Research: Testosterone Does Not Cause Aggression
I recently shocked my daughter in a conversation when I told her I didn't believe in endorphins. Actually, I'm sure there are endorphins, I just don't think that's a good way to describe your state of mind: "I'm happy" is better than "I can feel the endorphins." Same for adrenalin, it's just as easy to say "I'm excited" as it is to say "I feel the adrenalin rush," ignoring other aspects of the sympathetic nervous system, the limbic system, and other physiological components that you can't feel directly, but they affect you. We have preconceptions about the effects of endorphins and adrenalin, and other natural parts of ourselves, but those preconceptions are socially constructed, we don't really know if it's adrenalin, or endorphins, or something else. We may, however, really know introspectively if we are excited, or tense, or happy. I guess I have a suspicion of laypersons offering mechanistic theories to explain their own behavior -- we're people, not robots.
An article in the current issue of Nature takes on our preconceptions about testosterone. You know what testosterone is; though women's bodies produce testosterone, men have forty times as much, it is the primary male sex hormone. Testosterone is used to explain why our prisons are full of men, why men get into fights, why men are sexually aggressive, why men are jerks. It's all part of our common folklore -- men act that way because nature made us that way. Testosterone makes us behave badly. Or so we believe.
Here is Nature News:
We often discuss issues here that have to do with attitudes and beliefs about variations in aspects of gender. There are some people who believe that gender is a binary variable, you are either male or female, and once you have been assigned to a category you are expected to behave according to social expectations for that category. Some people believe this so strongly that they believe gender-related behavior norms should be enforced, for instance by punishing individuals who violate them. But, as the article says, "human society is more complex than this." I would put it this way: Human society is much more interesting than this. On a good day I might even say beautiful.
I'll skip the description of the study itself, which gave a shot of testosterone or placebo to some women and had them play a game where they could cooperate or compete. Subjects who had received the testosterone made more cooperative, fairer decisions.
Skipping down...
That's a thought, isn't it? People respect a nice guy.
Skipping a little further ...
This re-opens the question, why are the prisons full of men? Men commit the vast majority of violent crimes, for instance. The civilized human being is a strange creature, optimizing two kinds of variables. As physical beings, products of evolution, we inherit physical bodies and the complicated layers of motives and drives that keep the species alive. And as social beings we are subtly and powerfully influenced by our culture and our language. There may be a physiological explanation for the aggressiveness of males -- there is certainly more to the physiology of sex differences than testosterone levels. Cross-cultural variations in violent behavior demonstrate that there are social factors at work, as well.
Sex and gender in human beings are complex abstractions. Men and women differ, on average, on many dimensions, but the distributions overlap -- though men are taller on average, some woman are taller than some men, for instance. Everyone who lives has a physical body, and everyone you know participates in a social system, a culture, a circle of acquaintances, a family, and those two domains of explanation cannot be separated. Science is able to help us understand ourselves and our neighbors, in this case it seems that oneexcuse explanation for bad behavior by men has been eliminated.
An article in the current issue of Nature takes on our preconceptions about testosterone. You know what testosterone is; though women's bodies produce testosterone, men have forty times as much, it is the primary male sex hormone. Testosterone is used to explain why our prisons are full of men, why men get into fights, why men are sexually aggressive, why men are jerks. It's all part of our common folklore -- men act that way because nature made us that way. Testosterone makes us behave badly. Or so we believe.
Here is Nature News:
The popular idea that testosterone always makes people more aggressive has been debunked by researchers. A team based in Switzerland has shown that the hormone can make people behave more fairly in an effort to defend their social status.
Ernst Fehr, an experimental economist at the University of Zurich, and his colleagues used the 'ultimatum bargaining' game to test how testosterone would affect behaviour in a group of 121 women. Counter-intuitively, women who were given testosterone bargained more fairly.
But the idea that testosterone causes aggression in humans, as it clearly does in rodents, is so firmly ingrained in the human psyche that women who believed they had been given testosterone — whether or not they had — bargained much less fairly.
Women, not men, were tested because they have less variable 'baseline' blood testosterone levels.
The study is published in Nature. "It is a folk hypothesis that testosterone causes aggression," says Fehr. "But human society is more complex than this." Testosterone link to aggression may be all in the mind
We often discuss issues here that have to do with attitudes and beliefs about variations in aspects of gender. There are some people who believe that gender is a binary variable, you are either male or female, and once you have been assigned to a category you are expected to behave according to social expectations for that category. Some people believe this so strongly that they believe gender-related behavior norms should be enforced, for instance by punishing individuals who violate them. But, as the article says, "human society is more complex than this." I would put it this way: Human society is much more interesting than this. On a good day I might even say beautiful.
I'll skip the description of the study itself, which gave a shot of testosterone or placebo to some women and had them play a game where they could cooperate or compete. Subjects who had received the testosterone made more cooperative, fairer decisions.
Skipping down...
"In the socially complex human environment, pro-social behaviour, not aggression, secures status," says Michael Naef, an experimental economist at the Royal Holloway, University of London, who is a co-author on the paper.
That's a thought, isn't it? People respect a nice guy.
Skipping a little further ...
Adam Goodie, a psychologist at the University of Georgia in Athens who works on decision-making, says: "The paper is a major blow to the popular wisdom that testosterone simply makes you more aggressive and less cooperative — the true picture is not nearly as negative."
This re-opens the question, why are the prisons full of men? Men commit the vast majority of violent crimes, for instance. The civilized human being is a strange creature, optimizing two kinds of variables. As physical beings, products of evolution, we inherit physical bodies and the complicated layers of motives and drives that keep the species alive. And as social beings we are subtly and powerfully influenced by our culture and our language. There may be a physiological explanation for the aggressiveness of males -- there is certainly more to the physiology of sex differences than testosterone levels. Cross-cultural variations in violent behavior demonstrate that there are social factors at work, as well.
Sex and gender in human beings are complex abstractions. Men and women differ, on average, on many dimensions, but the distributions overlap -- though men are taller on average, some woman are taller than some men, for instance. Everyone who lives has a physical body, and everyone you know participates in a social system, a culture, a circle of acquaintances, a family, and those two domains of explanation cannot be separated. Science is able to help us understand ourselves and our neighbors, in this case it seems that one
57 Comments:
Well those certainly are counter-intuitive results. I wonder how they'd explain 'roid rage, the phenomena where body builders take synthetic testosterone (steroids) and develop highly agressive anti-social behavior? I recall being in a video store and a very large bodybuilder came to look at the same section of tapes I was looking at. Instead of saying excuse me or some such thing he literally growled at me and pushed into my personal space until I gave ground - I'm pretty sure he was taking steroids.
maybe "agression" and "fairness" aren't necessarily opposites
perhaps "decisiveness" and "confidence" are better words than "agressiveness"
as you say, society is complex
"Some people believe this so strongly that they believe gender-related behavior norms should be enforced, for instance by punishing individuals who violate them."
like who and when and where?
btw, you might dwell on Nature magazine too much
also, Robert seems to be going wild about the proposed new homosexuality laws in Uganda
I don't personally favor capital punishment but the Uganda laws don't make homosexuality a capital crime, per se
homosexuals are only subject to the death penalty in the following situations:
1. if they are HIV-pos and have intercourse with someone who is HIV-neg, which is, effectively, killing someone
2. if they have homosexual intercourse with a minor, which is statutory rape and child molestation here in our country
3. if they have homosexual intercourse with a handicapped individual
otherwise, homosexual activity will only be punishable by jail sentences
Anonymous in the above post endorses life imprisonment for lgbt people.
BTW, you are mistaken. The current proposal has withdrawn the death penalty. Previously, it also endorsed death for "serial offenders (i.e. people who have had sex more than once).
Darling, you know you're extreme and offensive. You do it to see what kind of response you can get. I bet you will then feel oppressed by teh gays. Poor baby.
I didn't endorse the Ugandan proposal, sweetie pie, and I didn't say anything to suggest I do endorse it
you're beginnning to develop into a liar
I just noted it wasn't as bad as it sounds
btw, I haven't heard that death penalty provisions were removed but general homosexual activity wasn't ever punishable by life imprisonment
there were much lighter sentences for that
presumably, the jails will include lots of opportunity for Ugandan homosexuals to indulge in their favorite pasttimes
as for the U.S., I don't favor criminalizing general homosexual activity as long as it's done behind closed doors and not flaunted in the streets
I would agree that to knowingly infect another with the AIDS virus or to engage in homosexual acts with a minor should be felonies
how's that, baby doll?
Priya - I am thinking of Zimbardo's Stanford Prison Study, where participants were randomly assigned to be either prisoners or guards, and guards had control over prisoners. The study had to be quickly halted when the guards became frighteningly abusive to the prisoners. Having power might make one behave aggressively. Physical strength and size provides a kind of physical power that can become aggression if it is unchecked. No testosterone involved in the explanation.
JimK
Bad anonymous left out one situtation where the Uganda law called for the death penalty - if the person was a repeat "offender".
That meant if you had sex with more than one same sex partner, or more than once with the same partner they proposed putting you to death.
Not surprising that bad anonymous would leave that out, he's always trying to pretty up attacks on gays.
So, Jim, you don't think 'roid rage exists? I'm inclined to think it does. There's little doubt that men are much more violent and aggressive than women, I find it hard to imagine that's entirely due to socialization. At some point in the past there must have been some motivation for the extra violence and agression in men, I find it hard to imagine that none existed and that society for no reason just decided to encourage this in males.
A further fallacy that bad anonymous put forth, that gays will only be put to death:
if they are HIV-pos and have intercourse with someone who is HIV-neg, which is, effectively, killing someone.
This is regardless of whether or not the sex was consensual. An HIV negative person might consent to sex with an HIV positive individual and with the use of condoms this most certainly isn't murder and the HIV postive person would be put to death anyway,
Priya, I don't actually have an opinion about whether 'roid rage exists, I saw this paper and thought some readers might find it interesting. I'm just noting that power seems to encourage aggressiveness, and physical strength equals power, as an alternative explanation for the phenomenon you described.
JimK
BTW, I don't know why that comented posted as "Anonymous..."
JimK
Bad anonymous said "I haven't heard that death penalty provisions were removed but general homosexual activity wasn't ever punishable by life imprisonment there were much lighter sentences for that"
Not true, the existing Uganda law calls for live imprisonment for same sex sex:
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/03/02/9309
Further, the proposed law calls for life imprisonment for anyone entering a same sex marriage.
We know bad anonymous likes to downplay evil, but no one should believe his fabricated stories.
"anonymous left out one situtation where the Uganda law called for the death penalty - if the person was a repeat "offender""
yes, Robert said that too
I didn't leave it out on purpose, I didn't know about it
of course, penalties should increase with repeated offenses but the death penalty would be wrong
reparative therapy should do the trick
"if they are HIV-pos and have intercourse with someone who is HIV-neg, which is, effectively, killing someone.
This is regardless of whether or not the sex was consensual. An HIV negative person might consent to sex with an HIV positive individual and with the use of condoms this most certainly isn't murder and the HIV postive person would be put to death anyway,"
it's not much better to kill someone if they consent to it
that's like mercy killing without the mercy
And as Bad anonymous will likely try to deny that the proposed bill also provided for life imprisonment for same sex sex, here is the proposed bill itself:
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/10/15/15609
Note section 2 which spells it out:
"2. The offence of homosexuality.
(1) A person commits the offence of homosexuality if-
(a) he penetrates the anus or mouth of another person of the same sex with his penis or any other sexual contraption;
(b) he or she uses any object or sexual contraption to penetrate or stimulate sexual organ of a person of the same sex;
(e) he or she touches another person with the intention of committing the act of homosexuality.
(2) A person who commits an offence under this section shall be liable on conviction to imprisonment for life."
Bad anonymous said "of course, penalties [for same sex sex] should increase with repeated offenses but the death penalty would be wrong"
Which shows he was lying when he said "as for the U.S., I don't favor criminalizing general homosexual activity"
Bad anonymous said "it's not much better to kill someone if they consent to it".
An HIV positive person having protected sex with an HIV negative person isn't murder. Many such couples have had long and active sex lives without incident. Your suggestion that this is a valid reason to execute someone is quite simply barbaric. Move to Uganda, that's where you belong.
Also, when Bad anonymous said "of course, penalties [for same sex sex] should increase with repeated offenses but the death penalty would be wrong"
he demonstrated he was also lying when he said "I didn't endorse the Ugandan proposal, sweetie pie, and I didn't say anything to suggest I do endorse it".
Bad anonymous is envious of the Ugandan proposal, he'd love to see the same sort of thing enacted in the U.S., he's trying to be secretive about this, but the truth keeps slipping out from him.
reparative therapy should do the trick
Apparently not.
Just ask Michael Johnston, who promoted himself as ex-gay after submitting to reparative therapy.
"Johnston’s organization [Kerusso Ministries] was dissolved in 2003 when it was learned that while he was traveling around the country decrying what he considered the depravity of homosexuals, he was hosting gay orgies, taking drugs and practicing unsafe sex.
Aunt Bea, apparently that sort of thing is pretty common. I read some testimony from people attending "reparitive" "therapy" and they said it was common for clients to go there as virgins and then hook up with other clients to have irresponsible sex.
I've heard many examples of "ex-gays" having promiscuous anonymous sex. It appears that when one rejects their sexuality it is common to get caught in a sort of shame spiral where they seek out anonymous sexual encounters to get a brief respite of feeling good, then experience tremendous shame and anxiety about it, which in turn leads them back to anonymous sex to attempt another brief escape from the bad feelings. Ironically it seems it is precisely the rejection of a same sex sexual orientation that is responsible for dangerous sexual encounters.
Another thought on the topic of this thread:
Might it be that women react differently to testosterone then men?
did you realize that out of eighteen posts, ten were made by a deranged individual from the land of global warming?
"he was lying when he said "as for the U.S., I don't favor criminalizing general homosexual activity""
I wasn't lying. At this point, I wouldn't favor outlawing deviancy as long as such people keep it hidden. As National DADT would be great.
"anonymous said "it's not much better to kill someone if they consent to it".
he demonstrated he was also lying when he said "I didn't endorse the Ugandan proposal, sweetie pie, and I didn't say anything to suggest I do endorse it"."
I always said we need to put homosexuals who knowingly infect others behind bars.
"anonymous is envious of the Ugandan proposal, he'd love to see the same sort of thing enacted in the U.S., he's trying to be secretive about this, but the truth keeps slipping out from him."
I know, Priya, all the people who live in the home with you think everyone's out to get them
it's all a big secret
MWAHAHAHA!
"An HIV positive person having protected sex with an HIV negative person isn't murder. Many such couples have had long and active sex lives without incident."
please...
have intercourse with a pos and you'll be pos before long
this should be illegal
"I read some testimony from people attending "reparitive" "therapy" and they said it was common for clients to go there as virgins and then hook up with other clients to have irresponsible sex."
I was talking about Uganda
I was simply suggesting that rather than lengthy jail terms for unaggravated homosexuality, they should try reparative therapy
obviously, once someone becomes caught up in homosexuality, it's hard to turn back
that's why penalties for homosexuality with minors should be steep
what do you think should be the penalty for homosexuality with minors, Priya?
Of course you were lying Bad anonymous, its obvious. You said "of course, penalties [for same sex sex] should increase with repeated offenses".
Obviously you let it slip that you favour criminalizing same sex sex, and you favour at least part of the Uganda bill.
Bad anonymous said "have intercourse with a pos and you'll be pos before long this should be illegal".
Aside from the fact that that is not true, the idea of criminalizing sex between two consenting adults is barbaric. If a knowing person wants to have sex with their perhaps innocently infected partner no one has the right to stop that.
Bad anonymous asked "what do you think should be the penalty for homosexuality with minors, Priya?"
Exactly what they are for heterosexuality with minors.
This post has been removed by the author.
I might add that under the proposed ugandan law if an HIV positive person has consensual sex with an HIV negative person the former would be put to death and the latter sentenced to life in prison. This is not a matter of the law protecting victims, its the law victimizing innocent people.
"you were lying, mr. anonymous, its obvious. You said "of course, penalties [for same sex sex] should increase with repeated offenses".
Obviously you let it slip that you favour criminalizing same sex sex, and you favour at least part of the Uganda bill."
well, if you mean infecting others with an invariably fatal disease or molesting minors, yes, I think that is criminal and deserves the harshest of penalties we assess
otherwise, go ahead and abuse each other behind closed doors
"mr. anonymous said "have intercourse with a pos and you'll be pos before long this should be illegal".
Aside from the fact that that is not true, the idea of criminalizing sex between two consenting adults is barbaric. If a knowing person wants to have sex with their perhaps innocently infected partner no one has the right to stop that."
suicidal people should be arrested and placed with professional therapists
those who take advantage of them belong behind bars, soaking up prison culture
"mr. anonymous asked "what do you think should be the penalty for homosexuality with minors, Priya?"
Exactly what they are for heterosexuality with minors."
lock 'em up in Canada and throw away the key
the ultimate punishment
(Dec. 11) -- In "one of the most dramatic political about-faces in our history," Barack Obama, who ran for president as a man of the people, has sold out to Wall Street, the latest issue of Rolling Stone magazine charges.
It's no surprise that the right has hammered Obama since he launched his campaign. The birthers continue to question -- evidence be damned -- whether Obama was born on American soil, a constitutional prerequisite of holding the nation's highest office. Rush Limbaugh, Fox News and Matt Drudge relentlessly attack almost everything the president does.
Increasingly, however, Obama is facing criticism from people who helped elect him to office: the left. The Rolling Stone critique, penned by star polemicist Matt Taibbi, is only the latest and most scathing salvo by this not insignificant wing of the Democratic Party.
Taibbi, who recently and memorably took on Goldman Sachs, argues that the president packed his economics team with the very Wall Street insiders who were responsible for the financial crisis. It's a charge that's been made before, including by Rep. Peter DeFazio, an Oregon Democrat, who has called for the resignations of Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner (who worked at Goldman Sachs) and White House economics adviser Larry Summers (who worked at D.E. Shaw, a huge hedge fund). DeFazio faults the two officials for putting the interests of Wall Street ahead of broader job creation.
Compiling a ledger of Obama's capitulations to Wall Street, Taibbi points to "the revolting and disgusting and inexcusable" $306 billion bailout of Citigroup and the gutting of derivative and mortgage reforms. Similar criticism has come from New York Times columnist Paul Krugman and Columbia University's Joseph Stiglitz, two Nobel Prize-winning economists who are noticeably absent from the White House.
But it's not only on economic matters that Obama is taking heat from the left. Liberal critics point to glacial progress for gay rights, a perceived retreat from a public option in health care reform, continued U.S. involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan (which Obama defended in his recent Nobel speech), and the fact that detainees remain -- outside of normal legal channels -- in Guantanamo Bay.
While centrist Democrats continue to praise the president -- Slate's Jacob Weisberg believes Obama has accomplished more than any first-year president since Franklin Roosevelt -- the left steadily has grown more disappointed. Already, just one year into Obama's first term, many have given up on his mantra of change. Taibbi concludes his piece with a mix of disillusionment, sadness and self-loathing. Obama "pulled a bait-and-switch on us," he writes. "If it were any other politician, we wouldn't be surprised. Maybe it's our fault, for thinking he was different."
priya, try a cruise on Lake Victoria
then have a hunger strike in Entebbe
that'll scare the heck out of 'em!
This post has been removed by the author.
Bad anonymous said "well, if you mean infecting others with an invariably fatal disease or molesting minors, yes, I think that is criminal and deserves the harshest of penalties we assess."
What a transparent ploy to pretend you said something other than what you actually did. That's not what I meant and you know it. Just to recap:
I said "Bad anonymous left out one situtation where the Uganda law called for the death penalty - if the person was a repeat "offender".
That meant if you had sex with more than one same sex partner, or more than once with the same partner they proposed putting you to death."
You responded: "yes, Robert said that too I didn't leave it out on purpose, I didn't know about it of course, penalties should increase with repeated offenses but the death penalty would be wrong".
You clearly supported criminal penalties for same sex sex. You obviously didn't mean to let your true feelings slip out, but you couldn't keep track of all your lies and you let what you really think slip.
We've always known you were an evil hateful liar, its not surprising that even you let the truth slip from time to time.
Bad anonymous said "suicidal people should be arrested".
My, how considerate you are of people in a difficult way. Hate to see what you'd do with other manner of sick people if you got your way.
Here's what bad anonymous proposes, if a nurse tending to HIV patients should contract the disease and she and her husband should decide to continue to have a sex life using appropriate precautions, they both should be arrested and punished with the harshest of penalties for a consensual and loving act. Right, got it bad anonymous. Good thing we don't have psychos like you in charge.
And of course, typical bad anonymous doesn't admit he was wrong when he said "It wasn't as bad as it sounds...general homosexual activity wasn't ever punishable by life imprisonment".
He just tries to pretend he wasn't dishonest and hopes no one mentions it again.
"Good thing we don't have psychos like you in charge."
Well, you're not American but part of the Commonwealth so you answer to the lady on your money.
Here in America, however, psychos just like me will be in charge very soon.
On all your other mixed-up charges, you claim you're psychic and can read my mind and are privy to my secret plans so how could I argue with that? All your suitemates in the nuthouse no doubt have similar paranoias. Why don't you go bite the head off a bat?
To reiterate: I'm not in favor of criminalizing general sexual deviancy as long as minors aren't involved or disease spread irresponsibly and with knowledge.
The influence of the gay agenda is fading here with homosexual businesses going bankrupt and a backlash developing about gay agenda moves to hinder freedom of speech and religion.
As far as Uganada, these guys don't want to tolerate that kind of behavior in their society but still only reserve the harshest penalties for those who molest children or spread fatal and incurable disease. While they aren't as tolerant as I, homosexuals would do fine there by exercising a little discretion.
"President Obama's job approval rating has regained some ground and now stands at 50 percent, according to a Fox News poll released Thursday.
Forty-four percent of Americans currently disapprove of the job the president is doing.
In November, the president received his lowest approval rating to date when 46 percent of Americans said they approved of his job performance and 46 percent disapproved.
His high mark so far was in late January when 65 percent approved and 16 percent disapproved.
The president's average approval rating for his first 11 months in office is 56 percent."
RCP average is 48.9 although Gallup also agrees with FOX and puts it at 50.
You guys are really desperate for good news, aren't you?
"Anonymous"
Is it true that "reparative therapy" will also cure what's wrong with you? Maybe there's hope that there is a way to turn you into a decent, caring, humble,Christian person?
Fat chance! The only cure for bigotry is education.
extremism in the defense of truth is no vice
homosexuality is bad for its practitioners and bad for the society they live in
if you don't realize that, you're a harm-denier
Harm-deniers include people who think it's "freedom" to be able to discriminate against people. They deny the harm they cause with their discriminatory behaviors.
Bad anonymous said "To reiterate: I'm not in favor of criminalizing general sexual deviancy as long as minors aren't involved or disease spread irresponsibly and with knowledge"
To reiterate, here's what bad anonymous said after I pointed out that the Ugandan bill calls for the death penalty for gays who have same sex sex more than once:
"of course, penalties [for same sex sex] should increase with repeated offenses but the death penalty would be wrong".
He let his true feelings slip - he's in favour of criminalizing same sex sex, and now he's futilely trying to deny what he really thinks.
Bad anonymous said "As far as Uganada, these guys don't want to tolerate that kind of behavior in their society but still only reserve the harshest penalties for those who molest children or spread fatal and incurable disease."
That's a lie. As the two links I pointed out show, both current Uganda law and the proposed bill call for life imprisonment for a single act of same sex sex. The proposed the death penalty for more than one act of same sex sex. They also apply the death penalty merely for an HIV positive person having sex with a consenting HIV negative person (who would be imprisoned for life) regardless of whether or not the disease is transmitted.
Bad anonymous said "While they aren't as tolerant as I, homosexuals would do fine there by exercising a little discretion."
Life imprisonment for a harmless sex act is far from doing fine - you're psychotic. And from the glimpse of the true you you let slip its apprent that the Ugandans are just as "tolerant" as you.
Bad anonymous said "homosexuality is bad for its practitioners and bad for the society they live in"
Every major mental health association disagrees with hatemongers like you. A mountain of research has established that gays are just healthy as heterosexuals, and those that positively accept their gayness are better adjusted than those that don't.
The proposed Ugandan bill also provides for a 7 year sentence for anyone who advocates on behalf of gays, or even merely speaks positively about them.
It also provides a 3 year sentence for anyone who knows about a gay but doesn't turn them in.
Of course to bad anonymous, those aren't harsh sentences.
Bad anonymous said "extremism in the defense of truth is no vice".
So, if a mother, to spare her child's feelings, told him there is a Santa Clause and you killed her for that, that would be no vice. Riiiiight, Gotcha.
"told him there is a Santa Clause"
those public schools in Canaduh must be mitey fine!
as I said, I don't favor making homosexual activity criminal unless it involves a minor, knowingly spreads disease or one of the perpetrators is named "Priya"
otherwise, keep it behind closed doors and everything is cool
"Harm-deniers include people who think it's "freedom" to be able to discriminate against people. They deny the harm they cause with their discriminatory behaviors."
inane-B, homosexuals are people who prefer the harm they inflict on one another to the harm they would otherwise inflict on themselves
yes, discriminating against them, in subtle ways, is, in some sense, harm in the short run but to their benefit in the long run
most homosexuals were never involved in team sports but, if they had, they'd have heard the phrase "no pain, no gain"
homosexuals are generally healthier and happier and safer if they are encouraged to stay in the closet
that's the facts, ma'am
Bad anonymous said "I don't favor making homosexual activity criminal unless it involves a minor, knowingly spreads disease or one of the perpetrators is named "Priya"".
You also said "of course, penalties [for same sex sex] should increase with repeated offenses but the death penalty would be wrong".
You let the facade slip and your true beliefs become apparent - you're really a monster inside.
Bad anonymous said "homosexuals are generally healthier and happier and safer if they are encouraged to stay in the closet".
That's BS. Every major mental health organization says that gays are happier when they positively accept their orienation - that means no closet.
Its no coincidence that the most destructive sexual acting out happens amongst those attending "reparitive" "therapy". People who are ashamed of their sexuality get caught in a shame spiral where they have promiscuous anonymous sex to escape their depression and hatred of their orientation leads to more depression.
homosexuals are generally healthier and happier and safer if they are encouraged to stay in the closet
that's the facts, ma'am
One bit of your unfinished business is to ever provide evidence of any claim you've ever made, including this one.
Commenters here have provided thousands of links to studies that document the exact opposite, that being true to your identity is healthy, happy and safer, but establishing real facts through documentation means nothing to you. You rely on your own hateful conjecture instead.
Do you think all those priests who abused boys and girls were happier and safer in the celibacy closet? Do you wonder why the Pope is now inviting married Anglican priests to join the Catholic Church and to serve as priests? Maybe the Pope has decided closets are not such "happy and safer" places to force people into after all.
It's that arc of the moral universe thing again, now it appears even the Pope is seeing some light.
"One bit of your unfinished business is to ever provide evidence of any claim you've ever made, including this one."
this is like you're denial of the evidence that amoral sex ed leads to teen pregnancy
listen slowly:
our society became extremely tolerant of homosexuality in the seventies and before the end of the decade, the explosion of random and extensive promiscuity that resulted from this tolerance resulted in the introduction of a new, incurable and invariably fatal disease which still hits the homosexual community in highly disproportionate numbers
the evidence is history
"Commenters here have provided thousands of links to studies that document the exact opposite, that being true to your identity is healthy, happy and safer,"
they have been unable to counter this undeniable fact and it continues to be true with each passing year
"Do you think all those priests who abused boys and girls were happier and safer in the celibacy closet? Do you wonder why the Pope is now inviting married Anglican priests to join the Catholic Church and to serve as priests? Maybe the Pope has decided closets are not such "happy and safer" places to force people into after all."
if you mean that the Catholic church's policy on celibacy of clergy has led to an infiltration of homosexuals into postions where they can do great harm, I agree with you
I'm actually a Protestant
"It's that arc of the moral universe thing again, now it appears even the Pope is seeing some light."
sounds to me like he's just taking advantage of a bad situation in the Anglican church (caused by homosexual activists) to build his numbers
Bad anonymous, the first case of AIDS was documented in Africa in the 50's and it took another 30 years for it to make the transition to the U.S. It had nothing to do with the acceptance of gays. This is evidenced by the fact that the AIDS rate is highest in those southern states that most oppress gays.
Of course you know that, but would never let the truth stand in the way of your telling a lie.
Bad anonymous, if and when you get old you're going to look back on your life and see the only thing you did was spread hatred and lies about gay people. What an empty, destructive and meaningless life you have. That won't provide you any comfort as lay alone and dying.
"the first case of AIDS was documented in Africa in the 50's and it took another 30 years for it to make the transition to the U.S. It had nothing to do with the acceptance of gays."
Its "transition" came precisely when America had begun to tolerate open homosexuality.
The response to this tolerance was that gays started having sex in public parks, bathhouses and every where randomly and with a myriad of partners.
That's how the "transition" happened. It began in SF and NY.
Those are the facts.
Go ahead and delete your last stupid remark.
We expect it.
being true to your identity is healthy, happy and safer,"
they have been unable to counter this undeniable fact and it continues to be true with each passing year
I agree! It is an undeniable fact that being true to your identity is healthy, happy and safer than denying it.
if you mean that the Catholic church's policy on celibacy of clergy has led to an infiltration of homosexuals into postions where they can do great harm, I agree with you
What I mean is that asking people to live against their nature -- either in the closet or in celibacy -- causes some people to act out in bad ways.
so, people have no obligation to do anything if they decide it's just not part of their nature?
I think this explains the sick nature of gay "pride" parades
sounds like a lifestyle based on the rejection of taste, morals, sense and decorum
could you guys get an island to live on and act out your fantasies for one another?
I hear Greenland has a lot of open space for you to set up camp
and a bonus: it's warmer than it used to be!
"Anonymous"...your obsession with Gay Pride Parades ("this explains the sick nature of gay "pride" parades") begs the questions: Just how many of these parades have you personally witnessed? Why were you there if you did attend them? Have you ever participated in the orgy called Mardi Gras in New Orleans?
Such obsessiveness is indicative of closetness!!
Citizen
"Anonymouse"...please cite the source(s) for this ludicrous statement of "fact": "homosexuals are generally healthier and happier and safer if they are encouraged to stay in the closet
that's the facts, ma'am"
Oh, and Focus on the Family does not qualify as a credible source of any so-called "information".
Citizen
"Just how many of these parades have you personally witnessed?"
while I don't physically attend these, whenever someone sees one and walks away in disgust, I am with them in spirit
"Why were you there if you did attend them?"
I stumbled one in Montreal once
the local population was disgusted
"Have you ever participated in the orgy called Mardi Gras in New Orleans?"
no, but have you ever been?
the sickest part of it is the gays that infiltrate the celebration
only in America, Fat Tuesday celebrations in other countries don't tolerate that
"Such obsessiveness is indicative of closetness!!"
right, Citizen
if you're against something, you must be for it
I'm assuming you are secretly in favor of nit changing the definition of marriage to include deviants
""Anonymouse"...please cite the source(s) for this ludicrous statement of "fact": "homosexuals are generally healthier and happier and safer if they are encouraged to stay in the closet"
we've been over this, Citizen
tolerance of homosexuality led to AIDS, which has been known to result in unhappiness
"Anonimiss"...You once again display your bigotry and ignorance when you state: "The response to this tolerance was that gays started having sex in public parks, bathhouses and every where randomly and with a myriad of partners."
Substitute the word "straights" (as in Tiger Woods, et al.) for the word "gays" and you have a more accurate picture of the morals of heterosexual society you so smugly profess. (Now reads: "The response to this tolerance was that straights started having sex in public parks, bathhouses and every where randomly and with a myriad of partners.")
Come out, come out - wherever you are! And you talk about others here being "deranged"!
Oh, and btw...I love your divulging your intolerance of the Catholic Church ("I'm actually a Protestant")
It's really be interesting to watch the unfolding of your list of people and institutions to insult and hate. I'm wondering who's next.
Citizen
Once again, "Anonymousetroll" you are exhibiting your stupidity. ("the sickest part of it is the gays that infiltrate the celebration...
only in America, Fat Tuesday celebrations in other countries don't tolerate that")
Have you ever witnessed or "stumbled" Mardi Gras in Rio de Jenero, Brazil? or in Kingston, Jamaica?, or in Sydney, Australia? or in the myriad of other cities around the globe that you so ignorantly reference: "I stumbled one (sic.) in Montreal once
the local population was disgusted"
You are projecting your own personal feelings on millions of other people ("the local population"). Please cite polls or articles in the Montreal press to substantiate this ridiculous assertion.
Oh, and before you embarrass yourself further, you should edit this statement: "tolerance of homosexuality led to AIDS, which has been known to result in unhappiness" to read: "tolerance of homosexuality has resulted in my unhappiness".
Poor you...so sad.
Citizen
"Substitute the word "straights" (as in Tiger Woods, et al.) for the word "gays" and you have a more accurate picture of the morals of heterosexual society you so smugly profess. (Now reads: "The response to this tolerance was that straights started having sex in public parks, bathhouses and every where randomly and with a myriad of partners.")"
Except it's not true. AIDS didn't emerge in the straight community because this type of behavior isn't widespread among straights.
Never was.
"Come out, come out - wherever you are! And you talk about others here being "deranged"!"
facts are facts, citizen
you can't change them by throwing epithets at those who dare to utter truth
"Oh, and btw...I love your divulging your intolerance of the Catholic Church ("I'm actually a Protestant")"
since I'm Protestant, by definition I have disagreemnts with Catholic theology
this is the same idiotic post-modern mentality Robert was displaying not long ago:
having an opinion is intolerant
I assume the Catholics that disagree with me are intolerant too and you, who disagree with us both, are also intolerant
see how the excesses of the gay agenda destroys the English language
suddenly, intolerance has no real meaning
"It's really be interesting to watch the unfolding of your list of people and institutions to insult and hate. I'm wondering who's next."
well, there's no one I completely agree with so wonder no more
it's everybody
meanwhile, you might want to take a stand yourself instead of placidly observing life from the sidelines
oh, that's right, you do
your rant above is just simple hypocrisy
"You are projecting your own personal feelings on millions of other people ("the local population"). Please cite polls or articles in the Montreal press to substantiate this ridiculous assertion."
Oh, I talked to several people there
they were very embarassed by the whole thing when they found out I was a tourist
to reiterate:
tolerance of homosexuality led to AIDS, which has been known to result in unhappiness
oooo...
Anon burns Citizens
ouch!
Anon, my friend, having an opinion and despising people different than one's self are distinct things.
You, my dear, do not "simply have an opinion" on these matters.
Do you not recognize that?
omg...I am soooooo burned!! In your imagination and fervent desire, "bagpiper". I always consider the source...and in "Anonymouses" case, the source is irrelevant and totally inconsequential. Haters are beneath my contempt.
looks like citizen doesn't like it when he gets burned
"having an opinion and despising people different than one's self are distinct things."
I know.
TTFers have a lot of difficulty with concepts like that.
Post a Comment
<< Home