americablog.blogspot.com— Bill Maher just outed the head of the entire Republican Party, Ken Mehlman, as gay on CNN's Larry King Live. See the video.
Nov 9, 2006View in Crawl 4
More complicated than that. While there are hundreds, thousands of documented species that display homosexual activity across the spectrum from fish to beetles to apes, there are also species that have shown no observable homosexual activity, some species that have homosexual activity but no bisexual activity, and some, like bonobos, which are predominantly bisexual (80-90% if I recall).A report in Time magazine a while back showed that there is a correlation between hypothalamic size and gender orientation, with smaller hypothalamuses in males resulting in homosexual identification and larger hypothalamuses in women resulting in homosexual identification. I don't have volume sizes to show what size ranges would produce across the spectrum of gender identification and sex, though.In rats, an injection of testosterone into the hypothalamus of a female rat causes mounting activity, an injection of estrogen into the hypothalamus of a male rat causes saddling/arching behavior. The hypothalamus is involved with hormone production and sexual drive, but how much it is involved in gender orientation is still unknown.One thing people COMPLETELY ignore in the whole gender argument is hermaphroditism, a condition by which a person develops the sexual organs of both sexes. This can be expressed as anything from an extra set of testes or ovaries, an extra-large or over-developed c**toris, or even visible, fully-formed dual genitalia.The fact is, humans are capable of being both sexes at the same time, why is it so hard to conceive of humans who are attracted to both sexes? Sometimes parents choose a child's sex by operating on them to remove extra genitalia, sometimes with tragic results as a child grows to identify as the gender opposite the genitalia removed.The question isn't even about a "gay gene." That question unfairly denies a more fundamental answer of dual-sexuality which manifests in human beings. Gender is what society tells you to be, it's not even who you want to sleep with. Gender should have nothing to do with sexuality at all, but we make it intrinsic as a society because we don't GET what sex really is. It's messy, it's complicated, it's adaptable, it's social, it's chemical, it's physical, it's all of these things that don't fit into our philosophy.Anyway, I think Ed Gillespie's probably up next. He strikes me as a little poofy.
@moonpig : "You presume the Kinsey report is 100% accurate, people often give inaccurate responses in polls and questionnaires" I work in porn and I get to meet people who distribute content in different geographies in Europe and North America. Get this gay content is way more popular in red states and the Bible belt than it is in the blue states. I know all about inaccurate responses and I certainly do not believe that the Kinsey report is 100% accurate. :-P"By acknowledging the gay gene it should help to dispel the religious moralizing and stigma associated with homosexuality."I'd love to see a gay gene because it is convenient as well but so far evidence seems to go against this theory. I think it has more to do with side effects of our libido and social genes than anything deterministic. Take for example how fat humans become if they are in an environment where food is a) easy to get and b) you can eat as much as you want. Is there such a gene as one that makes you fat? Sure there are a few genes which affect your metabolism but there isn't a single gene that establishes whether or not you'll get fat. While the fat analogy is one we've only discovered recently with processed food and other amenities we can apply the same thought to homosexuality (or as I argue it bisexuality).In places and times where homosexuality is 'allowed' or 'encouraged' a lot more people did and do homosexual acts. It's seen in ancient Greece and in Rome too. It's also seen to a large extent in prisons but that's for different reasons. A friend of mine who is a libertine says that very few men refused doing a 2 guy + 1 girl with her. Even if she implied that she loved to see two men doing stuff together or that she'd like to see stuff happen between the two. Most guys would refuse if asked publicly but if she offered the deal at her place or in a hotel where the person cannot get "caught" most men seemed eager... (the funnier stories is when a guy says no with words but yes with his head and then goes on with the act just the same, BTW check Ted Haggard answer no but yes with his head when asked if he had sex with Mike Jones: <a class="user" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTzoHI_aQ_w)">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTzoHI_aQ_w)</a> .Most of us would not admit to agreeing to such terms even if it's just to try it out. But faced with the real rather than an hypothetical chance even fewer people refuse. If anything the Kinsey report is probably still too conservative of what people really would do or want.
Bill Maher is not bashing, just showing people that republican gays are hypocrites.Just hope Ken Mehlman doesn't throw his heels and pearls at CNN, hehe.
Nah. He's just showing that he is a hypocrite, a bigot, and a homophobe. From most of these coments, his article did a really good job of showing that liberals are too.
^^^More man-on-dog obsession of the santorum crowd. Why do you people obsessively equate two people of legal age in a same-gender relationship who want to codify that relationship with some sort of deviancy. There doesn't even have to be any sex involved!Look, you asstwit, that's a spurious argument that no one takes seriously. In fact, it's part of the reason the Senator Santorum got his ass handed to him by an 18 point margin.
Apparently, gays are so abnormal that they're incapable of thinking as diverse as the heteros. No siree, you can only be gay if you're a liberal straight ticket democrat voter. If you're a conservative, you must be faking all that gravy swapping that you're doing and you're a defective, spiteful little homo.Not really surprising, when in this day and age, you have liberals (read above) still holding on to the pathetic notion that all blacks are wired democrats. And they better stay that way because they transform from 'blacks' or 'african-american' to 'house gentlemen' or 'uncle tom' or 'aunt jemima' or 'oreo' once you cross that party line.Hooray for diversity!
Like many before including myself have said, we don't care that Ken Mehlman is gay. We are pointing out the hypocrisy of him being a leader in a party that is against gay rights.But my question to you is, you say ..."Why are Democrats obsessed with other people's sex lives?"which, we're not only in the case of hypocrites. But why do Republicans care if a person wants to marry another person of the same sex?Republicans don't live with them. It won't effect Republicans in any manner. Yet Republicans are the one oppressing another persons rights to live in happiness with their partner.So again, a Republican being gay is being quite hypocritical.
xgordoxNov 9, 2006
Hey Azzkicar,What the hell are you talking about? Foley scandal? Pedophilia? I never brought that up.Learn to read moron.
zenmojoNov 9, 2006
More complicated than that. While there are hundreds, thousands of documented species that display homosexual activity across the spectrum from fish to beetles to apes, there are also species that have shown no observable homosexual activity, some species that have homosexual activity but no bisexual activity, and some, like bonobos, which are predominantly bisexual (80-90% if I recall).A report in Time magazine a while back showed that there is a correlation between hypothalamic size and gender orientation, with smaller hypothalamuses in males resulting in homosexual identification and larger hypothalamuses in women resulting in homosexual identification. I don't have volume sizes to show what size ranges would produce across the spectrum of gender identification and sex, though.In rats, an injection of testosterone into the hypothalamus of a female rat causes mounting activity, an injection of estrogen into the hypothalamus of a male rat causes saddling/arching behavior. The hypothalamus is involved with hormone production and sexual drive, but how much it is involved in gender orientation is still unknown.One thing people COMPLETELY ignore in the whole gender argument is hermaphroditism, a condition by which a person develops the sexual organs of both sexes. This can be expressed as anything from an extra set of testes or ovaries, an extra-large or over-developed c**toris, or even visible, fully-formed dual genitalia.The fact is, humans are capable of being both sexes at the same time, why is it so hard to conceive of humans who are attracted to both sexes? Sometimes parents choose a child's sex by operating on them to remove extra genitalia, sometimes with tragic results as a child grows to identify as the gender opposite the genitalia removed.The question isn't even about a "gay gene." That question unfairly denies a more fundamental answer of dual-sexuality which manifests in human beings. Gender is what society tells you to be, it's not even who you want to sleep with. Gender should have nothing to do with sexuality at all, but we make it intrinsic as a society because we don't GET what sex really is. It's messy, it's complicated, it's adaptable, it's social, it's chemical, it's physical, it's all of these things that don't fit into our philosophy.Anyway, I think Ed Gillespie's probably up next. He strikes me as a little poofy.
lastvisibledogNov 9, 2006
Why are Democrats obsessed with other people's sex lives?
xutopiaNov 9, 2006
@moonpig : "You presume the Kinsey report is 100% accurate, people often give inaccurate responses in polls and questionnaires" I work in porn and I get to meet people who distribute content in different geographies in Europe and North America. Get this gay content is way more popular in red states and the Bible belt than it is in the blue states. I know all about inaccurate responses and I certainly do not believe that the Kinsey report is 100% accurate. :-P"By acknowledging the gay gene it should help to dispel the religious moralizing and stigma associated with homosexuality."I'd love to see a gay gene because it is convenient as well but so far evidence seems to go against this theory. I think it has more to do with side effects of our libido and social genes than anything deterministic. Take for example how fat humans become if they are in an environment where food is a) easy to get and b) you can eat as much as you want. Is there such a gene as one that makes you fat? Sure there are a few genes which affect your metabolism but there isn't a single gene that establishes whether or not you'll get fat. While the fat analogy is one we've only discovered recently with processed food and other amenities we can apply the same thought to homosexuality (or as I argue it bisexuality).In places and times where homosexuality is 'allowed' or 'encouraged' a lot more people did and do homosexual acts. It's seen in ancient Greece and in Rome too. It's also seen to a large extent in prisons but that's for different reasons. A friend of mine who is a libertine says that very few men refused doing a 2 guy + 1 girl with her. Even if she implied that she loved to see two men doing stuff together or that she'd like to see stuff happen between the two. Most guys would refuse if asked publicly but if she offered the deal at her place or in a hotel where the person cannot get "caught" most men seemed eager... (the funnier stories is when a guy says no with words but yes with his head and then goes on with the act just the same, BTW check Ted Haggard answer no but yes with his head when asked if he had sex with Mike Jones: <a class="user" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTzoHI_aQ_w)">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTzoHI_aQ_w)</a> .Most of us would not admit to agreeing to such terms even if it's just to try it out. But faced with the real rather than an hypothetical chance even fewer people refuse. If anything the Kinsey report is probably still too conservative of what people really would do or want.
Closed AccountNov 9, 2006
Bill Maher is not bashing, just showing people that republican gays are hypocrites.Just hope Ken Mehlman doesn't throw his heels and pearls at CNN, hehe.
Closed AccountNov 9, 2006
Nah. He's just showing that he is a hypocrite, a bigot, and a homophobe. From most of these coments, his article did a really good job of showing that liberals are too.
irregardlessNov 10, 2006
^^^More man-on-dog obsession of the santorum crowd. Why do you people obsessively equate two people of legal age in a same-gender relationship who want to codify that relationship with some sort of deviancy. There doesn't even have to be any sex involved!Look, you asstwit, that's a spurious argument that no one takes seriously. In fact, it's part of the reason the Senator Santorum got his ass handed to him by an 18 point margin.
pawchikapawpawNov 10, 2006
Apparently, gays are so abnormal that they're incapable of thinking as diverse as the heteros. No siree, you can only be gay if you're a liberal straight ticket democrat voter. If you're a conservative, you must be faking all that gravy swapping that you're doing and you're a defective, spiteful little homo.Not really surprising, when in this day and age, you have liberals (read above) still holding on to the pathetic notion that all blacks are wired democrats. And they better stay that way because they transform from 'blacks' or 'african-american' to 'house gentlemen' or 'uncle tom' or 'aunt jemima' or 'oreo' once you cross that party line.Hooray for diversity!
deesnutzNov 10, 2006
Like many before including myself have said, we don't care that Ken Mehlman is gay. We are pointing out the hypocrisy of him being a leader in a party that is against gay rights.But my question to you is, you say ..."Why are Democrats obsessed with other people's sex lives?"which, we're not only in the case of hypocrites. But why do Republicans care if a person wants to marry another person of the same sex?Republicans don't live with them. It won't effect Republicans in any manner. Yet Republicans are the one oppressing another persons rights to live in happiness with their partner.So again, a Republican being gay is being quite hypocritical.