Gays, Dick, and Eating Meat

Author: David Christopher Lane
Publisher: The NEURAL SURFER
Publication date: November 1997

E-mail David Christopher Lane directly at

I want to go back to the home base now.


Dear Dr. Dave,

Thanks for the clarification. Note that I din't answer the question for
you. I merely offered a "guess." However, I have noted that the
employment of a certain syntactical structure elicits an almost immediate

I bought and read LeVey's book, "The Sexual Brain," (London: MIT Press,
1993). Yes, he is a  good scholar. Yes, he is hypothesizing a genetic
cause to homosexual behavior in his search for the "biological basis for
this diversity." Yes, many Gays disagree with his hypothesis, and prefer
to think that they freely choose their behavior. Sort of a free will vs.
destiny for the private parts debate.

What is there to correct?

Really, Bodhi! The biological purpose of sex is procreation. Reread your
Sant Mat literature. Note the behavior of the Sant Mat gurus in Charan
Singh's lineage and Darshan Singh's lineage regarding
sexual activity.

Homosexual behavior is an anomaly within the evolutionary scheme of
things. I know that you follow the subjects of evolution and genetics
with interest. Have you seen any credible explanation for the development
of homosexual behavior other than a gene transmission goof?


Sorry, but sex is not merely for procreation (I disagree with the
Sant Mat literature, by the way, on this point--I also strongly
disagree with Charan on homosexuality), but is also for bonding and
for other social concerns (not to mention feeling invigorated by

E.O. Wilson has a fine section on the variety of reasons behind sex
outside of mere procreation.

"Credible" explanation for the development of homosexual behavior
is not necessary, even though Dawkins and Pinker supply a couple
of theories (kinship relations; interesting stuff).

Nature rejoices in variety and I would imagine that there will
always be 1 to 4 percent of the population that behaves in overtly
homosexual ways.... Moreover, in light of our science and
technology, it should be quite easy in the future to bypass our
prior genetic determinations in way unexpected (test tube babies, 

I don't think a gay man or woman needs a credible theory to explain
their actions. It may be there (as Dawkins suggests), but sexuality
is so plastic anyways that I am confident that people can express
themselves in a variety of fashions....

Given your line of argumentation, masturbation serves no function
either ultimately..... but I am sure people will continue to do such
(with or without a credible theory).

Feels good.... may be the only explanation needed here......

Moreover, what's wrong with a group of people being a minority?

I don't think there are many people with 200 plus i.q.s......

DICK writes and quotes:

While we're on the topic . . .

"One can argue endlessly  about what constitutes "normal" sexuality and
what should be defined as aberrant or even criminal. But science can only
describe what is out there and attempt to discover how it got that way.
For the attributes of sexual life just mentioned, little or nothing is
known about what generates them, so there is little point in discussing
them in detail in a book of this kind. It is likely that life experiences
play a significant role in molding the intimate details of a person's
sexual drive. Yet even here the potential for inborn differences should
not be ignored. We know, for example, that _food preferences_ are
influenced by genetic factors; there is no reason why the same should not
be true for preferences in sexual life."

---Simon LeVay (cited above) p. 136


So, Bodhi, when are you going to cut omnivores and carnivores some slack
on this eating faces thing? Genetic factors drive them to the hamburger
stands. Have a little compassion. Honor the preference for meat.

Basho! Basho, ol' boy, you're free! Aaron says you can have some


Lest you forget, I have always stated that humans were omnivores....
We can eat lots of things....

Vegetarianism is a choice, and I posed an argument about what kinds
of choices we wish to make....

I am a vegetarian out of choice (but not one person in my family

It all depends on what kinds of choices we wish to make.....



I'm still a little fuzzy on some things.

What does "uncorrected" mean? Like, uh, "politically incorrect?"
(Be careful how you answer this. I've been reading up on memes.)


Humor, Dick, humor..... (read what you said about gays)

DICK writes:

Your increased skepticism is the source of the irony, Bodhi. You persist
in a discipline for which you have lowered ontological expectations. Ten
years ago, you advocated the same sort of criterion for the validity of
your meditational activity as Joey now espouses, "Just Do It! You'll
See!" Today, you serve up the same sort of skepticism that I offered you
ten years ago. I am delighted that you have progressed in your exercise
of discrimination in this area. At least, you are questioning the
interpretations instead of shouting, "withdraw your consciousness from
this body and rise upwards and see the light and the sound, transcend
this plane. THEN WORRY ABOUT INTERPRETATION. Then we can have a good
debate . . . and we can do it on that very plane."


Dick, lest you misread me, I still argue the same thing.

Do the meditation, do the practice, and then we can debate the

What I find questionable (and where my skepticism has grown) is
our unwillingness to "doubt" our interpretations....

Joey, is not saying he may be wrong in his interpretation (read some
of his posts).

He is saying that he right because of his mystical insight....

Hmm, I am all for mystical insight....

I just want to question  our interpretations fo it, just as I
still question the "waking" state manifestations (that is what
science is all about).

DICK writes:

Ok, Dave, we're all loonies at this asylum. We've all experienced
innumerable encounters with the Light & The Sound.
What makes you think that you have a better grip on the interpretation of
these experiences than Joey does in this interminable debate (aka infinite
loop)in the locker room of junior high mystics?



Yes, if you don't doubt your visions......


Dear Dick:

I am not at all surprised that LeVay, who is Gay (there is the
rhyme), would be interested to know if being homosexual was somehow
innate in the brain.

Why would I not be surprised?

Because he himself says as much.

Moreover, he does not say that he has proven his case, but rather
quite openly asks for others to do follow-up research.

Now on to my "biases" against Eckankar, we have a weekly post from
Nathan which quotes me DIRECTLY on that very issue.

The point, Dick, lest you forgot your mantra this week, is that
I have publicly demonstrated why I think Twitchell plagiarized and

I have given my sources....

Others, not with my bias, can then check it....

Do I think I have presented a strong case that Twitchell plagiarized

You bet....

But that's the whole key: to allow others the same resources to see
what they find and think....

Even Harji and Darji had to come to grips with it because thousands
of other Ekists can see the cover-up and the plagiarism for
themselves, despite Lane being Kal or a Catholic or a meditator
or a surfer.....

That is why I engage in debates on this newsgroup, to think, to
debate, to clarify.....

Everyone is biased to one degree or another (even if it a partiality
to the English language), but the important thing is to see if we
can reproduce the results or findings OUTSIDE of that filter....


Do the comparisons for yourself.

By the way, are we going to see those comparisons with Brunton or
are you just whistling in the wind.....


the gay bozo
who used to be
the Kal hitler

------------------ wrote:

  Rich wrote:
  > David Lane wrote:
  > > Although I found your joke funny, my friend Aaron (who is a lawyer,
  > > by the way) did not.
  > >
  > > He is contemplating whether or not to take a defamation suit against
  > > you.
  > >
  > > Good luck......
  > >
  > > He graduated from Harvard Law School, by the way.
  > HA! You sound dead serious Dave, but *that* _is_ funny.
  > --

  Rich, after having the collateral effects of your "humorous" gay
  headline explained regarding David's friend, you feel compelled to
  responsed with your one liner above?

  Geez, call me old fashion, but I think at the very least, some kind of
  apology to Aaron would be in order.

  I think I have a clue as to how you justify your responses to David, but
  how do you rationalize this response or nonresponse to Aaron? Some
  innocent bystanders must be sacraficed in the cause of the holy war?
  Everyone asssociated with David must be an agent of the Kal? What?


  Ou baby baby it's a wild world
  And It's hard to get bye just upon a smile.
                                      Cat Stevens


Mysterious Catty One:

I can't recall the basis of Aaron's defamation suit.

Rich alleged that Dave admitted to engaging in a homosexual act with

What sort of apology should Rich make?

Sorry, Aaron, you and Dave are straight and would never fool around?

Sorry, Aaron, you are Gay and Dave is Straight and you would never abuse
your friendship by making a pass at Dave?

Sorry, Aaron, you and Dave are both secretly Gay and I didn't mean to out
you on a wolrd wide media?

Sorry, Aaron, you are straight and Dave is secretly Gay and you just
didn't know and find the whole thing horridly disgusting.


Hmm, he could say perhaps that in ARE we debate Dick, we don't lick
Dick..... (pun was, of course, not intentional)......

Horridly disgusting?

Is that an editorial comment or are we getting your real feelings
here, Dick......


Dear Glen:

Who said "I" was going to sue anybody?

I merely said that Aaron was thinking about it.....

And, lest you forget the "humor" in my words (in honor of Rich),

Aaron was not serious.......

It is called "lawyer's humor" (similar, perhaps, to Rich's).....

dave lane


E-mail The Neural Surfer directly at

I want to go back to the home base now.