regards to sexual preferences, sexuality itself does have some things to do with reproduction.

Technicallly, yes reproduction does determine what kind of sexuality is natural. No matter if you're from the camp that thinks homosexuality is genetic, or the camp that thinks it is due to hormones, or the camp that thinks it is some combination, it still seems to be the case that the evidence points to the reproductive process as the source for homosexuality. In regards to homosexuality and sexual rights issues, it shouldn't matter if that is the case, but as a side-laying tidbit of information, that is the way it seems to be.

Well, in that love is not a cognitive being itself, but is rather a neurological state of being, then love can't, by itself, know bounds. In the sense of people loving others the reality of the situation is that love does have bounds. There is no such thing as unlimited, unconditional love. Let me elaborate here before I get verbally mutilated for saying such ... Even in the case of what is often considered the most powerful of loves, a parent towards their child, the love is still conditional. My daughters are loved by me because they are my daughters - were they not my daughters, I might not love them. In fact, love is conditional even if the only condition is the knowledge of the target of love. There is also limits to love. It may seem to be the case that love is overwhelming for people, but in reality your brain can only process so much of the hormones associated with love - this incapacity is a limit, a boundary. So, although it is very romantic and sweet to think of an unlimited love ... it is a more realistic notion to realize that love is indeed limited by the capabilities of our brains.

Are you implying that standard human reproduction necesarily involves rape? Why did you use the word rape there?

I'm for human cloning to the extent that it benefits the overall health of individuals. Outside of that, I think we have a large enough human population that we don't really need to clone humans to add to the populace. Cloning human parts, though, that makes sense ...

Actually, animals can't give informed consent. It isn't necesarily the case that they are innocent. Animals have sexual drives and urges too and do just about as many sexual things as humans do. It is also not necesarily unnatural for a human to want to have sex with an animal, it is simply maladaptive for them to want to.

Indeed, which is really all that should matter.

No problem.

Even though it would be great if communities had an interest in children's well-beings, it isn't the case that this is so. This is why it is a good idea to be leary about a child's interactions with people and to focus yourself on what that child needs to learn, rather than expecting others to. As for if noticing the limits of love is foolish - I don't think it is, I think it is realistic. Our brains aren't unlimited - it is because of this that any function that takes place in the brain is also not unlimited, even love.

No, when I am talking about conditioning, I am talking about something your brain is doing as a response to environment - not necesarily because of something society does. Even with the best conditioning, though, you cannot increase the capacity of the brain to experience an unlimited emotion in any regard at all.

No, conditional love is simply one aspect of human beings. Not being able to experience or have unconditional love does not mean that suddenly everyone is oppressed. Me being incapeable of loving those that I don't know is completely normal and is ok and reasonable, it is hardly evil.

Of course not - everybody that any human loves experiences that love due to conditions surrounding them. I love my children, my friends, my family all because of conditions in my life. Had I been raised by a different family, I would probably love them and not the one I have now. It isn't evil to realize that, its completely rational. It is also rational to recognize that everyone's brain (the source for the emotion 'love') is limited and so cannot experience an unlimited emotion.

I agree that it is fantastic, and indeed the most wonderful opportunity that I have in life to be able to raise my daughters. They are both very wonderful and bright children and I absolutely adore them. That doesn't mean that my love is unconditional, though, even if the condition of my love is based upon them being my daughters.

Well, technically, it would be all of the above, really. If they weren't a part of this world, of course I wouldn't be able to love them - I wouldn't even know about them!

I didn't say it was *only* based on genetics - but I did admit that it was based on conditions about their relationship to me, my experiences with them, etc. That isn't shallow, that is the reality of the way the human mind works. Let me explain this a little better for you. There's billions of people on this planet and somewhere in china there's a theif who steals food because he doesn't have enough money to feed his family. This theif has a life like many others who happen to live in China, but unless you are aware of his existence, you have no way of knowing about him or feeling an emotion one way or the other towards him. It is possibly that you have some emotive response to this hypothetical person, but it isn't likely that you even gave them the remotest amount of neurological space in your brain before I mentioned them. You couldn't possibly have loved that person, much less loved them unconditionally previous to my statements about them.

The same limitations exist in everyone.

I can easily recognize that other people are indeed people and are human like me - I have no problem with making such determinations about people. I don't consider myself "better" or "worse" than them either (although I may consider myself to be better at particular tasks than they). Knowint this about others and about myself doesn't change the limits of my brain and everyone else's brain in regards to how they love.

Now, from there I think you are assuming that people "deserve" love. Love happens, it isn't unlimited, though. I guess a good way to describe it is that it is like water - everybody *needs* water, but water isn't always available. I can no sooner provide water to people that I am unaware of than I can provide love to them. Love is something that we develop. It isn't something that comes out of thin air or fall from the clouds.

I disagree - I am not obligated nor is it even physiologically possible for me to love every human being unconditionally. I can't love something that I can't be aware of.

Altruistic acts don't equal love. Indeed, they are related to concern, empathy and compassion, but that doesn't mean that it is the same as love.

Because people are capeable of empathy.

Of course they don't think this - because it probably isn't the case.

It says to me that it is something other than love that motivates them.

No, we still have tribal thinking, although it often takes place on a much larger scale. We can even point to examples of tribal thinking in society, remember after 9/11 when everyone bought flags and then people were driven into a war? That's tribal thinking, nobody questioned because everybody was driven to do the same thing. In fact, tribal thinking is actually a good support for the limits of the human capacity to expand their emotive responses - because people are more likely to respond to those they most closely identify with emotionally than those outside of it.

Single parent families and single families are not new to the human race, they have existed for thousands of years...

Orphaned children are not new, historically, either.

Unconditional love never existed - it has always been the case that love has been restricted by conditions surrounding it.

To me it is the result of human behaviors that have existed for thousands of years, and even before modern homo sapiens sapiens. It isn't conditioning that lead people to have that kind of response, we see it in other animals as well.

No, it is simply a fact of our state of being that love has to be conditional. There's no way around it, no way to expand your neurological capacity to go beyond that. It isn't stupid either way you go ... heck, it would be great to be capable of loving everyone - but the problem is it is not possible. I'm not ashamed of knowing this.