Homosexuality.

[Bynary Fission]

Re: Homosexuality.

Why is this being discussed on FFR?? I wonder if the thread starter thinks that the FFR population is really smart enough to understand why people are born homosexual...

Most aren't...except for here. Most people in the CT forum are intelligent enough to understand the topic..though some claim to but don't. It's quite easy to pick out the fakers.



~Bynary Fission

[foilman8805]

Re: Homosexuality.

Strange as it is, it seems there must be a purpose for homosexuality.

Therein lies the question though. What is the purpose of homosexuality? This isn't said to be rude, or derogatory - I just take it in juxtaposition with heterosexuality which has a purpose - procreation.

As long as humans have been around they have been evolving, and adapting to better suit their environments, but what kind of environment dictates homosexuality where procreation is impossible? Like I said earlier, there is no purpose for homosexuality...no genetic benefit, yet it still exists. If that was the case, don't you think the process of evolution would slowly eliminate that trait from our gene pool, and at least by this point in our existence, it would be fairly uncommon?

Well, even Darwin can't explain this one. It's one of those questions that can't be answered - because in my personal opinion, there are things we are not allowed to know yet.

But still, since its inclusion in the gene pool is consistent, and it doesn't seem to be a decreasing trend - there must be a reason for it.

It just may be a reason we can't fully comprehend (or want to accept). Perhaps it is bestowed upon an individual as a life lesson from the higher powers, one that teaches personal acceptance, or perhaps it's even a lesson for those who are not homosexual: as a lesson of accepting those who are not like your heterosexual self that you meet in life.

Also, as an addition, I know a set of biological twins that are both homosexual, and I also know another separate set of biological twins where one is heterosexual and the other is a homosexual. Kind of peculiar.

[poulice]

Re: Homosexuality.

Maybe that provreation isen't the only thing the world needed a long time ago. They needed hunters, guards, many more roles than parents. Maybe since homosexuals would not be occupied with such things, they would make good guards, or hunters.

Just becose we don't understand the purpose of something differant does not mean we should automaticly think it to be wrong, or disgusting, even if a heterosexual would never want to sleep with the same sex, he can still find it to be something of beuty.

If we bases everything of the reasons we have today, we would have no need for developpement. Like life, for exemple. The whole point in life is to stay alive. But to do that, you need to eat, you need to defend yourself (in the prehistoric age anyway), you also need to communicate, you need to have a shelter, etc. There is more then just procreation.

For now most of the science revolving homosexuality is either very bias or very inconclusive. What we really need to do it to just accepte the fact that people are differant. And if they don't want to, we should not force people to be okay with gays, we need to make them change there minds on there own.

[atalkingcow]

Re: Homosexuality.

Maybe that provreation isen't the only thing the world needed a long time ago. They needed hunters, guards, many more roles than parents. Maybe since homosexuals would not be occupied with such things, they would make good guards, or hunters.

Just becose we don't understand the purpose of something differant does not mean we should automaticly think it to be wrong, or disgusting, even if a heterosexual would never want to sleep with the same sex, he can still find it to be something of beuty.

If we bases everything of the reasons we have today, we would have no need for developpement. Like life, for exemple. The whole point in life is to stay alive. But to do that, you need to eat, you need to defend yourself (in the prehistoric age anyway), you also need to communicate, you need to have a shelter, etc. There is more then just procreation.

For now most of the science revolving homosexuality is either very bias or very inconclusive. What we really need to do it to just accepte the fact that people are differant. And if they don't want to, we should not force people to be okay with gays, we need to make them change there minds on there own.

While I agree with the last paragraph... Not everything in human evolution has been -created/evolved/left there- for an obvious reason. (no examples offhand.)
While the thought that homosexuals would have been used as laborers due to the complete lack of reproductive ability is intruiging (sp?), it seems to me that it would have been simpler and more effective to create asexuals instead. (asexuals being those who simply feel no urge/need/desire to have sex with anyone or anything in the first place.)

I would actually like to see the link(s) to the website that you read that guard theory on, if you can find it and post it.


Oh, welcome to CT, oh ye of little posts! ^^

[devonin]

Re: Homosexuality.

You can make instead, a pretty strong claim that at least bisexuality is quite useful as a trait to develop genetically. The drive to engage in sexual activity exists all the time. It is right alongside being hungry and thirsty and tired, as urges that the body needs fulfilling on at least a semi-regular basis.

During all the periods of history before a reliable method of birth control, this could be a problem if your population was already straining your resources, since lots of sex tends to result in lots of babies.

However, if some reasonable subsection of your population can get sexual satisfaction just as easily from members of the same sex, this can help your population control, since when it is in your vested interest to not grow the population, you don't end up having to resort to forced celibacy, or forced abandonment of newborns.

It also seems to me that if bisexuality is a genetic trait, that if it develops by say, the introduction of various hormones or chemicals, that it is easy enough to see how an excess of such things could result in homosexuality. I utterly don't have the biology background to make such a suggestion in any kind of official way, but if you're looking for a "good reason" for homosexuality to exist, "It is the logical extension of the good reason for bisexuality to exist" seems like a somewhat reasonable way to look at it.

[poulice]

Re: Homosexuality.

I would actually like to see the link(s) to the website that you read that guard theory on, if you can find it and post it.

Man i'm kinda mad becose i can't seem to find the site where i read it anywhere and that makes me look kinda bad . But believe me it was a credible site, it wasen't something like wikipedia. I had read it a long time ago when i was still having trouble ajusting with me being gay (you know self acceptence). I remember i was looking for an answer why i was gay and i found that site and it made me kinda proud because i like when things have reasons.

But on the subject i actually believe the guard theory that i read, but adding asexuality and bisexuality into the picture is interesting. Maybe that could disprove the theory i read, or add too it. Now this is all juste links togheter but more to it. Now i know for a fact that if when you have sexual intercourse, you're bodie releases certain hormones, but more importantly, some nerotransmitters. Those nerotransmeters gives you a feeling of "accomplishment" as a kind of "reward". The same ones are also released when you do things that insure your survival, like eating. Maybe there is more to sexual intercourse than just the procreation part. Like certain animals like dolphens have sex for pleasure as well as for procreation.

To me, heterosexual intercourse has two purposes, for pleasure and procreation. The thing that makes homosexuality so "wrong" in society today is that it takes away the procreation part. I find that a little weird becose if someone wheres a condom or does any other contraceptives, it does the same thing. As for the origine of homosexuality, i'm sticking with my guard theory or the theory of a chemecal imbalance in the brain. Becose nobody is one hundred percent straite, gay or bisexual. Think of it as a scale of 1 to 100. If you're straite you have a smaller number, not neccesaraly 1 thought. You can be gay and not a a 100 and you can be bi but not be a 50. (here is the link for my info on this http://www.io.com/~wwwomen/queer/amigay.html i know it's a site for women but it still works). I think that just how much of the chemicals are imbalenced is the reason where you are going to be on the spectrum. Also maybe asexuals are the result of a lack of chemicals.

Although, if i where to say that it is in fact the environnements and the was a child was raised that was responsable for homosexuality, then that raises another question, why does some people who have the same environment and upbringning grow up to have differant sexual oriantations? I like to take a look at both sides of the argument but i still have to say that this is not the reason.

Well this is getting kinda long, so i'll end with saying that we should not argue with differant theories, because they cannot be proven. We should merely present them and let the readers decide which ones that they find the most logical with their own personal knowledge and comprehention.

[stev019]

Re: Homosexuality.

What's wrong with homosexuality... why does your so-called "faith" state it as "incorrect" or "wrong"... People can love who ever they want to... they will not go to "hell" because they made a life decision.

[stev019]

Re: Homosexuality.

For a gay man to go "straight"... he would have to be bisexual and then change his preference from men to women thanks to society and the brainwashing of catholic/christian churches.

[stev019]

Re: Homosexuality.

i wrote this without reading any posts except for the thread starter... And i did a horrible job at interpreting what he said. Apologies. But I am very very angry at churches lately based on the "changing" of ones sexual preference. In my view... You are just born the way you are... and no one should ever tell you that you are wrong

[ARROWUP]

Re: Homosexuality.

To be honest, homosexuality has 0% to do with religion. I wonder how it even became involved in the first place. Why do people decide to include delusion with preference? Do what you want, if you can't, move out of America. Because you'll be judged instantly here in the states thanks to conformist brainwashing evangelicals and private corporations.

[devonin]

Re: Homosexuality.

Stev019:

1) Don't triple post, don't double post. There's an edit button in every post you make that allows you to change the text therein.

2) While just responding to the OP isn't necessarily a -bad- thing, in CT being aware of the course the conversation has taken is quite important as you'll often find your points have been brought up already, or that the discussion has developed into something quite different from the original post.

3) Their faith says it is wrong, because their faith says that sex is for procreation only, and that homosexuality runs counter to that premise. You're more than welcome to disagree (many do) but an internally consistant faith system is only "wrong" insofar as you can appeal to subjectivity (ie. it is wrong to me) That's the nature of an unfalsifiable claim, and since they can't prove God -did- say that and you can't prove God -didn't- say that, we need to basically just give faith systems their own space to play in, and only engage them when they try to enforce their beliefs outside their sphere.

Put another way: Their faith -does- say that they could go to hell for that decision, so it only stands to reason that as people who believe in that faith system, they would feel that way as well.

As for gay men having to "become bi" first. Where does that come from? The labels we put on things are only labels anyway, and are vague in that they don't precisely define themselves. If you're a guy and you think "That's a really handsome guy" are you bisexual? What if you think "1970s Bowie...hmm...I'd have to think about that"? The only real objective way to define sexuality at all is to only apply "heterosexual" to the 100% hetero people, who have never even once thought a member of the same sex was at all sexually appealing, and to do the same for homosexual, and apply bi to a measurably perfect 50/50 split.

In other words: You can't apply them objectively to -anybody-

So I'm really not seeing any brainwashing going on that says that you'd need to go gay-bi-hetero at all. Also, if your point is "We're born how we are, and there is never anything wrong with that, nobody should judge" what about people who have always been attracted sexually to children? to animals? What about people who have always been prone to poor impulse control, violent outbursts? If we can prove any of these things are genetic, are you completely in support of letting all such people practice those things without fear of judgement or persecution?

To ARROWUP:

Homosexuality has to do with religion insofar as you are talking about a religion with a stated opinion on homosexuality. It "became involved" because the bible is quite specific about a number of things: Marriage being between a man and woman, Sex only being for inside marriage, Sex only being for procreation. In the face of these tenets, something like homosexuality is involved because it is an affront to their belief about God's purpose for people in the world.

[afronova1127]

Re: Homosexuality.

i love how you straight people think you know what youre talking about, im gay and trust me, you cant turn me straight, people who think you can turn straight are retarted and the ones who claim to be transformed are lying. its also not a choice, the only choice with homosexuality is whether you accept it or not.

[atalkingcow]

Re: Homosexuality.

i love how you straight people think you know what youre talking about, im gay and trust me, you cant turn me straight, people who think you can turn straight are retarted and the ones who claim to be transformed are lying. its also not a choice, the only choice with homosexuality is whether you accept it or not.

Don't call people who disagree with you retarded...especially if you're going to spell it wrong. ^_^

It's ignorance, nothing more.

[devonin]

Re: Homosexuality.

Don't call people who disagree with you retarded...especially if you're going to spell it wrong. ^_^

It's ignorance, nothing more.

Further:

"you straight people" = hasty generalisation

"people who think you can turn straight are retarded" = flaming, some trolling, and a clear lack of having read this thread at all, in that the majority of people posting have said that you -can't- change such a thing, including the vast majority of all the straight posters to this discussion.

"the ones who claim to be transformed are lying" = You have no way whatsoever to prove that. Just because -you- personally claim that -you- personally cannot change your sexual preference, doesn't mean you are justified without any evidence or proof, to say that the same is true of each and every person.

[afronova1127]

Re: Homosexuality.

I guess I didnt read the whole thing, just whenever the topic is brought up I immediately think of Ann Coulter and i get mad because there are people out there who believe I live a filthy life of "fabulousness" sorry for overgeneralizing
As far as turning people straight I apologize for the way I worded it, I have done a lot of research and watch a lot of shows about this and I've seen that a lot of these programs are very harsh and some people commit suicide from it. Some of the most "successful" guys (I don't remember his name but he wrote a book) was caught at a gay bar picking up guys. It seems like these people are lying to themselves. (that's how I meant to word it)

For those who don't know who ann coulter is she is an insane conservative who hates gay people, the liberal court system, and recycling. Its in her book "Godless: The Church of Liberalism"