Fate of Gay/Straight Topic/Poll

[StevenofNine]

Synexo, read the papers. Did you read them, or just copy and paste some titles that looked provocative?

 

Find a paper on homosexual child abusers? Look up statistics on heterosexual child abuse. No difference.

 

Find a paper on teen lesbian cutting? Look up heterosexual teen cutting. No difference.

 

Do the research. Read the science. Ignore Boris.

[Oma]

(...)

Ever heard of the Marx bothers, Boris? Watch their movies for hidden agendas.

You know, he'll probably do it! :D

[synexo]

I recently heard a psychologist talking about eating disorders mention that there are two primary 'drives' needed for an animal to survive, the drive to eat, and the drive to reproduce.

 

 

These are valid points, however, they are, as noted, not drives needed to survive. I need not procreate to survive. Maybe we're splitting hairs, but the primary considerations in human biology and the progression of the race are, in current science:

 

Energy

Genes

Evolution

 

Energy-based systems assume the most efficient organism survives best. Genes-based theory suggests that lines or species who best pass on their genes will survive. Evolutionary systems suppose that the most adaptive organism will survive.

 

Obviously, a homosexual who never mates with another will not procreate.

 

However, humans have this thing called a brain, which allows for reason. It permits us to overcome Energy and Gene systems through application of Evolution. Humans with thinking and reasoning ability have the power to overcome energy-efficient animals (predators that used to feast on us) and Gene-systems (insects and rodents are examples of animals that spread their genes through massive mating.)

 

And, we can also do other things: Homosexuals may have children of their own, through adoption, insemination and the like. Again, we overcome. If you're tlaking about survival of the species, then watch out, sex will eventually become moot. Once cloning technology becomes viable (and it could be hundreds of years) we will be able to manipulate genes to exacting effect, and require only the womb, meaning... males will become obsolete. And then we need only work on wombs...

 

I wholeheartedly agree with you here StevenofNine, my statement should have been "...two primary 'drives' needed for an animal species to survive,...".

 

Also on the issue of human brain power over the biological world, you are absolutely correct. And I once again state that I do not think homosexuals are bad, or that they will not survive, or that they will destroy the species, or that they will destroy society. I simply think that homosexuality, from a purely animalistic, biological standpoint, is a sexual disorder i.e. that it is contrary to natural biological reproduction. I think that science and the human mind will overcome many, hopefully all disorders, and I embrace the idea that just as the paralized use wheel chairs to get around, and will someday use electrodes wired to their brains to operate those wheel chairs, someday homosexual couples will be able to go to a clinic and have a doctor create an artifical human egg from one of the couples DNA using nanotechnology, and then fertilize that egg with the other mans sperm. Possibly even a man will be able to have a surgically created womb to carry the baby to term. And I support such advances, and will argue with anybody who does not. However, regardless, i contend that homosexuals do not have a 'natural, healthy, holistic human sex drive', for all of the reasons I have described in previous posts.

[synexo]

Synexo, read the papers. Did you read them, or just copy and paste some titles that looked provocative?

 

Find a paper on homosexual child abusers? Look up statistics on heterosexual child abuse. No difference.

 

Find a paper on teen lesbian cutting? Look up heterosexual teen cutting. No difference.

 

Do the research. Read the science. Ignore Boris.

 

Fear not StevenofNine, my post was made in jest. Although there may be a point to the fact that there are twice as many articles with the 2 terms 'homosexual' and 'disease' and there are for 'heterosexual' and 'disease'. The actual correlation I would bet on would be that there is simply more research done on homosexuals and disease. Here's why I think that is might show there is more research on homosexuals and disease. Use this in your daily life, it's fun.

 

Go to google, and use google to find out if TEXAS is in the UNITED STATES, or in CANADA, without actually clicking on any search results. How you ask?

 

Search for "UNITED STATES TEXAS" and you get:

DaqHom 1 - 10 DIcha' (united states texas ngaSbogh 76,800,000'e' tu'lu'law' ). (0.15 lup)

 

Search for "CANADA TEXAS" and you get:

DaqHom 1 - 10 DIcha' (canada texas ngaSbogh 34,100,000'e' tu'lu'law' ). (0.26 lup)

 

[umm, sorry, my Google is in Klingonese]

 

Twice as many pages contain "UNITED STATES TEXAS", and so it is likely that TEXAS is more closely related to the UNITED STATES than to CANADA.

 

If you think about it, neural networks really work about the same way, strengthening connections between similar ideas.

 

And yes, BorisP is Archie Bunker and Eric Cartman rolled up together into some kind of strange neo-fakir. He grows on you though.

[c0g]

You are missing a level of abstraction by affirming that the drive to eat and the drive to reproduce are 'Apples and Oranges'.

 

I’m missing a level of abstraction? I think it’s quite the opposite. You missed my point of Species wide vs. individual. Breeding means nothing if the offspring do not make it to breeding age.

 

Simply because the two have different reasons for existing as part of an individual's biological makeup does not negate the fact that they each have a purpose determined by evolution, and that a healthy individual will have their biological drive in accordance with the purpose of that drive.

 

As far as a Biological imperative, Species survival is the important thing, not individual reproduction. In a wolf pack, only one pair breeds, but everybody helps raise the pups. In many Primates, only select pairs breed, but the entire troop works to protect and feed the offspring. So individuals not breeding, on a species level, can be a biologically beneficial strategy.

 

Secondly, having once reproduced does not fulfill your whole reproductive purpose. If that were true, women would go through menopause after their first child.

 

You are right, because babies die. Having reproduced, or choosing a partner you can reproduce with is not the imperative. Having members of your Species reach breeding age is the imperative. This means that a woman needs to make a bunch of babies in the hopes that one survives to breed. OR, she needs to make one baby that is protected during its development to breeding age by non-breeding individuals. Both strategies are valid from a species wide perspective.

 

It also seems that you are making an improper connection between:

 

1. An arbitrarily chosen individual's reproductive ability

and

2. The instinctual drive that an individual should have in order to be driven to reproduce.

 

That should read:

2. The instinctual drive that an individual should have in order to be driven to reproduce [/i] its species. [/i]

 

You place too much emphasis on the individual. If you are talking about evolution and survival, the individual is irrelevant. Only the survival of the species matters! EVERY mammal species ever observed has individuals who practice same sex “breedingâ€ÂÂ. What does that tell you from a biological perspective? Nature is not wasteful. There are no coincidences.

 

However reasoning out the reproductions of instinctual drive acting upon the members of a group as a whole can yield a results.

 

My point exactly! Take your own advice. Look at the big picture. Both bees and ants are extremely successful with 99.999% non-breeding individuals. Just because someone needs to breed, does not mean that EVERYONE needs to breed to be successful as a species.

 

Furthermore, you make the argument that homosexuality is a 'evolution' of our species to assist in it's own population control. I imagine time could tell whether or not that is true,

 

Time has told. Homosexuality is not a recent development that has yet to be tested. And not just in our species, but in EVERY mammal species. It is a way to relive competitive environmental pressures from offspring while still benefiting from the contributions of healthy non-breeding members of a species.

 

however, you must then concede that all life-threatening birth defects are positive 'evolutions', and it is a good thing when babies die of deformities.

 

Just because your logic is flawed, does not mean I have to concede anything. The death of babies by deformity only benefits the cosmetics industry. The practice of not breeding while still contributing to the survival of others offspring however benefits the entire species.

 

[c0g]

BorisP

 

You have insulted Jews, Fags, Blacks, and Comies all in one bigoted ignorant post.

 

Your scientific evidence is a picture of a girl leaning to one side. What If I found a picture of her leaning to the other side? Would that scientifically disprove your theories? Or a picture of her standing up strait? There are no coincidences. You do understand the concept of perspective don’t you?

 

At some point, I hope to offend each and every one of you at least a little, but with wit, not ignorance. :cyclops:

 

I will do my best not to attack those who don't attack others, however;

 

When it comes to Homosexuals, there are three types that I have no tolerance for, and will not show any mercy towards:

 

1 Rapers or Molesterers

2 Self Haters who externalize like BorisP or Jerry Falwell

3 Log cabin Republican bootlickers

 

 

PS, Firefox is a crappy Browser…

 

[elderbear]

We're done here.

 

It's been fun. It's been frustrating. It's starting to get boring. If you don't like the topic being locked. Join one of the many others preoccupied with the nature of human sexuality. Or maybe NiteShdw or one of the moderators will decide that we need to NOT discuss sexual expression, deviance, etc for a while. In which case, we won't.

 

Thanks for all your wisdom, opinions, logic, and especially those who bravely bared their souls, and those who endured being mocked and picked on.

 

I've gleaned more than enough information about how people feel and think regarding the "Fate of Gay/Straight Topic/Poll."

 

And that's the way it is, Saturday, April 16th, 2005 CE. Goddess bless and good-night (whoever you may or may not be snuggling with until the sun rises - sleep well and have good dreams).

 

:thinking: :D :o :D :thinking: B)