Homosexuality is:

[elderbear]

Homosexuality is:

####ing sickening to straight guys when confronted with it - but then again so are Soap Operas. It's a guy thing. ;)

 

It is only sickening to some straight guys. And some straight guys watch Soap Operas. And some Real Men DO eat quiche ...

 

There was even a New Guineau Highland society where "normal" men found heterosexuality a repulsive duty, and preferred to be serviced by the pre-pubescent boys of the village.

 

Perhaps a great deal of "normal" is culturally conditioned?

[elderbear]

this is a moot point....some ppl here are gay ....some are straight.....fine whatever...cant we all just enjoy startrek and sci-fi and get on with it????? can anyone else here say "beating a dead horse???"

 

A suggestion: If you don't find a thread interesting, don't read it or post to it ...

 

B)

 

[c0g]

Homosexuality is:

####ing sickening to straight guys when confronted with it - but then again so are Soap Operas. It's a guy thing. ;)

 

It is only sickening to some straight guys.

 

Why does so much "strait" porn for guys involve two girls? Most guys think girls who like girls are hot. (I do, I married one) but then they fain sickness when confronted with the same thing between two guys.

 

Why is that?

 

Thank you; please pull up to the window...

 

[werecow]

ummmmmmm....just because.... :p :p :p :p

[Oma]

To cOg: I'm not saying that what you propose isn't possible - I just think you are oversimplifying things.

 

Wolfes: The alpha couple isn't the same through time - others in the pack will breed eventually (unlike gay humans). If not the genetic variance wouldn't allow for much environmental change since all will become more or less inbred.

 

Plus the majority of humans don't live where food is scarce in the 'natural scenario' - If scarcity of food leads to homosexuality then people from greenland should be more gay than someone from equator. I don't know if they are- do you?

 

At any rate, for humans to reach sexual maturity (10-15 years) is a large investment for the parents if the offspring do not breed. Perhaps event greater than just having fewer offspring (if we think of scarce food).

 

In short: I think that (full blown) homosexuaity isn't normal

 

Normal is a setting on a washing machine.

I base my sense of normality on bell curves - if you choose a washing machine....the 'spin cycle' to you :p

[elderbear]

Normal is a setting on a washing machine.

I base my sense of normality on bell curves - if you choose a washing machine....the 'spin cycle' to you :p

 

But a "normal" curve - a "bell" curve - is the entire population, including outliers on both extremes. The bell curve tells us that normal is diverse, not monolithic. Average will be some measure of central tendency. Normal is the entire spectrum.

 

B)

[synexo]

At any rate, for humans to reach sexual maturity (10-15 years) is a large investment for the parents if the offspring do not breed. Perhaps event greater than just having fewer offspring (if we think of scarce food).

 

This conversation has got me thinking... maybe the problem is our society does not have a good way of integrating the potential of homosexuals in supporting our offspring.

 

I PROPOSE A GAY TAX, to be used to fund programs for single mothers. Think about it, it would be great, more little kids would have better food in their mouths, and the gay population would gain an increased entitlement to respect in society. If somebody goes off gay-bashing 20 years from now, you'll have people saying 'Go to hell, it was gays that fed me growing up!'. Maybe also a gay substitute father program for those children too, just to piss off the fundamentalist christians.

[Oma]

Normal is a setting on a washing machine.

I base my sense of normality on bell curves - if you choose a washing machine....the 'spin cycle' to you :p

 

But a "normal" curve - a "bell" curve - is the entire population, including outliers on both extremes. The bell curve tells us that normal is diverse, not monolithic. Average will be some measure of central tendency. Normal is the entire spectrum.

 

B)

Nope - the middle 95 % is what's considered normal :p

 

EDIT:..usually..

[GrowlyCubNZ]

For my 2 cents, I just wanted to say, as a Bi male, I think there are several causes of gayness...

Some people are born like that, other's grow into it from social influences or reactions to surroundings during childhood.

For myself, I used to like only girls when I was little. But as I got older my interests broadened to include guys. The curiosity I forgave myself as an pubescent thing. In my teens, I rationalised my attraction to girls as normal and my attraction to guys because I was a bit overweight and found them attractive because they looked how I wanted to look. And that when I lost the weight I'd go back to straightness. And when I lost the weight in my early 20's for about 3 weeks I did go back to being straight oriented. Until the day I realised that I was now hot enough to pull another guy! LOL.

And then I finally had to admit that the attraction was unbearable and nothing was going to make it go away.

My interest in girls waned eventually, altho it's still there a little. It comes and goes. I've been living as a gay man for 2 years now, and have had a boyfriend for 6months. Now all my gay friends laugh at me when I tell them I still think of girls sometimes. They say I'm in denial and kidding myself. But studies of Bisexuals has shown they tend to go from gay to straight several times in the course of their lives. Each swing lasting for several years. Like Melissa Etheridge I guess. I'm the same.. I'm just in my gay cycle at the mo... and my straight cycle will come around again I think.

I think my gayness came from my upbringing for the most part. My father had a helluva lot to do with it. Homophobic dads often get ultimate karma by producing gay children. Their parenting if you can call it that, creates a huge gap where a positive male figure should be, and if there is no other positive male role model to fill that place, then the void seems to continue psychologically. But that's just me.. everyone is different and has their own stories.

But one thing is for certain.. humans aren't the only ones who produce homosexual individuals.... that has been proven.

Being gay isn't wrong... it's not what we are conditioned to believe is 'normal', but that doesn't mean it will bring down society. In fact gay people have their place...

Gay's don't have kids, so 'breeders' can have a second child without stealing resources from someone else. Our planet is over populated, gay people help with that. They don't spend their incomes raising children so they can invest in other things, such as indulging in passions for the arts etc. In this way, they are often patrons of the arts, and create, fund and propel works that 'normal' people may otherwise not have been able to enjoy. Art in all it's forms, including film, theatre, dance, music, literature and sculpture as well as paintings, enriches the lives of us all. No one can live their life without being touched and influenced by some form of art. Michaelangelo was a homo-fag boy for example. How many have been inspired to paint because of his works. (I'm not saying that gay people are the sole creators of art, but that they lean towards this moreso) So anyway... rambling now... basically Gays have their place, and anyone who despises gays should try living their lives without all the things that gay people have provided for them.

That means no more Graham Norton for a start! LOL. :p

[daffydk]

If I must include my 2 cents again on this topic...Here it goes!

 

Frist: Everyone talks about overpopulation but in my view, there is no such problem. Has anyone ever looking down when you fly from The east coast of US to the West Coast? YOU know how much Land there is that is not populated? Look at Canada, bigger than the US and only 32 million people! ICELAND same,

For the Europeans, I took a grand European trip a few years back and I travelled by trains from London to Paris, to Spain, ITaly to austria, switzerland Germany, etc.. There are vast ammounts of land that can support another 100 billion people!!

 

And then there is oceans and Deserts which take up more than 80% of the unchartered unpopulated area of our planet.

 

edit: I forgot Under Sea colonies (like in trek & there are some businesses now building under SEA hotels for business) and Space Stations (already one under construction). You can say there is unlimited space for the next few melleniums at least!

 

As far as food, we waste sooo much food that it is not even funny. And genetic engineering of plants have made great strides. You can create tomatoes & potatoes the size of Watermelons! You can grow any plant bigger, sweeter, healthier! Unlimited supply of fish in the ocean with the right management. & you can breed chickens out the wazoo. I read in one article that one farmer killed over 1 million little chicks (baby chickens not girls ;) ) becuase he didnt know what to do with them and couldng grow them to Full size in his farm.

 

The real problem is polution which can be controlled with the right policies.

 

Second Point.. Some European countries, such as italy, swiss.. (& Russia) are really worried at the dwindling population (negative growth). I read that they are instituting plans so the families can have more children. Even Straight people are delaying marriage until after mid 30s which causes them to have 1 or no child.

 

This has a tremendous impact on economy, security (one of the article mentioned Italy's dwindling army becuase there were not enough young males anymore) and society in generel.

 

 

 

 

[c0g]

To cOg: I'm not saying that what you propose isn't possible - I just think you are oversimplifying things.

 

Forgive me if I oversimplify. When I go into more depth, I tend to get less response. So in the interest of fostering dialog, I try to be easily digestible.

 

Wolves and food is only an example of the principal.

 

How much food we have on hand in modern times plays no part in evolutionary strategy, which has yet to catch up with recent developments like “historyâ€ÂÂ.

 

There was a white moth that lived on white birch trees. About 5-10% of the population demonstrated Grey wings. Birds would easily spot and eat this minority. Then the Industrial revolution and coal burning colored the trees grey. Within a few decades, do to predation; the white moth was the minority, representing 5-10% of the overall population. The “Deviant†strain became dominant when conditions shifted to favor it. As time went by, humans developed cleaner burning power plants, and the tree bark shifted back to white as the air cleaned. The moth population followed suit, with white returning to dominance. Without this deviant grey coloration group, the moth would probably be extinct.

 

“Deviant†population groups act as buffers for a species during times of major stress, such as an ice age or period of extreme drought. Every single mammal species has a gay population. Why is that?

 

I can’t provide all the answers to that question. But I believe that one of the answers may very well be that they serve as a buffer.

 

Having fully functioning productive members of your species who are not competing for possibly limited mating resources is a good strategy. From an evolutionary standpoint, you never know when the next ice age, drought, famine, global warming, or War is going to strike.

 

The important thing is not just productivity, but social pair bonding and social interaction. Gays continue to practice and reaffirm the social coherency, with behavior that bonds us all together, but without producing more mouths to feed by doing so. In many animal species, humans included, “mating behavior†is used purely to relive stress and form social bonds. Under normal conditions, this leads to offspring.

 

Now that we have invented Birth control, homosexual behavior may be obsolete. But that doesn’t change its value to us from an evolutionary perspective.

 

[mcant]

my final 2 cents, I thought this was a science fiction forum

I really dont care what you stick in whom, or what hole you use, i really DO NOT CARE!!!

 

You can all go away and bugger sheep for all I care, so long as you keep uploading good SF

 

Could we not please just agree to differ?

[elderbear]

Normal is a setting on a washing machine.

I base my sense of normality on bell curves - if you choose a washing machine....the 'spin cycle' to you :p

 

But a "normal" curve - a "bell" curve - is the entire population, including outliers on both extremes. The bell curve tells us that normal is diverse, not monolithic. Average will be some measure of central tendency. Normal is the entire spectrum.

 

B)

Nope - the middle 95 % is what's considered normal :p

 

EDIT:..usually..

 

Sorry ... shouldn't you have edited to "...normally..." ? ;)

 

 

In practice, one often assumes that the data are from an approximately normally distributed population. If that assumption is justified, then about 68% of the values are at within 1 standard deviation away from the mean, about 95% of the values are within two standard deviations and about 99.7% lie within 3 standard deviations. This is known as the "68-95-99.7 rule".

 

The Normal Distribution

 

No, that's considered to be 95 percent of the population. It's still the entire curve (-infinity, infinity) that is rightly called "normal."

[c0g]

 

Frist: Everyone talks about overpopulation but in my view, there is no such problem.

 

It's not space or food; it's oil and clean water.

 

All of our Fertilizers are OIL

All of our Irrigation pumps are OIL

All of our Pesticides are OIL

All of our Tractors run on OIL

All of our Refrigeration is OIL

All of our Packaging is made of OIL

All of our Shipping is done with OIL

All of our cooking is done with OIL

 

Food is OIL; 10 calories of OIL go into each calorie of Food we eat. We are running out of OIL not food.

 

As to water, we are running out of that too. Just look at the Ogallala Aquifer that supplies almost the entire Midwest with its agricultural irrigation water. It is running out, and not coming back ever. Within 40 years America will lose its main agricultural breadbasket permanently do to lack of fresh water for crops. You think the dustbowl was bad? You ain’t seen nothin yet.

 

 

[Oma]

Having fully functioning productive members of your species who are not competing for possibly limited mating resources is a good strategy. From an evolutionary standpoint, you never know when the next ice age, drought, famine, global warming, or War is going to strike.

 

Ok, it seems to me that we agree on the large part.

What I think we don't agree on is:

 

You: In nature the homosexuals that exist are there because of the role they play in the group.

 

Me: In nature the homosexuals(the ones who not just have homosexual tendencies) play their role in the group mainly because they exist.

 

Can we agree to disagree on this? :)

 

To Elderbear: I'd love to give you some hair and a cleaver - ought to keep you occupied for hours ;)

[daffydk]

 

Frist: Everyone talks about overpopulation but in my view, there is no such problem.

 

It's not space or food; it's oil and clean water.

 

All of our Fertilizers are OIL

All of our Irrigation pumps are OIL

All of our Pesticides are OIL

All of our Tractors run on OIL

All of our Refrigeration is OIL

All of our Packaging is made of OIL

All of our Shipping is done with OIL

All of our cooking is done with OIL

 

Food is OIL; 10 calories of OIL go into each calorie of Food we eat. We are running out of OIL not food.

 

As to water, we are running out of that too. Just look at the Ogallala Aquifer that supplies almost the entire Midwest with its agricultural irrigation water. It is running out, and not coming back ever. Within 40 years America will lose its main agricultural breadbasket permanently do to lack of fresh water for crops. You think the dustbowl was bad? You ain’t seen nothin yet.

 

 

 

I am sorry but this OIL argument does not hold true.

 

Equipment and machinery as you have mentioned in your LIST can easily be converted to user NON OIL based power such as electric or FUEL Cells. Electricity can be safely generated through Nuclear (both fission and fusion). Japan and France (including some other countries are about to build a Clean Fusion reactor soon.

 

As far as food.. most of that is vegetable or animal OIL.... we do not eat Gasoline..thank you very much!!

 

Same thing for plastics and supplies, the only reason we use them now is becuase they are cheap and readily available. We can easily replace everything based on plastic to something else, paper, aluminum or Silicon. We have endless supply of silicon like Carbon & nitrogen

 

WATER? com'on give me a break! Saudi Arabia and other countries are already running huge desalination plants and use Sea WATER! WE have endless supply of that or have you not noticed that most of eath is sorounded by oceans?

And the power for the desalination plants can come from nuclear fusion or fission reactions. IF you want I can give you sources. And they actualy complement each other very well because the water can be used both for cooling the plants and to purify them once they turn to vapor.

 

And if we can build 1000 mile piplines to get OIL from Russia to the indian ocean, we can certain build 1000 mile piplens from the pacific or the atlantic to the midwest!! OR use Lake Michigan.

 

Did I miss anything?

 

[c0g]

Oma: In nature the homosexuals(the ones who not just have homosexual tendencies) play their role in the group mainly because they exist.

 

c0g: The existence of homosexuality within a species can be more readily classified as potentially beneficial to the species, and that there is more justification for this than for a classification of dysfunctional or deprecating to the species from an evolutionary standpoint.

 

 

Can we agree to disagree on this? :)

 

Sure!! I'm only playing Devils advocate.

I only came up with this theory last week in retaliation to someone saying that science can’t be used to prove any beneficial aspects of homosexuality.

 

For my own personal preferences, I like homoeroticism better as a dark Taboo, for much the same reason that sex is better for Catholics. Because it’s just dirtier, forbidden, and more sinister...

[Oma]

For my own personal preferences, I like homoeroticism better as a dark Taboo, for much the same reason that sex is better for Catholics. Because it’s just dirtier, forbidden, and more sinister...

Well, that explains why that spanish-catholic girlfriend I once had was only interested in one thing - not because I was good but because it was forbidden :(

[Zerotop]

some of you really has to much time on your hand ;)

B)

[Oma]

some of you really has to much time on your hand ;)

B)

Ah - you nailed us there!:rolleyes:

 

Long time no see, btw!