Scientific Evidence Sexuality is Pre-determined
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Scholarly Pursuits
Forum Name: Intellectual discussions
Forum Discription: Discuss political and philosophical theories, religious beliefs and other academic subjects
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=24670
Printed Date: 28-Apr-2024 at 02:09
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Scientific Evidence Sexuality is Pre-determined
Posted By: Constantine XI
Subject: Scientific Evidence Sexuality is Pre-determined
Date Posted: 17-Jun-2008 at 04:28
|
More scientific evidence to show that, contrary to foreboding moralist ranting, sexuality is actually partially pre-determined in the womb rather than some insidious learned behaviour. This latest research adds to the growing volume of scientific fact which demonstrates that sexuality is naturally varied, especially in higher order mammals (of which we humans are one). Just as backwards thinking societies did one day have to come to term with their irrational bigotry and superstitions and put an end to witch burning, so they are today confronted with the awful truth that their centuries long persecution of a social minority is not only wholly unjustified but also an attack on the natural order.
The irony runs thick and fast as so-called "moral majority" advocates who have long condemned homosexual behaviour as unnatural, are now faced with a growing body of evidence demonstrating that it is a naturally occurring behaviour determined prior to birth. For years human rights advocates have argued hard that sexuality is not a choice, and this latest study provides validation to that. Now the way forward for the parts of the world where persecution is still practiced against homosexuals is to come to term with the morally reprehensible nature of their policies, and form a progressive outlook on the issue based on genuine compassion and respect for human beings whose sexual disposition is a normal product of nature.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7456588.stm - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7456588.stm
|
As far as I'm concerned there is no argument any more - if you are gay, you are born gay 
Replies:
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 17-Jun-2008 at 05:09
|
Certainly I think that this is often the case. That's not to say that this condition is permanent though, it probably develops, and can probably be corrected (if desired). It is probably affected by environment (what foods you eat/your mother eats and so on), but certainly a biological condition. I don't think anyone can say it is a coincidence gay men have a sterotype for being feminine, while lesbian women masculine.
That's not to say that all people who a homosexual have genuine biological reasons. I'm willing to bet a % just do it because its fashionable.
(Also being homosexual doesn't imply homosexual acts. Just as hetrosexuality doesn't imply sexual acts) ------------- |
Posted By: JanusRook
Date Posted: 17-Jun-2008 at 05:26
Really this is excellent news, now we can do brain scans and abort all homosexual children that a way we can rid the world once and all of this disease. ------------- Economic Communist, Political Progressive, Social Conservative. Unless otherwise noted source is wiki. |
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 17-Jun-2008 at 05:33
How exactly? The article provides evidence to show that natural brain functions are more pronounced based on sexuality. You could probably curb behaviours with intense psychological conditioning (i.e. the barbaric process of electro-shock therapy some countries have used), but how does that change the fact the the brains of these people are naturally developed pre utero neurologically?
Also the word "corrected" implies that there is something wrong with this natural disposition. While it may be the case that natural illnesses such as myopia need correcting, homosexuality would first have to be defined as harmful before being considered an illness and warrant anything in the way of correcting. A consideration of the phenomenon may just reveal that a population of non-breeding males with neurological inclinations to artistic and social innovation may just be of benefit to humanity as a whole; thus explaining its continued occurrance in such large numbers generation after generation.
I agree, there is probably a natural neurological pairing (or combination) of pronounced attributed in homosexuals in general. See the number of artists, performers etc through history to see a startlingly high prevalence of homosexuals.
And risk all the associated homophobia and social exlcusion just for that? Not a chance. people don't have sex because its fashionable, they do it because they naturally want to have sex.
Sure, some people just don't have any luck. ------------- |
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 17-Jun-2008 at 05:36
So this is what it takes to get a Catholic to approve abortion
 ------------- |
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 17-Jun-2008 at 05:56
|
No idea. I'm just speculating. Even if it formed in the uterus and cannot be changed afterwards you may be able to influence the development of the child during pregnancy.
Your right that is why I added "(if desired)". As in, I couldn't figure out a way to say it without that implication. What I mean is, just as the probability of a disabled baby can be affected before birth (by say not smoking) and the severity can be adjusted after birth (eating properly etc) so probably could other biological mutations be affected. -I'm not implying homosexual people are unwanted in the same way as a disabled person (ie, rather not be), I'm just searching for a comparision with another biological mutation and can't think of any words which are implication neutral-
Don't you believe it mate. People do have sex because it is fashionable (or more of it). I bet you could compare the celibacy rates over the last 100 years to show that. Some people I am sure would even do it for the homophobia - for a feeling of being different, and lets face this category of people probably change their minds later in life anyway. But this is only some people.
 ------------- |
Posted By: snowybeagle
Date Posted: 17-Jun-2008 at 08:16
Herein lies the falsifiability test : Take the scans of thousands of foetus today, from different parts of the world, and use the theory to identify the supposed sexual orientation.
Check against the results 20 to 30 years later. Of course, no other contact must be made with the test subjects whatsoever to otherwise influence their choices.
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 17-Jun-2008 at 09:17
|
Interesting study. Definatly needs more research with a far higher sample. What it dose not need is to be used as a political tool, either way. If true than the genetics of the last 150 years is off. Under the classical theory ,if it is a biologocal trait, then it can only be inherited. If it is a trait that leads to homosexuality, then very obviously there is a greatly reducedchance of it being passed down, so it should dissapear or be reduced immesly over generations, especially since this is a trait that adversely affects reproduction. It dose not make reproduction impossible, like say infertility dose, but less likely. Thus it should reduce every generation. Clearly this has not happened. Dr Rehman needs to reread his books.
------------- |
Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 17-Jun-2008 at 18:00
|
This is what I have believed for as far as I can remember anyway.
------------- |
Posted By: JanusRook
Date Posted: 20-Jun-2008 at 07:18
What can I say I was channeling my inner Paul. It's fun to do every so often.  Besides I thought Kinsey determined that there is no such thing as true homosexuality or true heterosexuality but that we all have certain attractions that are a combination of natural instincts, personal experiences and inherent human curiosity. Whether your whatever-sexual or not really depends on how much kink you enjoy in your life. Kink being defined as sexual practices that go against the mores of your cultural group. ------------- Economic Communist, Political Progressive, Social Conservative. Unless otherwise noted source is wiki. |
Posted By: snowybeagle
Date Posted: 20-Jun-2008 at 10:20
|
Bingo!
If I, a man, fall in love with a person I thought was a woman, but turns out to be a man in disguise, what does that make me?
If I stop loving the person, does that mean I really loved the person before?
Or if I do not stop loving the person, should I really be considered a homosexual since I thought the person was a woman at the time of falling in love?
Do we love the person or the gender the person belongs to?
|
Posted By: Władysław Warnencz
Date Posted: 28-Jun-2008 at 13:08
|
If we believed in all scientific news that are comming out almost each day....This is another "research" payed by gay organisations.Sexual diseases,such as homosexuality,necrophylia,pedophylia and so on are developed in early childhood.THat's what i think,but even if i'm not right and they are genetic it doesn't change the fact thay are bad and must not be "advertised" on gay pride parades or in the TV.
BTW. In one hour there will be a gay pride parade here in Sofia,and in half an hour there is a gathering of all,who want to stop this (christians,nazis,skinheads,nationalists,patriots and so on...).I go shave myself and than to beat some gays.
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 28-Jun-2008 at 15:48
 ------------- |
Posted By: Władysław Warnencz
Date Posted: 28-Jun-2008 at 19:50
The F* police arrested me and all other few hundred anti-gay activists.They held me for 3 hours in the police departament.Atleast i was in the same cage with the leader of the bulgarian nationalist organisation "Guard" and could speak with him.The gays however were surrounded by hundrets of policemen and menaged to do their gay parade. 
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 29-Jun-2008 at 01:43
You are actually proud of undermining other people's right s?  ------------- |
Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 29-Jun-2008 at 04:02
|
Posted By: Cuauhtemoc
Date Posted: 29-Jun-2008 at 13:19
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 29-Jun-2008 at 17:05
------------- |
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 30-Jun-2008 at 03:48
Ah now I see what you mean. Come to think of it an alternative to "corrected" is hard to think of. "Altered" might be a candidate?
Sorry mate but after this many years out and about in the gay community I have never once met anyone who acted "gay" when there was no kernal of sexual attraction to members of their own gender. Maybe you are equating metrosexuals with homosexuals? I see plenty of metrosexual guys these days, who are fashion conscious and well groomed - but that's just to attract the ladies.
Who knows, maybe in the whole of our country there are a couple of dozen guys who like the gay venues and cultural features enough to pretend they are something they are not - but I would say that the number is so small that it is statistically insignificant and not worth addressing when viewing the bigger picture.
I don't think celibacy and sexuality should really be equated either. Being celibate was ironically once a tool of sexual attraction (a girl would marry better if she wasn't considered a slut *excuse the language*). It wasn't that she suddenly became more sexually stimulated with the passage of decades, society just made celibacy less of an advantage for women. The desire was always there, it just is not so much repressed these days. ------------- |
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 30-Jun-2008 at 03:50
Spot on Leonidas, and your insights are backed up by empirical research also:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cy-7AoxFEJA - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cy-7AoxFEJA ------------- |
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 30-Jun-2008 at 04:04
Actually you have totally missed the point on this one and gotten it completely wrong. If a man says "I believe", that is about the strongest endorsement he can give of his confidence in something. "i suppose/ it is possible/ this suggests", on the other hand, would leave room for doubt open.
Saying "as far as I'm concerned" is the best the man can claim. Who should he also speak on behalf of? The general populace who has not even heard of this study? The doctor then goes on to say "there is no argument anymore". Sorry mate but that is about as definitively confident as anyone can get.
A fair point but one which itself has flaws. Neurologically speaking, there are very few things which actually change the development of nerve endings in the brain, and in the amygdala especially (a primitive part of the brain held in common by the vast bulk of vertebrae). We do know of a few things which can change development of the brain, and the amygdala also. Drug exposure is one. But by far the most common sources of neurological development are genetics and foetal development, especially so in primitive parts of the brain such as the amygdala. So unless you can think of an alternative explanation as to how the amydgala and lobal constructions have developed along the patterns described in the article, we must conclude that these neurological traits are determined naturally rather than through the post natal environment. Remember, we are discussing neurology here and not behavioural science. ------------- |
Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 30-Jun-2008 at 06:55
In that movie and implicitely in your answer the problem is wrongly put. The people who have no problem with the homosexuals are those who care little about where the society goes. So they are insensible and this insensibility manifests too in watching homo-erotical materials. On the contrary, people with a higher sensibility, are influenceable by such materials, eithers are homosexuals of heterosexuals. Images of homosexual acts lead the mind to any sexual act and this is how is explained the reaction of heterosexuals at those images. .... As for the scientifical article about the predetermination of the sexual orientation, my opinion is that is wrong again. The predetermination is a religious, Protestant theory which see a fatalism in being saved or not. The pseudo-scientifical theory presented by you suffer of a childish fatalism too, like our wishes are something we can not change. And please don't come with "neurological science" because everybody could fight against their wishes. ....... As for the homosexuality, my opinion is that is a mental disease, like other sexual deviations and perversions and the homosexuals have to be helped (not by violent acts) to come to a life which gives them more satisfactions. As I sayed on other threads, I consider any sexual wish bad, heterosexual or homosexual and that the sex is only for child birth. -------------  |
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 30-Jun-2008 at 07:01
So in simpler terms, people who care about society are more sensitive, and therefore more likely to get an erection when watching homo-erotic porn? Do you really expect people to believe that?
That's really more of an opinion than a reasoned argument. I would like to see some evidence (both for this claim and the previous claim). I would like to see more evidence and less speculation. ------------- |
Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 30-Jun-2008 at 07:09
1 The atitude of an individ is a manifestation of his/her psychological structure. The homophobes are people with a higher degree of implication in the problems of society so they are more sensitive. 2 Is simple: when you wish something strongly just struggle to cut your wish off and you'll succeed. You can too extinct your sexual instinct if you wish by fighting your sexual fantasies when they occur, but takes time. The sexual instinct is the result of accumulation of sexual fantasies in our mind, since puberty. When the sexual fantasies are dead, appears the andropause and menopause. ------------- |
Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 30-Jun-2008 at 10:42
|
On the other hand, according to this article the homosexual brain is more like the brain of the opposite sex; it is not suggested they have an inborn geniality difficult to find in other individuals. I wonder if the correlation you point to can be broken to smaller pieces. Maybe not homosexuality, but a certain lifestyle (e.g. not having a strong family life, perhaps even being part of a marginalized group) is causing the larger number of artists among homosexuals. And maybe if homosexuals will be fully integrated in society (i.e. lose much of their actual cultural specificity, that of a minority group) also the number of artists among their ranks will decrease.
|
Posted By: Władysław Warnencz
Date Posted: 30-Jun-2008 at 15:05
Necrophyles are also people,but we do undermine their rights by not allowing them to have sex with dead boddies,don't we?So,is taht something bad?
Yes,i am very proud that i undermine some perverted people's rights by not allowing them to demonstrate evil and perversion in front of children.And before you start arguing about laws,democracy and tolerance i will put it very simple.It is all abouth faith - if you are muslim or christian you can't simply tolerate them.It's that easy and simple - if you are a believer you fight them,if you're not you tolerate them.I see from which you are...
|
Posted By: Styrbiorn
Date Posted: 30-Jun-2008 at 15:17
Does "consent" mean anything to you? And I guess I was hallucinating when those Christians were talking about love and tolerance. |
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 01-Jul-2008 at 00:23
You are effectively saying that people with greater concern for society are more likely to get an erection when watching gay porn. This reasoning is absurd (no offence at you as a person, but the reasoning here is literally absurd and defies common sense). A rebuttal of this reasoning is not even necessary, so I won't provide one.
Here I do agree with you. If you repress your sexual urges long enough they will eventually disappear when you either become too old or you die. Whether it is healthy to do this is entirely another issue - I personally don't think it is.
But the issue here is not one of willpower, but of neurology. Theoretically, with enough willpower anyone can simply not have sex. But this doesn't address the point of this thread, which is the discovery of scientific evidence of neurological differences as a factor explaining a natural sexual orientation.
It is certainly interesting to speculate over. It seems to be the case that in the USA, there are very "hardcore" homosexuals. And by that I mean that they are extremely, in-your-face, stunningly camp (effeminate). And this seems to be a reaction to the strong hostility they suffer at the hands of homophobic and religious groups in that country. By contrast, in the UK gays tend to be better accepted and I have noticed a lot less of this "I'm shockingly gay, and that is totally what defines me" behaviour.
Statistics from the two countries claim that homosexual population of the UK is 8%, while the US is 3 or 4% - however, I think that in the USA the difference is explained by the fact that a much larger proportion are closeted due to social taboo. After all, according to Ahmadinejad, Iran's homosexual population is supposedly at 0% - but when you make homosexuality a capital crime that is to be expected.
But I would suggest that the neurological differences observed in the study help explain why sexual orientation tends to be paired with certain other behavioural characteristics.
I'm not saying it isn't possible, just that the number of people who do it to shock others rather than because they naturally want to would only make up a tiny proportion of the "homosexual" population. There are far easier and more gratifying ways to shock one's peers.
Necrophilia isn't comparable, the sex is non-consensual. So yes, you are effectively undermining the right of law abiding citizens to engage in consensual, adult sex - which you have no grounds to do. ------------- |
Posted By: Bernard Woolley
Date Posted: 01-Jul-2008 at 02:23
|
[QUOTE=Chilbudios] Today having the danger of over-population perhaps a certain percentage of homosexuals is needed to bring more balance. But we can't apply this consideration neither generally for human history, not even for today world (as some areas are more populated, other are deserted/loosely populated, plus that a certain society may want a better reproduction rate to compete numerically with another one). [quote] This adaptation would not be culture-specific. It's actually perfectly reasonable that a homosexual minority could be beneficial in any society, even a sparsely populated one. Human children are extremely labour-intensive to raise, so a few extra pairs of hands that aren't occupied with their own babies can be a good thing to have. Additionally, a population in balance might become unsustainable if it grows too much - in this situation, a little definitely-non-reproductive sex can be a good thing. |
Posted By: JanusRook
Date Posted: 01-Jul-2008 at 05:48
Bernard that is exactly my theory on the inheritance of the "homosexual instinct" in order to allow your genes to pass on in times of crisis you raise your relatives children and don't have any of your own, sexualization is a large part of primate behavior though, so in order to maintain group dynamics homosexualism came into being. Of course there's nothing saying that homosexuals can't have children at all so in case of a disaster the population can still breed.
Now to be fair Constantine not all homosexuals are law abiding citizens...
So then if they did not openly express their sexuality in public you wouldn't have a problem with their actions? And Wladyslaw don't forget according to Christian teaching we are to pray for the sinner and condemn their sin. That means that it is un-christian to persecute others who espouse non-christian beliefs, since their judgement rests with God and God alone. However that does not mean we as Christians must tolerate homosexuality, we can protest gay pride parades as paegents of debauchery, we can even enact laws that criminilize such behavior (of course that's only if your into theocracy which is seemingly very unpopular in the "modern" viewpoint), however it is wrong to take the law of God into your own hands because you do not fully understand his divine plan for the world. Next time if you feel the need to rough up some gays, instead do the Christian thing and read them the Bible passages that condemn homosexuality, after all you cannot force religious beliefs and faith onto people that do not want to accept that truth. ------------- Economic Communist, Political Progressive, Social Conservative. Unless otherwise noted source is wiki. |
Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 01-Jul-2008 at 09:43
I believe that some traditions we have today sometimes encode realities of distant past, when it was a good reason for those behaviors or attitudes. Thus, even homophobia(often in small, rural environments) could represent a state of normality some time ago when infant mortality was rampant, when diseases, conflicts, wars, wild animals threatened the brittle human life. Sometimes this happened in the same cultures regarding sterility as a curse, culturally associating human sex rather with fertility than with pleasure or displaying similar specificities hinting on the importance of sexual act as part of the process of biological reproduction. The balance between the reproduction rate and the mortality provided a human history of many thousands of years with no overpopulation (and when a society depleted some resources, migration, exploration, conquest were rather the solutions, not family planning). I am talking here, of course, about strict homosexuality, not about bisexuality or various homosexual acts which have other justication than the inborn attraction for the same sex, i.e. juvenile experimentation, representation of a relation of power, of a social hierarchy, etc..
Also, IIRC, for primates there is no evidence of strict homosexuality, like in humans. If exclusive homosexuality would be a good group strategy I'd expect it to find it in the species closest to humans, wouldn't you?
On a similar note, I wonder if lack of hygiene inhibited some of the sexual practices as we know them today (undoubtely this other-age human had a harder stomach).
|
Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 01-Jul-2008 at 10:14
Anyway, how many men dream of two hot girls?
|
Posted By: Dynbertawe
Date Posted: 01-Jul-2008 at 10:38
Well, you're not very bright are you? How can you comapre homosexuality with necrophylia and paedophilia? Homosexuals are consenting adults - both parties agree with what they do, there's no evil in that.
|
Posted By: Władysław Warnencz
Date Posted: 01-Jul-2008 at 14:41
There's no evil in this for you,because you are an atheist.If you believed in any of the major world religions you would consider it evil,as any major religion describes it.Faith doesn't make people bright or stupid,so don't offend me as i don't offend you.
|
Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 01-Jul-2008 at 15:01
You know Lot that holy man in Genesis had sex with his two daughters...The bible version of that story makes out he was tricked by them and made very drunk and didn't know what happened! would that be a good enough excuse for you with others? worked for him. Personally ive heard that excuse too many times |
Posted By: Dynbertawe
Date Posted: 01-Jul-2008 at 15:05
Sorry matey, I am an atheist now but I went to University to study to become a priest, ie Theology, I realised that it is not God that is false but the church. I couldn't commit my life to the church when I could see hypocrisy all around me! You and I both know that there is only a snippet in Leviticus that mentions homosexuality - in the NT there is no mention of it at all. Whatever happened to tolerance? Christians like to think they practice tolerance, but in reality they are the most intolerant of them all!
I haven't offended you, but you've offended millions of consenting adults by calling homosexuality a disease. ------------- Gorau arf, arf dysg. |
Posted By: Władysław Warnencz
Date Posted: 01-Jul-2008 at 15:20
I don't know what hypocrisy you became a witness of,but i also had a lot to do with the church in my life and it never did anything bad or hipocritical to me.
Once again - i don't care if those sick,perverted people are being offended by me.Tolerance nowadays has become something absolutetely dofferent,than what JEsus preached.It has become anarchy.All sick,perverted,stupid or lazy people claim they are being discriminating if you don't hire a gay for example on a job.This is not normal and should be fought. ------------- |
Posted By: Dynbertawe
Date Posted: 01-Jul-2008 at 15:35
|
There is hypocrisy everywhere in the Christian church!!
Are you aware that there were originally over 100 gospels? These have been narrowed down by so called expert theologians to include the parts that they wished to be included into the NT. The Bible isn't written by God, it is written by man, therefore it is fundamentally flawed.
You don't see it as hypocrisy because like all the others you have been brainwashed into believing that it is wrong according to man's and not Jesus`Christian doctrine.
We will all be judged, it is not for man to judge how people consent to their sexual preferences. It is lawful for consenting adults to practice same gender sex, no harm is being done to either party. But it is unlawful for anyone to practice necrophilia and paedophilia - the differences are obvious. ------------- Gorau arf, arf dysg. |
Posted By: Władysław Warnencz
Date Posted: 01-Jul-2008 at 15:59
I am not saying it should be illegal to have gay sex.You can't prevent someone form having sex with someone,who wants it too.I am against the idiotic Gay Pride Parades,which are a demostration of sickness and perversion.Let them do what they wish at home,wbut why should they walk half naked on the streets,touching and kissing each other?Tell me honestly - doesn't that make you sick :
  Do you consider that normal? ------------- |
Posted By: Dynbertawe
Date Posted: 01-Jul-2008 at 15:59
Have I been justified now in saying that there is hypocrisy within the church? By stating that Christians/Nazis and Skinheads are in togther, you have now confirmed it!! ------------- Gorau arf, arf dysg. |
Posted By: Władysław Warnencz
Date Posted: 01-Jul-2008 at 16:03
I don't like both nazis and skinheads,but what should i do when they also come to stop the gay parade?Fight both them,the police and the gays?I'm not superman you know....  ------------- |
Posted By: Dynbertawe
Date Posted: 01-Jul-2008 at 16:05
I think you're living in Dreamland!! If this is the case, has this happened to yourself? ------------- Gorau arf, arf dysg. |
Posted By: Dynbertawe
Date Posted: 01-Jul-2008 at 16:06
No, but you're a bigot!!  ------------- Gorau arf, arf dysg. |
Posted By: Władysław Warnencz
Date Posted: 01-Jul-2008 at 16:07
And you are avoiding my question about the parade and the pictures. ------------- |
Posted By: Dynbertawe
Date Posted: 01-Jul-2008 at 16:15
No, it doesn't make me sick, is it down to us to judge? If we can see straight people doing it, what gives us the right to discriminate?
The photo of the drag queen is really funny, I can't think of many things that could cheer me up more! ------------- Gorau arf, arf dysg. |
Posted By: Władysław Warnencz
Date Posted: 01-Jul-2008 at 17:00
That's what i'm talking about - exept for homosexuality another sickness is the so-called modern "tolerance".These people are perverted creatures,which deserve to be send in jail for their propaganda.People like you deserve a good shrink... ------------- |
Posted By: Dolphin
Date Posted: 01-Jul-2008 at 21:29
|
I'm just back two days ago from the biggest Gay Pride parade in the world in San Francisco, and if you think that the picture posted is strange, you haven't seen nothing buddy. In our psychology lectures, the theory that is sometimes (but not exclusively) bandied about is that homesexuality is a form of brain dysfunction, as it goes against our innate desire to reproduce and pass our genes onto the next generation. Also some brain regions react and are sized differently in gay and straight individuals. Basically, it could be viewed (as I view it) that homesexuality is indeed as natural as heterosexuality and should be treated as a given in any open society. To reject its existence or authenticity is a bit naive, methinks. Saying that though, some of the aspects of gay culture I came across last weekend in San Fran were slightly disconcerting to say the least, In the Castro area of the city there is a pervasive promiscuity that seems disproportionate to most of wider gay society, and the element of seedyness was very hard to ignore. That said, I know that the aspect of gay life I saw (which included a hell of a lot of nudity and drug taking on the streets) is always going to be the extreme of what most people, gay or straight, would find acceptable. ------------- |
Posted By: Tyranos
Date Posted: 01-Jul-2008 at 22:05
|
I would say its mostly genetic of course, however certain social factors do contribute. *I will say this much, I do not support nor tolerate any form of Gay Rights or Gay Activism, these people are already entitled to the basic human rights and laws as the rest of us are. They dont need more Rights or Special Treatment, so I do dislike much of the politics involved now. These things like Gay Mariage is just a farce and cirus as far as I am concerned. In public schools they have "rainbow clubs", I used to see boys holding hands and kissing in the halls it was very much disturbing and I think should have no place in schools, what they do in privte is their own bussiness. Seeing that just isnt the same thing as seeing a boy and girl holding hands or kissing, I am sorry. As long as they stay in the closet so to speak and dont hurt anybody, I dont think much about them. Today everything is your face though, with TV and programs obviously pushing politics and agendas. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Dynbertawe
Date Posted: 02-Jul-2008 at 10:20
No, couldn't find a shrink good enough!! ------------- Gorau arf, arf dysg. |
Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 02-Jul-2008 at 14:51
My theory, its partly because there is no, hard to get, please chase,'i am not that type',' i dont know you' female involved. Judging from how up for it many (testeroned up) guys are, when out on the town, take out the females and add some drugs into the equation - its mayhem. |
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 03-Jul-2008 at 00:45
Again you have it spot on. Females tend to have a moderating influence. The ladies put up a lot of emotional barriers and play a lot more games when it comes to sex.
Another factor is that many of these men (for obvious reasons) do not have children. That in itself gives them a lot more time, energy and money to simply be hedonistic. I'm sure many of us can think of young straight men who partied hard, and then when being faced with the responsibility of parenthood moderated their behaviour.
The gay clubbing scene is interesting and has its pros and cons - and it makes a fascinating area of the study of human behaviour. As example of a pro is that it tends to be a lot more friendly (or maybe coy) than straight clubbing. Often straight clubs are full of aggressive and horny young men who vastly outnumber the available females who are sexually open to encounters - and this creates problems not present in the gay venues. The number of fights, often alcohol induced and usually over girls, has become a seriously bad issue in Melbourne. The brawls have become very bad, and no weekend goes by without someone being seriously attacked in the city's nightspots.
The city council therefore brought in a 2 am lockout policy, where you may not enter a licensed premisis after 2 am in the metropolitan area. It is designed to reduce the number of blokes going from one place to the next, and so reduce the chances of people getting into fights. It sucks. The gay club owners appealed the ban on their clubs, because they have a nearly spotless record regarding fights occurring. Their appeal was successful, the city council couldn't argue against such a clean record. So now the only clubs you can gain entry to in Melbourne today after 2 am are the gay ones. I estimate that within 3 months straight people will catch on to this loophole and start to migrate there in such large numbers that it will seriously alter the atmosphere of the venues.
But anyway, I guess we are really diverging from the topic here. ------------- |
Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 05-Jul-2008 at 10:14
I was hurried when I sayed that. I think you can reach a pleasantful state, eminating those urges that are stressful. You too can extinct completely your sexual instinct by some psychological methods but this is not to wish. The idea is the sexual instinct is not something predetermined, it appears ONLY in the age of puberty and can be erased too.
The genetical inheritage is one of the factors that generate the sexual identity of a person. I mean the bodily morphology of a person influence his/her personality, including his/her sexual orientation, apetite etc. There is not something that doesn't pass by mind in someone's personality, something to be subconsciously or inconsciously inherited. ------------- |
Posted By: Dynbertawe
Date Posted: 07-Jul-2008 at 10:06
I don't understand, are you trying to say that sexuality definition only occurs during puberty? In that case how would you account for pre-pubescent boys that are effeminate and girls that are masculine? These kids tend to turn out gay when they reach puberty but they show signs of their orientation way before this. Think about it.
------------- Gorau arf, arf dysg. |
Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 07-Jul-2008 at 11:12
^ yep gays Ive met knew all along they were different. Seriously its in their code, up bringing - environment has nothing to do with it , except maybe on how they handle it.
We have discussed this before in this forum, same-sex behavior exist in the animal world so it not invented. Sexual instinct is innate and only comes out in full force during puberty. I liked girls and kissing them and had big crush's long before puberty. |
Posted By: Dynbertawe
Date Posted: 07-Jul-2008 at 11:39
Thank you, you and Constantine XI = voices of reason!! ------------- Gorau arf, arf dysg. |
Posted By: calvo
Date Posted: 07-Jul-2008 at 11:42
|
One of the greatest popular myths nowadays is that more gay people are coming out of the closet because it's "in the fashion" or because "society encourages homosexuality".
Most of the gay people I've known claim that they have been so all their lives. Whether it's genetic is something unsure, but as far as they remember they've always been that way.
Sexuality is certainly determined before puberty. I remember jacking off to images of naked women when I was 9 years old, and some girls in my class gave me a "hot feeling" yet back then I didn't even understand what sex was.
The same thing would apply to homosexuals, I imagine, but with members of the same sex.
One of the gay people I know came out of the closet at the age of 40. He was married before for 15 years with 2 children. Nevertheless, he said that deep in his mind he had known his sexual tendencies ever since he was a child (naked, muscular men "turned him on"); yet he tried to fool himself that he liked women and had a series of relationships with women. Only when homosexuality became more accepted in society did he dare come out of the closet; but he said: "no, I didn't turn gay at 40, I've always been gay."
All what gay rights is doing is making society admit to a reality that was previously not-accepted, rather than campaigning to promote "homosexuality".
|
Posted By: Dynbertawe
Date Posted: 07-Jul-2008 at 11:47
Exactly, why would someone want to become gay when their lives will be filled with hatred and persecution? The anti-gay lobby really need to evaluate their beliefs.
And shame on the Christian church - all it's doing is fuelling the flames of hatred!! ------------- Gorau arf, arf dysg. |
Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 07-Jul-2008 at 11:58
As you say, their sexual conscience appears at puberty. Before that they have been influenced to be effeminate (boys) or masculine (girls) by some factors in their life, due to entourage, family etc. ------------- |
Posted By: Dynbertawe
Date Posted: 07-Jul-2008 at 12:03
This is your personal theory, do you have any evidence to enlighten us? ------------- Gorau arf, arf dysg. |
Posted By: Dynbertawe
Date Posted: 07-Jul-2008 at 12:04
------------- Gorau arf, arf dysg. |
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 07-Aug-2008 at 08:21
|
The argument that homosexuality is unnatural because it does not occur in the animal kingdom has long been cited as far back as Plato. Modern observation, however, disproves this belief - adding to the case that homosexuality is a natural behaviour. And the evidence:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d68_vlLD60Y - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d68_vlLD60Y ------------- |
Posted By: Aussiedude
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2008 at 09:36
| Hmmm.... I'd love to know what the Muslim/Catholic reaction to this will be.... certainly if it becomes undebatably certain that homosexuality is an entirely natural and inherent behaviour... |
Posted By: Władysław Warnencz
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2008 at 09:57
But it is not certain that it is natural and inherent behaviour.Those are just payed "scientists" by homo-organizations or homo-"scientists". Homosexuality is a sin and propagating it in any form should be punished by the law!------------- |
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2008 at 10:33
Ha! Someone who is now accusing National Geographic of being bribed and part of some big awful homo-conspiracy. You just made my day, I shake with laughter. Seriously, do you have any actual evidence of your own to provide, or just a heap of baseless bold statements? ------------- |
Posted By: Władysław Warnencz
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2008 at 10:48
And you actually believe everything that comes out these days as "Scienific discovery"?You really thing all those "scientists" work for the sole science and never accept "sponsorship" from different organizations in order to make "scientific" discovery?Scientists on a pay-roll from organizations are not unusual sight these days and you don't need to read it somewhere on the internet to know this. ------------- |
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2008 at 10:53
Dude, it's National Geographic. And they have videotaped evidence. What more do you need? It isn't some lobby group or special interest organisation, but a highly reputable scientific body which has been around for generations and done a lot of good work. As someone who has a higher education, yes I do think that many of these scientists honestly do their research in an impartial manner and with ethics. When someone like you (sorry are you a scientist, did you qualify for a PhD?) makes the accusation that these real scientists are literally taking bribes, that is a very serious charge and you must provide evidence to support your claim. So where is your evidence? Or are you simply speculating what you want to believe? ------------- |
Posted By: Władysław Warnencz
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2008 at 11:15
And why would i want to believe scientists take bribes?It is something awful and i would really like it wasn't right.It's however one of those "public secrets" that are well known but not talked about.Do you need an evidence to know there are corrupted politicians?We all know there are corrupted politicians in EVERY government,although we don't have evidence of that.It's the same with scientists.I don't say all of them or even most of them take bribes,but certainly some of them do.And certainly homo-organizations would do anything to proove there is nothing wrong in homosexualism - including bribing scientists. ------------- |
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2008 at 11:24
Why would you want to believe scientists take bribes? Well you seem to want to believe the ones presenting evidence in the videos I linked do. It props up your prior argument that homosexuality is not a natural phenomenon. Of course you don't have any evidence, you simply make speculations and to you that equals proof, whatever bolsters your existing belief if good enough no matter how unevidenced an tenuous. Your logic is flawed. Simply because something is possible, that doesn't mean it definitely happened. Ever heard of innocent until proven guilty? So some politicians at times take bribes, since when does that equal the scientists' I referenced definitely took bribes? You are clutching at straws here. The fact you would go so far as to accuse the scientists at National Geographic of bribery, in the complete absence of evidence, and of being influenced by some grand homosexual conspiracy (for which you have also provided no evidence) is only making it increasingly evident that you cannot produce any arguments based on anything other than wishful suppositions which support your existing prejudices. ------------- |
Posted By: calvo
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2008 at 12:47
Just a question for you out of curiosity: if you believe that homosexuality is a sin, do you believe that homosexuals are that way because they "choose" to be consciously?
Do you think that they're innately attracted to the opposite sex but due to some wierd reason, have "chosen" to have sex with their own gender?
If your answer is yes, why would then so many people (5 -8% of the human population), all "want" to engage in this non-profitable activity for so many centuries when it was punished by law and scorned by the public?
How would you then explain that there are "homosexuals" who were forced to marry the opposite sex due to social pressure but showed the minimum interest in their partners..... before they finally come out of the closet?
If you reckon that sexuality is voluntary and I presume that you are heterosexual, when do you remember that you've consciously "chosen" to be attracted to the opposite sex? Or were you simply attracted and you didn't know why?
|
Posted By: Władysław Warnencz
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2008 at 16:48
What you're trying to do is imply i hate those people,i'm a homofob or want to hurt them.Even IF homosexuality is pre-determined (for me it is not) that doesn't mean those people should practice it.They should accept it as a mental desiese that they were born with and try no live as normal people.Having sex with the same gender is wrong and you shouldn't do it,nomather how much you want it.And i personaly don't hate homosexuals - i consider them sinners,as we all are.I am against those homosexuals,who are proud of it and try to propagate their sexuality as something good and modern.Those people should be send to jail,not the ordinary fags... ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 09-Aug-2008 at 17:38
|
[qoute] i consider them sinners,as we all are [/quote] And that other ninety per cent or more continues to indulge in their form of sin, but the homosexuals should not?That is if you wish to care to call it a sin and say they should but, but claim we all are sinners. I personally do not see why we bother so much with this issue. People should have a right to do what they please as long as it does not hurt others, and this certainly does not. ------------- |
Posted By: Dynbertawe
Date Posted: 26-Aug-2008 at 13:33
Your attitude is typical of the blinkered world wide church congregation that has no understanding of how human sexuality works - this is one of the reasons why I left - lack of tolerance and understanding. The sooner you Bible thumpers realise that it's not a mental disease, the sooner you will attract more worshippers.
In the UK, there is a huge ongoing debate on accepting gay priests into the Anglican Church. As soon as this is allowed, the Church will, with immediate effect, break down barriers that it has put in place and that has divided it. Until then, the Church will continue to alienate itself, smack of hypocrisy and persist on creating hatred. The irony is, that the Church is suffering due to poor congregation numbers, I foresee that the gay community could be the saving grace for the Church in general. ------------- Gorau arf, arf dysg. |
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 26-Aug-2008 at 14:18
|
The debate over Anglican acceptance is an interesting one. For all the good the church has done the world, especially in ages before the welfare state could step in to help, the church's historical treatment of homosexuality has often been comparable to its treatment of witchcraft in its lack of rational thinking and needless cruelty. I don't doubt there would be quite a few homosexuals who would very much like to enjoy what the Abrahamic religions have to offer them spiritually. The only thing standing in the way for many has been the centuries long persecution, which continues in varied forms depending on the congregation. Anything from the casual frown of disapproval to vigilante killings. The Anglicans pushing for reform today remind me a lot of the Log Cabin Republicans. While most gays would simply give up on the organisation, many of whose members make a point of expressing outright contempt for "their kind" which is supposedly a norm of the organisation, these individuals have the patience and conviction to endure the lot and work for reform. If ever there were proof of one's dedication to the organisation, that would have to be it. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 12-Sep-2008 at 12:06
|
The trouble with this is that it pre-supposes that sexuality is black and white. Either this or that.
What does this scientific study have to say about bisexuality? If you are even a little familiar with the Kinsey Reports, you know that a significant % of "hetero" individuals have had same-sex experiences. I personally have known women who identify themselves as lesbians, but occasionaly date men and straight men who occasionally enjoy sex with other men. Sexuality is on a continuum; some are well planted in one end of the scale or the other; many, many others fall somewhere in between. Personally, I believe that one's sexual drives are largely based on biology, and have nothing to do with religous or "moral" sanctions. I personally am glad that we are, as a species, in the process of throwing off these destructive and unhealthy constructs.
I am sure that a little a little experimentation would benefit the hyper-religious. I'm sure that it has already occured to them already; just be honest about it. Don't be like Ted Haggard.
 If you're getting laid, enjoy and fill your boots. It's really just part of life. ------------- |
Posted By: Reginmund
Date Posted: 16-Sep-2008 at 15:26
See you have all this upside down. Some people live in homosexual relationships and some just like to have sex with the same gender now and then; obviously this is what makes them happy and therefore it is rational for them to keep doing it. What isn't rational is to try and change their behavior and make them abstain from pursuing what makes them happy in the hopes that they will reap rewards in the afterlife for which here is absolutely no proof or guarantee. You personally are of course free to believe in the Bible, the Quran or the Harry Potter books, but regardless of how much you want them to be true this will remain impossible to prove, and therefore it makes little sense to expect people to give up on what is certain (that practicing homosexuality makes them happy in this life) for something which for all we know may just be wishful thinking (Heaven in the afterlife). ------------- |
Posted By: medenaywe
Date Posted: 16-Mar-2011 at 12:07
If your premise is true,entomology is out of this rule!?!Why do people distinguish from the rest of living creatures?
|
Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 16-Mar-2011 at 13:44
|
I will point out that Reggie hasn't been around for 2 years. ------------- "Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces". Unknown. |
Posted By: medenaywe
Date Posted: 16-Mar-2011 at 14:14
|
I have revived post about human animal behavior rituals.Post have claimed something that goes deep inside racial area.I will stress here that,even insects using different food structure can change their position inside their society.I believe we humans are following the same patterns as insects.Sexuality and social status/behavior are connected in very weird way.If you insist will create new post about it? |
Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 16-Mar-2011 at 14:31
|
No, go ahead with this one.
Sometimes folks will reply to an old thread not realizing the date, and they get angry when no one answers. ------------- "Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces". Unknown. |
Posted By: medenaywe
Date Posted: 16-Mar-2011 at 16:40
|
read this first: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals You can see that you need larger social animal community for this.Also this is connected with position and strength of male/female in group and vise versa.Spreading their smelt all around the members inside the community they are marking their mating position and hierarchy status!Let us see our relatives: http://www.thegaymanifesto.com/2010/11/30/homosexuality-in-monkeys-serves-vital-purpose/ But last sentence hide something i want to be discussed: Homosexuality is not predicted.Main premise is that this one help to mail unit to disguise and mate with more female units: http://videos.howstuffworks.com/animal-planet/28384-fooled-by-nature-garter-snakes-disguise-video.htm |
Posted By: medenaywe
Date Posted: 17-Mar-2011 at 16:11
|
Do we humans follow snake stereotypes?I believe we are long time same society as insects?Control of sexual gender identity,queen of bees is doing with this: http://lasi.group.shef.ac.uk/pdf/rkbes1998.pdf |
Posted By: medenaywe
Date Posted: 19-Mar-2011 at 10:07
|
Nobody interested!You need provocation,child to be born?Here it is?How many of you, think that raise their own genes children?Are you breathers or seeders?This will hurt,but provocation is done!  Statistic says that more than 50% of children are not breaded by current male parent!DNA analyses are from recently, ordinary birth routine!What did they 2000 years before?Where did ritual for marriages of children have their roots? |
Posted By: medenaywe
Date Posted: 19-Mar-2011 at 17:02
|
Is this taboo?Secret services will punish your personal opinion?People this story will determine destiny of our civilization!If you are talking,it doesn't mean you are practicing the game of the snake above?Humanity is loosing precious diversity of DNA informations,from dawn of civilization and this was covered with rituals and right of mightiest!We will finish as most of insects communities! |
Posted By: medenaywe
Date Posted: 27-May-2011 at 06:03
|
Garter snake,last time and will give up: http://videos.howstuffworks.com/animal-planet/28384-fooled-by-nature-garter-snakes-disguise-video.htm - http://videos.howstuffworks.com/animal-planet/28384-fooled-by-nature-garter-snakes-disguise-video.htm i believe better title for topic would have been:Evolution of different sexual behavior in human society. |
Posted By: Don Quixote
Date Posted: 30-Aug-2011 at 19:41
|
I tend to disbelieve this a bit - a body is a muscle, a tool, a body does as a body is trained. In some way are all are two-gendered, Jung has a whole theory on it. Aside of transsgender-ness one does what they based on their own choice. For sure the initial sexual experiences set the matrix for the next ones to come. At least for all the female GLBT people I talked with it started with an experience, and then the body sets down to utilize it. Of course, I don't think I know it all, but at least for a large part of people it's just learned behavior.
------------- |
Posted By: Nick1986
Date Posted: 30-Aug-2011 at 19:56
|
I still don't like the idea. It sounds too much like Nazi eugenics. Will quacks be measuring the skulls of our children to determine their level of intelligence or future sexuality? ------------- Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains! |
Posted By: medenaywe
Date Posted: 31-Aug-2011 at 00:25
|
Chemistry of human bodies do this as i suppose!"Evolution"means inside all of us,Nick!"Triggers" for those other sexual behaviors scientists have to explore.Body language alphabet is connected with smelt of our bodies.Smelt of our bodies depends of our sexual partners and do we share them with others!Monkey society tells us that "society order" is created over sexual activity of members inside.If you are acting like those apes,changing same sexual partners with others often,triggers are activated!All above is result of simple observation.Your position inside the group depends of your "strength" and social status in communities! |
Posted By: Don Quixote
Date Posted: 25-Oct-2011 at 03:38
I agree that smell /or lack of unpleasant smells, the last being the biggest turn-off ever/ is important, but what this has to do with sexual orientation? I understand that is has a role while choosing between two or more possible partners of the orientation one is from; but I don't recall ever hearing anyone to say that they became GLBT because the opposite sex smells bad. ------------- |
Posted By: medenaywe
Date Posted: 25-Oct-2011 at 08:15
|
smell does not means always bad or good.That was the point above.All our "sex communications" and social position are connected somehow:there are signs in chemicals we spread around us that make us behave as we do.This is not one branch exploration but many of them!First we need "letters"=chemicals of our bodies language than grammar than dictionary!That's a lot of work!In meantime remember,all sex orientations are natural but looking snake above homosexual is "cheap trick" that provide you with more chances for mating not rejection of reproduction!Humanity has to avoid this other way we go toward Bee Queen nest!(To avoid no reproduction of those persons!)We are losing valuable DNA data. |
Posted By: TheAlaniDragonRising
Date Posted: 25-Oct-2011 at 14:55
Ah, medenaywe, you mean pheromones when you say smell. It would have been helpful to describe what you were meaning. Without this it is far too easy to mistake what you were saying with those scents which are more readily detected and seen to be either good or bad. That said I agree that it's an incredibly complicated process which can even depend on which part of a woman's menstrual cycle. ------------- What a handsome figure of a dragon. No wonder I fall madly in love with the Alani Dragon now, the avatar, it's a gorgeous dragon picture. |
Posted By: medenaywe
Date Posted: 25-Oct-2011 at 15:06
|
till now will stay internal&external body chemistry is guilty for sexual behavior!Till i create new theory.
|
Posted By: TheAlaniDragonRising
Date Posted: 25-Oct-2011 at 15:30
It's always interesting to hear a new theory. ------------- What a handsome figure of a dragon. No wonder I fall madly in love with the Alani Dragon now, the avatar, it's a gorgeous dragon picture. |
Posted By: Don Quixote
Date Posted: 25-Oct-2011 at 19:27
If it was so, people would never stop loving each other, since their smell generally don't change /the natural smell I mean/; but practice shows otherwise. Sex is mentally induced, not physically - people get attracted to each other based on their mental status at the time, and when this status changes, they stop loving each other and sex goes south. I can vouch for this, hands and feet. So, sex cannot be based of smell, it's the other way around - when a person likes another on mental level they like everything about them, smell included; when they stop loving them based on whatever happened mentally among them, the same person would get irritated of another person's smell, something they may had adored before. Mind rules in humans, that is, not smell; this is my experience anyway. ------------- |
Posted By: Centrix Vigilis
Date Posted: 25-Oct-2011 at 22:49
|
Personally I have no idea whether the theory is viable or not because at this stage it doesn't interest me. But my friend loves this stuff so.....I opine. Doesn't make a rat's ass difference if it was predetermined or not as far I am concerned...and while I have no problem with evolution per-se....it doesn't interest me that much anymore either. Nor DNA analysis.... a scientific study that remains in it's infancy in many respects. Question is... who made the DNA and the sexual predetermination that is a possible offshoot. As for me... I am comfortable in the 'skin' I wear and the 'equipment' I own. For those who are not... tough...life is hell....get used to disappointment.
------------- "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" S. T. Friedman Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true' |
Posted By: medenaywe
Date Posted: 26-Oct-2011 at 00:17
| People amoebas talk this way from the beginning of aerobic life.After single cells had united in tissues and complex organisms this language also evolved!How&When&Why that are the real questions! |
Posted By: Centrix Vigilis
Date Posted: 26-Oct-2011 at 00:45
Yepper. ''Question is... who made the DNA and the sexual predetermination that is a possible offshoot.'' I concur. ------------- "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" S. T. Friedman Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true' |
Posted By: medenaywe
Date Posted: 26-Oct-2011 at 02:43
|
Hi,Dr.Dolittle!
|