Messing with God’s Perfect Creation & The Fabulous Kingdom of Gay Animals

Re-Posted from July 2006

Asking the opinion of the executive director of Evergreen International if there is scientific basis for homosexuality is akin to asking a chicken farmer if eggs are good for you.  The beguiling nature of the entire article is betrayed in the first sentence “the simple ‘born gay’ theory has faded from the science scene.” You’d have to have just arrived from another planet to have not heard about the just released study known as the “older brother effect”.  It was a feature story on Sixty-Minutes and published in about a million papers and broadcast news.

Evergreen is essentially a boot camp founded by the LDS church to try to get gay men to want to have sex with women, also known as ‘re-orientation therapy.’  Someone should do a scientific study on how effective THAT is.

So it should come as little surprise that The author, Evergreen’s Executive Director’s real thesis can be found in this statement, “The simplistic biological theory has been dismissed by all of the researchers whose studies have been cited to support the notion that homosexuality is so deeply compelled by biology that it cannot change.”


I had to read it several times to get the gist. I think it is saying that no scientist will claim that sexual orientation cannot be changed. So there ya go. If you wanna meddle with God’s perfect creation, Evergreen is for you!

One need not read too far into the article to find the predictable hallmark argument of the anti-gay crowd and most duplicitous manipulation of the uninformed. The Director disguises his ruse like a pro. Let’s examine the words of just one of those (researchers) often incorrectly cited as providing evidence for a “gay gene.”

To date, NO human behavior, let alone sexual behavior, has been connected to genetic markers and it is unlikely that there ever will. Many diverse sources of data have shown that any two individuals are more than 99.9% identical in sequence, which means that all the differences among individuals in our species that might be attributed to genes fall in a mere 0.1% of the sequence.

The Director’s shameless distortion through the use of omission and semantics does not stop there. Citing a recent genetic study by a University of Illinois team, which unsurprisingly found “no [sic] one gay gene.” He selectively summarizes that the lead researcher Dr. Brian Mustanski noted that environmental factors were also likely to be involved, but conveniently leaves out this comment by the same man, “Our study helps to establish that genes play an important role in determining whether a man is gay or heterosexual.”

Be also careful of the use of the phrase “environmental factors” by the snake oil salesmen trying to book rooms at Evergreen. It doesn’t always mean mommy was a monster in jackboots, “environmental factors” include hormonal conditions in the womb.

Lastly, I want to point out the cunning in the sentence, “If the innate-immutable theory of homosexuality has no basis in science” blah blah blah. That’s the same Rovian technique the neo-cons use to ignore global warming. If you need innate-immutable proof before you can accept anything, what are you doing in church?

At least 450 species exhibit homosexual behavior. Interestingly, our closest ancestral species exhibit quite a bit of it. I love this article, “The Fabulous Kingdom of Gay Animals”.

But the best evidence that homosexuality is not a choice is that there is a homosexual near you (You may have even created one), and if you can gain their trust, they will convince you they didn’t choose it.

  1. #1 by Cliff Lyon on November 19, 2008 - 11:00 am

    If you do not read this article you may not comment on this post.

    The fabulous kingdom of gay animals

    No exceptions. This is a threat! 🙂

  2. #2 by Kevin Owens on November 19, 2008 - 12:41 pm

    I found this response to the fraternal birth order study, which was interesting.

  3. #3 by Ken on November 19, 2008 - 1:20 pm

    There are a multitude of reasons why people are gay. Saying it is all genetic is very simplistic on a subject that is extremely complex. There are many reasons why people are gay, some people are always gay, but others are gay for a time then go straight, Many people who consider themselves gay are not exclusive to the same sex. Some people are gay for emotional or social reasons. The point is there is no single reason for people being gay. if genetics is the primary reason that would actually be bad news for the gay community. The inevitable effect would be parents having prenatal testing for “gay gene. What will the gay community do if people start aborting their babies simply because they may be predisposed to being gay? What if they find this “gay gene” can be reversed? Will the gay community object to what some would describe as a “cure”. Some gay people may want this. Would you keep it from them? On the flip side would you support genetic manipulation to make people gay? If the “gay gene” theory was ever to be proven it would open up huge ethical questions.

    Kind of sounds like the same questions posed in the last X-Men movie.

  4. #4 by Paul Mero on November 19, 2008 - 1:22 pm

    I couldn’t have said it any better…The Fabulous Kingdom of Gay Animals. Sums up the fluidity of the ideology of sex today.

  5. #5 by Cliff Lyon on November 19, 2008 - 2:18 pm

    Paul Mero Sexologist? I had no idea. Do you take private clients.

    Seriously Paul. How many sexual realtionships have YOU had in your life? What REALLY do you know about sex?

    I always get a chuckle over self-proclaimed expertise on sex coming from people who represent themselves, at least by association, with the strict sexual morays of protestant fundamentlaist religions.

    How about you Ken. When did you become an expert of homosexuality.

    I guess I can see how such a sexually repressed community would become obsessed with sex.

  6. #6 by Richard Okelberry on November 19, 2008 - 2:48 pm


    I have read your associated article so I assume I am allowed to participate in your discussion. Or do I have to brag first about my sexual history before being allowed to participate.

    I absolutely love this topic and have been looking forward to it coming up ever since Prop. 8 got everyone so upset. Specifically, I am interested in talking about what Homosexuality is. As the author of this post, Cliff would you say that homosexuality is genetic, environmental or social? What is the Darwinian purpose of homosexuality as it presents it’s self in the animal kingdom? What other mammalian trait would you compare homosexuality to? Why do some homosexuals adopt a foreign speech pattern that while sounding feminine is unlike any generally used by women? Would you say that homosexuality should be scientifically classified as a mental or social disorder? If not, what do you feel is an appropriate scientific classification?

    I hope you will take my inquiries seriously, Cliff.

  7. #7 by Paul Mero on November 19, 2008 - 4:21 pm

    Cliff…just as I chuckle over self-prolaimed experts on religion coming from someone who represents himself as an ardent atheist. Admit it man…you’re a hater and an ideologue.

    You could no more mind your own business than go without that daily dose of lithium. But what do I know about your bi-polar disorder…I’m a sex expert!!

  8. #8 by Cliff Lyon on November 19, 2008 - 4:54 pm

    Paul, I am an athiest BECAUSE I am an expert on religion. My father is a Jew (born raised and escaped Berlin) and my mother Southern Presbyterian. I grew up attending temples and churches and sunday school regularly. Cub Scouts, Boy Scouts.

    I minored in religion. I lived in Israel for a year imersed in language and old old testamant translation analysis and religion studies. I speak Hebrew and I know the Bible far better than most Mormons and all your missionaries.

    I have been to many sacrement meetings, firesides, Sunday school AND priesthood meetings and parts of conference over the years.
    I have been through the lessons twice and I have read the BOM D&C.

    Anytime you would like to get into a scripture quoting session, you let me know.


    You simply must stop calling people ‘hater’. You must know by now that that particular accusation is considered self-reflection.

    I apologize if I ask too personal questions. I was merely trying to make the point that your perspective on sex might be fairly superficial.

  9. #9 by Cliff Lyon on November 19, 2008 - 5:00 pm

    Richard Okelberries,

    I don’t include Lutherans in the sexually repressed category. I dated a hard core from South Dakota for a year. Lets just say she was not shy and she never missed church. So no, you need not brag.

    I’ll assume you have a much more empirically based perspective on sex than Paul Mero or Ken.

    On your question,

    As the author of this post, Cliff would you say that homosexuality is genetic, environmental or social?

    Read my post again. The answer is there at the beginning middle and end.

    As for your other questions, no time, not really important because…

    …the best evidence that homosexuality is not a choice is that there is a homosexual near you (You may have even created one), and if you can gain their trust, they will convince you they didn’t choose it.

  10. #10 by Paul Mero on November 19, 2008 - 5:16 pm

    Cliff, you’ve had all that experience and you’re still ignorant about such things?

    You’ll remember this verse better than I…”ever learning and never coming to a knowledge of truth.”

  11. #11 by glenn on November 19, 2008 - 5:32 pm

    Let’s be real here, it is the goal of any animal to spread its genes. In the context of the wild that means that only the strongest, and it would seem the most cunning get to breed and continue their genetics.

    In the case of the ungulates in the picture, the dominant male keeps his harem of females and defends them from interlopers. He cannot however stop all comers, and the sly and backdoor do their work when the alphas are a bit too busy to manage affairs entirely.

    To be sure animals display homosexual behavior, but given the opportunity to breed do so at once in the absence of the dominant. In this regard we can view homosexual behavior as an outlet to frustration of being denied the ability to breed due to the lack of dominance of a particular animal individual.

    We see gay people breeding in the same manner given the opportunity, though as we are not “animals” the choice can be made to continue the preferential behavior.

    Indeed I don’t know that anyone really knows what makes human sexuality tick, but in the case of the beasts, they will breed at once given the opportunity in absence of the controls of the dominant alphas in their herds, packs, etc. etc.

    Using the animal kingdom to describe homosexuality as a natural process denies the aspect that what people are seeing in animals is either confused behavior of creatures with IQ’s under 35, and what amounts to simple frustration in the ever present battle to spread genetic material.

    It discounts our humanity to use animal behavior to try to defend or describe why humans are gay. Try something else.

  12. #12 by Cliff Lyon on November 19, 2008 - 6:41 pm

    If you can’t defend yourself, pompously slap down a parable.

  13. #13 by Cliff Lyon on November 19, 2008 - 7:01 pm

    Actually Glenn, its a bit more complicated. ‘Spreading the gene’ is not good enough. Our evolution is also driven by the survival of progeny.

    Since the male parental investment for human babies is so high AND because during 99% of our evolution offspring were raised not by the fathers but by kin of the mother, brothers played a critical role in survival of offspring carrying their genes.

    Therefore, being gay at worse, was on par with straight males in passing on their genes. At best, having a gay aunt or uncle was an advantage.

    This is one of three theories.

  14. #14 by glenn on November 19, 2008 - 7:18 pm

    Yes, you admit the flaw in your reasoning, “our evolution” is not that of the beasts.

    We have had entirely extended spectrums of evolution of social norms as well as physical changes that have encompassed, and signifcantly impacted our arrival of where we are today.

    We are not beasts, though at one time, we may have been. My point is that using the behavior of deer to describe humans is pretty sketchy. Thay are what they have been, primary food, herd beasts. As are many of the rest described.

    *As a side note, have you followed the discovery of primitive “hobbit” like humans(in now current Indonesia) that apparantly survived and evolved with “us” until about 10k years ago. They were quite small brained, yet extremely successful, made tools, even though they did die out. It has really thrown a proper spanner in the works of pat theory of evolution in the Darwinian model.

    It leads to the theory of concurrent evolution, in which different varieties of essentially the same type of creature strive side by side, perhaps in competiton, perhaps in exclusion. In this model, a “gay’ element could be an advantage for raising offspring, the built in nanny that never breeds or interferes with alpha genetics, but inherently adds to the success in the species.

    Maybe we are now a symbiosis of species that are from two differing tracks. This would explain the animus we see for some elements for the homosexual behavior. That side of humanity in the “animal” state, did not utilize this behavior as a means to ensuring survival.

    Just some musings.

    You must provide more than 5 minutes for review and editing. 10 would be much more beneficial, for everyone, in order to ensure excellent content as well as professional appearance. Consider it.

  15. #15 by Cliff Lyon on November 19, 2008 - 8:01 pm

    Having “…extended spectrums of evolution of social norms ” does not negate the ‘beast.’ i.e we don’t F&^% and less or any differently.

  16. #16 by glenn on November 19, 2008 - 9:16 pm

    Oh, but Cliff, oh yes we DO!!!

    Do you wrap before fucking? Does your bitch take a pill? Do you have harem? How do you control your inherent ability to procreate?

    Does any critter with an IQ of under 35 operate under these parameters?

    Highest order of critter inintelligence? Elephant, Killer Whale, and so forth. Estimated IQ 60-70 MAX, i.e. RETARDED in human terms.

    So they utilize birth control? Humans and hunting, predation, illness, ARE their birth control. We RULE at avg. IQ 100-110. With a medical community of professionals.

    That said, we ALL DIE!

  17. #17 by glenn on November 19, 2008 - 10:21 pm

    So what about the ten minutes? It only serves reaction and emotionalism to short shrift intellectual opposition using a time based structure.

    Be fair, despite the antithesis of your nature.

    You know me to be correct. That said, we defer to your absolute control of the site intellectually and spiritually, despite the fact that such uninhibited exercise leads directly unto the path into the moral morasss, better described as Pit of Hades.

  18. #18 by glenn on November 19, 2008 - 10:31 pm

    Spare me the moderation, or do you simply realize your inherent weakness, and suffer under your fears?

    You make then a sorry leader, inhibited by the risk of your perceived enemies, displying your weakness to all but those that matter, unto these that have strength.

    Don’t be a puss, you have so much more than that, and that is free, my compliments.

    Being an arbiter of truth, and freedom, is to be well hated. That is how you know you have a real constituency. love glenn

    PS: Your friend and mine, Jim, is truly an intellectual powerhouse, though I love him, like a retarded son. Please keep this upon your confidence. With love glenn.

  19. #19 by glenn on November 19, 2008 - 10:42 pm

    The truth being I am still here, due respect to your own temerity, and fairness, dare I say, class.

    Continue to play, though spare me your attempts at strike in defamation. I have have my own guns. I have well operated in disadvantage.

    As you by now well know, though you barely can believe the like of me so capable of arming them, I am indeed at least dangerous, up front.

    In that regard the laugh is on you, though for so long, I have been laughing, long before the guns ever fired.

    Seek armistance, always in the best interest of those at lay.

    cheers glenn

  20. #20 by Richard Okelberry on November 20, 2008 - 2:53 pm


    To be honest, I didn’t expect you to take my inquiry seriously.

    I personally believe that Homosexuality is likely a combination of heredity, environment and socialized behavior. While genetics may play a role it certainly can’t be the only guiding influence. The ancient Spartans show us that it is possible for a society to become heavily dominated by homosexuality. While Spartan warriors were always expected to marry and have children they forged such strong bonds with fellow warriors through a close training regiment. It is this regiment and close bond that leads many anthropologist to believe to be responsible for the majority of these warriors taking homosexual lovers on the side. Usually, the homosexual pair would consist of an older instructor and a younger pupil. This illustrates that given the right conditions, men can ADOPT a homosexual lifestyle. That said; I don’t believe this learned trait is indicative of all homosexuals.

    I also believe that there is a genetic reason for homosexuality. This is why I ask if you believed that there is Darwinist reason for homosexuality. While I have yet to read any theories that strike me as spot on, I have conjectured that homosexuality may very well be like the Fight or Flight response. To be certain if there is a genetic component it must pass through generations the same way this response does. Otherwise after many generation of rarely procreating the gene responsible would cease to exist or its occurrence would be diminished rapidly. Much as the fighter in the fight or flight response will not survive as often to allow for extensive breeding. Still the response is rather consistent in populations showing that the gene must be something that is carried by all and turned on by environment. Even now some scientist are speculating that pheromones may play the biggest roll in determining the sex of a human child. It appears that if a man is around a large number of women his offspring will be likely to be male. While if he is surrounded by men all the time, his offspring will likely be female. This is nature’s way of keeping the population balanced.

    The theory about homosexuals possibly being used in child rearing is very interesting. I will have to research that more.

    Also, I do think there is a mental disorder component for some homosexuals. This is why I asked about men adopting feminine traits. Perhaps it is a disorder that develops from repression. Now I know some will take offense to me referring to some homosexual behavior as a mental disorder, but it clearly presents itself that way. If it makes anyone feel better, mild dyslexia is also a disorder and neither diminishes the value of the individual in my mind.

  21. #21 by Becky on November 20, 2008 - 6:06 pm

    A mental disorder, Richard? Boy, that’s a throwback. Maybe they are possessed of devils, too. Welcome to the Dark Ages.

  22. #22 by Richard Okelberry on November 21, 2008 - 8:32 am



    I should note that homosexuality has long been held by the psychiatric community to be a mental disorder. It was not until the gay community began lobbying and personally attacking ranking members of the psychiatric community that homosexuality was finally reclassified by the American Psychiatric Association in 1973. I should reinforce that it was not scientific evidence that caused the reclassification but political pressure. Continued pressure from advocacy groups have since successfully block and demonized much research into the area. This is why we are having this conversation.

    Also, I would like to point out that it is not sexual orientation that I am saying is a mental disorder but the way that certain gay men adopt extremely feminine attributes that are unique to the disorder. These are attributes that we do not find anywhere else in society. Would you say as woman Becky that the personality traits of a “flaming” man are indicative of those shown by women? Of course not.

    I am merely saying that it may be years of repression or other psychological pressures that cause these traits to be exhibited. The fact that not all gay men exhibit these traits is a sign that it is likely not directly a result of homosexuality but instead has an indirect relationship.

    There are many social and mental disorders that have by associated with homosexuality. Gay women are more likely to have a drug or alcohol problem than straight women. Gay men usually have a higher incidence of eating disorders while gay women are lower. Gay men exhibit higher mood and anxiety disorders, gay women have a higher rate of depression and gay and bisexual male youth are 13 times more likely to commit suicide.

    While it is likely these disorders are related to social pressures placed on them by society for being gay, they are none the less mental disorders and should be treated as such regardless of sexual orientation.

    What do you think Becky?

  23. #23 by Becky on November 21, 2008 - 8:52 am


    If you are saying that societal pressures on gays result in psychological trauma for many, I would agree. But if you are saying, all societal pressures aside, that a gay lifestyle indicates a mental disorder, I strongly disagree. We all, you included Richard, dress in a manner, pursue activities, even modulate our voices to create the image we have of ourselves. Just because you are more accustomed to your particular lifestyle doesn’t make yours sane and someone else’s a mental disorder.

  24. #24 by Richard Okelberry on November 21, 2008 - 9:49 am


    That is not just what I am saying but what I am questioning. Are gay men that adopt unique feminine attributes simply putting on a show, or are they compelled to do so by a condition caused by social pressures. Your answer would seem to suggest that flaming gay men are just putting on a show and that they could if they wanted to change their behavior. Or is this tendency possibly tied directly to being homosexual, assuming that homosexuality is caused by a chemical or neurological condition that redirects sexual orientation.

    Are there any effeminate gay men reading this that can answer this question?

    I know this subject is difficult to talk about because there is a lot of social pressure to be sensitive to homosexuality. I am certainly not trying to insult anyone in the gay community, but truly trying to understand what homosexuality is. We need to all remember that bigotry begins with fear that is often caused by ignorance. If we cannot discuss what homosexuality is, we cannot help put away the bigotry that often follows it.

    Beck, what do you believe homosexuality is and do you feel that there is a Darwinian explanation for it? I assume you believe in evolution when I ask that question.

  25. #25 by Becky on November 21, 2008 - 10:05 am


    No, you misunderstand. I’m not saying it’s an act. I’m saying that our behavior is a result of how we see ourselves. Social influences do affect that. I like to wear my hair and dress a certain way because it feels more feminine to me. I don’t have a clue why that matters to me, it’s innate. But I also like to wear jeans a lot of the time, and while some might view that as a masculine trait, I don’t think it indicates a mental illness on my part. It’s just something I also enjoy. If a man feels innately feminine, it makes sense he might dress and talk accordingly.

    I must confess I’ve never listened to you on the radio, Richard, but I’ll bet, like most radio personalities, you have a nice deep, well-modulated radio voice that you don’t necessarily use in normal everyday conversation. Why do you do that on the radio? Does it indicate some sort of mental disorder?

    I’m not a student of Darwin, so I can’t answer that part of your question.

  26. #26 by Richard Okelberry on November 21, 2008 - 2:42 pm


    I’m a little confused… and I guess that is the point. Without a strong definition of homosexuality it is difficult to discuss. What traits of some gay men are innate and which are contrived have long perplexed me. You certainly seem to be saying that social influences good and bad help guide the way you present yourself to the world and that effeminate behavior is simply one example. If that is the case can effeminate behaviors be something that can be changed by negative social pressure?

    As far as the radio goes, no I don’t alter my voice and the really good talk show hosts don’t… It sounds much better to simply be yourself and carry one the way you would in a normal conversation. Those that alter their voice are said to be puking on the air and is what people typically think of when they imagine a radio DJ announcing music for a pop station. Of course I think I sound terrible over the air, but am told that everyone feels that way. Very strange… That’s probably for another psychological discussion for another day.

    I should note that I am not employed by KVNU, while I was considered for a full time position, the Paralyzed Veterans persuaded me that taking on such demanding position might be a bit much and suggested I continue to simply fill in for a while. Jason Williams (KVNU’s liberal voice) and I have longed talked about hosting a weekend political recap show, but nothing is in the works as of yet. While I have guest hosted on many occasions, (especially during the transition) I am not part of the permanent staff but a volunteer contributor. KVNU regularly draws on the opinions of its contributors to help give a diverse range of opinions. If for example a contributor has researched or written extensively on a subject, Tyler the host may ask them to come on to discuss the issue. I feel that this is one of the things that help make For the People different from other shows and why it is so interesting for people of a wide range of political leanings. You really should pod-cast it. I bet you would like it.

  27. #27 by Becky on November 21, 2008 - 3:17 pm

    Sorry for being confusing today. I think I’m doing a little too much multi-tasking and my brain is not cooperating. To say it simply, we each feel comfortable to dress and speak in certain ways. And I believe we do it without really thinking about it. Not all gay men are effeminate. I might add, not all effeminate men are gay. And my point, again, is that clothing, voice, and sexual preference don’t indicate a mental disorder. I don’t think we need to define homosexuality to agree on that point. I hope you will retract that statement.

    Thanks for the info on the radio program. I’ll consider listening. I avoided the FTP web site until recently just because I got streaming video and audio as soon as I launched the page and I hated that. I notice they’ve stopped that now.

    Not all talk radio people talk in natural voices. Rush Limbaugh comes to mind. Ah but then you did say the really good ones don’t puke on the air.

  28. #28 by Cliff Lyon on November 21, 2008 - 6:25 pm


    There are very clear reproductive advantages (Darwinian) associated with homosexuality.

  29. #29 by Richard Okelberry on November 22, 2008 - 7:33 am


    I certainly see what you are saying. When I speak of a mental disorder, we should remember that there are many degrees of severity of mental disorders and modern psychiatry has a tendency to classify anything out of the norm as a disorder. I understand that the term carries with it a negative connotation but I have no other way to describe what I am trying to say. Still the psychiatric term to describe this disposition is Effeminate Disorder, and is usually seen as a precursor by psychiatrists Gender Role Behavior Disturbance and what is now classified not as a disorder but as Homosexual Behavior.

    The reason this confuses me is because I have know many gay men throughout my life time and have personally witnessed several times effeminate attribute suddenly presenting themselves over a very short time, usually once they come out. This aspect of the homosexual experience has long perplexed me. I suspect that you are right and it is not a compulsion at all but rather a stereo typified way that some gay men decide to present themselves.. Depending on how strong of a need the individual has to stand out likely determines how effeminate they are and how much they deviate from the norms of society. I also understand that these characteristics can eventually become part of a person’s personality. This is why Madonna, a girl that grew up in Michigan now has an English accent. She put on the personality that she felt best described her to the world, much like you were saying before. Still, I cannot put down the idea as expressed by much of the psychiatric community that in some cases these traits are “wired” in as part of Homosexual Behavior. If so our society probably has those that are truly effeminate and those that choose to emulate effeminate behaviors.

    The reason it is important to know whether or not it is a chosen attribute or one that is innate is because it speaks to the appropriate way for society to react to it. If the characteristic is beyond the control of the individual, it would be very wrong for society to try and curb the trait through social pressures as you have suggested. Much like having a physical disability or a person’s race or gender, people have become more and more aware that it is inappropriate to criticize someone for something that they have no control over.

    KVNU: You really should try Podcasting the program. You really might be surprised. Right now 2 of the 3 permanent hosts are liberal and the third is only moderately conservative. The views expressed there likely more in line with yours than mine. Still, they maintain a great balance and do a good job of playing Devils Advocate when necessary.

  30. #30 by Richard Okelberry on November 22, 2008 - 7:41 am


    I would like to read some of these theories. I understand how a “gay-gene” might survive natural selection via the mother, but would like to know about any actual theories by real scientists towards why this might be the case. I have seen one article on the concept of drones serving the queen but the argument seems weak.

  31. #31 by Cliff on November 22, 2008 - 11:00 am

    Well Okelberries, Why don’t you do some more research and let me know what you learn.

    You might start with ev psych homosexaulity theory.

    Why, by the way, do you use the term “gay-gene?” Did you even read my post?

    To date, NO human behavior, let alone sexual behavior, has been connected to genetic markers and it is unlikely that there ever will. Many diverse sources of data have shown that any two individuals are more than 99.9% identical in sequence, which means that all the differences among individuals in our species that might be attributed to genes fall in a mere 0.1% of the sequence.

  32. #32 by Paul Mero on November 22, 2008 - 11:21 am

    Cliff…good point about human behavior and genetics. I’m proud of you! Look out, you might have to admit one day that we’re all repsonsible for our own actions!! Yikes.

    Better point: there is a genetic marker for male and female.

  33. #33 by Cliff Lyon on November 22, 2008 - 11:39 am

    Paul, Of course we are “responsibible for our own actions.” I’m guessing you mean something different.

    Do you mean, if you lose your job at the GM plant, health insurance, and get sick…well fuck you because “responsibible for our own actions.”?

    Is that what you would like me to admit? What kinds of actions are you accusing me of not admiting we are responsible for?

    Or do you mean, voting twice for George Bush means you are responsible for murder and other high crimes?

  34. #34 by Paul Mero on November 22, 2008 - 11:54 am

    All I mean is if you’re sodomizing your friend, or an anonymous person, that God, genetics, or the Mormons aren’t making you do it.

  35. #35 by Ken on November 22, 2008 - 12:11 pm


    I will hold you to that logic. Whatever atrocities are committed during the Obama regime I will hold you personally responsible since you hold us responsible for Bush.
    All deaths that occur from Jan 21 on will be blood on the hands of Barack Obama and by extension yours too. Since it will be your side that will be continuing this illegal occupation. If the doors are not open and all who inhabited Guantanamo Bay are set free then you are personally responsible for the detention of innocent people who were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time and were innocent bystanders when they were caught amongst terrorists oh sorry freedom fighters that oppose America’s bigotry, sexism, and homophobia. Every second from the time Barack Obama places his hand on Das Capital and swears to defend the UN charter on Jan. 21,2009 that those poor innocent people are illegally imprisoned is on your hands. Also it will be your fault if Barack Obama does not immediately point to George W. Bush and Dick Cheney and say “Arrest those men for planning and masterminding 911 and blaming it on a poor goat herder named Osama Bin Laden”. It will all be your fault cliff. Sleep well on that.

  36. #36 by Cliff Lyon on November 22, 2008 - 12:14 pm

    Jesus Paul, Is it really about sex for you? Is that why you have such a problem with same-sex love?

    I can think of a whole bunch of hetero sex acts that make me cringe too.

  37. #37 by Cliff Lyon on November 22, 2008 - 12:17 pm

    Golly Ken, Did I hit a nerve? Sounds like you’re starting to admit to your complicity in the crimes of the Bush adminstration.

    Good for you! Let the healing begin!

  38. #38 by Paul Mero on November 22, 2008 - 12:28 pm

    Cliff…just Paul is fine.

    And I think Ken makes a great point…and that is why I recommended earlier that you guys get very introspective over the next four years. Ken makes a fair point, at least for the internal machinations of the One Utah blog…you guys have pathologically generalized, correlated, and blended anything about Bush as a reflection on all Republicans, conservatism, Mormons, and the list goes on and on.

    I think it’s fair now for you all to look inward and proceed with the same framework about your religious-like support for Obama. If one person loses a job…it’s Obama’s fault and by extension your fault. If one person in the military dies…it’s Obama’s fault and by extension your fault. And so on and so on.

    What do you think?

    (BTW, if you catch me seriously blaming you for Obama’s actions or externalities out of your control, or iow doing to you what you so delight in doing to others, please call me on it. I’ll fess up. and apologize.)

  39. #39 by Cliff Lyon on November 22, 2008 - 12:36 pm

    Jesus Paul,

    How convenenient. How CREATIVE!

    We are talking about the by far the worse president in history, RE-ELECTED even after he DEMONSTRATED is criminality.

    …and your -oh so clever rsponse is, “If one person in the military dies…it’s Obama’s fault “

  40. #40 by C av on November 22, 2008 - 10:17 pm

    Paul Jesus Mero says,’ You guys have pathetically generalized…”

    Good, Paul. A shining example of just what it is.

    I’m only guessing, but are your eyes brown? I don’t see any possible alternatives.

  41. #41 by Richard Okelberry on November 23, 2008 - 7:19 am


    I am asking you about research you might know of into Darwinian justification for homosexuality so that I may know what you base your beliefs on and get a shortcut to the information. I think sometimes you get so stuck in adversarial mode and your need to win a discussion that you fail to see the benefit of civil discourse. Of course I might be wrong in assuming that you really have a broad understanding of the subject but if you do I imagine we all could benefit from your knowledge.

    On one hand you say, “There are very clear reproductive advantages (Darwinian) associated with homosexuality,” but then fail to provide examples or references. I hope I don’t have to remind you that saying it is so, doesn’t make it so.

    I truly am interested in this line of discussion and any factual information that you use to develop your belief system about homosexuality. As I understand you from your last post, you either do not believe there is a genetic component to homosexuality or you simply believe that it will not be provable. If the first is true and there is no genetic component to homosexuality, how can there be a Darwinian justification since evolution depends on the survival of genetic variations against Natural Selection?

  42. #42 by Cliff Lyon on November 23, 2008 - 9:06 am

    Richard, I said there is no GENE. Of course there is a genetic component in the sense that evolutionary adaptations are passed along.

    For example, if the mothers hormones have an effect, her hormonal predisposition would have a genetic component.

    I’m compiling a top post just for you. ITMT, tell me what you mean by “how can there be a Darwinian justification since evolution depends on the survival of genetic variations against Natural Selection?”

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: