Silly

"This account has been blocked indefinitely because CheckUser confirms that the operator has abusively used one or more accounts."

Seems a pretty good explanation to me. You are not our first to come here in disgrace from Wikipedia; and, if not disgraced from it, we have many good users at least alienated by it. The option is available to work up a fresh reputation here; it's been done before.

However, asking for censorship of the comments namespace - and what you sought is self-censorship - is not a great way to gain respect in a news organisation where the freedom is of critical importance. It would be wrong to deny those with unsavoury fiews the chance to defend themselves; and just as wrong to deny the chance to respond in kind.

Since it was the entire log you accused me of not knowing the contents of, and not merely the present block, I feel obliged to point to pieces like "The community will no longer be entertaining your comments and queries," "per original warning and unapologetic response" and "sockpuppetry despite previous warnings." Everything I need to understand is given in the log, which is why the log exists. If I were called upon to review the measure put in place - indef block - I would come out in favour of it.

If you protest it, then working here and other sister projects can be used to show you've turned the corner. One indef-blocked Wikipedian became a wonderful asset to Wikinews and saw that block lifted as a result. However, I would caution you've more work to do than them to reach that stage.

Good luck.

I have written 60 published articles here since February 20 when I started here and improved for publication numerous others. Not good enough I'm afraid, even though it is more that most have done in several years, and not worth the nastiness here, the snarky remarks and the comparison with Essjay. I appreciate you efforts, Blood Red Sandman, but no one like to work in a nasty atmosphere. Thank you for your kind words, but it is not worth being ridiculed here, when I have tried to do my best.

What's up with this... thing, may I ask?

You are in the one namespace set up purely to allow totally unrestrained comments. It is perhaps inevitable that when you enter a heated thread asking for censorship, one will encounter hostility. Such can be trivially avoided by avoiding this namespace.

Despite some gaffes - here and previously - I am quite convinced that you are an intelligent lady. Notice beavering away upon articles has brought disagreements, but no trouble. I'd advise you to stay firmly in mainspace and slowly work your way back out, rather than the reverse.

This might give you the space to address such problems as have led to your blocking. Take this if nothing else: Those who disagree strongly with you are not automatically out to get you. Approaching issues as if they are may change that.

Yes, I will remain in Comments, as honest discussion is not tolerated at wikinews. If Brian generously pointed out ways I could improve, I would welcome it. But when he uses me as a target of his snarky remarks, an opportunity to discredit and demean me and may comments about my supposed age, that does not create a an atmosphere that encourages open mined consideration. Sorry I won't be around to supply material for what he considers "witty" barbs. Perhaps the comments page is where I will remain; everywhere else at wikinews turns ugly and the pleasure of writing articles is gone for me. Not worth the rancid atmosphere that Brian prefers.

And I thank Pi zero for his helpful diff in another attempt to discredit me. I wish everyone at wikinews would spend a little more time in actually looking at my performance regarding writing and editing articles, and less time trying to catch me in a lie. Hope you get it now, Pi zero: psychologist and psychiatrist are not the same.

And to Brian bossman, whose comment I cannot find in this thread:

Could you possibly be wrong? I do have a license and many years of graduate school, internships, and experience from a successful practice. I can prove if to a trustworthy person if you like, as my work, license etc. is public. Thanks for encouraging me to go. "You don't seem to understand the deeper aspects of any news item you're covering, you lack any real political awareness, and you're yet another fan of flock wallpaper adorned with fluffy bunnies." OK. I can say the same of you. But, of course, you are the bossman, so the correctness or misinformation you produce is never up to scrutiny. I have been told by those on wp that this was the case, and that everyone at wikinews was afraid to stand up to you. I guess you are saying good riddance to me. Unfortunately for wikinews. You have how many editors actually writing articles now? Five? Or am I exaggerating. The fact that you produce nothing except nasty put downs is good, I guess. No articles from you on a daily basis. Just your obvious self satisfaction at what you consider cleverness. It's pathetic, but so goes wikinews. Have you ever considered that much of what you post is pure self indulgence and not worth wading through to see if there is any actual useful information in your "cleverness"? Good bye. Mattisse (talk)02:52, 7 June 2011

Whoa this kind of exploded huh. To get roughly back on topic; I think the main issue here is the definition of the word 'natural'. to quote crazynomad

"Simply put gays = unnatural or, are missing something in their DNA which normally would be removed by natural selection, a mutation."

Let us just assume for the sake of argument that this was the case and homosexuality was a genetic mutation, this would still be 'natural' since genetic mutations and alterations are the basics of evolution. (which kind of suggests that it is NOT genetic since by definition these mutated genes would not be passed on via reproduction).

Crazynomad also distinguishes humans from animals by suggesting our consiousness and ability to override instinctive emotions elevates us above animals. Again for the sake of argument let us accept this distinction - this poses several problems chief amoung which are (1) This suggests that homosexuals naturally are attracted to the opposite sex but use their human abilities to choose to opt for same sex partners (assuming crazynomad means the act is unnatural and not the actual people which would be clearly proposturous [sp]) OR if homosexuals are getting impulses for same sex partners they should force themselves to seek opposite sex partners (which would result in a miserable life and since it would contradict an impulse of the body would be by Crazynomads definition 'unnatural' in itself, which seems to be not what we ought to be condoning.)

I think there is more to life than reproduction because, as crazynomad says, all evidence suggests we have a more encompassing consciousness than other animals but are still bound by the same chemical and psycological mechanisms of our evolutionary past; this means we tend to do what makes us feel good AND WHAT COULD BE MORE NATURAL THAN THAT?

Feeling good is presumably something our selfish genes have found (metaphorically speaking) is in their best interest.

It's very easy for things like homosexuality to not get weeded out of the gene pool by the mere fact that homosexuals themselves don't reproduce (to the extent that's even true). There are recessive genes, and there are interactions of genes. Considering how much homosexuality there is around, it seems likely that a certain percentage of homosexuality in the population is, in fact, in the best interests of our selfish genes. (Of course, it could simply be an evolutionarily tolerable side-effect of other things that are in the genes' best interest; that's not my first guess, though.)

Rather than attempting to reconcile homosexuality in terms of genetics (which I am in no way qualified to do of course) I was attempting to suggest that even if it were completely due to nature rather than nurture as was suggested - this by definition would not be unnatural as was also suggested, in a context where unnatural = bad and natural = good, as was implied by the very first post.

Then all hell broke loose and the discussion got way off topic.

CrazyNomad developed the idea of homosexuality as unnatural and his/her apparent disdain for such things by mentioning men with bare ass leather chaps strutting around his/her town. I think this is more an argument for better regulation of indecent exposure laws rather than anything to do with homosexuality (open and flambuoyant homosexuals being only the most obvious members of a diverse gay community).

To get even more back on track I think this story is especially newsworthy because of the image the USA has at least from my perspective in the UK. Such a large percentage of US TV shows are either fundementally based in or heavily insinuate core christian family values, which do not leave much room for 'alternative' lifestyles such as homosexuality. So for a group of highschoolers to elect a gay prom couple seems pretty sensational. (assuming it wasn't somehow done ironically)

I did notice the all hell that broke loose, yes. :-)

Does the US really come across that way in the UK? There may be some skewed appearances in both directions, due to which TV shows get exported. There's also some tendency to avoid producing TV shows that the religious fundamentalist loonies will complain about, though that tendency is rather uneven I think. I've always thought of Maine as rather conservative (by New England standards, anyway), so I'm glad to hear their young people have their heads screwed on right after all. Now, if only young people in the Bible Belt showed that level of clue; I suppose that'd be doubly difficult, though, because they'd have to both have clue and be allowed to show it.

Just remember, "thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's ass". :P

mcchino64 you make very good points, and pi zero you have my idea right about the genetics aspect.

The reason i dislike gays is because of all the people i have met who are gay. They turn out to be bi-sexual, drug users and, overall, honor less. all of these reasons have become social acceptable so most people don't understand my distaste and say its just homophobia like the fools they are.

I find it necessary to figure out the source of all things to fully understand it which is why I have concluded, until proven other wise, that being gay has to be either a choice, recessive gene, or protein mutation.

I have no idea what happened above but I feel sort of responsible for it so I am sorry. Why can't we be friends? <3 :)

It is my impression although admittedly completely from either fictional shows or documentaries, I have never been to the US.

I'm certain it's to do with the more secular culture of the UK. I get the impression that biggots in the UK would hate gays because they're 'not right' but with no real religious undertones. As an atheist in middle England I probably have a skewed view - but nobody bats an eyelid when they say they're an atheist in the UK. I read a social study (it may even have been on wikinews) that suggested that atheists in the US are as unpopular if not more unpopular than muslims homosexuals and other potential minority groups. From this I concluded that homosexuality in the US, as atheism, is frowned upon as an affront to god.

I'm not suggesting that the US is more biggoted, but perhaps the predjudice stems from religious reasoning.

Religion performs an evolutionarily useful function in the human psyche: We've evolved instincts that presumably promoted our selfish genes but that contradict each other, and our rational minds don't like the contradiction. We have a moral instinct to be good to other human beings, but we also have an instinct to hate those different from us. Religion provides a solution, by claiming that all morality comes from God, and God says we should hate those who are different from us. Naturally, in order for religion to be evolutionarily successful, religions should exhibit similar morality/xenophobia toward other religions. For a religion, atheism is the ultimate foreigner.

However we are not in a life or death situation anymore so (at least many of us) can override any instinctive suspision of all things foreign i.e. a gay couple at high school aren't going to wipe out the straight kids thus they've been accepted.

It seems simplistic to me to suggest however that evolution acts to concentrate selfish genes - depending on the definition of selfish. Evolution can develop traits that are markedly unselfish, such as the poison in certain frogs - which might not aid an individual frog from being eaten but will protect the species as a whole.

I wonder also whether traits may develop which offer no advantage to the species but that also offer no distinct DISadvantage and thus may be allowed to progress. This could be a route through which any genetic susceptibility to homosexuality could travel (again I'm ignorant of where the scientific world stands on nature vs nurture as far as homosexuality goes)

The term selfish gene does not refer to genes for selfish individuals. It means that the genes themselves evolve in a way that promotes the "selfish" best interests of the genes. This is in opposition to the (erroneous) idea that evolution favors individual organisms that are most fit to survive, or that it favors communities that are most fit to survive. The genes are the "replicators", the things whose relative success drives evolution; organisms, and communities of organisms, are just vehicles for the genes. Our genes have "learned" that they can promote their own propagation by inducing the creation of these amazing tools — us. All the genes "care" about is that they, the genes, are propagated; sometimes that is is promoted by creating vehicles that survive well, sometimes by creating vehicles that are very fragile but very prolific, and sometimes it's in the best interests of the genes that individual organisms sacrifice themselves for others. What all these have in common is that they benefit the genes, regardless of the welfare of individual organisms. Hence the metaphorical use of the word "selfish".

for reference, the abstract of a 2010 article in the JOurnl of Sexual Medicine

Introduction.: Debate continues on whether or not male homosexuality (MH) is a result of biological or cultural factors. The debate persists despite the fact that these two sides have different abilities to create a scientific environment to support their cause. Biological theorists produced evidence, however, that these are not always robust. On the other hand, social theorists, without direct evidence confirming their positions, criticize, with good argument, methods and results of the other side. The aim of this Controversy is to understand the reasons of both perspectives. Methods.: Two scientists (R.B. and A.C.C.) with expertise in the area of biology of MH were asked to contribute their opinions. The nurture position is discussed by a third expert in sexology (J.B.). Main Outcome Measure.: Expert opinion supported by the critical review of the currently available literature. Result.: The role of the Controversy's editor (E.A.J.) is to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of both sides. The two experts of the biological issue answer with their data to the questions: " Is male homosexuality partly explainable by immunology?" and " How is male homosexuality a Darwinian paradox?", respectively. Genetic and immunological factors, birth order, and fertility of relatives are largely discussed. Finally, the expert sustaining the idea that culture and experiences are important determining factors in sexual orientation used a psychosocial and holistic perspective to explain his position. Conclusions.: The JSM's readers should recognize that there are several biological factors in MH. However, these findings do not seem to be able to explain all cases of homosexuality. Some others may be due to particular environmental factors. The issue is complicated and multifactorial, suggesting that further research should be undertaken to produce the final answer to the question raised in this Controversy section. © 2010 International Society for Sexual Medicine.

Religion is memetic; to people like myself, it is by-and-large a regressive meme.

I think religion is memetic only in the sense that species homo sapiens is genetic: people are highly sophisticated organisms induced by and for their genes, religions are highly sophisticated organisms induced by and for their memes. Telltale features of organsisms are that they have a lifecycle involving birth, death, and reproduction, and that the children resulting from reproduction carry on many of the replicators (in this case, memes) from their ancestors, including some preserved in recessive form. Here, you can see recessive memes in religion from, for example, all those passages in the Bible, or the Quran, that any particular sect may choose to "overlook".