There have been previous studies that have shown that gay male brains were different, but the brains of lesbians had not been studied enough. These studies had previously observed the size of the hypothalamus, a gland in the center of the brain, and the fact that the nerves that connect the two hemispheres of the brain are more extended in the brains of gay men. Now, there is a more comprehensive study:
Scans see 'gay brain differences'
The brains of gay men and women look like those found in heterosexual people of the opposite sex, research suggests.
The Swedish study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences journal, compared the size of the brain's halves in 90 adults.
Gay men and heterosexual women had halves of a similar size, while the right side was bigger in lesbian women and heterosexual men.
A UK scientist said this was evidence sexual orientation was set in the womb.
Scientists have noticed for some time that homosexual people of both sexes have differences in certain cognitive abilities, suggesting there may be subtle differences in their brain structure.
This is the first time, however, that scientists have used brain scanners to try to look for the source of those differences.
A group of 90 healthy gay and heterosexual adults, men and women, were scanned by the Karolinska Institute scientists to measure the volume of both sides, or hemispheres, of their brain.
When these results were collected, it was found that lesbians and heterosexual men shared a particular "asymmetry" in their hemisphere size, while heterosexual women and gay men had no difference between the size of the different halves of their brain.
In other words, structurally, at least, the brains of gay men were more like heterosexual women, and gay women more like heterosexual men.
A further experiment found that in one particular area of the brain, the amygdala, there were other significant differences.
In heterosexual men and gay women, there were more nerve "connections" in the right side of the amygdala, compared with the left.
The reverse, with more neural connections in the left amygdala, was the case in homosexual men and heterosexual women.
The Karolinska team said that these differences could not be mainly explained by "learned" effects, but needed another mechanism to set them, either before or after birth.
'Fight, flight or mate'
Dr Qazi Rahman, a lecturer in cognitive biology at Queen Mary, University of London, said that he believed that these brain differences were laid down early in foetal development.
"As far as I'm concerned there is no argument any more - if you are gay, you are born gay," he said.
The amygdala, he said, was important because of its role in "orientating", or directing, the rest of the brain in response to an emotional stimulus - be it during the "fight or flight" response, or the presence of a potential mate.
"In other words, the brain network which determines what sexual orientation actually 'orients' towards is similar between gay men and straight women, and between gay women and straight men.
"This makes sense given that gay men have a sexual preference which is like that of women in general, that is, preferring men, and vice versa for lesbian women."
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Pope failed to defrock U.S. sex abuse priest
Vatican halted trial after cleric’s plea for leniency to future pontiff
I am hoping that we as a society will soon reach a tipping point and that we will get to a place where priests who commit crimes are treated as criminals and not protected by the authorities.
I am hoping that we as a society will soon reach a tipping point and that we will get to a place where priests who commit crimes are treated as criminals and not protected by the authorities.
Saturday, March 6, 2010
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Christians turning belligerent Haiti
Following up on my last article on the hipocrisy of Christian charity, on the heels of the massive 'charity' display in Haiti are news of a Christian mob attacking and pelting with rocks Voodoo practitioners at a Voodoo ceremony for the victims of the quake.
The self-interest I alluded to in my previous post was frankly exhibited by Pastor Frank Amedia of the Miami-based Touch Heaven Ministries in the above cited article. He had this to say:
"We would give food to the needy in the short term but if they refused to give up Voodoo, I'm not sure we would continue to support them in the long term because we wouldn't want to perpetuate that practice. We equate it with witchcraft, which is contrary to the Gospel."
According to the article the Christians even pissed on some of the sacred symbols of the Haitian religion. There is now fear of a religious war exploding between Voodoo practitioners and militant evangelicals, who oftentimes bribe people into converting to their religion or else they would deny aid.
Keep in mind that this is still happening well into the post-colonial era, and whatever negative things might be said of Voodoo, we know that it was during a Voodoo ceremony that the cry for independence was heard and it was thanks to Voodoo that slavery was abolished and independence was gained in Haiti, making it the first black nation and the first free nation in the hemisphere of the Americas. Voodoo is, naturally, very important to the identity of many Haitians, even if just for the historical value of its symbols and legacy.
If the Haitian crisis does evolve into religious warfare, maybe it's time to begin an international dialogue about how we should forbid religious groups with evangelizing agendas, or religious groups of all stripes, from being involved in major charity operations in the future. If they sincerely want to help, they should do so via the international aid organizations that are in place, whose work should be streamlined via cooperation with local community centers.
To introduce bands of millitant Christian bullies into a country already in ruins and where religious violence was the last thing that they needed was definitely counter-intuitive, and should not be acceptable in the future.
The self-interest I alluded to in my previous post was frankly exhibited by Pastor Frank Amedia of the Miami-based Touch Heaven Ministries in the above cited article. He had this to say:
"We would give food to the needy in the short term but if they refused to give up Voodoo, I'm not sure we would continue to support them in the long term because we wouldn't want to perpetuate that practice. We equate it with witchcraft, which is contrary to the Gospel."
According to the article the Christians even pissed on some of the sacred symbols of the Haitian religion. There is now fear of a religious war exploding between Voodoo practitioners and militant evangelicals, who oftentimes bribe people into converting to their religion or else they would deny aid.
Keep in mind that this is still happening well into the post-colonial era, and whatever negative things might be said of Voodoo, we know that it was during a Voodoo ceremony that the cry for independence was heard and it was thanks to Voodoo that slavery was abolished and independence was gained in Haiti, making it the first black nation and the first free nation in the hemisphere of the Americas. Voodoo is, naturally, very important to the identity of many Haitians, even if just for the historical value of its symbols and legacy.
If the Haitian crisis does evolve into religious warfare, maybe it's time to begin an international dialogue about how we should forbid religious groups with evangelizing agendas, or religious groups of all stripes, from being involved in major charity operations in the future. If they sincerely want to help, they should do so via the international aid organizations that are in place, whose work should be streamlined via cooperation with local community centers.
To introduce bands of millitant Christian bullies into a country already in ruins and where religious violence was the last thing that they needed was definitely counter-intuitive, and should not be acceptable in the future.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Christian 'charity' + Christian self-interest
In my Coming Out of the Other Closet article, I mentioned the influence that the 2008 elections had in my evolving into an atheist.
What I did not visit was the fact that during the week of the 2008 elections, 26 kids died in Haiti from starvation. As the state of California prepared to vote away the rights of its gay citizens, Christians and Mormons spent millions of dollars in a diffamation campaign that was fear based, where gays were presented as predators that took advantage of children.
If the Christians had so much money to throw away spreading LIES about people that they didn't even know, they COULD HAVE made a huge difference in Haiti ... particularly at a time when not only was there a world food crisis going on, but our country was also going through the toughest economic era since the great depression.
Now after the earthquake, 'charity' work translates into more visibility for churches and they're using this as a platform to advance the evangelical message and to enhance their image as charity workers. As I read this article on missionary work in Haiti, with the instances of child trafficking and religious propaganda ... and as I see the curious way in which they always put the stamp of their denominations on everything that they do, I am reminded of Matthew 6.
The reason why I always remember Matthew 6 in particular is because it coincides with a teaching in the 18th chapter of the Bhagavad Gita that I became acquainted with when I was a worshiper of Krishna. Christ was apparently paraphrasing Krishna. I always thought that was odd and interesting.
Is it fair to give a religion credit for services that are already known to a secular society as non-profit services? Clearly there is no need for supernatural agency or incentive. Humanitarian work can be done by atheists ... or by people seeking tax breaks. What should we make of Christian charity when it is ostentatious, in view of Matthew 6? What about all the hospitals and schools that are founded by religious groups and bear religious names, yet charge for their services and operate in every way just like all the other hospitals and schools?
Is it really a superior kind of virtue to name your non-profit organization after your religious affiliation when it is rendering the same services as other non-profits in the same industry? Is it fair to claim all this credit for one's religion in view of the teachings of the Christ and Krishna about not giving with a sense of self-interest?
Anyone wanting to give can give to the Red Cross or other aid agencies that are very much invested in helping Haiti, yet these churches are wanting to hog all the credit for being able to reach remote communities, where a lot of their work has to do with being critical of Voodoo and of the local religious culture and promoting Protestant ideals. As if religious zeal was what Haitians really need the most.
"Do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret" ...
"So that your giving may be in secret" ...
"So that ... your giving may be in secret" ...
Something to ponder.
What I did not visit was the fact that during the week of the 2008 elections, 26 kids died in Haiti from starvation. As the state of California prepared to vote away the rights of its gay citizens, Christians and Mormons spent millions of dollars in a diffamation campaign that was fear based, where gays were presented as predators that took advantage of children.
If the Christians had so much money to throw away spreading LIES about people that they didn't even know, they COULD HAVE made a huge difference in Haiti ... particularly at a time when not only was there a world food crisis going on, but our country was also going through the toughest economic era since the great depression.
Now after the earthquake, 'charity' work translates into more visibility for churches and they're using this as a platform to advance the evangelical message and to enhance their image as charity workers. As I read this article on missionary work in Haiti, with the instances of child trafficking and religious propaganda ... and as I see the curious way in which they always put the stamp of their denominations on everything that they do, I am reminded of Matthew 6.
Be careful not to do your 'acts of righteousness' before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.
So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.
Matthew 6:1-4
The reason why I always remember Matthew 6 in particular is because it coincides with a teaching in the 18th chapter of the Bhagavad Gita that I became acquainted with when I was a worshiper of Krishna. Christ was apparently paraphrasing Krishna. I always thought that was odd and interesting.
Acts of sacrifice, charity and penance are not to be given up but should be performed. Indeed, sacrifice, charity and penance purify even the great souls.
All these activities should be performed without any expectation of result. They should be performed as a matter of duty, O son of Prtha. That is My final opinion.
Bhagavad Gita 18:5-6
Is it fair to give a religion credit for services that are already known to a secular society as non-profit services? Clearly there is no need for supernatural agency or incentive. Humanitarian work can be done by atheists ... or by people seeking tax breaks. What should we make of Christian charity when it is ostentatious, in view of Matthew 6? What about all the hospitals and schools that are founded by religious groups and bear religious names, yet charge for their services and operate in every way just like all the other hospitals and schools?
Is it really a superior kind of virtue to name your non-profit organization after your religious affiliation when it is rendering the same services as other non-profits in the same industry? Is it fair to claim all this credit for one's religion in view of the teachings of the Christ and Krishna about not giving with a sense of self-interest?
Anyone wanting to give can give to the Red Cross or other aid agencies that are very much invested in helping Haiti, yet these churches are wanting to hog all the credit for being able to reach remote communities, where a lot of their work has to do with being critical of Voodoo and of the local religious culture and promoting Protestant ideals. As if religious zeal was what Haitians really need the most.
"Do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret" ...
"So that your giving may be in secret" ...
"So that ... your giving may be in secret" ...
Something to ponder.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)