Baloney! No Science to Prove Homosexuality Has a Physical Cause

December 18, 2008 at 11:38 pm 25 comments

A person posted a comment that is so delusional that  it warrants posting as an article, along with my response and challenge.  The comment based on delusions that are widely, and wrongly, accepted as facts is:

“The gays should have rights like any other group. To not afford gays the rights everyone now has is like condoning what the black community and women before that had to struggle through.

Being gay IS a medical condition and not just in the human world. 5% of all species come out gay. Its documented. Its science. The law and the constitution do nothing but afford people rights and those rights apply to everyone. What happened to the gays in california is awful. For the first time rights were taken away from a specific group of people that should be held equal in the eyes of the law.”

Nancy Replies:

Baloney. There is not a single validly conducted scientific study to support any of your fantasies. Nobody has ever discovered the queer gene and never will.

And stop referring to perverts as “gay.”

There is nothing “gay” about mental illness.

But in the interest of rational and open discussion, as opposed to your delusional fantasies, here is a rational challenge to you:

Come back and post a comment on this website that contains a link to an actual SCIENTIFIC study conducted by an actual scientist at a true scientific reserch facility and published by a scientific journal that has scientific peer review to support your claims.


“Gotcha”     as Sarah Palin would say!!

Well, it is the next day. Still no takers. No links to pseudo science?

Entry filed under: abc news, ann coulter, Blogroll, cbs news, cnbc, cnn, family, feminism, life, news, politics, sarah palin, sexist, Uncategorized. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .

Sarah Palin’s Church Burned by Al Gayda Gays Seek to Suppress Free Speech

25 Comments Add your own

  • 1. Ezekiel  |  December 19, 2008 at 12:13 am

    Leviticus 18:22, 24
    22 You shall not lie with a male as one lies
    with a female; it is an abomination.
    24 Do not defile yourselves by any of these things;
    for by all these the nations which I am casting out before you have become

    1 Corinthians 6:8-10
    8 On the contrary, you yourselves wrong and defraud. You do this even to
    your brethren.
    9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not
    inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators,
    nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor
    10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor
    revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.

    • 2. woodybass  |  May 27, 2009 at 5:32 pm

      Wait.. .Your going to use the Bible as part of your argument?

      Im sorry… exactly WHICH version are you referring to again… because you know its changed so much over time… I never know which version we are supposed to refer to.

      But since you are… obviously then you believe that women should be stoned… because well… thats in the Bible too.

      Certainly you can do better than quoting something from the Bible.

  • 3. Sal  |  December 19, 2008 at 4:29 pm

    Homosexual and bisexual behavior are widespread in the animal kingdom: a 1999 review by researcher Bruce Bagemihl shows that homosexual behavior, has been observed in close to 1500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, and is well documented for 500 of them.,2933,356639,00.html

    The list goes on.


    I am approving this comment just so everyone can see what an idiot you are. There is not a single item in this list that qualifies as science. Judging from this list, you would not know science if it bit you in the ass, although you might like that.

    You should get a refund from where ever you went to school, because they did not teach you the difference between science and anecdotes. Normal people know what scientific studies are. I even define them in my last comment. What you posted is nothing but neurotic morons ranting and raving their delusions.

    Thank you for proving my point so strongly.

    There are absolutely no scientifically valid studies proving a physical cause for homosexuality.

    Homosexuality is a learned neurosis.

    You are mentally ill, as proved by your listing anecdotes as science.

  • 4. Sal  |  December 20, 2008 at 1:06 am

    Please do not put your response within my own comment.

    You are quite the silly woman.


    First, that is a sexist pig comment, which is amusing for a person claiming to be a victim of sexism. You are so amusing.

    Second, you have achieved distinction. Nobody else in all the world has described me as silly. Critics have applied, and even invented, terms to rail against my scintillatingly beautiful mind when I disagree with their delusions, but “silly” has not been used.

    thank you!!

  • 5. Sal  |  December 20, 2008 at 1:19 am

    As for your comment on me not knowing what science is:

    Science can be divided between (1) the observable and provable (scientific law) or (2) observable, but unprovable (theory).

    The are always constraints that prevent a hypothesis from being carried out in an experiment in a lab. You call this anecdotal and pseudo science. According to you, the entire field of astro-physics is not science.

    Caving to your fickleness, I posted what you desired. The post shows an actual scientific study on the matter of homosexual behavior in sheep.


    If you are still unsatisfied, please do not respond disrespectfully as you did before.


    The link you claim to be a scientific study actually claims a possibility which may suggest a relationship. It also falsely state that the effect of the hypothalamus on sexual expression is known. Reputable scientists do not use such language.

    Your link merely raises an area for scientific study. It is not a conclusive scientific study.

    Your definition of science is incorrect. Theory is not as you wrongly define it. I am shocked to see a person so confused about science to be using an educational site for their email addy.

    Since you are so confused about science, it is hardly surprising that you are confused about sex.

    I am bored with your illogic. Instead of demonstrating your ignorance, please buy and read a book on the theory of science.

    Shoo, go away.

  • 6. Sal  |  December 20, 2008 at 1:20 am

    “Sheep are one of the few animal models in which natural variations in male sexual preferences have been studied experimentally. Approximately 8% of rams exhibit sexual preferences for male partners (male-oriented rams) in contrast to most rams, which prefer female partners (female-oriented rams). We identified a cell group within the medial preoptic area/anterior hypothalamus of age-matched adult sheep that was significantly larger in adult rams than in ewes. This cell group was labeled the ovine sexually dimorphic nucleus (oSDN). In addition to a sex difference, we found that the volume of the oSDN was two times greater in female-oriented rams than in male-oriented rams. The dense cluster of neurons that comprise the oSDN express cytochrome P450 aromatase. Aromatase mRNA levels in the oSDN were significantly greater in female-oriented rams than in ewes, whereas male-oriented rams exhibited intermediate levels of expression. Because the medial preoptic area/anterior hypothalamus is known to control the expression of male sexual behaviors, these results suggest that naturally occurring variations in sexual partner preferences may be related to differences in brain anatomy and capacity for estrogen synthesis.”


    The link you claim to be a scientific study actually claims a possibility which may suggest a relationship. It also falsely state that the effect of the hypothalamus on sexual expression is known. Reputable scientists do not use such language.

    Your link merely raises an area for scientific study. It is not a conclusive scientific study.

    Your definition of science is incorrect. Theory is not as you wrongly define it. I am shocked to see a person so confused about science to be using an educational site for their email addy.

    Since you are so confused about science, it is hardly surprising that you are confused about sex.

    How did I know in advance that you were going to (a) revert to farm animals, and (b) that they would be sheep?

    Please tell us more about your knowledge of, and relations with sheep.

    I am bored with your illogic. Instead of demonstrating your ignorance, please buy and read a book on the theory of science.

    Shoo, go away.

  • 7. Sal  |  December 20, 2008 at 12:38 pm

    To the person who wrote the following:

    “5% of all species come out gay. Its documented. Its science.”

    That’s not science. Science is the observation of the natural world by collecting and analyzing data. What you wrote is just the data portion. The data is pure statistics, which is a branch of mathematics. But of course, I don’t suppose mathematics is relevant to Nancy Goldfarb’s scintillatingly beautiful mind.


    That is not statistics, which are mathematically organized data. The response in question is nothing but anecdotes and delusional ravings, which has no relevance to my scientific mind.

    Once again, you need a refund from your school.

  • 8. qbubbles  |  December 21, 2008 at 9:59 am

    This comment is so rich that it deserves posting in full so everyone may see how some people react to free speech.

    The blog of the commenter is

    her comment is quoted here:

    “Sal, dont bother reasoning with this poor, delusional woman. Unfortunately, there are millions out there who believe in the same stupid lies that she does. I’m glad to see her posting her lies on her own space instead of spamming alot of other people’s blogs.

    Some people cant be helped. They will be ridiculous for years to come. My only hope is that they get pissed off enough to break off and form their own country. I dont want them fucking up mine. I dont want people like Nancy teaching my children that their aunt is going to hell, or saying that they’re a bad person because they believe in individual rights. I dont want people like Nancy demanding that my child recite scripture. And I’m 100% positive that the founding fathers didnt either.


    Dear bubblie,

    If u do not want my comments on your blog, what a rational person would do is click on the email that accompanies every comment and email me to not comment on your blog. It would take all of 30 seconds.

    I would, and will, of course respect your wishes.

    However you are welcome to post comments on my blog anytime, and I will approve them regardless of whether or not I agree.

    Also, you have the option to delete my comments on your blog, but I see that you have not.

    Your attempt to have WordPress delete my blog when you did not (1) email me to not comment on your blog, and (2) did not delete my comment, indicates that you wish to suppress free speech and are afraid of honest dialogue among people who have a variety of opinions.

    Note that I approved the comments of many who vehemently disagree with me.

    Please note that I am not suppressing your expressions here.

    However, you are welcome to post comments on my blog anytime, and I will approve them regardless of whether or not I agree.

    Regarding your comment about our founding fathers: GTweleve of the thirteen colonies had official state religions, all of which were Christian, and kept them long after adopting our Constitution.

    The letter which athiests wrongly claim as Thomas Jeffereson establishing an abolition on state religions was actually a states’ rights promise that the coonies could keep their DIFFERENT offical state Christian religions after adopting the Constitution.

    It would appear that you (1) wish to suppress my freedom of expression, aand (2) wish to suppress religions that are different from yours.

    So I ask, which of us supports freedom, and who suppress dissent?

  • 9. Sal  |  December 21, 2008 at 1:48 pm

    Thank you Nancy. It had been a long time since I have had a dialogue with someone who is illogical, unreasonable, paranoid, bigoted, and mentally unstable. You are so hopelessly confused, you are a danger to your own health.

    The thought of someone like you existing in the world is too scary. I’m just going to assume you are a Stephen Colbert type person and this is just all satire. In that case, good job! You really had me fooled!

  • 10. Bill  |  December 22, 2008 at 6:31 pm

    I’m the guy who wrote that comment that inspired this post. I’m sure since the links above do not support your view they will be discredited in some way or another.

    I would like to ask why if to be gay (yeah, I said gay) is a choice, why would a person choose to be gay. If homosexuality were a choice no one would be gay because of people like you who have such a negative bordering on hateful opinion of gays.

    I have a lot to say on this but I’ll save it for my own blog. Homosexuals aren’t hurting anyone. They just want the same rights as everyone else. If your marriage is threatened by homosexuals then you have problems much bigger than gay marriage.

    By the way, some weeks ago you asked if we could exchange links. I put your link up on my site. You could reciprocate. Or if you don’t want to thats fine too.


    You vicious person. I never said or believed that my marriage was threatened by you neurotic queers. It is not and to introduce my marriage, which is totally irrelevant to your neurosiis, is vicious. You are a swine.

    I never said homo or bisexuality was a choice. All the evidence is that it is a learned neurosis, and as such can be passed down socially in families. Social inheritance of many psychological disorders have been used by those affected with various neuroses to claim that they are genetic when in fact they are learned from family members in early childhood.

    The article in your First link represents all the worst of psychiatry. First, almost all of it a mere talking.

    Second, much relies on Freud, whom I regard as the greatest joke of all time. I cannot fathom why anyone would pay any attention to a pitiful lunatic whose autobiographical writings talk about his addiction to opiates during his entire life, pedophilia, and how he slept with his own mother until her deathbed. Even psychiatrists state that long useage of opiates damages the mind, and that while high on opiates one cannot think logically. Freud wrote his books while on opiates, therefore . . . .

    In addition he was homosexual, bisexual, but not clear if he slept with animals. So naturally his theories were that everybody is queer, pedophile. and wants to have sex with their mothers. After all, if Freud did it, then everyone must. The quintessential psychological projection of the mentally ill of one’s own disorders onto others.

    In essence Freud is not a pioneer in understanding mental illness, but the poisonous seed that spread all this disease into modern society.

    That article also cites the APA removing homosexuality from its DSM. You will note I wrote earlier on this blog about how fanatical queers used death threats, terrorism, lies, deception, animal costumes, demonstratrations and disruption of the APA conventions until the APA caved it and removed it from the DSM just to stop the turmoil, without ever finding any medical or scientific justification for doing so.

    I am a scientist.

    The article in your second link says: “study examined the same gene locus as the Hamer study, but found that it had no influence on homosexuality ” In scientific words, the original studies hunch could not be scientifically replicated, and is not proven.

    The article in your third link above clearly states “We haven’t identified the gene yet, and any theory of how it works is speculative.” In other words the authors do not claim it is scientific proof.

    Sorry, but your links still contain nothing even vaguely resembling scientific proof.

    Before wasting our time with more irrelevent links, and I really do mean this kindly, you should read the first few chapters of any of the many books on either the scientific method or the theory of science.

    I cannot waste any more time on a person who makes vicious personal attacks on my family.

    If you are too prejudiced to read a few chapters on the definition of science so that you become able to evaluate pseudoscientific writings about your neurosis, I have no further time for you.

    Go read a book.

  • 11. Terra  |  December 23, 2008 at 4:26 pm


    Hmm? This pre-publication summery appears to claim fruity sexual response can be biochemically altered within hours. PS This has long been observed in New York’s dating bars. The summary does not say how they kept track of which fruit flies were the fruity fruit flies, as opposed to pre-fruity serum injected straight fruit flies, after they were injected with the fruity-causing serum. Hopefully, they did not tie pink ribbons on them, because that might have made the female fruit flies reluctant to mate with them, thereby biasing the fruity fruit flies experiment. It has been documented in other studies, and is well known that female fruit flies are reluctant to mate with fruit flies wearing pink ribbons because it makes them appear fruity.

    Send us the link to the actual research when it is published please.

    Until then, this is mere specualtion, the link someone is merely to a summary of a study that has not been published, REPEAT NOT YET PUBLISHED. We have no information on the quality or rigorisness of the study, OR WHETHER IT WAS DOUBLE BLIND.

    If the persons observing the fruit flies behavior, after modifying the chemical, knew which flies had the modified chemical levels, they are not able to objectively evaluate the behavior. Because it is premliminary, no one can have attempted to replicate it. And even the summary merely raises the possibility, not any proof, that these biochemicals MIGHT interact with homosexuality.

    For example, were the suppposedly queer fruit flies exposed equally to female and equivalent male potential sex partners?

    It does not even treat the estrous cycle in the female fruit flies. Did the male queer flies not mate with female fruit flies because it was the wrong time of the cycle?

    Do different individual female fruit flies have features which make them more or less attractive to males, you know, were they HOT? and was that factor taken into account in the study.

    There are barroom jokes about girls so ugly that the guy would rather mate with his drinking buddy than the ugly girl.

    I am sorry, I cannot repress my laughter at these human fruits lost in debate of fruity serum causing fruit fly fruits. Seriously, though, I hope for a fruitful discussion.

    These is absolutely no scientific, replicated, valid studies anywhere that indicate homosexuality is anything but a learned neurosis, or in laymans’ terms, a perversion.

    In the meantime Merry Christmas, I am off to eat my fruitcake.

  • 12. Terra  |  December 26, 2008 at 11:40 pm

    I was tempted not to reply, as really I don’t think you WANT to learn anything new. I feel you just want people that agree with you to reinforce your views. Not that you don’t have a right to be that way, but your article looked as is you were looking for alternatives so I was disappointed.

    You want actual articles? Well if I was going to write an essay on the subject here are some of the things I would use…

    There are chemicals that are different in people that are gay period. They are only “wrong” if the person that has them wants to change. Homosexuality has been around since the beginning of time, I suppose you can think it is a disorder all you want. I also suppose that if that is the way you choose to be no one can change you any more than someone can change someone that is gay… Sad really so many people are so scared of people who just want to be happy in their own way…

    You need a refund from your school.

    The first link you claim proves a medical cause for faggotry concludes with the sentence: “These results do not support an X-linked gene underlying male homosexuality.”

    How stupid can you be? You supplied a link to a study saying they found no physical link to faggotry? Stoooopit!

    The other two links are not to anything remotely resembling science, but merely more perverts rambling neurotically about watching deviant animals and deviant people. Such ramblings do not constitue anything scientific or medical, but merely establish the widespread effects of the devil.

    None of the links you supplied treat your primary claim that there is a chemical causing homosexuality. You really must learn how to read.

    As for proof that I do want to learn something new is that I take the time to read all the links you supply, along with the links that all the other confused homosexuals supply. It is with dismay that none of the links that you homosexuals supply in fact have anything to do with your claims!!!!!

    The only conclusion that a scientist like myself can make by reading your claims and then comparing them to the links upon which you base your claims, is that everybody who has made these comments is RETARDED. You all need to get refunds from your schools.

    You remind me aof a study done by the National Coalition for Literacy that found that the majority of high school graduates could not read a newspaper editorial and comprehend what the author was saying. The scores did not improve with a college degree. The scores actually declined slightly for a post graduate degree, suggesting that our educational system is broken, and that Democracy is a joke.
    The comments to this post prove that none of the homosexuals commenting on this post are able to read with comprehension.

    Indeed, all these comments lead to my new theory that homosexuality is linked to mental retardation.

    I sincerely do wish we could find a chemical causing homosexuality so that we could eliminate that chemical and cure your perversion.

    In the meantime, the brazen illogic of your response, even supplying a link to a study that concluded with no physical link, as proof that there is a link? Apparantly your confusion extends far beyond sex.

    The only reason for not deleting your comment for lack of logic is so that you supply the proof for me that queers are irrational.

    thank you for that.

  • 13. Ignore this random rant. « Our Politics  |  December 27, 2008 at 12:00 am

    […] is no doubt this woman is profoundly disturbed. In another article, she claims math is not math, science is not science, and that facts are not […]

  • 14. Terra  |  December 27, 2008 at 10:13 pm

    ROFL… Last time I will comment or come to your blog.

    #1 Rule for writing a paper, you ALWAYS let both sides of any argument have a say.

    #2 I am not gay.

    #3 The woman who writes “You supplied a link to a study saying they found no physical link to faggotry? Stoooopit!” Is the REAL stupid fagot?

    You happen to be one of the most abrasive, one the rudest people I have ever met on the internet. If you are a scientist then we need a new type of science. You lie, you are not a scientist. No scientist I have ever talked to in my life is as close minded, and quite frankly “stoooopit” as you are…




    Your # 2 you certainly are not happy

    Your # 3 What is your point? You cannot comprehend that you supplied a link you thought proved your point, when it said the opposite, so that is my fault?

    Shoo! Go away. Learn to read.

    PS I am sorry that I hurt your feelings. Guess I just never learned how to diplomatically explain to a frog that it cannot read and write. How about this: grivvet, grrivt, grovvvvettt?


  • 15. Jerry  |  December 30, 2008 at 8:13 pm

    Do I need a scientific study to show that the anus was designed to let crap out and and not as an entry point to put things in? I guess I could ask my gay friend who has recently had colon damage and almost died from “harmless homosexuality.”

  • 16. Dave  |  January 2, 2009 at 7:26 pm

    This cavalcade of moot points is so utterly amusing to me. So for the sake of those trying to defend the concept of homosexuality I would warn you that no matter how many times you run into a brick wall the only thing you will truly achieve is a massive headache. Such will be the same result when you try to argue with a “scientist” who clearly has multiple degrees spanning biology, AP&P (anatomy physiology and pathology), genetics, chemistry, statistics and quantitative analysis.

    Now to those of you who enjoy vilifying homosexuals, your efforts will prove more fruitless than the Catholic Church’s crusades. I pity the people defending homosexuality because they face a terrible uphill battle, but I can laugh heartily at those who oppose homosexuality. You cannot deter something as old and as natural as biological gender differentiation. Its been documented in the bible, in Greece 1,800 years before the Bible, and in Egypt 1,200 years before the Greeks and it faced constant oppression then as well. If more than at least 5,000 years of attempted suppression could not stymie homosexuality, neither will you. I realize I probably won’t change any minds, but here’s a wild thought -give tolerance a try some time.

    • 17. woodybass  |  May 27, 2009 at 5:38 pm

      You know.. Hitler felt the same way.

      Not that I would ever draw the same comparison.. noooo not me.

      • 18. ngoldfarb  |  May 27, 2009 at 10:38 pm

        Well Woodless Woody, you have made three comments on a post, the subject of which is science, and you have managed to evade science. Maybe that is why they are called queers?

  • 19. Jerry  |  January 3, 2009 at 12:51 pm


    You are correct in that homosexuality has always been and probably always will be. So, the hope of antiactivists is not that we would ever have a chance of eradicating it but to prevent it’s spread as it has in other times and cultures where it was and is accepted. I doubt we shall ever eliminate pollution from the environmet but the ongoing battle is still benificial by curbing the poison. So it is with any immorality in society.

  • 20. jerry  |  January 13, 2009 at 6:41 pm


    I know this is a bit off the subject, but it is difficult to find someone these days that seems truly objective and abides by “real” scientific methods. My question is do you know of any good evidence or fossil records that clearty show transitions from one species to another?



    • 21. woodybass  |  May 27, 2009 at 5:36 pm

      Shame. You really should have studied harder in school… however, I am sure the History Channel will replay “The Link”… that would atleast be a good start for you.

      Of course I am still waiting for the “Intelligent Design” crowd to come up with their excuse..err i mean argument for how this new find is really all part of Gods grand master plan.

      Maybe you can enlighten me.

  • 22. Logicman  |  June 15, 2009 at 5:50 pm

    Homosexual behavior doesn’t spawn offprings, therefore if it was natural, the human species would eliminate these genetic pools once and for all. Homosexuals cannot continue their line when they engage in sexual activity with people of the same sex.

    Therefore if it is genetic, how could it possibly be passed from one generation to the other? such as skin color, genre, or any other genetic feature passed from one generation to the next when normal sexual reproduction is made.

    I strongly disagree if those who defend homosexualism deny the psychological element in the homosexual life, most psychoanalyst agree that there are deep psychological wounds in the homosexual person subconscious, therefore it is not something natural or caused by a normal growth. There are certainly many unanswered questions about why there are homosexuals, but in any case this is not a common behavior in any species (by the way only truly observed in human beings).

    Homosexuals cannot reproduce when they engage sexual activity with their same sex partners, therefore they don’t provide the human species with any new genetic material, which implies that from the biological point of view there is no point in such activity, specially when it is practised for a lifetime.

  • 23. Greg  |  July 14, 2009 at 6:24 am

    If I could leave attachments, I happen to have several PDF documents that are sceintific, peer reviewed journal articles on the biological determinants of sexual orientation. Feel free to email me if you are truly interested and not simply being polemical in an attempt to attract traffic to your psuedo-intellectual blog 🙂

    Good day.

    • 24. ngoldfarb  |  August 5, 2009 at 10:34 pm

      Please post in a comment here the exact citation of the scientific journals in which they were published.
      You know citations, like issue number and date, pages from xxx to yyy, Journal name, all that scientific stuff instead of a pdf scribbled by another raving queer.

  • 25. danielfx  |  August 8, 2009 at 4:37 pm

    Hi Nancy! You are wonderful in getting your ideas across! I love it. You are so direct without trying to gift wrap your ideas in ‘feel good’ paper. I agree 100% with everything you have said. I have actually been surfing the net for good scientific data to disprove to some homo-lunatics here in South Africa that homosexuality is not natural or genetic or that there is any truth to the lune Bruce Bagemihl’s book. You have really helped me out. Thank you and keep it up babe!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed

Blog Stats

  • 52,367 hits

%d bloggers like this: