Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Gay flies turned on by heat
NewScientist.com news service ^ | September 16, 2002

Posted on 09/17/2002 12:15:14 AM PDT by Sweet_Sunflower29

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-63 next last
To: Sweet_Sunflower29
Some of the neurons affected by the genetic changes are involved in sensing pheromones. These play an important role in fly courtship behaviour, but their influence in human sexual behaviour is unknown.

"Pheromones" would not explain the gay man's attraction to gay porn. Paper and video do not emit pheromones.

This science study is nothing but a simple parlor trick to get people to believe that homosexuality is "genetic" since they are working with genetically modified flies.

41 posted on 09/17/2002 3:52:23 PM PDT by weegee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: spetznaz
Obviously, homosexuality is unnatural. But in order to justify themselves, homosexuals have for a long time promoted any deviant sexual behavior in animals as justification for their lifestyle. After all if animals do it, it must be "natural." I think that is what Houmatt is alluding to.
42 posted on 09/17/2002 3:53:01 PM PDT by far sider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: spetznaz
Do Bonobos remain monogamous? Do homosexual ape couples attempt to raise (others) ape children to meet a parental nurturing instinct?
43 posted on 09/17/2002 3:58:06 PM PDT by weegee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Houmatt
Dogs will eat feces, hump furniture, and attempt to mount humans' legs. Just because things happen in the animal kingdom does not mean that they are sanctioned in our civilized world.

Some animals eat their young, some rape.

44 posted on 09/17/2002 4:01:14 PM PDT by weegee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: N. Theknow
Did somebody mention Blowfly?


45 posted on 09/17/2002 4:05:24 PM PDT by weegee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: far sider
All sorts of things are "natural" but undesirable. It's "natural" to kill and to steal and so on & so forth. I've never understood this obsession with what's "natural" and "unnatural" in the first place.
46 posted on 09/17/2002 4:29:21 PM PDT by AntiGuv
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Sweet_Sunflower29
HOW on earth does one determine that a fly is gay?

Better fashion sense.

BTW, does this mean the Gay and Lesbian Lobby will come out against air conditioners?

47 posted on 09/17/2002 4:39:18 PM PDT by Junior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv
How can one possibly compare elaborate human sexual behavior (which doesn't even involve pheromones)

Are you CERTAIN of that?

48 posted on 09/17/2002 4:48:34 PM PDT by null and void
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: null and void
No, I'm not absolutely certain because they've discovered some exceedingly ambiguous evidence of a pheromone factor in human sexuality. However, I'm extremely confident that even should this factor become proven, it's of infinitesimal significance within the array of psychobiological drives and sociocultural forces which drive human sexual behavior.
49 posted on 09/17/2002 4:51:53 PM PDT by AntiGuv
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv
Fair enough!
50 posted on 09/17/2002 4:53:05 PM PDT by null and void
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: far sider; AntiGuv; Houmatt; weegee; Old_Professor; gundog
Obviously, homosexuality is unnatural. But in order to justify themselves, homosexuals have for a long time promoted any deviant sexual behavior in animals as justification for their lifestyle. After all if animals do it, it must be "natural." I think that is what Houmatt is alluding to.

I actually understand Houmatt's basic premise. That is not the problem. My problem is when he accuses me of spreading homosexual propaganda and the like just because i reported on what Bonobos do! And then he goes further and says that i should watch what i say because this is a conservative forum!

I am conservative, however that does not mean i should shut out stuff that is true just because it does not sit well with other conservatives. If i was alive in the middle-ages i would not have said the Universe revolved around the Earth if i knew otherwise! Nor would i have said the Earth was a flat plane and mosnters lived at its edges!

However according to Houmatt my post on the Bonobo was conservative anathema ....and hence it was enough incentive for him to attack me. He would prefer for me to keep quiet about the Bonobos and not disrupt his lil' coccoon.

However although FR is a conservative forum it is also a free forum for the exchange of ideas. And hence i am free to post whatever i desire, and if it disturbs people like Houmatt then there is really nothing i can do about that. After all there is no panacea for unabated ignorance and atrophied intellectual acumen! And if i will be made a matyr for my posts on the Bonobo so be it .....i would rather be flamed than to be a sheep denying facts like the Bonobo shares 98% of its DNA with humans or that the world is by far older that 6,000 years old (the reason i bring this up is there was another thread where this group of 'Christians' ganged up on me and some others for saying the world is older than 6,000 years old. And these 'Christians' were actually using insults, which is very un-christian).

And those guys also referred to DU just like Houmatt did (and they added that if i did not 'watch out' they would reveal my 'secret identity' before they started calling me a 'masonic warlock').

There is no way people like Houmatt can make me switch off my mind and follow folk lore and conjecture, and him saying i am pro-homosexual does not affect me since i clearly know i am not. And i also know that most Freepers are not like him and do their research before they spout forth vitriol!

And if you notice Houmatt's posts not once does he give real evidence to prove me wrong, not once. All he does is say i am posting propaganda and so on. And no matter what his rationale is i do not think he should blatantly attack people for posting stuff he is either ignorant of or disbelieves.

51 posted on 09/17/2002 5:08:55 PM PDT by spetznaz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: weegee
Just because things happen in the animal kingdom does not mean that they are sanctioned in our civilized world.

Some animals eat their young, some rape.


Well, you had me 'till that last sentence...
52 posted on 09/17/2002 5:38:46 PM PDT by Sweet_Sunflower29
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Sweet_Sunflower29
Genetically engineered flies-The first try


Genetically engineered flies-Another outcome


Click 'watch film' on left side.
53 posted on 09/17/2002 5:58:30 PM PDT by Sweet_Sunflower29
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
See #53-
54 posted on 09/17/2002 5:59:18 PM PDT by Sweet_Sunflower29
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: spetznaz; far sider; Houmatt; weegee; Old_Professor; gundog
DU is a land of appalling ignorance and I'd show you the way except I wouldn't want to be complicit in totally wasting five good minutes of your life. ;-) In any case, you reminded be of this passage that I copied a long while ago - I don't remember from where anymore - which I figured I'd share with all y'all:

The universe looks old. Exactly as it would look if it's really old. As if it has one, specific, consistent history. As if it has been expanding for fifteen billion years from a single point. As if light has been traveling through it, lensing through gravitational fields, and as if events hundreds of thousands of light-years away have sent light at right angles to us, hundreds of thousands of years ago, which reflected off other objects and then came toward us. We can use Euclid's geometry to show how far away these objects are and how old their light is.

The Earth looks old. Exactly the way it would look if it's really old. As if it's been around for four-and-a-half billion years, and was hot and molten for the first half-billion of it, as if the continents have been gradually moving for the entire time, and as if the oceans and rivers and streams and tectonic flows have been shaping it, slowly, for all that time. As if Africa and South America have been receding from each other for millions of years, as the deposits have built up on the continents and the sea floor has spread, with the magnetic iron and nickel in the volcanic deposits recording the Earth's changing magnetic field, exactly in time with the changes we have been measuring.

It looks just as if radioactive isotopes have been here, changing into their stable daughter elements in accord with the laws of physics, changing the ratios of those daughter isotopes in exact proportion to the elements (not the isotopes) found in the rock, just exactly as if they've been doing so for hundreds of millions, or billions, of years.

Life on Earth looks old, exactly like it would be if it's really old, as if it's been here for almost the entire history of the Earth, as if it's been changing all that time, with new species appearing, each similar to something that was here before. As if coral, dated to three hundred million years ago by the radioactive material in the rocks it was growing on, was showing four hundred days in a year, exactly matching the predicted slowing effect of lunar tides on the Earth's rotation over three hundred million years.

Life on Earth looks as if it's descended from a common ancestor. Exactly like it, in fact. Just as if it's arranged in a nested hierarchy of similarity, instead of all the infinite other ways it could have been arranged, and as if the junk, noncoding DNA in each animal has exactly the same similarity relationship as the morphological hierarchy, like the errors in DNA, shared in the nested hierarchy, such as why humans and chimps and gorillas can get scurvy but all the other mammals can produce their own vitamin C.

Certainly God could have created the Earth six thousand years ago. Or last week, for that matter. But regardless of when it was created, it was created to look exactly as if it had all this history?

55 posted on 09/17/2002 6:05:14 PM PDT by AntiGuv
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Sweet_Sunflower29
Was it that it was false or that it was crass?
56 posted on 09/17/2002 8:01:00 PM PDT by weegee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Sweet_Sunflower29
bump
57 posted on 09/19/2002 3:15:48 PM PDT by spetznaz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Houmatt
Not as ignorant as thinking you came from a monkey.

What part of 'common anscestor' is givin' ya'll trouble? I suspect that most monkeys would disavow the theory after a week in Texas. Empiricism is a real bitch, ain't it?

58 posted on 09/20/2002 9:50:43 AM PDT by gundog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: gundog; All
I just wanted to say "thank you" to all of you. I have been laughing so hard reading this thread.
59 posted on 10/20/2002 12:38:12 AM PDT by expatguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: spetznaz
Screw these people man...Houmat's first response to your orginal post on the Bonobo, I labled him ignorant.

Don't waste your time with 'em...

SR

60 posted on 10/20/2002 1:07:22 AM PDT by sit-rep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-63 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson