Justin Bourne on the use of Gay slurs in hockey.

[DEATHTRON 19]

Hold on...let me get my dictionary to really start competing here...

While being gay is not the same as race, I bet you would find that most homosexuals will tell you that its not a choice. The way I look at it, you are going to tell someone that they can not do something because of the way they are born? That does not seem right to me...

With that in mind, when I came to work in corporate America 2 of my coworkers were gay (both being direct superior), you can bet I got rid of using the term gay to describe anything that was not a homosexual male. Using the word gay, or faggot, or many other remarks like such seem's rather intolerant and to be honest, I can not help but question if whoever using the term is a homo-phobe.

Zach

[Chadd 916]

That statement is offensive to the mentally challanged. We definately need to change the locker room culture of people calling eachother retarded. I mean, you never can tell if you're actually talking to a retard when you say something like that.

When dealing with a locker room full of hockey players, at least one of them will be clinically retarded.

[Jarick 5]

Yeah any and all gay references I made stopped when I had a gay coworker many years ago. Not that I was anti-gay, but more what was funny when you're 18 and working in a warehouse is different when you're in you 20's and working a respectable job. More growing up than anything.

It will be tough to crack, but I'd have to think this generation of athletes is more tolerant than previous ones. Still, it's a pretty big stigma. Maybe it takes a coach or veteran with a gay child or relative.

I've played against gay teams (literally, there's a gay hockey league in MN), and they're no different than the straight teams. Just a lot more women on them.

Still, if you're teasing somebody about their background in a good natured way (i.e. in a Carlos Mencia type manner), that's completely different than using a slur in my mind. You'll probably always be offending someone if you're joking around, it just depends on who you offend and how serious the implications are behind it.

[RecLeagueHero 0]

Hold on...let me get my dictionary to really start competing here...

While being gay is not the same as race, I bet you would find that most homosexuals will tell you that its not a choice. The way I look at it, you are going to tell someone that they can not do something because of the way they are born? That does not seem right to me...

Sure, homoseuxals say that and maybe it's not. There's absolutely zero scientific evidence of a "gay gene," and it's not for lack of looking. Studies have been conducted exactly for the purpose of finding the "gay gene," as well as the Human Genome Project. The theory that it's caused by over exposure of hormones to the fetus resulting in an enlarged pleasure center of the brain basically amounts to saying they've got a birth defect that leaves them with a sex drive so high they just don't care who they shag. I'm sure there's a pyschological aspect to, and I'm sure there are simply individuals that just like it better. There's no historical root for the idea that people are either heterosexual or homosexual, even in soceities were the behavior was far more tolerated. What I do know is there are people that have homosexual urges and don't act on them for whatever reason. No one can chose to stop being a part of whatever racial group to which they belong. So again, homosexuality is behavior, race is not. I can certainly understand, and agree with, people that get offended when homosexuals try to invoke the civil rights movement and compare what Jim Crow laws did to minorities with not being able to get married.

With that in mind, when I came to work in corporate America 2 of my coworkers were gay (both being direct superior), you can bet I got rid of using the term gay to describe anything that was not a homosexual male. Using the word gay, or faggot, or many other remarks like such seem's rather intolerant and to be honest, I can not help but question if whoever using the term is a homo-phobe.

Zach

Okay, but what does sucking up to the boss by altering your language have to do with locker rooms?

[chippa13 1844]

I forget his username but there is a kid on here who I'm sure would like to have a long conversation with you.

[Chadd 916]

Sure, homoseuxals say that and maybe it's not. There's absolutely zero scientific evidence of a "gay gene," and it's not for lack of looking. Studies have been conducted exactly for the purpose of finding the "gay gene," as well as the Human Genome Project.

I do recall a study that found one portion of the brain tended to differ in homosexuals. The particular portion in gay men was similar in size to straight women and vice versa. I'm not sure on the sample size nor if any additional testing had been done.

Yeah any and all gay references I made stopped when I had a gay coworker many years ago.

Being straight makes me a minority in my current job, things are interesting when the shoe is on the other foot.

[Jarick 5]

I've heard the same thing Chadd, I suppose it makes sense if it's a congenital trait.

Time article

[Ahriman 1]

Hold on...let me get my dictionary to really start competing here...

While being gay is not the same as race, I bet you would find that most homosexuals will tell you that its not a choice. The way I look at it, you are going to tell someone that they can not do something because of the way they are born? That does not seem right to me...

Sure, homoseuxals say that and maybe it's not. There's absolutely zero scientific evidence of a "gay gene," and it's not for lack of looking. Studies have been conducted exactly for the purpose of finding the "gay gene," as well as the Human Genome Project. The theory that it's caused by over exposure of hormones to the fetus resulting in an enlarged pleasure center of the brain basically amounts to saying they've got a birth defect that leaves them with a sex drive so high they just don't care who they shag.

Yeah ok, its totally a choice, answer me this, when did you choose to start being attracted to the opposite sex? As a man, when did you decide that breasts were awesome and other men's junk were sorta icky? If "I've always been attracted to women" then I'd imagine if you asked enough gay men and women you'd hear similar answers; just because they didn't come out til much later doesn't mean they weren't gay their whole life, they just didn't have the confidence or trusting relationships to come out, have anyone to be gay with, or were reliant on bigoted parents who would rather their kid be homeless than gay.

And I seriously cannot believe you are ignorant enough to regurgitate agenda pushing "science" that quite literally just called all homosexuals unfeeling nymphomaniacs with a birth defect. Did the people who told you that also publish reefer madness and that piracy is destroying hollywood? Ask a gay man about having sex with women - I promise you the answer is going to lead you to believe that they do indeed care who they're having sex with.

More importantly WHY does it matter if it is an environmental or genetic cause? There is still gonna be gay people, being gay. Leave them alone; it's not your business what other people do with their genitals.

[MorePower4me 0]

I've had gay co-workers/friends/etc, and harbor absolutely no malice (live and let live IMHO) but I think 'birth defect' is the closest approximation to whats going on, in scientific jargon, if you believe its genetic.

If you claim homosexuals are born with a genetic trait that makes them gay, then you also realize that one of their primary functions (evolutionarily speaking), procreating, is defective or broken.

Therefore the 'gay' gene couldn't possibly be passed down through the generations naturally (like red hair/green eyes would be) so it must occur sometime in the womb, or at conception like any other 'defect' that affects normal evolutionary behavior.

To show no bias, I believe I too would be evolutionarily broken in that I (currently) have no desire to have kids. None.

As a result I couldn't pass these 'bad' genes on to any future generations, (nor could anyone else) and the desire to not have kids should have died long ago. If however my trait was behavioral, it could continue.

My guess is that there will be gays in 100 years, and people not procreating in 100 years.

I personally think (like my no-kids attitude) that it's a choice (and one I'm OK with), but if you claim genetics you have to back it with facts.

[TBLfan 25]

When I was starting out college, I used "that's gay" or called people a "fag" a good amount. I had met a friend through someone else that I knew, that friend was gay. Chris had a friend that was also gay. Chris and I talked a good amount, just like any of my other friends but his friend hated me because I said the word "fag." Chris knew that when I said "fag" I didn't mean anything, occasionally asking "Oh did you call me?" or something of the sort.

Point is that some people take offense to certain words, while others don't. Personally, I think it has more to do with their personal comfort over the issue in question.

[Ahriman 1]

I've had gay co-workers/friends/etc, and harbor absolutely no malice (live and let live IMHO) but I think 'birth defect' is the closest approximation to whats going on, in scientific jargon, if you believe its genetic.

Malformed heart, cleft palate, mental retardation, down syndrome, blindness, muscular dystrophy

THAT is the list of things you want to add "being gay" to?

[RecLeagueHero 0]

Yeah ok, its totally a choice, answer me this, when did you choose to start being attracted to the opposite sex? As a man, when did you decide that breasts were awesome and other men's junk were sorta icky? If "I've always been attracted to women" then I'd imagine if you asked enough gay men and women you'd hear similar answers; just because they didn't come out til much later doesn't mean they weren't gay their whole life, they just didn't have the confidence or trusting relationships to come out, have anyone to be gay with, or were reliant on bigoted parents who would rather their kid be homeless than gay.

Pedophiles say their attraction to children isn't a choice. People into organized S&M say that is how they're wired to behave. I'd likely believe there is some truth to both claims, but the reality is any behavior is a choice. I equally find interesting in cultures like those of anicent Greece and Rome, where homosexual behavior was tolerated to a large degree for most of their histories, there is absolutely no concept that people are homosexual or heterosexual. Which would tend to fit with boarder existance of "bi-sexuals" and the fact that very few men who self-idenitify as gay haven't had relationships with women.

And I seriously cannot believe you are ignorant enough to regurgitate agenda pushing "science" that quite literally just called all homosexuals unfeeling nymphomaniacs with a birth defect. Did the people who told you that also publish reefer madness and that piracy is destroying hollywood? Ask a gay man about having sex with women - I promise you the answer is going to lead you to believe that they do indeed care who they're having sex with.

Actually, what I said was due to enlarged pleasure center of the brain they simply didn't discriminate between male and female the way heterosexuals do. Given that men are more likely to engage in casual sex, homosexuality would work out easier for them. Of course, it is obviously more complicated than that. According to the CDC the average homosexual male has more sexual partners in a year than a heterosexual has within a life time, which would also fit with the extremely high levels of STD's in the gay community. That is, of course, not to say that homosexual males never have long term relationships, but on the balance monogamy is not really a signifcant part of a gay lifestyle. Of course, lesbians on the other hand tend to be quick to form committed LTR's.

The time article presented seemed to theorize that homosexual males have brains more similiar to females, which would indicate an improperly formed brain, a birth defect. If that is the is the case it would seem that correcting the problem would be the order of the day. There's no defnintive answer on why anyone has homosexual urges. That's probably because there isn't a single simple answer to the question. There may be physical aspects, and there are almost certainly environmental and pyschological aspects to it. The point is simply that it's not the same thing as a person's ethnicty.

More importantly WHY does it matter if it is an environmental or genetic cause? There is still gonna be gay people, being gay. Leave them alone; it's not your business what other people do with their genitals.

If you enjoy having sex with other men that is your business, and I really could not care less. I merely pointed out that when you drag the issue into the public sphere (such as demanding legal sancationing through marrage) homosexual activtists themselves are the ones bringing the debate out of the bedroom.

[psh 25]

I've had gay co-workers/friends/etc, and harbor absolutely no malice (live and let live IMHO) but I think 'birth defect' is the closest approximation to whats going on, in scientific jargon, if you believe its genetic.

If you claim homosexuals are born with a genetic trait that makes them gay, then you also realize that one of their primary functions (evolutionarily speaking), procreating, is defective or broken.

Therefore the 'gay' gene couldn't possibly be passed down through the generations naturally (like red hair/green eyes would be) so it must occur sometime in the womb, or at conception like any other 'defect' that affects normal evolutionary behavior.

To show no bias, I believe I too would be evolutionarily broken in that I (currently) have no desire to have kids. None.

As a result I couldn't pass these 'bad' genes on to any future generations, (nor could anyone else) and the desire to not have kids should have died long ago. If however my trait was behavioral, it could continue.

My guess is that there will be gays in 100 years, and people not procreating in 100 years.

I personally think (like my no-kids attitude) that it's a choice (and one I'm OK with), but if you claim genetics you have to back it with facts.

Why does it matter whether it's genetic or not? The most recent research I've seen suggests that homosexuality is almost never a choice but is also probably not genetic, but rather depends upon intra-uterine estrogen levels and its effect on the development of the hypothalamus.

I also wonder about your concept of evolutionarily "defective" traits. I don't think a biologist's understanding of evolution and your understanding of evolution would square with each other. Evolution, as a process, is not moving a species towards a "better" version of that species. It is a random process that scatters traits throughout a species. Certain members of that species have certain traits that might give it a better chance of survival and reproduction in the environment at that given time. That same trait may be counter-productive any number of generations down the line. And, while homosexuality may, obviously, prevent one member of a species from procreating, it may, in fact, be a favorable trait species-wide. The homosexual members of a species may serve beneficial roles in that community, measured as a whole, and not individually, such as food gathering, resource defense, nurturing of young. And yes, homosexuality is recognized in more and more species with each passing year.

If you make an appeal to facts, be sure to have a handle on them yourself, first. Check out the Time article linked earlier in this thread. Or try this, more robust research, from the Journal of Endocrinology, if you like:

http://endo.endojournals.org/cgi/reprint/145/2/478

[RecLeagueHero 0]

I've had gay co-workers/friends/etc, and harbor absolutely no malice (live and let live IMHO) but I think 'birth defect' is the closest approximation to whats going on, in scientific jargon, if you believe its genetic.

Malformed heart, cleft palate, mental retardation, down syndrome, blindness, muscular dystrophy

THAT is the list of things you want to add "being gay" to?

One of the best methods of evaluating something is to apply it to soceity at large. If everyone, or the vast majority of the population, were gay our species would die out for obvious reasons. If someone is gay for genetic reasons that would make them an evoluationary dead end. In much the same way the other conditions you describe would seriously impair (if not make impossible) those individual's ability to survive and procreate to continue the species. Whether homosexuality is morally right or wrong isn't the issue, morals are a matter of cultural and religious beliefs and can't be addressed by science. In scientific terms: if it is the result of a malformed brain due to flawed genetics, or some other reason, you would have to consider it a birth defect in exactly the same way that a malformed optic nerve prevents someone born blind from seeing. The difference is solely in the fact that no one really wants to be blind. Whereas there are homosexuals that do want to be homosexals. Though, to be fair, there are also homosexuals that try various methods of ridding themselves of what they consider undesirable impluses. It is also an interesting side note that members of the deaf community have responded negatively to medical break throughs that might restore hearing to some of them.

[MorePower4me 0]

I've had gay co-workers/friends/etc, and harbor absolutely no malice (live and let live IMHO) but I think 'birth defect' is the closest approximation to whats going on, in scientific jargon, if you believe its genetic.

Malformed heart, cleft palate, mental retardation, down syndrome, blindness, muscular dystrophy

THAT is the list of things you want to add "being gay" to?

A - Its not MY list

B - Not being able to reproduce (whether by choice or genetics) IS a defect. Sorry, but those are just the breaks. Look at the millions/billions of years of evolutionary history if you don't believe me, and show me one thriving species that stopped reproducing. So perhaps being gay isn't 'defective' to the individual person, but its most certainly defective as a human being or as a society.

I still think its a choice (therefore no one is defective) but perhaps its not even one made by the person - I was just reading about an interesting possible link with phyto-estrogens in soy based infant formula messing about the natural hormones found in babies. This ties in the whole nature/nurture debate, but I just don't believe its purely genetic.

[chippa13 1844]

Not for nothing but being gay has nothing to do with your ability to reproduce.

[MorePower4me 0]

Why does it matter whether it's genetic or not? The most recent research I've seen suggests that homosexuality is almost never a choice but is also probably not genetic, but rather depends upon intra-uterine estrogen levels and its effect on the development of the hypothalamus.

I also wonder about your concept of evolutionarily "defective" traits. I don't think a biologist's understanding of evolution and your understanding of evolution would square with each other. Evolution, as a process, is not moving a species towards a "better" version of that species. It is a random process that scatters traits throughout a species. Certain members of that species have certain traits that might give it a better chance of survival and reproduction in the environment at that given time. That same trait may be counter-productive any number of generations down the line. And, while homosexuality may, obviously, prevent one member of a species from procreating, it may, in fact, be a favorable trait species-wide. The homosexual members of a species may serve beneficial roles in that community, measured as a whole, and not individually, such as food gathering, resource defense, nurturing of young. And yes, homosexuality is recognized in more and more species with each passing year.

http://endo.endojournals.org/cgi/reprint/145/2/478

The funny thing about science is that you can find a study funded by just about everyone, and another study, funded by someone else refuting that first one.

I'll give you that perhaps I was a bit narrow in my scope of evolution, and that there may be in fact some miniscule benefit to having large # of non-reproducing members of your species (hell, go to a Wal-Mart) but you are grasping at straws.

The idea that evolution does anything but make certain the most fit, able of the species thrive, is comical at best. So please continue to find your one-off studies, to try and illustrate a point that doesn't exist. Evolution always is, and always will be about a species adapting to an environment to the betterment of that species.

Find me one environment where not reproducing will benefit the species as a whole and I'll gladly concede my point.

[chippa13 1844]

Funny, you stick to reproduction and yet tons of gay women have had children.

[MorePower4me 0]

Not for nothing but being gay has nothing to do with your ability to reproduce.

Let's say the breakdown of society happens tomorrow. No more surrogate mothers, or sperm donors.

Still think it works out the same?

2 men will always need a woman in the mix somewhere, and 2 women will always need a man in the mix somewhere.

I'm not claiming it should be that way, or divine design or anything like that, its simply an irrefutable fact of human anatomy.

Funny, you stick to reproduction and yet tons of gay women have had children.

Tons? Without a man/sperm donor?

Thats quite a feat! Please link me to those articles, I am woefully outdated.

[psh 25]

Sure, homoseuxals say that and maybe it's not. There's absolutely zero scientific evidence of a "gay gene," and it's not for lack of looking. Studies have been conducted exactly for the purpose of finding the "gay gene," as well as the Human Genome Project. The theory that it's caused by over exposure of hormones to the fetus resulting in an enlarged pleasure center of the brain basically amounts to saying they've got a birth defect that leaves them with a sex drive so high they just don't care who they shag. I'm sure there's a pyschological aspect to, and I'm sure there are simply individuals that just like it better. There's no historical root for the idea that people are either heterosexual or homosexual, even in soceities were the behavior was far more tolerated. What I do know is there are people that have homosexual urges and don't act on them for whatever reason. No one can chose to stop being a part of whatever racial group to which they belong. So again, homosexuality is behavior, race is not. I can certainly understand, and agree with, people that get offended when homosexuals try to invoke the civil rights movement and compare what Jim Crow laws did to minorities with not being able to get married.

You disgust me. I'll just get that out in the open. No bigot gene has been identified yet, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say your blinkered views are attributable to the long line of microcephalics who inseminated the slatternly toads who eventually begat your parents and resulted in you dropping into this world from a scabbed and sulphurous vulva.

Why does it matter whether homosexuality is genetically based or not? Jewishness is not genetically determined. It's based on different behaviors, both chosen and culturally transmitted behaviors. Jews tend to worship on Fridays, eat differently than most, and don't celebrate Christmas. Yet, even so, I'm glad that laws and social codes protect them from people who may be disposed to bigotry, like you and your ancestors.

You sympathize with those who are offended by gays who would like to marry, and you say that marriage is about sex and that asking for the right to get married brings private sex acts out into the open. BS! Marriage, the legal recognition of a pairing, has not one thing to do with sex and reproduction. If it did, your grandma would be prohibited from re-marrying after your microcephalic grandfather died. In fact, your grandparents' unfortunate marriage would have been annulled after your grandma's ovaries did the decent thing and dried up and stopped ovulating. If marriage was about reproduction, young, infertile couples need not apply, either.

No, marriage is about stepping up and publicly committing yourself to love and care for another citizen as long as you're capable of doing so. It comes with both rights and obligations, both mundane and grand, from jointly filing tax returns, to visitation rights in the hospital, to inheritances. You make a grand statement about gays being more disease prone and having more sexual partners than heterosexuals. Did you ever stop to think that those numbers may be a symptom of the fact that those very people are legally prohibited from marrying and are shunned from seeking social integration in neighborhoods like the one you were raised in? Has it ever occurred to you that it may be the politically conservative and morally right thing to encourage these people to marry each other, to enter into legally supported and socially stable relationships that might lead to more healthy pairings, more secure homes, and better environments for children, who, whether we want to acknowledge it or not, are regularly adopted and born into these relationships?

[chippa13 1844]

Not for nothing but being gay has nothing to do with your ability to reproduce.

Let's say the breakdown of society happens tomorrow. No more surrogate mothers, or sperm donors.

Still think it works out the same?

2 men will always need a woman in the mix somewhere, and 2 women will always need a man in the mix somewhere.

I'm not claiming it should be that way, or divine design or anything like that, its simply an irrefutable fact of human anatomy.

Funny, you stick to reproduction and yet tons of gay women have had children.

Tons? Without a man/sperm donor?

Thats quite a feat! Please link me to those articles, I am woefully outdated.

So, you're worried that at some point the only people on the face of the earth will be gay women?

[MorePower4me 0]

So, you're worried that at some point the only people on the face of the earth will be gay women?

No, I'm worried that some people think reproducing with a 3rd party and several million dollars worth of equipment is the same as being able to reproduce without either... hint, hint :P

And admittedly, none of this has absolutely anything to do with the use of slurs in hockey, which I abhor.

I do think the commentary is interesting though. A similar conversation happens on weight loss boards vs 'elite fitness' boards across the interwebz. The triathletes/etc wonder why the fat slobs won't get off the couch and stop eating bon-bons and the fatties (myself included previously) wonder why they're cursed with such terrible genes.

I think both sides have interesting points there too, but as with here, its just educated guesses or the scientific study of the week.

[Race4LastPlace 31]

Watching the Columbus v. Carolina the other day, i couldnt tell who was saying it, or the player being said to; but this was clearly heard on the telecast:

" (couldnt make out player's name), You F*****G Faggot!"

[chippa13 1844]

So, you're worried that at some point the only people on the face of the earth will be gay women?

No, I'm worried that some people think reproducing with a 3rd party and several million dollars worth of equipment is the same as being able to reproduce without either... hint, hint :P

And admittedly, none of this has absolutely anything to do with the use of slurs in hockey, which I abhor.

I do think the commentary is interesting though. A similar conversation happens on weight loss boards vs 'elite fitness' boards across the interwebz. The triathletes/etc wonder why the fat slobs won't get off the couch and stop eating bon-bons and the fatties (myself included previously) wonder why they're cursed with such terrible genes.

I think both sides have interesting points there too, but as with here, its just educated guesses or the scientific study of the week.

Just because people choose to do it that way does not mean that they are not able to do it the old fashioned way. I'm pretty sure if the only folks left on this rock were the gay ones and for some reason none of them had any scientific knowledge then they would figure out what to do.

Gay people are just as capable of reproducing as you are, and I'm guessing quite a bit more capable, they just choose different methods.

[psh 25]

The funny thing about science is that you can find a study funded by just about everyone, and another study, funded by someone else refuting that first one.

I'll give you that perhaps I was a bit narrow in my scope of evolution, and that there may be in fact some miniscule benefit to having large # of non-reproducing members of your species (hell, go to a Wal-Mart) but you are grasping at straws.

The idea that evolution does anything but make certain the most fit, able of the species thrive, is comical at best. So please continue to find your one-off studies, to try and illustrate a point that doesn't exist. Evolution always is, and always will be about a species adapting to an environment to the betterment of that species.

Find me one environment where not reproducing will benefit the species as a whole and I'll gladly concede my point.

I think your focus on individuals, rather than populations of species, is clouding your thinking. Evolution is understood as occurring within a species, not a single organism or pair of organisms. Moreover, evolution does not move in a specific direction. It produces scattered mutations, some of which prove to be beneficial in the immediate environment. It is a process driven by randomness. If you really want to think about this rigorously, read EO Wilson or SJ Gould. The homosexual population is tiny, most estimate it to be approximately 2% of the human population. Nobody arguing in good faith would assert that the size of the human homosexual population is significantly impacting our fertility rates or ability to propagate the species. Because homosexuality and non-reproductive mating occurs across species, and seems to be most frequently observed in mammals, specifically primates, evolutionary biologists who engage in the discussion (or at least those I have read) fall into two camps: They believe it either (i) is statistically insignificant "noise" or (ii) is the result of evolution that must serve some beneficial purpose in social species. Of course, others, discussed above, believe homosexuality is not transmitted through any direct genetic mechanism at all and is, instead, the result of intra-uterine hormone levels (which themselves may or may not be subject to genetic determination).

Finally, if you want to disregard the Journal of Endocrinology as a propoganda rag that produces one-off studies, I can do nothing but conclude you're approaching this debate in bad faith and there really is no reason for us to engage in this conversation any further.