Are Guys Born Straight

[marleyisalegend]

well, i guess when the time comes around puberty to begin acting on the feelings you have inside you naturally , i suppose that would be the time.

i wouold say sexuality is formed BEFORE birth in your DNA/Makeup, yet it is developed when you get to the age when things begin happening


you don't have many desires at all when you are born, since most of those hormones do not kick in till much later, but also, when you are born, your natural energies and thoughts are not yet developed enough to process anything more then what are devoted to basic survival and physical and mental growth based on instinct and really nothing else. don't forget, babies don't even have a formed burp reflex in their first few months of life, let alone sexual urges.

okay okay, i'm beginning to catch up to everybody else in this thread. i personally don't believe homosexuality is any less random than any other genetic deficiencies (not saying that it is one, just that they're similar in randomness). i'd be open to science proving that there is a gene or something in our DNA that makes us this way butfor now i personally believe its more a matter of population control. imagine if every gay man in the world woke up straight tomorrow. aside from the horror of what would happen to the fall line, imagine how much more overpopulated we'd be with that many more men entering the reproduction game

 

[Phil Ayesho]

i wouold say sexuality is formed BEFORE birth in your DNA/Makeup, yet it is developed when you get to the age when things begin happening

The most recent available evidence suggests this is incorrect.

the odds of a male child being homosexual increase with the number of older male siblings.

This correlation seems to hold true... even when the homosexual child is raised entirely without awareness of their older siblings... as in an adoption.


What this implies is that something is happening in the mother's uterus or blood chemistry that is having an effect on the developing fetus that is cumulative. That the more male offspring she has... the more strongly this influences the developing male fetus toward a gay orientation.

THis is important because one long held argument against homosexuality being inborn is that it should have, technically, been selected out of the gene pool simply die to its extremely low propagation rate.

This finding explains why gay orientation has held a a pretty steady rate AND why it also shows up in the animal kingdom.. it may be an biological unavoidable consequence of mothers giving birth to many sons.


This is not to say that some women will not have these conditions pre-existing in their uterus and give birth to a gay child first off...


But is it strong evidence that homosexuality is not merely choice... AND not purely genetic...
But a natural result of the evolution of sexual reproduction.

 

[AquaEyes11010]

Flashy seems stuck on using the term "design" which may be blinding him to the way evolution works. Throughout the span of life, organisms have found new uses for old parts, and over time, modifications to those old parts accumulated via natural selection so as to better make use of these new functions, if these new functions aided the survival of those individuals possessing these modifications. What we call hands were forefeet in our ancestors, and before that fins. Clearly, there were enterprising individuals making use of body parts for which they didn't seem apparently "designed." Bird wings evolved from forelimbs as well. The error in using the term "designed" lies in the connotation that the organisms, as it appears today, was drawn up from nothing. That is not the case.

Eyes in most species perform the function of focusing light on specific cells, which transmit messages to the brain to create a "visual picture" of that which is surrounding the particular organism. So, is this what eyes were "designed" for? Well, you may get away with claiming that, however eyes' evolutionary origins were photo-sensitive cells that helped direct organisms toward (or away from) light. So what if I provided an example of eyes being used for something other than vision?

Most, if not all, species of moles are virtually blind, yet they still retain rudimentary eyes. If they performed no function, then random eyeless mutations would be favored by evolution, since building eyes is biologically "expensive" if they perform no function, and prone to damage in an underground environment. There are many examples of species which have lost their eyes when living in darkness for the same reason. Since moles still have their eyes, it must be inferred that there is an evolutionary advantage to keeping rudimentary eyes, even if they can no longer perform their original function. So what is the function of their eyes? They are sensitive to changes in air currents within the tunnel, and provide a warning to disturbances from above. A sudden gush of air would mean the surface of the ground has been broken, thus leaving the mole vulnerable to predation. So while mole eyes no longer work "as designed", their retention, albeit in severely reduced form, performs a new and necessary function.

The point I'm trying to make is that evolution often favors novel uses for old parts, and if that novel use benefits the organism, then that organism will more likely survive and reproduce. If that novel use becomes a driving selection agent, then those individuals who have slight differences enough to better utilize this new function will again more likely survive and reproduce. Over time, what used to be a foot can become a hand or a wing. And what used to collect light and stimulate the brain to create a visual image of an organism's surroundings can now be used as an air-current detection organ. Continuing to use the term "designed" cuts off evolution's pathway and denies that organisms are continually competing with variation and novelty to find the most likely means of surviving and reproducing.

Flashy also argues for his idea of the use of the term "abnormal" to describe homosexuals (with the qualifier "but not unnatural"). He's saying that by definition, abnormal is that which lies outside the majority. I prefer using the terms "common" or "uncommon" because "normal" has a judgment connotation: what is "the norm" has to be decided, whereas what is "common" can merely be counted. By his same token, we as a species are "abnormal." We are the only completely bipedal mammal, and our body "design" is not as optimal for this function as are those of rattites. And among the human population, "abnormal" could equally account for blue eyes (the gene arose only 10,000 years ago and accounts for a minority of the world population); left-handedness (7-10% of the world population); natural red-heads (1-2% of the world population); geniuses (1-3% of the world population); etc. For some reason, calling those individuals "abnormal" wouldn't be considered socially acceptable, but it's ok to fling that term upon the gays (estimated at 5% of the world population).

I could also claim that, while unusual, the fact that I have all four wisdom teeth perfectly formed and not causing misalignment of my other teeth, and most of you have had at least one removed, makes me more "normal by design" since we were apparently "designed" to have those extra four teeth but most of you have "abnormal" mouths that can't accommodate them. And no, I never had braces or anything other than one filling.

 

[HyperHulk]

Flashy also argues for his idea of the use of the term "abnormal" to describe homosexuals (with the qualifier "but not unnatural"). He's saying that by definition, abnormal is that which lies outside the majority. I prefer using the terms "common" or "uncommon" because "normal" has a judgment connotation: what is "the norm" has to be decided, whereas what is "common" can merely be counted. By his same token, we as a species are "abnormal." We are the only completely bipedal mammal, and our body "design" is not as optimal for this function as are those of rattites. And among the human population, "abnormal" could equally account for blue eyes (the gene arose only 10,000 years ago and accounts for a minority of the world population); left-handedness (7-10% of the world population); natural red-heads (1-2% of the world population); geniuses (1-3% of the world population); etc. For some reason, calling those individuals "abnormal" wouldn't be considered socially acceptable, but it's ok to fling that term upon the gays (estimated at 5% of the world population).

Thanks for that angleeyes, again, right on the money with what I want to say but better than I could say it. You're a blessing cause I want to respond to Flashy but I realize I'm spending more time on this discussion than my own work...lol...that's not good. I've enjoyed the discussion though.

I too was thinking that "uncommon" would be a more apt term. Although this still has me wondering, what is homosexuality here and how do we know what is truly "uncommon"? If we're talking strict homosexuality--exclusive same sex partners, that would be considered less common than exclusive opposite sex partners. If we're talking homosexual behavior--well, we have no idea how uncommon this really is. Also, if you removed all the societal stigma, how uncommon would homosexual behavior, let alone bisexual or homosexual identity be? Just more thoughts.

 

[B_Trues]

YouTube - Gay Scientists Isolate Christian Gene

plz, forgive me

 

[AquaEyes11010]

Flashy, I am of the belief that language reflects thought. By continuing to state "that's not what it was designed for" you are telling me that, by reason of your word-choice, there must be a designer, or intent, behind everything. I do not believe this is so. I believe evolution operates by pure capitalism, whereby if an organism can use a body part to its advantage and survive and reproduce, then that organism and body part or behavior will persist. If doing something "abnormal" results in lower survivability, such a behavior or whatever will be removed from the population by natural selection. Since homosexuality has persisted in our species, the behavior must have had at some point an advantage. Since we are a behaviorally complex species, there can be no simple on/off gene for a behavior, so our species must have evolved to accommodate homosexuality in varying degrees for it to exist at all. Obviously, exclusive homosexuality across the board would result in extinction, but apparently some amount was needed, whether by means of a mostly bisexual population or by some individuals being more preferentially homosexual, or a combination. Orgasms release chemicals in the brain that can enhance social well-being, and an ability to share orgasms among individuals without necessarily breeding must have been an asset to our ancestors in tribal life. After all, we no longer show any signs of female fertility, so sex must have taken on a role other than for reproduction.

You seem to feel that by examining anatomy, we can decipher purpose for specific parts, and any use of that same part for a different purpose goes against "design." I have repeatedly tried to illuminate you to the fact that evolution operates clearly against that which you say, whereby innovation results in change over time. If our ancestors didn't start using their back legs alone to support themselves (even though they were "designed" to use their hands to assist), then we wouldn't be where we are today. You seem to feel that doing anything against your concept of "design" is a violation of some sort, and altogether, your posts reek of creationism, or "intelligent design", which bastardizes science to conform to religion. If this is not your true opinion of how species grow and change over time, well, then you have some error in your communication. If, however, you are of a creationist or intelligent design mindset, please say so, so I will know not to further my argument, as it will thus be pointless.

 

[B_Trues]

every animal which can have sex, which has ever been documented had a gay minority
Gay animals out of the closet? - LiveScience - MSNBC.com

gays evolved to form part of a functional surviving society, gays are necessary, i mean some of the most ground breaking persons in history were gay, ie. Plato Socrates, Aristotle, Abraham Lincon?, Leonardo Di Vince, Shakespeare was bi, Hadrian, Michelangelo, Oscar Wilde...

it only lately seems to be a concern, because the most successful and smartest, 'liberal', societies are having much less children, and now the conservatives are blaming it on the gays.

the only reason why people attack gays is because, of their culture, which is formed from their religion, which is a system that requires their followers, regardless of their physical or mental abilities which could contribute to evolution, to have as many children as possible, regardless of lives and societies ruined, advancement etc...

 

[Flashy]

Flashy, I am of the belief that language reflects thought. By continuing to state "that's not what it was designed for" you are telling me that, by reason of your word-choice,
there must be a designer, or intent, behind everything.


And I am telling you, to fuck off, with my word-choice. Language does not always reflect thought. If it did, i would call you a total fucking idiot right now, instead of just an annoying, petulant pest, determined to cast me as some sort of creationist lunatic, when in fact i have said nothing whatsoever to exhibit any belief in "intelligent design" or any of the other silly religious theories for creation.

I choose the word design, because the human body and other animal bodies are indeed an engine, designed to run smoothly, not by some god or designer, by growth and improvement through natural selection and need.

I do not believe this is so. I believe evolution operates by pure capitalism, whereby if an organism can use a body part to its advantage and survive and reproduce, then that organism and body part or behavior will persist.

Then i guess you have not heard of the appendix...which is fucking useless these days, yet it persists.

Or the dew claw on a dog, which is useless, yet persists.

or the short stubby wings on a flightless cormorant, which are useless, yet exist, when they would be better replaced by flippers for swimming.

The list of useless things that still exist is endless in biology. You need to do more research.



If doing something "abnormal" results in lower survivability, such a behavior or whatever will be removed from the population by natural selection.

NOt in terms of animals who use bisexuality as part of their makeup...an animal that engages in homosexual;ity, yet still breeds, contributes to survival...however an exclusively homosexual animal species, whose breeding rituals depend on heterosexual or asexual reproduction, could not in fact survive

Since homosexuality has persisted in our species, the behavior must have had at some point an advantage.

Sorry, it holds no reproductory adavantage. The only possible advantage is in fact sexual relief.



Since we are a behaviorally complex species, there can be no simple on/off gene for a behavior, so our species must have evolved to accommodate homosexuality in varying degrees for it to exist at all.

Nonsense...because our species has a higher evolved sensibility, wherein fact homosexuals can indeed adopt or produce children biologically with a willing surrogate...homosexuals, exclusively, cannot breed on their own without the help of a heterosexual surrogate of some kind: fact.

We have mentioned the black swans in this thread, and that nearly 20-25% of pairs are indeed in homosexual pairings...the logical explanation is that the offspring of those pairs, is at an advantage because two males can defend and protect and holdd a larger territory for their brood, giving them better survival opportunities...byut make no mistake...those Swans do in fact, in most cases, steal eggs from hetero-breeding pairs, much more often then they obtain a "surrogate"...and if in fact there were no more hetero pairs, the species would in fact, become extinct.


Obviously, exclusive homosexuality across the board would result in extinction, but apparently some amount was needed,

Nonsense...nowhere is their proof that it was "needed"...there is only proof that it occurs as a form of sexual gratification and in some cases bonding, dominance, social hierarchy etc.

It is done, but the animal kingdom would not suffer at all from a lack of "need" were some of its members not to engage in it.




whether by means of a mostly bisexual population or by some individuals being more preferentially homosexual, or a combination. Orgasms release chemicals in the brain that can enhance social well-being, and an ability to share orgasms among individuals without necessarily breeding must have been an asset to our ancestors in tribal life.

"Must have?" sorry, you have no proof that in fact orgasm and certainly not homosexual orgasm was an "asset"...kindly point out your evidence of this. There is no "advantage" to it in ancestral tribal life. It is graitification, and nothing more.

Indeed...and it has been proven in goats, that 8% of breeding rams are in fact homosexual...and that these Rams do in fact have a zone in the brain that is approximately half the size of their exclusively hetero male counterparts.

And social well-being can come from many things, not just "orgasms"...in fact, masturbation occurs in nature on a much larger level then homosexuality, and has been documented on a monolithic scale...with many species even producing sex toys.



After all, we no longer show any signs of female fertility, so sex must have taken on a role other than for reproduction.

No signs of female fertility? Sorry, are females no longer fertile these days?





You seem to feel that by examining anatomy, we can decipher purpose for specific parts, and any use of that same part for a different purpose goes against "design."


and you seem to desperately try and infer, against every possible rationale and fact, that the anus, is in fact designed for something other than shitting to prove a point though i have empirical evidence on my side, and you have nonsensical and unproven speculation, that you confirm through your own vanity in an attempt to justify anal sex as normal, when it is in fact not. I have nothing against anal sex at all, and it can be very enjoyable to many who practice it... but please don't tell me the anus developed for shitting AND fucking. Because it did not.

it is a fact, that using things for different purposes then they were designed for is a matter of functionality and invention, not intent. Your ear was made for hearing...you don't fuck it...and the reason you don't is because it does not give one pleasure and it is not practical.

invention is what allows anal sex, not biological intent.

say it all you want...but there is not and never has been one shred of factual evidence to suggest that the anus was designed for anything other then shitting.



I have repeatedly tried to illuminate you to the fact that evolution operates clearly against that which you say, whereby innovation results in change over time.

Gee...thanks so much for your "illumination" but you'll forgive me if the intents of a relatively dim yet stubborn bulb like yourself, who proffers opinion yet no scientific fact should remain ignored by me.

I have never once stated that innovation does not result over time, when it clearly is the fact that species develop over the eons to the point that the creature in the mirror is now operating a computer...it is the fundamental building block of evolution, and as an evolutionist, i believe in that completely...it is only your necessity to trumpet your own perceived self-importance that has led you to somehow now accuse an evolutionist of not believing in natural selection and species development in order to attempt to confirm your one desperately hoped for coup of determning the anus' status.

 

[Flashy]

part 2 continued


If our ancestors didn't start using their back legs alone to support themselves (even though they were "designed" to use their hands to assist), then we wouldn't be where we are today.


Gee, thanks for the lesson...i never knew that is how us bipeds decided to start!!!! You neglect to mention, that occurred out of invention, and practicality, as i have repeatedly stated by the reason...we developed those traits out of necessity and invention, to reach fruit in trees, walk greater distances etc...those all developed as a result of intention and necessity...

and in that, you have effectively killed your arguement...

an entirely new species developed that used its hindlegs, for bipedal movement, and this led to advantages, and as such, the creature continued to evolve this way.

THERE IS NOT ONE CREATURE FOR WHOM DEVELOPING THE IDEA OF FUCKING AN ASSHOLE HAS TURNED INTO ANY NEW GREAT SPECIES DEVELOPMENT...WHICH IS AN EXTREMELY DIFFERENT SITUATION TO WALKING ON HINDLEGS.

So get that straight...maybe asses have been fucked for tens of thousands of years, by bonobos and chimps etc...and yet, why has it not led to any notable change in the anus into a shitting AND sex organ? why has nothing new developed of it? why hasn't a new super-anus species evolved? I will tell you why...because legs evolved for a far different reason. the anus, hass one function...to shit....legs have many more functions. The anus remains today remarkably similar, because it has no need to change or evolve since it has one intended use...shitting.

cry all you want. the anus is for shitting...choose to fuck it if you want...i have no problem with that, to each their own, and i have had anal sex with women too...
that does not mean that is why it is there in anyway, despite your desperate protestations to the contrary


You seem to feel that doing anything against your concept of "design" is a violation of some sort, and altogether, your posts reek of creationism, or "intelligent design", which bastardizes science to conform to religion.

Hah...that is hysterical...nowhere have i stated that...your desperation to extrapolate my poitning out the empirical scientific data that the ass is made for shitting and not fucking, you now use to call me a fucking creationist?!?!?! you are a total joke.

eyes have a purpose, vision, ears have a purpose, hearing, the nose has a purpose, scent...none of them evolved for fucking...and neither did the anus. just cause you choose to has nothing to do with evolution.


It is really funny, that you in your desperate, and frankly pathological attempt to cast me as one of those loony creationists, simply because i use the word "design" because it is the simplest word to use...as opposed to using "intelligent design" or a "higher power" which i have not once used because they are both bullshit, try to say that i somehow decry functionality, when nothing could be further from the truth.

Fuck ass all you want, but that is NOT the purpose of the anus, never has been, and it has never developed or evolved that way, irrelevant to the word "design" that you are so paranoid about.

The anus has one function. Get over it. It is a fact. Doesn't mean you can't use it for other things, but don't tell me I am not an evolutionist because i state a fact.

"You seem to feel that doing anything against your concept of "design" is a violation of some sort" - where have i said that? there is no violation of nature using the anus for sex, the world will not end if you do it...but that still is not what it is there for, and you know it. the biological "design" of the anus, i.e. its STRUCTURE, which has nothing to do with intelligent design, or a higher power, but merely evolutionary development, still to this day, is in no way intended for penetration.

get over yourself

you display the same sort of fanatic psychosis that those idiot creationists and ID proponents do...you guys would probably get along well, since you are both so myopic in your unwillingness to accept facts. You should spend more time with those psychos



If this is not your true opinion of how species grow and change over time, well, then you have some error in your communication.


that's funny...i have the communication problem when i havesaid repeatedly to you that i am using the word "design", with absolutely no religious intent since i think it is all bullshit. Maybe you are the one who needs to work on reading comprehension as a part of your communication problems.


If, however, you are of a creationist or intelligent design mindset, please say so, so I will know not to further my argument, as it will thus be pointless.
[/quote]

I am not a fucking creationist...I am a jewish atheist. I ahve not been in a temple in 25 years, and can't remember shit about anything. I could care less.

I will continue to use the word design to describe evolutionary function since it is the easiest method of describing the biological design in its structural form, not a "creationist" form, of the human or animal body throughout the course of evolution...the body is designedto work a certain way by natural and biological evolution, not by a religious one.

get over yourself, i could give two shits about those idiot fucking creationists.

stick your pathetic windups up your ass and take the creationists with you...

then you can prove that the anus does in fact have another intended evolutionary function in addition to shitting...but then, i wouldn't expect you to understand that...since it is an expression functionality...not intent.

something you just can't grasp.

 

[lucky8]

Flashy, I am of the belief that language reflects thought. By continuing to state "that's not what it was designed for" you are telling me that, by reason of your word-choice, there must be a designer, or intent, behind everything. I do not believe this is so. I believe evolution operates by pure capitalism, whereby if an organism can use a body part to its advantage and survive and reproduce, then that organism and body part or behavior will persist. If doing something "abnormal" results in lower survivability, such a behavior or whatever will be removed from the population by natural selection. Since homosexuality has persisted in our species, the behavior must have had at some point an advantage. Since we are a behaviorally complex species, there can be no simple on/off gene for a behavior, so our species must have evolved to accommodate homosexuality in varying degrees for it to exist at all. Obviously, exclusive homosexuality across the board would result in extinction, but apparently some amount was needed, whether by means of a mostly bisexual population or by some individuals being more preferentially homosexual, or a combination. Orgasms release chemicals in the brain that can enhance social well-being, and an ability to share orgasms among individuals without necessarily breeding must have been an asset to our ancestors in tribal life. After all, we no longer show any signs of female fertility, so sex must have taken on a role other than for reproduction.

You seem to feel that by examining anatomy, we can decipher purpose for specific parts, and any use of that same part for a different purpose goes against "design." I have repeatedly tried to illuminate you to the fact that evolution operates clearly against that which you say, whereby innovation results in change over time. If our ancestors didn't start using their back legs alone to support themselves (even though they were "designed" to use their hands to assist), then we wouldn't be where we are today. You seem to feel that doing anything against your concept of "design" is a violation of some sort, and altogether, your posts reek of creationism, or "intelligent design", which bastardizes science to conform to religion. If this is not your true opinion of how species grow and change over time, well, then you have some error in your communication. If, however, you are of a creationist or intelligent design mindset, please say so, so I will know not to further my argument, as it will thus be pointless.

OWNED:2gunsfiring_v1:

 

[Flashy]

Flashy seems stuck on using the term "design" which may be blinding him to the way evolution works.

and you seem stuck on persistently stating a term which i have already stated REPEATEDLY, means nothing to me in the religious sense. I have stated it for you a DOZEN times. Organisms have STRUCTURES, FUNCTIONS, and BIOLOGICAL *NOT* RELIGIOUS DESIGNS THAT EVOLVE AND GROW AND CHANGE OVER TIME. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH *RELIGION* *INTELLIGENT DESIGN* OR *CREATIONISM* WHEN I USE THAT TERM.

GET OVER IT

This is not the Scopes Monkey Trial.




Throughout the span of life, organisms have found new uses for old parts, and over time, modifications to those old parts accumulated via natural selection so as to better make use of these new functions, if these new functions aided the survival of those individuals possessing these modifications.

Indeed, new uses for old parts...except for say, the appendix, the dew claw of many creatures, the tailbone

you have obviously no clue about the fact of vestigiality...you know, organs or parts that have lost their functions.

EMUS wings are vestigal...they serve no purpose, even in mating and displays. ZERO

how do you explain the eyes of the blind mole rat? which has skin over them, rendering useless...can't recall the last time those rats had a meeting to figure out some other use for them.

what about ear muscles? Wisdom teeth? The human tail bone?

Whales have vetiges of a pelvic bone, and they also have remnants of the short back legs they had on land...

why didn't they find a use for those?

why have those not assisted in some way?

what about atavism? hind fins on dolphins? extra toes on horses?


What we call hands were forefeet in our ancestors, and before that fins. Clearly, there were enterprising individuals making use of body parts for which they didn't seem apparently "designed." Bird wings evolved from forelimbs as well. The error in using the term "designed" lies in the connotation that the organisms, as it appears today, was drawn up from nothing. That is not the case.

gee thanks for the lesson...whouda thunk it?

On the contrary, the forefeet were used for practicality across a wide variety of ranges before we stood upright, irrelevant of "design"...those forefeet were always used for a variety of things...fighting, scratching, running, eating, holding the infant, swinging in trees, use of tools, while still on four legs, scratching, grooming, digging...the move of the species to being upright did not change the essential function of the hands...they improved them.

There is no proof that fucking an anus is an example of evolution or functionality or makes the species better or improves thje anus...in fact, it has been shown to harm it in many cases...and that is a fact. the anus is not designed to be permanently stretched, for the muscles to be loosened, since that actually DETRACTS from teh function of the anus, which is waste disposal...if your anus has been so stretched by sex, that you need to wear adult diapers, or you are suffering from soreness or anal tearing, then sorry, the anus is not being properly used, and it is certainly not usefull nor an evolutionary bonus or development.

color it anyway you want...the evolutionary development of the anus has one primary mission and no secondary mission...to excrete solid waste.


Nowhere have i said that "design" takes the place of evolutionary function and growth...you seem so desperate to paint it that way, even though i have said it a dozen times, that when creatures crept from the primordial ooze, and began to evolve, nothing designed them.

the structures and organs of the body do however have a biological but not religious design, which allows them to function, based on how they haveevolved over time from their start as blobs of whatever, that is constantly being upgraded, ammended, bettered or discarded, as the bodies of a species move along the evolutionary chart life cycle.

once again, you are so desperate to categorize my use of the word design as religious, when i have repeatedly stated religion is not even a factor.

Biological structure and design is completely separate from idiotic religious or creationist theory.





Eyes in most species perform the function of focusing light on specific cells, which transmit messages to the brain to create a "visual picture" of that which is surrounding the particular organism. So, is this what eyes were "designed" for? Well, you may get away with claiming that, however eyes' evolutionary origins were photo-sensitive cells that helped direct organisms toward (or away from) light. So what if I provided an example of eyes being used for something other than vision?

sorry, I don't need to "get away" with claiming anything. but the evolution of the eye and the evolution of the anus are not exactly parallel. the evolution of an eye has changed greatly over evolution, across a wide variety of species. the modern eye is in fact "designed" by evolution itself, growing, morphing, developing and functioning as an ocular machine, to match the needs of its user.

so indeed...in evolutionary terms, eyes were indeed designed by nature, to lead or repelled those first creatures to or from light, out of necessity...as the necessities of creatures changed, those eyes evolved, with nature developing new "designs" within those creatures eyes to adapt to what the creature needed over time in order to perfect its skills in its environment. Evolutionary design does not mean "religious design".





Most, if not all, species of moles are virtually blind, yet they still retain rudimentary eyes. If they performed no function, then random eyeless mutations would be favored by evolution, since building eyes is biologically "expensive" if they perform no function, and prone to damage in an underground environment.


so? I agree with virtually all of what you say and have zero disagreements with you on evolutionary terms....yet the fact is, you continue to use it for nothing more than an "end run" to try and make the case that the anus is somehow intended for use other then waste disposal.



There are many examples of species which have lost their eyes when living in darkness for the same reason. Since moles still have their eyes, it must be inferred that there is an evolutionary advantage to keeping rudimentary eyes, even if they can no longer perform their original function. So what is the function of their eyes? They are sensitive to changes in air currents within the tunnel, and provide a warning to disturbances from above. A sudden gush of air would mean the surface of the ground has been broken, thus leaving the mole vulnerable to predation. So while mole eyes no longer work "as designed", their retention, albeit in severely reduced form, performs a new and necessary function.

indeed...but not in the cases of moles for whom skin has grown over the eyes...in fact, many of those important traits you described above, DO NOT occur in certain types of moles, such as the blind mole rat, whose eyes are COMPLETELY covered by skin.

also, moles don't try to fuck each other in the eyes.

i have never said that certain things don't have other functions. You seem intent on saying i did, when the only thing i havesaid, is that the anus is not meant for fucking, just shitting....again.


The point I'm trying to make is that evolution often favors novel uses for old parts, and if that novel use benefits the organism, then that organism will more likely survive and reproduce.

Indeed, it certainly does. But anal sex, is not in fact "novel", the anus is an old part, but has no "new function"...and anal sex, does not, in fact, benefit the orgasm...and anal sex does not in fact, make a species more likely to survive and reproduce at all.

evolving larger claws will help you survive, giving birth to more offspring will increase chances of successfull reproduction...anal sex does nothing else but give you some temporary pleasure and gives you a sore butt, and can cause health problems down the road. Those are not evolutionary advantages and nor are they important or even relevant to reproduction.

 

[Flashy]

Part 2

If that novel use becomes a driving selection agent, then those individuals who have slight differences enough to better utilize this new function will again more likely survive and reproduce.

Indeed...but anal sex does not contribute to that...and the only reason the anus exists is to find the most efficient way of excreting solid waste.




Over time, what used to be a foot can become a hand or a wing. And what used to collect light and stimulate the brain to create a visual image of an organism's surroundings can now be used as an air-current detection organ. Continuing to use the term "designed" cuts off evolution's pathway and denies that organisms are continually competing with variation and novelty to find the most likely means of surviving and reproducing.

indeed, but what your are talking about is need and function, which i agree with, but the need and necessity for flight, sight, or fight, is not the same as the desire or want to fuck an asshole.

what you discuss is evolutionary need and growth for survival of the species...the survival or betterment of a species does not depend on anal sex, nor does the evolution of the anus compare in any way to the evolution of sight. the anus exists for shitting, and in some cases scent glands...and nothing else.

as i have said, use it for sex all you want, but don't tell me that it has ever been intended as one of the designs of the anus.

Flashy also argues for his idea of the use of the term "abnormal" to describe homosexuals (with the qualifier "but not unnatural").


As i have stated, and you have ignored, once again, that line came from the very excellent and informative documentary "The Truth About Gay Animals"(2002) from the UK directed by Hellen Littleboy and featured many wonderfull and articulate researches who had been studying precisely these topics, many times at the risk of scorn from the creationist types...which was a very interesting and sensitive approach to teaching people about this interesting part of the animal kingdom, which i enjoyed a great deal and was very informative...I loved it...of course creationists hated it.

Don't let that fact stop you in your quest to demonize me though.


He's saying that by definition, abnormal is that which lies outside the majority. I prefer using the terms "common" or "uncommon" because "normal" has a judgment connotation: what is "the norm" has to be decided, whereas what is "common" can merely be counted.


oh, now i see...so you are telling me what kind of language i can use so it is okay with you? I stated repeatedly, I did not use "abnormal" pejoratively...once again you have simply ignored that. I can make the same out of your use of the word "uncommon"...it can be used pejoratively as well.

Sorry, you have no right to lay out language laws or determine my use of it, especially when not a single conrtoversial word is used. You are your own judge and i am mine. and i will use the word abnormal if i please. Chastise me if i use cruel and insensitive language (which i don't) but you have no right to tell me that your use of common/uncommon must be used because YOU want it that way.


UNCOMMON -
Not common; rare.
Rarely occurring or appearing.
Far beyond what is usual, normal, or customary.
very different

other definitions -
-Wonderful; remarkable
-not common or ordinarily encountered; unusually great in amount or remarkable in character or kind
- marked by an uncommon quality; especially superlative or extreme of its kind

----

ABNORMAL
- Not typical, usual, or regular;
-Departing from the normal
-different from standard or norm
-Departing from the norm, however defined; departing from the mean of a distribution (statistics); departing from the usual, from a state of integration or adjustment.
-Not conforming to a standard
-not normal; deviant
- anomalous



so sorry, i do not think that uncommon is the right word, since it contains such highly positive definitions...if you think ABNORMAL has negative connotations, what right does it give you to use UNCOMMON which has positive connotations?

you use your word, I'll use mine, thanks. I am not using mine pejoratively, nor should you use yours positively, since we are looking for a neutral word that describes what we are both trying to say, no?







By his same token, we as a species are "abnormal." We are the only completely bipedal mammal, and our body "design" is not as optimal for this function as are those of rattites.

we are indeed an abnormal species. very abnormal i would say. We are the only animal that destroys our environment, kills with immunity, builds buildings among millions of other qualities.


And among the human population, "abnormal" could equally account for blue eyes (the gene arose only 10,000 years ago and accounts for a minority of the world population);

Indeed it could. though blue eyes are far more prevalent then homosexuality, nor are blue eyes a genetic dead end.


left-handedness (7-10% of the world population); natural red-heads (1-2% of the world population); geniuses (1-3% of the world population); etc. For some reason, calling those individuals "abnormal" wouldn't be considered socially acceptable, but it's ok to fling that term upon the gays (estimated at 5% of the world population).

so? who cares what society thinks. if you cannot handle the definition of a word in its non-pejorative sense, that is your problem. These are in fact, abnormalities. That does not make them bad...it simply makes them not the norm.

If i went up to a redhead and said, "you know, technically, since you are a redhead, from a genetic point of view, in terms of hair, you are abnormal", it might be considered improprer, or blunt, but stripped of its pejorative view and relying on its factual definition, it is in fact totally correct.

technically homosexuality, is, in fact, abnormal. It does not mean it is bad, or wrong, or negative, but it is a fact, nonetheless....and it is not, as said, unnatural....and sorry, but red hair, genius IQ, do not hold the same degree of evolutionary bottleneck that homosexuality does. if you set up colonies that had 1000 redheads, 1000 geniuses, and 1000 exclusive homosexuals, and told them to go forth and multiply, only two of those groups could do that.



I could also claim that, while unusual, the fact that I have all four wisdom teeth perfectly formed and not causing misalignment of my other teeth, and most of you have had at least one removed, makes me more "normal by design" since we were apparently "designed" to have those extra four teeth but most of you have "abnormal" mouths that can't accommodate them. And no, I never had braces or anything other than one filling.[/quote]

you could indeed say that...doesn't bother me...it is a fact if that is the case...and we could call you abnormal as well. Indeed, by design, you are more normal. congratulations :smile:

i have never had braces. I had my wisdom teeth removed too, all four at once, and none were impacted, and i had no pain whatsoever since mine came in find...so i was not the norm...maybe i am abnormal too...but that does not bother me. It is what it is.

If you are so insecure about your place in this world that you are forced to now try to cast the majority that have had their wisdom teeth removed as abnormal then that is your problem. frankly, according to you, since wisdom teeth don't really serve any purpose any more, we as humans should be finding some other function for them other then their intended design...a secondary function if you will, according to you...

so what other function do you use yours for then? Aside from chewing? probably nothing. I still have mine in a nice little box...so i guess i am more evolved then you, since i can use them as a decorative item, and you cant use yours. I can use them at dinner parties as a decorative centerpiece...or even as croutons for the salad...doesn't mean that was an intended function...nor does it mean it should be a function that they are used for...


just like anal sex...

you CAN do it...but that is not the function intended for the anus, nor will it ever be ....just like wisdom teeth used as croutons might be interesting, but if someone cracks their teeth on them, or gets a stomachache, or vomits, or chokes on one, that is probably indicative that it is not a good idea, and not was wisdom teeth are for.

 

[ailantian]

what a post.
Just watch ~~

 

[Flashy]

what a post.
Just watch ~~

i know...i am expecting the storm of condemnation.


doesn't change facts and my post is as honest as possible, since i have nothing to hide...I am an evolutionist, and a liberal, not one of those psycho creationists, and i do not appreciate someone calling me one (a creationist/religious zealot) of those types. :smile:

 

[lucky8]

coinciding with what sir flashy has said above regarding evolution of sex organs, take for example, the human mouth. when humans made that oh so important transition from walking on all fours to being bipeds, this completely changed sex. before this, we were down on all fours givin it to the misses doggy style. after the transition to "bipededness"(not a real word, i know), man and woman were brought face to face, as opposed to vagina to face. this called for a radically new use for the mouth: it was now being used as a way to attract potential mates, by mimicking the forms and shapes of an aroused vagina. graphic, but true. has the human mouth evolved since the wonderous first day of bipededness? yes, but it has evolved in ways that aid in our chewing of food, not reproducing. but is the mouth a sex organ, your asking yourself? absolutely not. it's intended natural design was for eating, but as humans evolved, we found another use for it. the fact that we have found another use for the mouth does not change the fact that it was naturally designed for chewing, eating, and drinking. the same goes for your asshole. no matter how many times it gets fucked, it isn't going to evolve your family tree's regular assholes into a family tree of super, mutlitasking assholes. if this debate were about the evolution of dick size, i would say you have a legitamate argument, aqua.

 

[Phil Ayesho]

Well if that was the case then you could "de-gay" a gay guy by having him eat out or have sex with a woman, what 5 times?

I don't think enjoying giving head to another guy necessarily makes you gay...but I don't think you can "de-gay" a guy with cunnilingus....

There is no correlation between a gay guy eating pussy 5 times ... and a straight man sucking cock 5 times.

Because the fascination is that every guy loves his OWN cock... and the majority of guys show some fascination with other guy's cocks ( even heterosexual porn focuses a lot on cock)
Therefore I don't think your suggestion makes any sense at all.

I know several guys who have tried it a couple of times and enjoyed it but not really something they want to do again. If anything, some of have said that they were curious if it was a big difference than women and if they were missing out and they concluded, nah, not really missing that much. Depends on the guy really.

Note your comment in bold.... that is what I am saying... they enjoyed it.
If not for the attitude of others... they would be likely willing to do it again.

The only way people would engage in more same sex behavior is if you totally remove all the social stigma of being gay. If being gay was as socially represented, encouraged and supported as being straight, more people would do it and enjoy it. Being made aware of the pleasure of gay sex isn't as important as not feeling badly for enjoying it.

Agreed. That is essentially what I am suggesting.

 

[HyperHulk]

i know...i am expecting the storm of condemnation.

doesn't change facts and my post is as honest as possible, since i have nothing to hide...I am an evolutionist, and a liberal, not one of those psycho creationists, and i do not appreciate someone calling me one (a creationist/religious zealot) of those types. :smile:

Flashy, I'm going to have to let this conversation with you go because I find your latest replies to Aquaeyes to be unacceptable. Up until those posts I was enjoying our debate, and that's what is, people debate things all the time. Even though I didn't agree with everything you wrote, I liked that you took the conversation seriously and that you framed your arguments well and respectfully. The conversation did not devolve into pettiness, name calling and hysterics. Well, until your lasts posts.

Aquaeyes never called you a creationist/religious zealot--he said that the language you use could be interpreted as that of a creationist or someone who ascribes to intelligent design (and since you have never mentioned one way or the other), he merely asked if you were coming from that angle. I think that is respectful because we can often have perceptions of what is going on with someone, but it doesn't mean that perception is the truth--it's a sign of respect to engage the person, share your perception and get feedback on whether that perception is accurate or not. Just because I disagreed with you doesn't mean that I thought you were an idiot or anything close to that. I just felt you believe differently than I do.

I liked the conversation because it motivated me to think through the issues. In my circle of friends, I never get the chance or have the opportunity to engage in such a debate. However, you have degenerated the debate into nothing more than (paraphrasing) "I'm right, you're wrong, you fucking idiot". Well, there's nothing I can do with that and it's not the conversation I want to be a part of. You may choose to frame this as a victory for your arguments and that's fine with me because I stand by what I wrote and how I conducted myself in communicating with you.

I will share that the reason I continued the debate with you is because I do feel that homosexuality and bisexuality are as normal to the human existence as heterosexuality. As much as you have insisted that you have used "abnormal" as non-threatening as possible, the word has a weight and a meaning. Too many gay men and women have and continue to suffer under the weight of being labeled abnormal. Google "abnormal and homosexuality" and start looking at what comes up. You may argue that your points are radically different but in the end, they are no different than the people who are saying "God intended for humans to be heterosexual--man and woman together and that's normal and homosexuals are abnormal." The differences I see are that you never used the word God and you haven't ascribe morality to your arguments--you never said normal is good, abnormal is bad. That's why I continued to debate with you--I found that refreshing.

I'm not sure if you, as a straight person, can understand what it feels like to have someone label you as abnormal, no matter how well intentioned you mean it. You replied to something I wrote earlier and say my view was bleak. Well Flashy, since you have gay friends, indulge me: tell your gay friends that you know for a fact that their homosexuality is abnormal but not unnatural and then tell them that they their homosexuality is useless to evolution. Maybe they'll agree with you and thank you for setting them straight, so to speak? But first take in their faces. Because that is bleak--an essential part of you is abnormal and useless? Unfortunately you have to work against a lifetime of most people only hearing that word and words like it in one sense--as a devaluation as who they are because they don't contribute to procreation. That's bleak, harsh and damaging to the psyche and development of homosexuals.

I would have continued my arguments, which I feel are as valid as yours, but I have no desire to be attacked the way you attacked Aquaeyes. There's no value in engaging in a discussion with someone who can't respect you and who needs to become pejorative to communicate their message.

For me, homosexuality and bisexuality are normal and natural and no matter how much you shout, scream, swear and call me an idiot, you're not going to convince me otherwise.

 

[Phil Ayesho]

yes... some males do, established in about 500 of 1500 observed species, out of around 10 million species. But there is no proof then it is for anything other then the possible relief of sexual tension during mating season and times of high hormonal activity and breeding competition, and also as a dominance trait wheras the prevalance of lesbianism is not nearly as well documented.

You need to stop reading statistics until you learn how to understand them.
500 out of 1500 OBSERVED species means that it shows up in 1/3 of all species in which it was looked for.

As a statistical sample, That would mean that out of 10 million species in which such observations have not been made... you can expect 3.33 million to engage in homosexual behavior.

You keep tossing around the word NORMAL and "INTENDED" and "DESIGNED" as if they had any meaning in biology... they do not.

First... the term "normal" is ambiguous. It has no real relevance when variations within any species ARE normal and expected.

What you mean to say is that homosexuality is not the prevailing behavoir...

And, no, of course it isn't... but that does not mean that it is not natural and normal for a percentage of animals within a species to exhibit the behavoir.


As to "intended" and 'designed" there you are way off the beam... Body structures are not 'designed" nor does evolution have any form of intent.


Recent research shows WHY homosexuality has not been selected out of all these species... and that is because it appears to be a NORMAL and predictable result of females bearing multiple male children...

In which case homosexual orientation is a side effect of how bearing male children changes the uterine environment over time.

IF this is an unavoidable result of the chemistry of sexual reproduction... then there is no way for evolution to select it out.


Now... in the exact same sense... SOME males will be dominant within a social species... some will not... the number of dominant males is always a very low percentage.

This does not mean that dominant male behavior is ABNORMAL...

i also would suggest you check out some of the reactions of some male animals to an unwanted sexual advance by another male.

We are not those animals... we are apes... I just watched a documentary about a tribe of Gorillas that ended up being 5 males. In the absence of females they engaged in homosexual activity with each other... when the females came back, they went right back to heterosexual activity without missing a beat.

( and guess what? A little time in prison would establish to your satisfaction that human males , in all male environments, also pretty routinely resort to homosexual behavior.)

I can also refer you to studies of the sexual behavior of Bonobos, even more closely related.

please don't attempt to justify homosexuality as some type of natural normalcy.
it is what it is, i support gay rights, i have many gay friends, and i am happy for the influence of homsexuals in our society...but please do not tell me it is the norm in nature, when it is most clearly not.

I am not attempting to "justify" anything... the facts demonstrate quite clearly that, if homosexual behavior is observed in all species closely related to our own, that we inherited that same behavior as one of the traits that can be quantified as routinely observable in our species.
As such, the fact of a certain percentage of homosexual behavior would be included in ANY comprehensive description of the human species.

That makes it expected, and therefore normal for our species.


You can bitch all you want and at great length... but you would still be wrong.
By every possible biological meaning of the term "normal"... homosexuality is an unavoidably predictable trait of the human species.

 

[CarolinaLiar]

Everyone is born with a natural attraction to the opposite sex. Some people choose to be with members of the same sex. Simple as that. It is a choice, and despite the diseases they get, they still make those choices. This is most likely due to an overly narcissistic, sexist personality type, which causes these people to reject the opposite sex as too different and less human. It can be cured through therapy, but why bother; they all die from diseases anyway.

 

[HyperHulk]

Therefore I don't think your suggestion makes any sense at all.

Wait, you suggest straight guys suck a cock 5x (why not 3x or 8) and swallow loads (something that would turn me off of cocks if I had to do) so that they would develop the love of cock sucking and you say my sardonic response doesn't make sense?