danielsh Posted June 21, 2004 Posted June 21, 2004 Sorry, just wanted to say that. Nema's got a point. I expect so does Dan but I'm not entirely sure if he's actually put forward an argument as opposed to providing explanations. I like to leave it open to interpretation. I'm impressed that you haven't given up on arguing with Gunwounds.Interesting anecdote: A friend of mine works in a pet store and recently saw two male animals getting their respective freaks on. I forget what type of animal it was... I'll ask her and enlighten y'all later. Dust Scout remains right, though---a few years ago Time published a picture of two male giraffes necking. (In a more literal sense than the word is usually meant.)
GUNWOUNDS Posted June 21, 2004 Posted June 21, 2004 First of all, what's downright dangerous?Second of all, we're all wrong? Man, I thought that rat-study actually made sense, too.yea i agree rat study sounded pretty good....it seems the male rats were humping other male rats to relieve pent up frustrations.I mean... HELLO? prison rape?
danielsh Posted June 21, 2004 Posted June 21, 2004 They were rabbits, Dan, and they were both female.Merci. I'd pay more attention to my friends, but short-term memory loss is apparently a symptom of the gay.Gunwounds: Will you dominate me?
GUNWOUNDS Posted June 21, 2004 Posted June 21, 2004 Gunwounds: Will you dominate me?Do i have to buy you dinner first? :D
danielsh Posted June 21, 2004 Posted June 21, 2004 Do i have to buy you dinner first? :D[This was before the edit.]sure ... maybe it will shut you up .. ;DALPHA male baby !!Latent homosexuality exists in everyone... good to see you're at peace with that part of yourself. Frankly, though, I had you pinned as a bottom.You've found a nice rationalization for the concept of homosexual lust at this point. How about emotional connections? (We're capable of that, by the way.)
GUNWOUNDS Posted June 21, 2004 Posted June 21, 2004 Latent homosexuality exists in everyone... good to see you're at peace with that part of yourself.
danielsh Posted June 21, 2004 Posted June 21, 2004 i am not one of those homophobes who would tie you to the back of a truck and drag you all over the placeGod damn it, and I had the rope all ready to go. You really know how to spoil a girl's fun.
danielsh Posted June 21, 2004 Posted June 21, 2004 Also i mentioned emotions in my previous posts... re-read.By the by, I missed it. I'm not talking about sexual roles, I'm talking about I-want-to-hold-your-hand-and-watch-the-sun-rise-with-you feelings.
GUNWOUNDS Posted June 21, 2004 Posted June 21, 2004 You havn't read much Freud, have you?ya freud was full of crap .. excuse my french hehe.
danielsh Posted June 21, 2004 Posted June 21, 2004 Okay, so imagine I want to spend my life with a certain guy.
Wolf Posted June 21, 2004 Posted June 21, 2004 Shouldn't humans be genetically predisposed towards heterosexuality? You know, since its how the species is reproduced...
GUNWOUNDS Posted June 21, 2004 Posted June 21, 2004 Shouldn't humans be genetically predisposed towards heterosexuality? You know, since its how the species is reproduced...Heheh... thats my point i made above in point #2
danielsh Posted June 21, 2004 Posted June 21, 2004 I wasn't so much talking about kicking it back with some brews after a long night of partying as holding hands, whispering sweet nothings, kissing, and nibbling after a long night of sexual congress. But I guess both are equally masculine.Anyway, I continue to disagree with everything that you're saying. And since it has no basis in anything except, "'Cause I said so," I feel that I can safely move on.
GUNWOUNDS Posted June 21, 2004 Posted June 21, 2004 here i will make a chart.Heterosexuality is a result of natural reproduction of the species and heterosexual love is the bond that occurs during this mateship and raising of the children.
Wolf Posted June 21, 2004 Posted June 21, 2004 Well, back when humanity was doing that whole evolving thing... we could only reproduce through heterosexual intercourse. So, after a few generations, all the humans present are those whose ancestors engaged in heterosexual intercourse. Those born with an impulse to engage in heterosexual intercourse would have had, naturally, more children. Those born with an impulse to engage in homosexual intercourse would have had, naturally, less children, if not none at all. Barring exceptions, such as homosexuals engaging in heterosexual intercourse, because of conformity, shall we say, it thus seems more likely that there would be a greater propensity of heterosexual humans than homosexual ones. That, and with the passage of time, it is remakable that homosexuality survived at all. If homosexuality is not a random biological condition (meaning, random combinations of genes, or physiological conditions during pregnancy) but is a genetic trait, then homosexuality should have died out almost completely. Even with the exceptions. This is not so. Therefore, homosexuality must have some other, non-genetic cause. I tend to think that homosexuality is caused, mainly, by random physiological conditions that cannot be easily predicted. A gay man can have a straight son if he reproduces, and if he doesn't, there's no chance for him to have a gay son, period. Even more remarkable, every single homosexual exists because of heterosexual intercourse. So, it seems, homosexuality (or heterosexuality) does not pass from parent to child. However, the overwhelming propensity of heterosexuals seems to indicate that heterosexuality is, in nature's view, the established standard through natural selection and evolution. This further supports that heterosexuality is predisposed by nature, but can be altered physiologically during pregnancy or other conditions. This, I believe, contains a satisfactory explanation for bisexuals, as well.
Wolf Posted June 21, 2004 Posted June 21, 2004 Well, the data seems to indicate that homosexuality is not easily correctable, if at all. I understand your reluctance to talk about heterosexuality as the standard, but I believe that it would be foolish to ignore this. Since heterosexual reproduction is the very vehicle by which human natural selection progresses, it, automatically, is favored by that process. As I said above, those born with an impulse to engage in heterosexual intercourse would have had, naturally, more children, while those born with an impulse to engage in homosexual intercourse would have had, naturally, less children, if not none at all. Natural selection favors the former over the latter.Further, not all heterosexuals are genetic, but it is possible that some might be. If, cognizant of the fact that humans are sometimes born with randomly new genetic codes, and that one of these codes has to do with a natural inclination towards heterosexuality, a person with such an inclination breeds, his children should also possess this gene. They, also, would breed. Since a homosexual gene tends to discourage such breeding, it is assumed that, in proportion to the heterosexual population, this gene would be seen less and less. Time and lots of charts and graphs would be needed to determine if this is true, but I doubt that homosexuality is mainly genetic. Some homosexuals may be, but not all of them. The same goes for heterosexuals.If right-wing bigots take this as an excuse, then they are wrong. Homosexuality, while not mainly genetic, is no less a natural phenomenon. The tranist of Venus is not standard, yet it is natural in occurance. Homosexuality is a physiological condition, caused by physiological causes.
GUNWOUNDS Posted June 21, 2004 Posted June 21, 2004 Well, back when humanity was doing that whole evolving thing... we could only reproduce through heterosexual intercourse. So, after a few generations, all the humans present are those whose ancestors engaged in heterosexual intercourse. Those born with an impulse to engage in heterosexual intercourse would have had, naturally, more children. Those born with an impulse to engage in homosexual intercourse would have had, naturally, less children, if not none at all. Barring exceptions, such as homosexuals engaging in heterosexual intercourse, because of conformity, shall we say, it thus seems more likely that there would be a greater propensity of heterosexual humans than homosexual ones. That, and with the passage of time, it is remakable that homosexuality survived at all. If homosexuality is not a random biological condition (meaning, random combinations of genes, or physiological conditions during pregnancy) but is a genetic trait, then homosexuality should have died out almost completely. Even with the exceptions. This is not so. Therefore, homosexuality must have some other, non-genetic cause. I tend to think that homosexuality is caused, mainly, by random physiological conditions that cannot be easily predicted. A gay man can have a straight son if he reproduces, and if he doesn't, there's no chance for him to have a gay son, period. Even more remarkable, every single homosexual exists because of heterosexual intercourse. So, it seems, homosexuality (or heterosexuality) does not pass from parent to child. However, the overwhelming propensity of heterosexuals seems to indicate that heterosexuality is, in nature's view, the established standard through natural selection and evolution. This further supports that heterosexuality is predisposed by nature, but can be altered physiologically during pregnancy or other conditions. This, I believe, contains a satisfactory explanation for bisexuals, as well.Well Wolfwiz... the thing is ... WHAT is truly gay? You say that homosexuality is
Wolf Posted June 21, 2004 Posted June 21, 2004 Well, sure, I reach the conclusion that homosexuality is physiological in nature. And you may be right about some of those causes. Let's just say I assume that the homoseuxals in my discussion are bona fide, 100%, attracted-to-men-for-the-sake-of-men-and-could-never-want-a-women types. That being said, I reach the conclusion that homosexuality is not really genetic, and must come from some other physiological cause.
Recommended Posts