🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <74763@hydra.gatech.EDU> gt4000a@prism.gatech.EDU (John Cross, aka AsthranJas) writes:
>Just to throw in my two cents worth . . . .
>
>Chris Jorden brought up the point of homosexuality being a choosen fate
>and "until he saw biological evidence" to the contrary suggesting that
>it had a genetic\biologic cause, he would believe so.
>	Well, there has been significant work in this area, and if you 
>check the medical journals from about 3 months (rough guess) back there
>was a discovery that male homosexual brains had a significantly larger
>concentration of some brain chemical and a larger "hollow" portion within
>the cerebral cortex, suggesting definite **Biological** differences.
>If anyone has more concrete info than my memory, please feel free to 
>report the details.
                      ^
O.K., so here's ------| where the "proof" begins :-)

I tend to agree with the argument that homosexuality, or at least the
*tendency* toward homosexual behavior, feelings, etc., is at least partly
biological, and this only because I know a few gays -- who I *trust* --
that say this is exactly the way it happened.  Who am I to disagree?
I believe the 10% who _are_ gay than the 90% who read into
their situation whatever garbage they feel like... (& BTW, my friends 
don't know each other & have no "agenda")

At this stage, I want to remind you:  it has been known for quite a
while that humans are by *no means* the only species to exhibit
both hetero- and homosexual behavior.  Question for the Peanut Gallery:
Do gay *animals* have "psychological problems", and should they be lumped
in with other animals who abuse their children, murder, steal, cheat
on their mates, gamble and drink to excess?  :-) JUST KIDDING!!!

I find the tendency by certain (noun omitted) to automatically lump in gays
with other "undesirable" behavior traits, such as crime, adultery, and
physical abuse, particularly weak.  It is as if this is treated as a
*psychological* problem, of all things!  (At this point, some of you may
be saying, "Yeah, that's *exactly* what it is!  You hit the nail on the
head!")  Oh, did I? 

And when you compare homosexuality with alcoholism, which is showing
many signs of being genetic/biologically related lately, you associate
them both as inherently "bad" traits.  Is this fair?  Is homosexuality
"bad" per se? Or somehow not as "right"?  Why?  That's what #2 in
Colorado seems to say...

(And don't use the "Homosexuality isn't natural" argument, find 
another one.  It happens to be perfectly "natural", as such, for all one
has to do is turn to nature, where it is manifested in animal behavior
...I'm *serious*)

Anyway, I'm holding my breath, waiting for the "empirical proof" that
homosexuality is biological...but somehow, I don't think that should be
necessary... (gasp)

Over&Out
--Rob

-- 
ROBERT WILLIAM DODGE, JR
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp:	  ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!vapspuq
Internet: vapspuq@prism.gatech.edu