Is homosexuality necessary?

[beretta8]

If it were a form of such the number of homosexuals should be staggering damn neared fifty percent, and probably should have increased years ago.

And just what are the numbers, anyway? The statistic has been reported as 10% of the population.....if every single homosexual was honest about it and raised a hand I'm sure that would be a staggering number.........

 

[Axcess]

And just what are the numbers, anyway? The statistic has been reported as 10% of the population.....if every single homosexual was honest about it and raised a hand I'm sure that would be a staggering number.........

I agree the real percentage should be considerable higher.

 

[_avg_]

There can only be an evolutionary theory of homosexuality if there is a genetic link to homosexual behaviour. I'm not quite satisfied that there is, though I must admit to great ignorance here. Even supposing homosexuality is "in the genes," that does not necessarily mean homosexuality is a trait that's been selected for; it may have "hitchhiked" with other genes that *were* selected for. Indeed, I can think of very little if any advantages homosexuality has on reproductive success, either for the individual or the species. (For one thing, the latter requires a high degree of altruism, and I'm even less convinced homosexuality is positively correlated with altruism -- or at least moreso than with the hetero- persuasion).

Now, there can certainly be a social theory of homosexuality, and that is a very interesting question....does society need homosexuals?

 

[Not_Punny]

Children are beasts!! That's why I have three!

After having one kid, I couldn't sleep at night thinking to myself, Aaaah! What would happen if something happened to my first born?

Something in me "drove" me to have more kids, and no, I was never on welfare, so there was no financial gain to be had.

I believe that my sex drive and my drive to reproduce children were two completely different drives. Linked only out of necessity.

(So there, Darwin -- solve that one!)

 

[Drifterwood]

ILF's are less sexy :biggrin1:

LF's

 

[Axcess]

Children are beasts!! That's why I have three!

After having one kid, I couldn't sleep at night thinking to myself, Aaaah! What would happen if something happened to my first born?

Something in me "drove" me to have more kids, and no, I was never on welfare, so there was no financial gain to be had.

I believe that my sex drive and my drive to reproduce children were two completely different drives. Linked only out of necessity.

(So there, Darwin -- solve that one!)

In my case I dont want to have kids because I dont believe in myself as being a good dad. Is very hard give what you dont recieve. My parents were a disaster and I dont want the same thing to happen to my possible kids but I like kids.

 

[Not_Punny]

There can only be an evolutionary theory of homosexuality if there is a genetic link to homosexual behaviour. I'm not quite satisfied that there is, though I must admit to great ignorance here. Even supposing homosexuality is "in the genes," that does not necessarily mean homosexuality is a trait that's been selected for; it may have "hitchhiked" with other genes that *were* selected for. Indeed, I can think of very little if any advantages homosexuality has on reproductive success, either for the individual or the species. (For one thing, the latter requires a high degree of altruism, and I'm even less convinced homosexuality is positively correlated with altruism -- or at least moreso than with the hetero- persuasion).

Now, there can certainly be a social theory of homosexuality, and that is a very interesting question....does society need homosexuals?

Yes!

They add a quality of beauty to life. They live in the "now" far more than "breeders" who tend to live in the future, and are time-challenged and resource-challenged.

I believe that homosexuals throughout history have set examples of beauty, culture, art, and education.

Even now, where would man be without Queer Eye for the Straight Guy?!! :tongue:

 

[Axcess]

Yes!

They add a quality of beauty to life. They live in the "now" far more than "breeders" who tend to live in the future, and are time-challenged and resource-challenged.

I believe that homosexuals throughout history have set examples of beauty, culture, art, and education.

Even now, where would man be without Queer Eye for the Straight Guy?!! :tongue:

That's true many geniuses of history were gay !!!

 

[Not_Punny]

In my case I dont want to have kids because I dont believe in myself as being a good dad. Is very hard give what you dont recieve. My parents were a disaster and I dont want the same thing to happen to my possible kids but I like kids.

I hear ya. You have good reason to fear that, because many psychologists believe that we do unto our children what was done unto ourselves.

I swore I would never do the "same things" to my kids, and I don't know whether to laugh or cry when I see how very similar I was.

But still, some parents DO rise above and give great lives to children.

But you never know.... someday the "breeder gene" might jump out at you -- maybe someday you'll see a girl and all you can hear is the pitter-patter of little feet.... AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH :tongue:

 

[erratic]

True, but still -- I am reminded by all the studies that have been done on sexuality where they determine that the "female form" is indelibly "stamped" into the male sexual response mechanism.

And every time I read one of those studies, I think to myself: Hmmm, well, if it's so indelible, then how come the female form absolutely fails to "tingle" one out of every ten males.

And if it's genetic, then couldn't it be genetic the other way too?

You're right. I was responding someone else brought up that, if gay people are protectors why aren't they all police officers. Or whatever.

The idea I'm espousing is that just because you're useful for something doesn't mean you'll do it.

Similarly, just because I am hopelessly attracted to obliques that you could crack an egg on doesn't mean I'm out to nail every guy who has them.

We all have many millions of genes involved in insanely intricate interactions that influence billions of cells involved in similarly insanely intricate interactions. We evolved brains to make sense of that mess.

 

[D_Geffarde Phartsmeller]

LOL -- no, DW, you don't HAVE to read the thread, but I'll spank you if you don't. :tongue:

- - - - - - - -

Good points, HugoB, but there were/are genetic reasons for wisdom teeth -- back in the old days, humans had bigger jaws; jaws are smaller now, and "teeth" genes are starting to update. Blue eyes let in more sunlight for Vitamin D reproduction. It was once necessary for humans that migrated way north. Ditto for lighter skin colors, and the same factors that influence skin color influence hair color. etc.

There was/is a genetic/survival for almost everything.

In fact the only thing I know of that has absolutely no genetic/ecological value (other than SUVs) is the "Love Bug" -- a dreadful, flying insect found in the Texan Gulf Coast. It emerges once a year and plagues the air for a couple of weeks, then disappears. They constantly mate, mid-air, and have no purpose -- they taste horrible (I swallowed one by mistake) and they are inedible to fish, birds and all other creatures.

Oh I know all that fun stuff use to have a reason but now? How long has homosexuality really been around? Blue eyes aren't particularly necessary anymore, what with vitamins being pumped into everything we eat. But! we still have blue eyes. Even though they're no longer necessary, we still got 'em. Perhaps the same is true of homosexuality. Maybe it once served a purpose but no longer does, however still around. Or maybe it's the beginning of something, like population control, as you suggest. I think it'll be a loooooong time before we have an answer to this question.

 

[Not_Punny]

Agreed, Erratic. I also think that a certain degree of randomness is programed into the shish-kabob.

And maybe someday I'll start another thread on it, but I truly believe that the urge to fuck and the urge to have kids are entirely different "switches" connected to the same machinery.

But then, I have absolutely nothing to support that other than my own experience.
:wink:

 

[Axcess]

Agreed, Erratic. I also think that a certain degree of randomness is programed into the shish-kabob.

And maybe someday I'll start another thread on it, but I truly believe that the urge to fuck and the urge to have kids are entirely different "switches" connected to the same machinery.

But then, I have absolutely nothing to support that other than my own experience.
:wink:

I agree those 2 are different switches . I have a urge to fuck like all people but I dont got a urge to reproduce . Almost all people want to fuck ( expect asexuals ) but not all want to have kids.

 

[Not_Punny]

Oh I know all that fun stuff use to have a reason but now? How long has homosexuality really been around? Blue eyes aren't particularly necessary anymore, what with vitamins being pumped into everything we eat. But! we still have blue eyes. Even though they're no longer necessary, we still got 'em. Perhaps the same is true of homosexuality. Maybe it once served a purpose but no longer does, however still around. Or maybe it's the beginning of something, like population control, as you suggest. I think it'll be a loooooong time before we have an answer to this question.

Agreed -- it's all speculation.

But perhaps homosexuality first evolved in cave man days, back when everyone had long hair. Sneaking up from behind, you never knew what you were going to get.... (j/k)

In all seriousness, however, what if it's true the other way around. What if homosexuality is actually on the rise in response to population stimuli...

Could be.... :tongue::wink:

 

[B_Hung Jon]

Yes!

They add a quality of beauty to life. They live in the "now" far more than "breeders" who tend to live in the future, and are time-challenged and resource-challenged.

I believe that homosexuals throughout history have set examples of beauty, culture, art, and education.

Even now, where would man be without Queer Eye for the Straight Guy?!! :tongue:

I don't entirely agree with this observation. There are many people of whatever sexual orientation who are creative. I think this idea is based on the gay/str8 stereotypes. If people allowed themselves, they could be anything they want. It isn't necessarily based on who they feel intimate with at any given time. Also the desire to have children seems more innate in females than males. Most guys I know have the desire to fuck but not necessarily the deep desire to have babies to complete themselves.

I do agree that "breeders" have a hard time living in the present because kids are all about the future. I feel it limits these people in many ways. But if they really are into the "breeder" role, then maybe it all evens out.

 

[gjorg]

How many more times can this OLD topic be renamed? Let it fucking go or, go back to the op and reply to that dead tread!

 

[sweatyblackballs]

This is a difficult one. I grew up in a predominantly black environment, when we were also deemed working class. I also attended Pentecostal church on a regular basis. I don't know about the scientifics of what you're asking but I know I struggled for years to understand to what extent I was living a life that was both moral and right due to the overwhelming response and teachings of black christians on homosexuality and the initial presence of AIDS in the 1980s. From a biblical standpoint, the Bible is not as straightforward on this as some Christians and Historians would have us believe. It speaks about men copulating with beasts, it also speaks of the onslaught of Sodom, a place heavily populated with disease, alcoholism, prostitution, same-sex relationships etc. much like the world we live in, but it does not allude directly to homosexuality being an incorrect way of living. This is under the old covenant, but there are many who preach solely from the new covenant and use the old merely as a point of supporting their often diabolical viewpoints. This is where having a relationship with God descends into the farcical boxes we know as religion. God is love. God is accepting. If you believe that then you know that He will not walk away from you for loving someone helplessly, after all He does not promote unhappiness, we do.
As far as being necessary, if we are speaking about this in terms of reproduction - clearly not, if we are speaking about happiness, progress and social benefits - indubitably, yes.

 

[Axcess]

How many more times can this OLD topic be renamed? Let it fucking go or, go back to the op and reply to that dead tread!

Man be nice to hotmilf she dont mean harm .:smile::smile:
She is actually defending gays in this thread.

 

[texas69x]

I don't see the point in this thread or the point in analyzing and speculating why some people are gay. Isn't it simply enough to accept the fact that not everyone is the same as you, and that's what makes life interesting. Gay people don't spend time talking about why straight people are straight. Besides, I don't think anyone who is not gay can really understand it. For me, I know that's just the way I am and must have been born that way. Period. Most people need to pay a lot more attention to how they live their own lives than to what other people are doing.

 

[Axcess]

I don't see the point in this thread or the point in analyzing and speculating why some people are gay. Isn't it simply enough to accept the fact that not everyone is the same as you, and that's what makes life interesting. Gay people don't spend time talking about why straight people are straight. Besides, I don't think anyone who is not gay can really understand it. For me, I know that's just the way I am and must have been born that way. Period. Most people need to pay a lot more attention to how they live their own lives than to what other people are doing.

I think that in some way is important to know the causes of homosexuality to prove ignorant people that gender atraction isnt by choice . But I believe that we have to wait a long time before learning the actual causes.