@CowDung....My youngest daughter, age 23, thinks I'm a lipstick lesbian caught up in a man's body. :-)

She may be right...there's definitely a whole pile of confusion going on in this memorable Lyle Ruble performance..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yo4glASbEh4

@Bob McBride....Thanks, that video always brightens my day!

@Lyle

I like you, but I don't "like like" you.

.

@Steve....Ssssssssssssteven you ssssssssilly ssssssssavage. Do you hang out at the gym too? What's your number, I'll set a meeting. Now I know why you're childless.

sssssssssstop being sssssssasssy Lyle. you're making my sexy face blush

Bren and Lyle: You may want to read this: http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/_PDFArchives/streams-of-life/SL2W0803.pdf

@J.B. Schmidt....It is clearly not a choice, but expression is a choice. One never knows which person is going to have a same sex orientation. Parents that are well in tune with their children may see it early, but there's no guarantee. Out of your five kids, you could easily have one or more with a same sex orientation even though you are raising them in a traditional family. If it turns out that one of your children is gay, then I hope you'll remember they're your child first and you treat them with the love and respect they deserve. Nothing is worse than a beloved parent turning their back on their child over something so trivial as sexual orientation.

Those with a penchant for SSA are similar to those with other deviant sexual perversions such as ephebophilia, hebephilia,or even beastiality. Exploring the roots of the problem is the first step in seeking counsel.

@Lyle
I love the red herring, emotional 'what if it was one of your kids' argument.

What if it was one of my kids that became a drug addict; should I love them and allow them to live their lives because their genetic make up produces a personality that easily succumbs to addiction. If a child comes to a parent and says she is a prostitute because her genetic make up causes her to be nympho and her parents taught her to love freely; should they allow her to continue?

If different levels of hormones do to the slight variation in genetic make up coupled with life's experiences produce an outcome that must be accepted; what behaviors are bad?

What about homosexuality behaviors make it 'bad'? Certainly homosexual love is no 'worse' than heterosexual love, is it?

The only downside that I can see is that homosexual couples are unable to procreate as a fertile, heterosexual couple can.

@Cow
Using Lyle's justifications for homosexuality, isn't all behavior society has traditional held a bad/taboo/inappropriate now acceptable? Recently in Germany, there was a an article sympathizing with bestiality, is societal acceptance the only thing keeping it from being allowed. If so, aren't we a hypocritical society?

Again Mr Ruble, you have nothing to refute my statements but insults and mockery and some false hope that 'science will one day prove me right'!

You are a very closed minded individual.

JB:

I would think that it's pretty easy to draw the 'good/bad' line at practices that are harmful or destructive.

@J.B.Schmidt....I didn't say that homosexuality is aberrant, whereas drug addiction is. Homosexuality is a natural expression of human love. I won't even comment on the ridiculousness of your prostitution example. Clearly you equate all forms of behavior that are threatening to you as negative and equally harmful. I feel sorry for your kids if they don't turn out to be perfect according to your vision.

@Lyle
"Expression of Love" is a purely subjective statement. I have never denied that gay couples love each other. However, some argument for pedophilia and bestiality are also that it is an expression of love.

How can you say it is unknown why people are homosexuals; yet say it is acceptable and still condemn other behaviors that are just as much an issue of brain wiring and life experiences. Do we know why people engage in bestiality or pedophilia? Is their a medical correction available other then convincing them via therapy their actions are wrong?

Did you make the choice to be heterosexual? I don't recall choosing...

One of the causes of homosexuality in men is the lack of bonding with the male parent, heterosexuality is the "natural" condition of all people.

That doesn't sound like a choice...

...not that it correct, but it seems to contradict your claim that homosexuality is either genetic or a choice.

You must have comprehension issues. SSA is a choice based upon psychological factors, it is not genetic. Men and women who experience SSA often share similar backgrounds.

@Jack...If male the lack of male bonding was the primary variable, then we would see an inordinate number of children from female single parent families turning out with same sex orientation, especially in the inner cities where absentee fathers prevail. Homosexuality is normal for about 6% of the population.

Lyle I said it is one of the causes, as usual, you try to obfuscate issues by throwing your own terms in like 'primary'.......

Other characteristic backgrounds of people afflicted with SSA are:

1. Heredity

Unresolved family issues
Predilection for rejection
2. Temperament

Hypersensitivity
Artistic nature
Gender non-conforming behaviors
3. Hetero-Emotional Wounds
Over attachment to opposite-sex parent
Imitation of opposite-sex behavior
4. Homo-Emotional Wounds

Detachment from same-gender parent
Experience of being neglected/abused
5. Sibling Wounds/Family Dynamics

Name calling
Abuse: physical, emotional, mental
6. Body Image Wounds

Thinner/Heavier
Shorter/Taller
Late bloomer
Physical disabilities
7. Sexual Abuse

Early sexualization
Learned and reinforced behaviors
Substitute for affection and love
8. Homo-Social/Peer Wounds

Teacher’s pet
Boys: no rough and tumble
Girls: too much rough and tumble
9. Cultural Wounds

Early exposure to sexuality through Internet, media, and educational institutions
Pornography
10. Other Factors

Divorce
Death of a caregiver
Adoption
Religious wounding

@Jack....Science is working on isolating the genetic and brain structures. This SSA you talk about being cured from is a scam and universally is discredited. Sorry, but it's easy to make claims just like Michael Bachman.

You have no proof Mr Ruble, You just keep vomiting up the same meme of the radical leftists. The canards you spew have no basis in fact yet you believe them blindly. So much for an open mind.

Jack, who hasn't had experience of one or more of the "characteristics" you posted below? Among my acquaintance there are/have been gays who had a far more "normal" childhood experience than mine. I'm not gay and they are. And Cow's right--I also don't recall filling out an attribute request form in the womb (or earlier).

I will also point out that homosexuality extends cultures and millenia.

@Jack....I don't know where your getting this, but it's about as valid as moonbeams. I want you to show me the studies that show a causality between those antecedents and the orientation and behavior. Anyone who has taken a beginning diagnostics seminar knows that you're blowing smoke.

@Jack....Where did you receive your training and what are your credentials? Are you currently licensed to practice as a psychotherapist?

@Brian Dey....Even the link you provided yesterday would lead to genetic and brain causality. Sexual expression requires choice just as drinking is a behavior of an alcoholic. The propensity of addictive personality is present but must nurtured to fulfill that potential. We know a great deal more about addictive behavior than we do about sexual orientation.

Lyle- Try the link above that I provided for you and Bren.

I think the zoo has a pair of gay emus. Hasn't helped the captive breeding process much, but their enclosure is quite stylishly furnished and impeccably clean.

I think you meant "Emo", Craig.

Bob: I did.
You do bring up a good topic: In the animal kingdom, how often do we find homosexuals?
I am aware that frogs can change sex to procreate, but unaware of any ----><----.

Thanks Bob for posting the pics. LOL

You're welcome, Craig! I put a few more up to preemptively avoid any further confusion.

@Craig....Of all the forms of homosexuality, bisexuality is one which causes the most distrust. My one daughter, who's nickname is "Wild Child", was deeply involved in the gay scene in a large western city. She was a well known "fag hag" and even was the queen one year in the Gay Pride Parade. I have talked with a number of lesbians and my daughter and bisexual females are highly distrusted by full lesbians. Bisexual males are more accepted by gay men, but they are not widely accepted by straight women.

I don't know that bisexuality has been studied as extensively as other forms of homosexuality. I'll do some literature search and see what I can come up with.

My goodness what an accomplishment, to have your daughter labeled a fag hag. You should be so proud.

@Jack....The label is inconsequential, she is a unique human being. She has had to deal with things that would crush lesser people. She is a five year cancer survivor that left her crippled and with a significant disability. She was widowed last year and faces raising a child on her own. However, she continues to be an advocate for social justice. She spends time working with drug and alcohol issues, advocates for criminal justice reforms and is just a good person. If you are in need, her door is always open.

Thank G-d for her gay and lesbian friends. Through out all of her challenges, they have stood by her and supported her. As far as I am concerned, the world is a better place because of her.

@Bottom Line....Although I think your reference to sheep herders and farmers is unwarranted to the discussion; how we limit and control our base biological drives is important to the function of a civilized society. I too am concerned about the sexualization of our children, from the media to the streets. I have maintained all along that sexuality and sexual preferences shouldn't be a concern while our children are still children, but there are those who view the situation differently and force the discussion. We as a society have a vested interest in assuring that we are dealing with facts and not just unsubstantiated mythical beliefs. In American society, there are far to many myths surrounding sexuality and sexual functioning. With the level of concern our society places on sex and our tendency to push social legislation, it is incumbent on us to "keep it real".

As far as societal support of family relationships, we have made a collective decision over and over again to support the nuclear family. The definition has slowly changed as to what constitutes a nuclear family, but it is still consistent with our long term committment has been. If we choose only one type of family and discriminate against another, then we are creating a situation of social injustice. In this case it should be to cover all types of nuclear families or none at all.

As far as my math goes, it isn't even math that I am illustrating to J.B., but there is an unknown potentiality (continued)

@Bottom Line (continued).... of someone being gay. Since sexual orientation is biologically derived, no one knows for sure who will find themselves with the anomaly. My point is, that it is really the luck of the draw.

You write extensively about others expected to pay for individual choices that may have undesirable consequences. Your expectations that one shouldn't be a burden on the greater society is unrealistic given our societal structures. Our society or any society, is organized around functioning for the common good and that includes a certain level of distribution of resources. How they are distributed and to what extent is the subject of discussion and disagreement. Without a committment to care for one another, then we are no longer a civil, functioning society.

You seem to be of the opinion that children are too easily conditioned and are at risk that the liberals are going to "brainwash" the nation's children into irresponsibility and a socialist society. I think you are over reacting to a mythical risk. Change does not come about that way and liberals are not committed to turning our society into a dysfunctional system or a pure socialistic body. Even if that were a goal, you forget about the main educational institution, the home and family. Parents, still retain the upper hand and have both the responsibility and right to program their own children with their own beliefs and myths.

My 'man parts' don't really work that way, Donny. I don't choose to be hetero, I just follow what my 'man parts' say...

@The Donny Show....G-d condemns his own creation? If you are saying that he condemns homosexuality because of what is found in Judaic scripture, the you must also be aware that those same scriptures were written by men and not by G-d. Religion has a way of supporting a cultural structure and it is important that activity that doesn't support reproduction would be condemned. If you read the narratives you'll find that masturbation is condemned, homosexuality, remaining unmarried, and acts of adultery, whereas a man sleeps with another man's wife. Even nocturnal emissions were condemned and attributed to the "Mother of All Demons", Lilith. She visits men in the night while they are asleep and steals their seed to create demons. The main purpose of the prohibitions are to maintain social order and promote propagation. With the knowledge gained through science we now have a better understanding of basic human beings. Society is not threatened by homosexuality. Remember, most homosexuals are not "breeders" and only constitutes about 6% of the overall population.

I don't remember having to make a choice about my heterosexuality, I just am. Unlike you, I haven't ever struggled whether I would sleep with a man or not. I think you need to do some soul searching if you think you have to make a choice about not sleeping with a man. Those who pound their chests about their male sexuality are often the ones who are living in closeted minds.

I don't have a PhD, nor am I a MD.
I do know this issue has been studied by many intellectuals for quite some time.
I am going to trust the experts on this "not a choice" issue.
I can tell you this: I am conservative. Homosexuals used to appall me. This was based on my limited knowledge from 1970's television. I don't want to see a heterosexual couple going at it publicly, nor do I want to see a same sex couple engaging in private behavior publicly.
That being said: I have met same sex couples who have changed my opinion. As long as they do not throw their sexuality in my face, I have no problem with it.
About 1% of the population is born with both sex organs to varying degrees, to ascertain that 100% of the time sexual preference is chosen and not biological is hypocritical.
At one time in my life I was a total homophobe, until I realized they were not interested in my junk. They are not out there trying to convert people, so what they do behind closed doors is none of anyone else's business.

@Craig....You are a wise and thoughtful man.

"If I am a pedophile, G-D made me that way!"
"If I am a necrophiliac, G-D made me that way!"
"If I am a polyandrist, G-D made me that way!)

Great comments Lyle. I LOVE how you take the chance to jump to the biggest conclusion you can.

One thing I have learned.....we are most often guilty of what we accuse others of. Think about that manly man.

Every day you have the CHOICE to have relations what whoever or whatever you want. You do what you choose to do.

Then Nature made me that way, and I'm not particularly worried about what the Hebrews had to say in Leviticus.

So then there are, in reality, two acceptable explanations as to why one could be gay. One of which is based, entirely, on a belief system rather than any scientific evidence.

I'm not sure how that differs from the belief that the preference is learned or contracted or the result of exposure to this, that or the other thing. One belief, based purely on faith, is really no better than another based on...I guess you could call it faith of a sort.

Maybe it would be best to leave G-d out of it altogether.

There is far more familial evidence as to the choice of SSA than scientific evidence. In fact, there is no scientific evidence as to the cause of SSA, and quite a bit of evidence as to the personality and background traits which cause someone to be cursed with SSA.

@jack -- Interesting choice of words, 'cursed'. Who freely chooses to be cursed?

If you're asking about a so-called gay gene, that issue has become politicized enough to affect the science.

Keep in mind that all human DNA is 99.9% identical. Gays, straights, blacks, whites- we are all only 0.1% different.
I think it will take decades before we can understand that slight deviation, if ever.
Life is too short to hate people for something we are currently incapable to understand.
Their (homosexuals) choices do not hurt us (heterosexuals). Holy hell, it is not like they are breeding a new human race and trying to make us become extinct.
Would it not be more beneficial to look for the cancer strand in DNA? Or the Alzheimer strand? Or search for the DNA strand that creates hatred?

@Jack...I asked you to present your data from a verifiable scientific resources. Even you terminology of SSA indicates a predetermined bias. Your emphasis on "curing gays" is just wrong headed. Again what are your qualifications to call me a liar?

You are a liar Mr Ruble. There is no scientific evidence that has clearly established genetics and brain structure for the cause of SSA. That is a lie. Please post any peer reviewed evidence that disproves you are a liar.

@Jack

I'm going to have to weigh in here and say that Lyle is pretty much right about the evidence to date. That doesn't mean that some preferences are not learned, but Lyle is correct in his general assessment concerning the evidence.

We have to accept that along the way gene mutations that are not necessarily beneficial to perpetuation of the human race came about and persist. I am only the messenger.

Given that religious creed is 'learned' and thus a choice, would that make it acceptable to discriminate on the basis of religion?

@vocal local 1....I didn't set out to write a scientific article. My disciplines don't include the neuro sciences, genetics or the biological sciences. However, I am an experienced researcher and I do know what I am reading and the implications. The research surrounding the biological causality is clear even though clear scientific evidence is not yet available in sufficient quantities to make it a certainty. This is not unusual as research continues to look into phenomena.

Early on I too was a "Nuturist" and looked for explanations for behavioral phenomena and psychological states in the developmental process. Through my own experience it became obvious that there was biological components to human personality and behavior. Over time, the last five decades, more and more evidence has emerged that biology plays a prominent role in human behavior and development.

I will agree that sexual expression in form and substance is primarily a learned behavior, but not sexual preference. When I received my sex therapy training at UCSF Medical School, we were able to alter sexual expression but not sexual preference. Patients did not come to us to change sexual preference but to help with relationship issues and sexual dysfunction. I have seen continued attempts to reprogram people's sexual orientation and almost without exception, they have all failed, only their expression changed. (continued)

@local vocal 1 (continued)....If exposure was enough to turn someone gay, then my own children would have all turned gay since they were continually exposed to a wide diversity of lifestyles, including LGBTQ. Everyone of them are exclusively straight. Your concern for exposing children to gays is unfounded and is an unwarranted fear. The only way they would respond is if they already have a same sex orientation, and if they do, there's nothing you can do about it. It is what it is.

If it were a matter of exposure, we'd all be straight, since we certainly get heterosexuality presented to us and constantly reinforced.

@Randy

That isn't true either. There is a considerable change that comes about in populations of women that are in prison, for example. The issues involved are more complex than most people assume.

Yes indeed, you got there. One thing, if you read carefully, Lyle's daughter is widowed with a child, indicating heterosexuality. She's merely friends with gay people.

I would define myself as a rampant heterosexual, yet I'm friends with a number of gay and bisexual people in addition to some straight ones. They're good people regardless.

One doesn't have to be gay to be active and involved with the gay community, or to participate in a gay pride parade. If she was an active supporter for gay rights issues, it isn't surprising that she was honored as Queen for the day.

You could not be more wrong about that. It is a matter of religious respect for observant Jews not to spell out the full name of the Almighty.

~ cont.~
include's it's sexual freedom agenda charade can no longer be estimated financially nor estimated in cost of lives psycologically ruined and physically distroyed and or ruined in the U.S. anymore.

Ultimately everything Jesus condemned was condemned for the benefit of human's. He created sex...He didn't condemn it...He prescribed boundries around it for our well being emotionally, physically and, AND financially. As He said, "He came to give life and so that we can have it more abundantly".

~ cont. ~
is on the incline now in the U.S. among teenagers. I can't imagine how many teens now have contracted venereal warts, herpe's, clhamydia and various other STD's.

Also, if as liberal doctrine of evolution has it that all life originated from a single micro organism that got here somehow after the big bang that would mean then too that animals have a lying gene and a hypocracy gene also. Of course (sarcasm) they do and it wont be long before they open up their own abortion clinics and deciding to take humans as marriage partners. (No sarcasm), it won't be long and liberals will be giving animals citizenship and all the benefits that go with that and Obamapetcare.

Most people are smart enough to know that when it comes to special interest groups one only needs to be aware of the good ol' 'follow the money' test. The trail will lead to government handing out money and benefits to those groups. Sure enough, just yesterday the Pentagon said it's considering extending benefits to gay partners 'married' to gay service personel. If you didn't see that expense coming you've been on life support. FOLLOW THE MONEY!!!

The damage to society caused by progressive socialist pooh-litical correctness that
~ cont.~

~cont.~
Bestiality. Genetic or not?

Substitute the word 'Bi' through out senario #1 with the words 'Bestiality and or 'Sodomite' and or 'Sodomy'.

If God supposedly created gay genes and bi-genes he surely must have created a bestiality gene then too for people. Right? If He did why though would He emphatically condemn the practice of sodomy as well as the practice of bi-sexuality as well as the practice of homosexuality if he created those genes? If as liberal doctrine of evolution has it that all life originated from a single micro organism that got here somehow after the big bang that would mean then that ALL species of life would be engaged also in homosexuality, bi-sexuality and sodomy and even forcing themselves on humans aka rape. Imagine being sodomized or raped by an algator, a whale or spider (mosquitos don't count). Only humans rape and sodomize animals. For who's benefit then did He condemn the practice of sodomy, man or beast, and, which species did he point to for being guilty of these aborations?

Anyone ever hear of self control, even sexual self control? Too many people are preoccupied with their sexuality...beside's movies, music and sitcom's just turn on the Jerry Springer Show or look at the amounts of kids born out of marriage that are dependant on government assistance or look at gay parade's or the abortion statistics (3,000 per day in the U.S.). Fact: rape is an epiedemic in the U.S.. Fact: sexually transmitted AIDS
~ cont.~

@Born Free....With the question of bisexuality; it is perfectly reasonable to make the assumption that as far as sexual orientation is concerned that there is yet another biological condition of no sexual preference. This would be consistent with gene mutations. Pedophilia can also be traced to some kind of biological mutation, but society, rightly so, does not condone such expression because it violates values and laws that demand protection of children.

Let me answer your questions with a question. You ask how many times must a person engage in a certain type of behavior before they are defined by the behavior. Let's take drug and alcohol use first. Does one time use make one a drug addict or alcoholic? Substance abuse addicts are defined as such when they are physically addicted or psychologically dependent. If someone tries tobacco one time are they defined as a smoker?

To define oneself as committed to one sexual preference or another is pretty much defined by self identification and behavior. Experimentation is very much a part of the human experience. The rejection or acceptance of such experimentation is strongly impacted by culture, societal values, family expectations, etc.

You're clearly mistaken about liberals and progressives pushing to lower the age for sexual consent. Again this is a cultural and societal issue. Why would some of the most religiously conservative groups have the lowest ages of sexual consent? ie; the age of consent in Utah is 14.

@Bottom Line...Reality or more rightly stated Consensus Reality is differentiated through the process of reality testing. The process can be aided with scientific inquiry using the scientific method, but that too is limited in its application; some things don't lend themselves to scientific testing.

I agree with Popper to a certain extent and there are no capital "T" truths, only smaller "t" truths. Truth is highly dependent on perception, values, biases, etc.

I am not a supporter of polygamy in our culture. It is normal in other cultures. As family structures are concerned, I am a strong supporter of extended families. Because of the emphasis on the nuclear family, much of the functions, that in the past were provided by extended family members, are now contracted out. Economics is finally forcing people back into the more beneficial family structure of the extended family.