This time, gay sheep.

I know there's a great one-liner to put this story in perspective.  Sad to say, I don't have it.

I'm throwing this open to all on the Board.

about wearing sweaters and scarves.

You just never know.

I mean I'm ramming the ewe like she was a ram and the other ewes are watching and wising they could too...

Err, I once was a ram, then science turned me into a eunuch-ewe, but now I'm free to openly express myself!

Err, I'm a black-sheep, trapped in white wool! Help! Set me free!!

Can wool be dyed all the colors of the raindow?? While I'm still fleased??

Oh Fuck it!! Fuck the whole thing! I don't want to be a sheep anymore I want to be a deer!! Or better yet! A gazelle!!!

EEW! look at you ewe! I am not an abomonation! God made me like this!! Or wait... I guess science made me like this, or wait... Science is my god and God is dead, Err, Was Carl Sagan a sheep?? How about a homosexual?? Did Sagan give Marx butt-love? Were there admirers from a far?? Both died with eachothers dirty-sanchez of lies on eachothers lips!

(Yup, it's me, BD, still finding abstract philosophy in the bottom of a bottle... feels good though...)

Ah, you're a "trans-sheepual"?

I think  "ewe-nuch"  works better.

That's ok, When I sober up sometime tomorrow [evening, Greenwich 8, maybe 9] I'm sure he'll have tried to mathematically caculate how much I drank by taking the square-root of all the words I misspelled, divided by my age...(I'm also guessing he'll be RIGHT, I learned my lesson getting in a math-pissing contest with a math-professor a few threads down, ROTFL!)

...sunsword69 goes math-bizirk on me again, lol!

(I was an A+ student through out all higher-levels of physics classes, but I could barely maintain a passing grade in any of the alegebra/calculus-type classes... VERY different brain-type from the propeller-heads that excel in the ridged-sciences... YUCK!

to excel in physics w/o high level mathematical skills.

Can Board members with relevnt experiences/skills weigh in on this point?  BSD? sunsword69?  I think you both might contribute here?  Foo?  You have a scientific background.

I'm an odd duck! [a point that I predict will go unchallenged, lol!]

I was born with a 170+ IQ, but highly dislexic, and came to understand physical-relationships in a savant-like way, and math for that matter as well... I can usually produce a correct answer, but "fail" in following pre-patterned methods that Professor-type hard-asses think is absolute and nesessary! I found Geometry and physics to be virtual non-think classes, and was rarely required to "show my work"... so unlike other the frustrations of higher-math... constantly measuring my prosesses instead of my results... (I also persued a theology degree, which I eventually learned to memorize the lies and repeat them back to the professors/theologens it the correct order and sentence structure and graduated with honors... (Sadly a theological-degree is worth slightly less that the paper it's printed on in the job-market and it's only practical use is to wipe my ass with after pinching off a finely ground organic loaf! (Twice I've used my theology degree... One good wiping on the front-side, then by cleaver folding, I got a great second-wipe on the back-side... Then I unfolded it and put it back in the frame on my wall...) "Bitter" doesn't Begin to decribe my feeling toward "The Church"...

I did find however that "real-life" is a breeze! Providing "solutions" to the over-educated, over-funded masses is fullfilling and abundantly sustaining!! Money comes easy with results, and many whores have profited from my wanton-lusts as I effecently plug the holes in my life with their primary horizontal,moccupational, persutes... Life is good, but not behind Ivy-covered walls or stained-glass window, I prefer the great-wide-open...  ;>

will turn to sexual gratification through homosexuality.  and you can play with that % by altering the male:female ratio....  Underlying is a base level of homosexual preferance... but put fewer females into the mix, decrease the space allowed for the population - and watch the development of a gentrified rat cage! lol

You've made an EXTREMELY broad generalization --- one to which I can think of many exceptions.  (Trivially, for examples, bees, corals, and whales.)

More fundamentally, sex ratios in natural populations in natural conditions tend to be relatively stable.  When you artifically manipulate the sex ratios in a population, you therefore put them into an ecologically invalid situation, which MAY lead to abberant behavior.  Pathological environments tend to elicit pathological behavior --- for example, consider Colin M. Turnbull's study of the Ik of Uganda, where increasing starvation led to the utter disintegration of their society.  In the last century John B. Calhoun put a group of rats into a limited-space environment that was rich in resources.  As the population grew, competition for space resulted in extremely pathological behavior, including failure of parental care, marauding gangs of rats, and, yes, indiscriminate mating attempts.  This, however, was more an effect of space limitation than of population size per se.  Note that mating attempts were indiscriminate; it doesn't follow that the rats had become homosexual.

I must admit I am mystified by your assertion that there is a "base level of homosexual preference" underlying mating behavior.

On the other hand, there are species of limpets (e.g., slipper limpets) that start out as males and later become females; these creatures tend to form stacks with the bottom-most being females.  The eggs they lay they lay below themselves so the larvae can swim away.  This is the best of both worlds, no?

But I think the one on the bottom of the "stack" was a pre-op shemale, but I can't be sure...

(I don't think it was the "confines of space" that drove these men to gang-fuck... Although they were doing it in a rather confined space... LOL!)

A limpet is a long way down the evolutionary-chain from a rat... And is possibly closer to a plant than an animal... (Some worms can be cut in half then mate with eachother and reproduce... Would that then be the ultimate example of "self-fulfillment??)

Perhaps the limpet just adapted (or was designed to adapt) to a puropseful and sustainable existance... How much "pleasure" does the limpet on the bottom recieve vs the limpet at the top of the stack?? Hmmmm.....

(Not everything can be mathematically deduced...)

so a certain % of the population will be gay.... no matter what!

...The statistic doesn't make them any less genetically-flawed...

The mis-argued "We are all created in God's image" line is a crock of shit that flawed people or those sympothetic to people's flaws use to justify things like homo-behavior... and just want everyone to "feel good" about themselves... All lies!

"We are all created in God's image"... Exactly WHAT is "God's image"? White Anglo-Saxon Protestant Middle-Class Male?  What about African-Americans? What about Native Americans? What about Buddhists? Hindi in India? Pygmies in Africa? Trobriand Islanders?

What about poor people? Criminals? Nancy Pelosi?  Muslims?  Where does "being in God's image" begin?  Where does it leave off?

Is it not said in the Bible "Judge not, lest thou be judged"?

Homosexual behavior does not need to be "justified" any more than heterosexual behavior needs to be "justified".  It is our up-tight sexually repressed society that has taken upon itself the burden of arbitrarily deciding what is "proper" sexual behavior.  It is somewhat ironic that people who think nothing of committing what the Bible unambiguously defines as "adultery" get all uptight when people exhibit natural sexual behavior that doesn't conform to the narrow interpretations of sexuality that our society hypocritically considers "appropriate".

I suspect that, if you knew a bit more about the biology of human sexual development and the variety of unusual outcomes that show up, you might just be a little less dogmatic and judgmental.

Give me a break, Ben.  Just how would limpets survive if they HADN'T adapted to a "sustainable existence"?  And isn't reproducing a purpose for existence in and of itself?  That is, after all, what the theory of evolution by natural selection is all about.  You don't need God to understand that.

By the way, you seem to have the impression that I am an engineering-type geek that sees the world through mathematical eyes.  My life would have been much easier if that were the case.  My "true" vocation was music; I have been composing and writing poetry for many years now.  I have been described by some as a "right-brain intellectual" --- one who sees the world in more aesthetic terms than most.  It is a trait that has NOT always served me well professionally, but I have learned to work with it.

I think it's time to practice, if not a little mercy, at least a little empathy.  Or hold your posts for an hour, reread them, and see if some things might need the cyberspace blue pencil.

The "Created In God's Image"  may often be an insincere trope, but in spite of that it's still an estimable ideal to which all of us can try to aspire.  We're all divided against each other  by something, but corny as this no doubt will sound, we're still all united bby our common humanity, hard as it often is to understand it, harder still to be able to act upon it.

Equating homosexuality with downs syndrome, I don't know, it just sounds cruel.  Ever known a child with downs syndrome?  It's absolutely heartbreaking.  This is where I personally lost my faith in God [but not a belief in God -- I blame him for all unexplainable bad stuff in the world]. It's an open question how much of homosexuality is "caused" by hereditary factors, how much by environment, how much by personal inclination.  If you want to make a political/social statement about homosexuality, please try to do so without dragging in innocent victims of random genetic errors.  

I know it was not your intention to hurt anyone with downs syndrome, but the way you presented you analogy reads as just plain cruel.

I agree that Ben's comparing homosexuality with Down's syndrome is odious. It is like a vanilla ice cream lover comparing pistachio ice cream to poisonous mushrooms.

BUT, in fairness, if you blame God for all unexplainable BAD sstuff in the world, shouldn't you give Him credit for all of the unexplaineable GOOD stuff in the world?

Consider the possibility that God started this wonderful universe some 13.5 billion years ago and, since then, has simply sat back and watched the Divine Comedy being acted out.  Our universe is neither good nor bad --- it simply IS.  It is our love one for another and this marvelous world we live in that is our redemption.

Obviously I'm aware of what a "limpet" is... My comment is more metaphoric than scientific They are not a creature that makes "choices", was my only point with that, not to mention the lack of a complex nervous-system...

I was just throwing out there a "reflection" of the stiff-neckd way you come across, But I'll take you at your word as to who and what you are off this board... Your math-skills are impressive, but they do seem to dominate your reasoning tool-box...

Reproducing is NOT enough to justify existance, it is incredably inefficent... Seems to suggest it must have more purpose buried behind it's primary objective that just multiplying numbers...

I'll gladly go for a "meaning of life" new thread one day... Some truth is buried in Darwinism, but not all-truth...

Last summer, during the posting crapstorm attending the Israeli-Hezbollah War, some witty poster asked "why all the problems over land owned by an absentee landlord?"  [or something quite similar.]

You pose an excellent question, and it does very much appeal to the better angels of my nature.  Maybe it's just my embittered, lapsed-RC perspective on the world, but I see precious little good stuff, unexplained or otherwise, in the world these days.  The closest I ever come to this feeling  is when I see see little children at play, just being kids, with all their beautiful and innocent energy and exhuberence [spelling?] and terminal cuteness.  But then I shake my head and reality kicks in -- fast forward 30 years, and how many of these beautiful little innocents will be in the throes of a crappy life and mired in terrible circumstances?  Too many i fear. Even 1 would be too many.  And i think of all the wierd and capricious unfairness of life.  I'm a natural born pessimist, I fear.

Your last line is a beautiful thought, and I thank you for composing it.  Would be that I could believe in it's reality.

PS. I'm sure he didn't mean it malicsiously, but the comparison he made was far beyond odious.  It probably outstrips that last hostile comment directed at me about the late SO by whoever which Ben excised from the Board.

Take care and peace to you.

Ben, one's existence is its own "justification".  We do NOT need the "permission" of some otiose supernal entity to exist.  Simply put, life IS.  No necessary a priori justification is needed.

Do you feel you need justification for everything you do?  For the beer and spirits you drink?  For the women you fuck?  If so, I feel very sorry for you --- life is a hell of a lot more fun when you aren't always trying to "make it right" with the Powers that Be (whosoever THEY might be).

By the by, limpets DO make choices --- their behavior is NOT random.  Plants make choices, too: have you ever looked at the ways trees grow towards the light in a forest?  The fact that they don't have brains doesn't mean they don't make choices.

I agree that "not all truth is buried in Darwinism".  Neither is it in any known religion, nor is it in the arts.  As you should know, assuming you are in possession of "truth" is about the time that it comes up behind you and bites you in the ass.  (Or at least it SHOULD!)

The world is no less ugly and brutal to me than to you, my friend.  I have been working for some time on a large-scale composition entitled "Requiem for Children Without Voices".  It is dedicated to the countless children in this world who have died as "collateral damage" in wars, through abuse, through starvation, and other crimes.  I, too, have had experience of these things, and they have left their scars on me, too.

In the process, however, I have come to realize just how strong the human spirit really is, how so many people can survive and carry on under the most appalling and awful circumstances in life.  There is an exquisitely painful beauty in the tragedies of their lives --- the "beauty" arising from their accommodating their afflictions and making do with what little the world has allowed them.

I grieve for many such people --- but I also admire them and respect them.  Despair and depression, my friend, are enemies that ennervate and diminish us, and they are antagonists to be fought and overcome.  Nobody ever said that beauty had to be pretty.

based on my direct experience, including the "gang housing of rats, mice and guinea pigs," interactions with the administration of at least 20 major universities and medical colleges, as well as several hundred academicians, and government scientists.  I should also add, that some of my observations are also of the management of several pharmaceutical companies, and biotech start-ups.  Statistical?  No.  Real? Yes.

Why do I bring them up?  Because I am an optimist... and unfortunately being an optimist I too walk into situations saying "hey, I trust you, you are honest."  Only to be blown away by the dishonest behavior of those who sit in ivory towers.  After this occurs about 10 times, as a scientist, I start to wonder, why am I repeating the same exact experiment and expecting a different result.  Hence, my distrust of academia.  it is based on direct observations... and a high degree of correlation.... ya know, more or LESS like the correlation of global warming and the presence of mankind on the planet.