NationStates Jolt Archive

First off, lets get one thing clear: I have nothing against homosexuals per se. The following question is an honest question that I would like cleared up. I will not mention the societal effects of homosexuality, aside from the scientific point I put forth with regard to procreation. There is no insult in the following question, so please attempt to refrain from flaming me.

As a heterosexual male, I am, quite frankly, baffled as to how two males would find each other sexually attractive. I find [some] women sexually attractive, and I assume that's because of this: Evolution, nature, etc. has programmed my brain to secrete hormones that cause me to want to engage in sexual activities with a sexually attractive (therefore, ideal breeding range of 18-30) woman. The reason it does not make me sexually attracted to men is because then my potential to create offspring is "wasted". Therefore, it is (or would have been) essential to the survival of any species that all its members are heterosexual. The argument comes up that, given the Earth's overpopulation, homosexuality will not damage us as a species. That may be true, but consider this: Humanity is still a young species. In a span of 10,000 years we have gone from hunter/gatherers, to farmers, to the technologically dependent society we have now. Our brains are essentially the same as they were thousands of years ago, with such dangerous concepts as xenophobia, except this time, we have nuclear weapons. Our bodies don't yet know how to properly handle such things as abundant food, the disappearance of the necessity of exercise (except to keep in shape). Therefore, our bodies would still "think" that we are living in primeval wilderness, and that sexual drive and the desire to have children would still be here. In addition, the sex drive of human beings is partially driven by desire for sexual pleasure. Now, "conventional" sexual intercourse creates intense pleasure for both the man and the woman. However, anal or oral sex causes sexual pleasure for one person, but likely not the other, simply because the sensitive nerves, etc., are not in those regions.

The cause is not hereditary, because genetic material would not have been passed on by a homosexual person. The only instance of this happening is when a homosexual does not "know" that he/she is a homosexual, or is in denial, and then has a child with a man/woman that they probably don't love or find themselves attracted to. However, given the amount of homosexuals in the world, this highly specific scenario would not account for all homosexual people.

This has led some people to speculate that there is a gene that causes homosexuality, the same way that a gene can cause hemophelia (no offense meant by the disease reference). Back in 1950's western society, homosexuality was considered a dangerous mental illness. Since we don't know the cause of autism, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, etc., it could be possible that homosexuality could result from the same cause (not to imply that homosexuality is a mental illness, just getting theories out)

From a logical perspective, homosexuality is (or, would have been) detrimental to the survival of a species. If our bodies and brains couldn't adjust to modern civilization, then homosexuality would not exist. The cause is not biological in nature, therefore, the cause must be elsewhere.

If the cause does not come from within, then it must logically come from outside sources. Homosexuals have been, and are still, present in every culture on Earth, even where their countrymen have attempted or are currently attempting their extermination (Medieval Europe, present-day Iran, etc.). The fact that homosexuals are still present in countries, like Iran, that are so consumed with religious anti-homosexual fervor, suggests that society is not the cause.

Freudian psychology logically suggests that a child's parents, and immediate family, are the most influential people to a child's emotional and mental development. I have also heard (but not substantiated) that 85-95% of homosexuals (both male and female) have been physically, emotionally, or sexually, abused by a male (or males) in the past. This could possibly tie into the old view of homosexuality as a mental illness. If those numbers can be confirmed, it would seem to me the most accurate logical explanation as to why homosexuality exists.

All these points I have put forth are based on cold logic and calculation, and hasn't really been fair to people as human beings. For I have failed to mention the human emotion of love. We do not fully understand the nature of love, its causes, or whether its origin is biological (as mentioned above), spiritual (meaning a belief in spirituality but not necessarily a major religion), or divine (meaning a belief in spirituality as part of a major religion).

Another number that I have heard but not substantiated is that homosexual marriages in Europe last, on average, five years. If two people truly love each other, then likely they will stay together for life, as most heterosexual couples I know do. This brings us back to square one:

Why does homosexuality exist?

First off, lets get one thing clear: I have nothing against black people per se. The following question is an honest question that I would like cleared up. I will not mention the societal effects of black people, aside from the scientific point I put forth with regard to procreation. There is no insult in the following question, so please attempt to refrain from flaming me.


Not flaming, but quote altered to give you some perspective.

The cause is not hereditary, because genetic material would not have been passed on by a homosexual person.

This is the only point I'm going to respond to.

Two parents, male and female, both have a brain, but can have an Anencephalic baby. Put that in your equation and smoke it.

If two people truly love each other, then likely they will stay together for life, as most heterosexual couples I know do. This brings us back to square one:

Why does homosexuality exist?

You must live on lucky planet then. Statistics, at least in Sweden, show that most marriages do NOT last all life. Most don't even last 10 years. Then ofcourse there are the truly tragic cases where marriages that shouldn't last at all last all life...

As to the question I'm not sure, go ask a geneticist or some other scientist. However our race doesn't need each and every individual to reproduce in order to survive, earth would actually do better with a billion or two less of us. So even if homosexual people are reproductive dead ends it really doesn't matter, life today is about much other things than reproduce for the survival of our race. Besides I seem to recall reading that homosexual humans have existed since the first humans emerged and there are homosexual animals in nature (I know this is true of at least monkeys). So it's nothing new, nothing unnatural and I don't think there is any mystic or bombastic explanation as to why homosexuality exists. It's like a bunch of cookies on a plate, some are round, others are square but they're all cookies. I love cookies. With milk.


However, anal or oral sex causes sexual pleasure for one person, but likely not the other, simply because the sensitive nerves, etc., are not in those regions.
You sound like you have had neither. I admit not to having had anal sex but I enjoy oral sex greatly, both giving it and recieving it. If you've had oral and didn't enjoy it I'm saddened by the fact you didn't enjoy your partner enjoying herself. If you've never experienced oral sex don't assume things about it. Pretending to know things you don't just makes a fool of you.

First off, lets get one thing clear: I have nothing against homosexuals per se. The following question is an honest question that I would like cleared up. I will not mention the societal effects of homosexuality, aside from the scientific point I put forth with regard to procreation. There is no insult in the following question, so please attempt to refrain from flaming me.

As a heterosexual male, I am, quite frankly, baffled ... Evolution, nature, etc. has programmed my brain ... The reason it does not make me sexually attracted to men is because then my potential to create offspring is "wasted". Therefore, it is (or would have been) essential to the survival of any species that all its members are heterosexual.

Incorrect, it is not essential to the survival of any species that all its members are heterosexual. What is essential is that the overall breeding rate of the species be high enough to maintain its population while not growing too fast to outstrip its food supply. Predators, homosexuality and fertility rates are both means to control breeding rates. Evolution will not discrimate to choose the one that seems more 'logical' to you, it goes with whatever works.

...However, anal or oral sex causes sexual pleasure for one person, but likely not the other, simply because the sensitive nerves, etc., are not in those regions.

But I like butt sex.

Blah blah ... From a logical perspective, homosexuality is (or, would have been) detrimental to the survival of a species. If our bodies and brains couldn't adjust to modern civilization, then homosexuality would not exist. The cause is not biological in nature, therefore, the cause must be elsewhere.

As I state above nature doesn't use your logic. It goes with whatever works - and that doesn't actually have to be perfect, just good enough. Your logic fails since the assumptions use to construct it are false.

Freudian psychology logically suggests that a child's parents, and immediate family, are the most influential people to a child's emotional and mental development. I have also heard (but not substantiated) that 85-95% of homosexuals (both male and female) have been physically, emotionally, or sexually, abused by a male (or males) in the past. This could possibly tie into the old view of homosexuality as a mental illness. If those numbers can be confirmed, it would seem to me the most accurate logical explanation as to why homosexuality exists.

Freud was a crackpot. While he got people thinking about psychology, his own theories are total crap. So is the data you are looking at.

All these points I have put forth are based on cold logic and calculation, and hasn't really been fair to people as human beings. For I have failed to mention the human emotion of love. We do not fully understand the nature of love, its causes, or whether its origin is biological (as mentioned above), spiritual (meaning a belief in spirituality but not necessarily a major religion), or divine (meaning a belief in spirituality as part of a major religion).

Your logic is like the logic that showed that bumble-bees can't fly and kangaroos couldn't survive jumping like they do - its based entirely on false assumptions.

Another number that I have heard but not substantiated is that homosexual marriages in Europe last, on average, five years. If two people truly love each other, then likely they will stay together for life, as most heterosexual couples I know do.

If you like logical reasoning so much you should know you should not be using unsubstantiated data so much.

That's too much reading to be bothered with. But as is noted above, recesive traits. Recent experiments are pointing to a very strong biological basis. To say nothing of the frequency of homosexuality throughout the animal kingdom. Perhaps it's a holdover from before sexual repoduction, or something more recent. It doesn't matter. It has, by practical measure, always existed and it will always exist. That you find this emperical fact undesirable, threatening, or inconvenient is insignificant. The universe wasn't made for your convenience of conscience. Part of growing up is understanding and accepting that. The only question that's really before us is, since God or the laws of nature made the world this way, are we for supporting enough tyranny to make it appear different?

As a heterosexual male, I am, quite frankly, baffled as to how two males would find each other sexually attractive.

As a homosexual male, I am equally baffled how anyone can find a woman sexually attractive.

I find [some] women sexually attractive, and I assume that's because of this: Evolution, nature, etc. has programmed my brain to secrete hormones that cause me to want to engage in sexual activities with a sexually attractive (therefore, ideal breeding range of 18-30) woman. The reason it does not make me sexually attracted to men is because then my potential to create offspring is "wasted". Therefore, it is (or would have been) essential to the survival of any species that all its members are heterosexual.

Actually, no. It is not essential that all be heterosexual, like it is not essential that everyone breed. Look at the animal world - look at our closest relatives the chimps; not everyone breeds. Those who are freed from breeding often contribute in other ways to the flock. The same is true for humans - just because one doesn't have off-spring, doesn't mean that one cannot help the species in other ways. In fact, one is freer to do so with no off-spring to take care of. We are social animals and there are other ways to further the survival of ones species than breeding.

Your view of biology and survival is grossly simplistic, as is your view on genetics, but I'll come to that in a second.

Now, "conventional" sexual intercourse creates intense pleasure for both the man and the woman. However, anal or oral sex causes sexual pleasure for one person, but likely not the other, simply because the sensitive nerves, etc., are not in those regions.

Sorry, but that's just poppycock. I derive great pleasure from anal sex, most men actually are capable of it. We have many nerve endings in that area that convey sensations of pleasure, and anyone who has had their prostate properly stimulated during orgasm will tell you of the heightened sensation.

The cause is not hereditary, because genetic material would not have been passed on by a homosexual person. The only instance of this happening is when a homosexual does not "know" that he/she is a homosexual, or is in denial, and then has a child with a man/woman that they probably don't love or find themselves attracted to. However, given the amount of homosexuals in the world, this highly specific scenario would not account for all homosexual people.

Wrong. Genetics is not that simple. The penetration of all genes is not 100%. Genes are not solitary - they interact with each other. Recessive genes are not dominant. And so on, and so forth. One does not need to be gay to carry "gay genes". Straight people can have them and not express their phenotype. Through chance and luck in breeding, there will eventually be individuals who would express the phenotype sufficiently to be gay.

Your view of genetics is far too simple. High-school genetics is not enough to understand the complexity of heredity and genetic expression.

From a logical perspective, homosexuality is (or, would have been) detrimental to the survival of a species. If our bodies and brains couldn't adjust to modern civilization, then homosexuality would not exist. The cause is not biological in nature, therefore, the cause must be elsewhere.

I will repeat it again: Homosexuality needn't, and isn't, detrimental to species. Breeding is not the only way out there to further the survival of a species.

Also - there are hundreds of animal species who exhibit homosexual behaviour. Your simple, and severely flawed, model fails to account for those, as it supposes that only humans are capable of homosexual behaviour. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

If the cause does not come from within, then it must logically come from outside sources.

No, that's not logically sound. You fail to take into account a third option, and that is that it may (and most scientists agree that this is the most probable scenario) be an interaction between within and without.

Freudian psychology logically suggests that a child's parents, and immediate family, are the most influential people to a child's emotional and mental development.

Most Freudian psychology has been discredited a long time ago.

I have also heard (but not substantiated) that 85-95% of homosexuals (both male and female) have been physically, emotionally, or sexually, abused by a male (or males) in the past. This could possibly tie into the old view of homosexuality as a mental illness. If those numbers can be confirmed, it would seem to me the most accurate logical explanation as to why homosexuality exists.

Those numbers are extreme baloney. Homosexuality does not stem from childhood trauma such as that, and most homosexuals haven't been molested.

All these points I have put forth are based on cold logic and calculation, and hasn't really been fair to people as human beings.

No. Most of these points by you are based on a flawed understanding of biology, genetics, social environment, and are full of leaps in logic that make no sense, not to mention figures that are completely unsubstantiated.

Another number that I have heard but not substantiated is that homosexual marriages in Europe last, on average, five years. If two people truly love each other, then likely they will stay together for life, as most heterosexual couples I know do.

Look at divorce statistics. You'll see that most heterosexual couples do not stay married to each other at all.

Also, homosexual marriages have not even been available for five years in Europe, so I have no idea where you have gotten your five year figure from.

In Sweden, where civil unions are available, and have been since 1995, studies have shown that the divorce rates among homosexual couples are similar to that of heterosexual couples. And even if it weren't, it would say nothing about the "love" in those relationships. It is a gross mistake to believe that "love" is the only thing needed to make a good marriage/relationship.

Why does homosexuality exist?

Why should it not? It doesn't seem to be detrimental to a species' survival, as it is so widely occurring in nature. On the contrary, a very good case can be made for why it is beneficial to a species to have individuals who do not procreate to the same extent as most of the other individuals, whereby a portion of the population is freed to help the group in other, equally important ways.

The fact that homosexuality is so widely occurring seems to indeed indicate that it is not a bad thing at all, but a good thing.

Ok I will go at this myself. I am a 20 year old homosexual male and I'll tell you what I think.

First off, lets get one thing clear: I have nothing against homosexuals per se. The following question is an honest question that I would like cleared up. I will not mention the societal effects of homosexuality, aside from the scientific point I put forth with regard to procreation. There is no insult in the following question, so please attempt to refrain from flaming me.

Um, it kind of seems a bit offensive. Societal effects? What about people who do not wish to procreate? What about economic progress which is shown to slow down reproductive rates?

As a heterosexual male, I am, quite frankly, baffled as to how two males would find each other sexually attractive. I find [some] women sexually attractive, and I assume that's because of this: Evolution, nature, etc. has programmed my brain to secrete hormones that cause me to want to engage in sexual activities with a sexually attractive (therefore, ideal breeding range of 18-30) woman. The reason it does not make me sexually attracted to men is because then my potential to create offspring is "wasted".

I don't want children. That simple. It isn't wasted or anything. You are baffled because you are heterosexual. Most heterosexuals do not understand homosexuals. That's what I see in this world today. I find guys attractive and that is just the way I am. I can find a female beautiful, but that's as far as i'll go. I used to paint a lot, and beauty can be found in anything. However, i'm attracted to some members of the same sex only (not all guys, some are just not my type).

Therefore, it is (or would have been) essential to the survival of any species that all its members are heterosexual. The argument comes up that, given the Earth's overpopulation, homosexuality will not damage us as a species. That may be true, but consider this: Humanity is still a young species. In a span of 10,000 years we have gone from hunter/gatherers, to farmers, to the technologically dependent society we have now.

This is a total exaggeration. Homosexuality has always remained part of the human population, even when the population growth is going out of control. Humanity may be a young species, but what is there to consider about that? Consider what? How is the notion of going from a society of hunter/gathers to that of high technology correlate with homosexuality?

However, anal or oral sex causes sexual pleasure for one person, but likely not the other, simply because the sensitive nerves, etc., are not in those regions.

Not so the case.

The cause is not hereditary, because genetic material would not have been passed on by a homosexual person. The only instance of this happening is when a homosexual does not "know" that he/she is a homosexual, or is in denial, and then has a child with a man/woman that they probably don't love or find themselves attracted to. However, given the amount of homosexuals in the world, this highly specific scenario would not account for all homosexual people.

It could very well be genetic, but on a recessive trait. Homosexuality is not by choice. Homosexual people do not choose to be gay, and the fact remains that there is nothing you can do about it. I do believe it is genetic.. however look at it this way, it may not be passed down but different changes that happen during pregnancy.

Since we don't know the cause of autism, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, etc., it could be possible that homosexuality could result from the same cause (not to imply that homosexuality is a mental illness, just getting theories out)

No, this is not true. Homosexuality is a sexual orientation like heterosexuality, and to put it in the same category as autism, or schizophrenia is a misnomer.

From a logical perspective, homosexuality is (or, would have been) detrimental to the survival of a species. If our bodies and brains couldn't adjust to modern civilization, then homosexuality would not exist. The cause is not biological in nature, therefore, the cause must be elsewhere.

How is it detrimental when it always remains at a specific percentage of the population? It can actually help a species by controlling population growth. Overpopulation will cause famine by the way. The second statement you made is also misleading, how do you know if we could adjust to modern civilization, that homosexuality would not exist? Another misnomer and misleading statement that has no proof behind it.


The fact that homosexuals are still present in countries, like Iran, that are so consumed with religious anti-homosexual fervor, suggests that society is not the cause.

It moreso suggest that homosexuality is genetically related therefore is not a choice.

Freudian psychology logically suggests that a child's parents, and immediate family, are the most influential people to a child's emotional and mental development. I have also heard (but not substantiated) that 85-95% of homosexuals (both male and female) have been physically, emotionally, or sexually, abused by a male (or males) in the past. This could possibly tie into the old view of homosexuality as a mental illness. If those numbers can be confirmed, it would seem to me the most accurate logical explanation as to why homosexuality exists.

Please be careful when quoting Freud because a lot of his suggestions and "studies" have been thoroughly discredited. Additionally, the notion that 85-95% of homosexuals have been in any way abused is false and has been proven to be false after extensive study in that topic. Freud to me is a kook, and his old ideas are no longer applicable to that of social reason. You quoted the same numbers fundamentalist christians usually refer to.. to back up their case of bigotry. Here is some strong evidence countering Freud.. now this is a book but it does a great job completely leveling his arguments:

http://www.richardwebster.net/freudwrong.html

The most stunning excerpt from a review:

‘Freud, as revealed in Why Freud Was Wrong, is no independent and fearless thinker, but a man who repeatedly fell under the spell of charismatic healers, and who behaved like the messianic founder of a great faith rather than the discoverer of a scientific truth . . . Webster’s systematic analysis of Freud is of a man driven by ambition… Precisely because he is at pains to give Freud the benefit of the doubt at virtually every turn, he is arguably the most devastating critic of them all.’ - ANTHONY CLARE, The Sunday Times

You must be very careful when quoting Freud for any statements on sexuality what-so-ever. In academic fields, he is hardly quoted because the credibility of his statements were basically shot down in the 1970s...

All these points I have put forth are based on cold logic and calculation, and hasn't really been fair to people as human beings. For I have failed to mention the human emotion of love. We do not fully understand the nature of love, its causes, or whether its origin is biological (as mentioned above), spiritual (meaning a belief in spirituality but not necessarily a major religion), or divine (meaning a belief in spirituality as part of a major religion).

Eh, I actually showed why you were not following cold logic and calculation especially when quoting Freud. Your argument is based on miscalculation rather, and the quotation of obsolete theory based on factually incorrect premises. How is love having an origin in spirtiual or divine means when many people in this world today are atheist?

Another number that I have heard but not substantiated is that homosexual marriages in Europe last, on average, five years. If two people truly love each other, then likely they will stay together for life, as most heterosexual couples I know do. This brings us back to square one:

Why does homosexuality exist?

More numbers you have heard, and yet you cannot provide any evidence for them. Also 5 years? If that is the case, that's a whole lot better then heterosexual marriage.. the divorce rate is like 55% in the US right now, and heterosexual couples I heard stay together for just around two years.

Why do people as yourself who quote bad logic, bad theories, and 19th century thinking still exist?

As a homosexual male, I am equally baffled how anyone can find a woman sexually attractive.

I'm married and that still baffles me.

In addition, the sex drive of human beings is partially driven by desire for sexual pleasure. Now, "conventional" sexual intercourse creates intense pleasure for both the man and the woman. However, anal or oral sex causes sexual pleasure for one person, but likely not the other, simply because the sensitive nerves, etc., are not in those regions.
[minor nitpick]Anal sex can cause pleasurable feelings and orgasm at least in some people. I am not sure about everybody, but I know at least some can.[/minor_nitpick]
The cause is not hereditary, because genetic material would not have been passed on by a homosexual person. The only instance of this happening is when a homosexual does not "know" that he/she is a homosexual, or is in denial, and then has a child with a man/woman that they probably don't love or find themselves attracted to. However, given the amount of homosexuals in the world, this highly specific scenario would not account for all homosexual people.
Well, it could be a recessive gene. In that way, two parents could each have a copy of it, but have the effects not realized in their phenotype due to the straight-gene being dominant. The gay-genes could then be passed to their offspring, with a 25% chance of the child being gay.
This has led some people to speculate that there is a gene that causes homosexuality, the same way that a gene can cause hemophelia (no offense meant by the disease reference). Back in 1950's western society, homosexuality was considered a dangerous mental illness. Since we don't know the cause of autism, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, etc., it could be possible that homosexuality could result from the same cause (not to imply that homosexuality is a mental illness, just getting theories out)
I had thought that from current reasearch, they thought that many mental illnesses were affected by genes? Even from what I myself have observed, I would think genetics affects it, since it has run in my family for a while, and the family of one of my friends.
From a logical perspective, homosexuality is (or, would have been) detrimental to the survival of a species. If our bodies and brains couldn't adjust to modern civilization, then homosexuality would not exist. The cause is not biological in nature, therefore, the cause must be elsewhere.
Well, there is the recessive-gene bit, which could provide some explanation.

But, that all hinges on the assumption that there would be one ultimate gay-gene. I think that sexual orientation is more of a spectrum rather than an on-off binary system, and that a single gene couldn't adequately explain this. If homosexuality is genetic, I would personaly think that it was affected by multiple genes. It is possible that some of these genes could have useful effects to heterosexuals on their own(such as a fertility-boosting gene), but when combined cause homosexuality. This would make a clear reason why homosexuality propagates.
If the cause does not come from within, then it must logically come from outside sources. Homosexuals have been, and are still, present in every culture on Earth, even where their countrymen have attempted or are currently attempting their extermination (Medieval Europe, present-day Iran, etc.). The fact that homosexuals are still present in countries, like Iran, that are so consumed with religious anti-homosexual fervor, suggests that society is not the cause.
Ah, but does does non-genetic mean non-biological? It could be that it is caused by hormone imbalances in the womb, or distrubances of foetal development, or any number of other non-genetic, yet biological factors.
Freudian psychology logically suggests that a child's parents, and immediate family, are the most influential people to a child's emotional and mental development. I have also heard (but not substantiated) that 85-95% of homosexuals (both male and female) have been physically, emotionally, or sexually, abused by a male (or males) in the past. This could possibly tie into the old view of homosexuality as a mental illness. If those numbers can be confirmed, it would seem to me the most accurate logical explanation as to why homosexuality exists.
I seriously doubt that claim. It really doesn't match up with my experiences, although it is possible that I've just met only gay people who haven't been abused out of sheer chance, but I somehow dount that.

It is possible that heterosexual people got abused, but still are heterosexual.

Anyways, I'd like to say this guy seriously got torn down in this thread...

Anyways, I'd like to say this guy seriously got torn down in this thread...


You said it! People really should know what they're talkin' about before posting a thread like this.

And I just thought of something, and I'm being totally hypothetical, but what if homosexuality is proven to be gentetic? What would those fundemental christians do when (still being hypothetical) scientists announce that they've not only found the gene but also found a way to test for it? I think that would be pretty funny. Fanatics like that fat dude on TBN runnin' around goin' crazy because they have in their bodies a gene that defies thier god.

But then, that would disprove god, wouldn't it? The fact that he allowed a gene he says is sinful into "his people" would be hypocritical and prove he's not real, right?

You said it! People really should know what they're talkin' about before posting a thread like this.

And I just thought of something, and I'm being totally hypothetical, but what if homosexuality is proven to be gentetic? What would those fundemental christians do when (still being hypothetical) scientists announce that they've not only found the gene but also found a way to test for it? I think that would be pretty funny. Fanatics like that fat dude on TBN runnin' around goin' crazy because they have in their bodies a gene that defies their god.

But then, that would disprove god, wouldn't it? The fact that he allowed a gene he says is sinful into "his people" would be hypocritical and prove he's not real, right?

It would be interesting to see them struggle between the sins of having gay babies be born or aborting them. Utterly scary and sickening, but interesting.

Evolution, nature, etc. has programmed my brain to secrete hormones that cause me to want to engage in sexual activities with a sexually attractive (therefore, ideal breeding range of 18-30) woman. The reason it does not make me sexually attracted to men is because then my potential to create offspring is "wasted". Therefore, it is (or would have been) essential to the survival of any species that all its members are heterosexual. Not so. Some heterosexuals (or a least bisexuals) are necessary to sustain a population. Or rather, some heterosexual sex is necessary to sustain a population.

The cause is not hereditary, because genetic material would not have been passed on by a homosexual person. The only instance of this happening is when a homosexual does not "know" that he/she is a homosexual, or is in denial, and then has a child with a man/woman that they probably don't love or find themselves attracted to. However, given the amount of homosexuals in the world, this highly specific scenario would not account for all homosexual people.If my one and only sister was gay (she is not), and we still lived in primitive tribes subdivided into family groups, she, as a woman with no children of her own to care for, could help to raise my children. They could conceivably gain some advantage over their peers in terms of intelligence of health from this extra care and attention. If this advantage lead my child to produce more, healthier offspring, would that not further my and my sister's genetic lines?

From a logical perspective, homosexuality is (or, would have been) detrimental to the survival of a species. If our bodies and brains couldn't adjust to modern civilization, then homosexuality would not exist. The cause is not biological in nature, therefore, the cause must be elsewhere. Homosexuality can be benificial to the survival of a species, under some circumstances, and it is never detrimental to the survival of a species. Detrimental to population growth, maybe.

Why does homosexuality exist? I have no idea.

You said it! People really should know what they're talkin' about before posting a thread like this.

And I just thought of something, and I'm being totally hypothetical, but what if homosexuality is proven to be gentetic? What would those fundemental christians do when (still being hypothetical) scientists announce that they've not only found the gene but also found a way to test for it? I think that would be pretty funny. Fanatics like that fat dude on TBN runnin' around goin' crazy because they have in their bodies a gene that defies thier god.

But then, that would disprove god, wouldn't it? The fact that he allowed a gene he says is sinful into "his people" would be hypocritical and prove he's not real, right?


I disagree. If homosexuality was proven genetic, it wouldn't disprove God's existence. Jesus, who was God on earth, never once called homosexuality evil or wrong. The people who wrote it in the old testiment probably personally thought it was wrong and because they were followers of God, thought he would be opposed to it as well. Don't mix up people's ignorance with God "beliefs".

I disagree. If homosexuality was proven genetic, it wouldn't disprove God's existence. Jesus, who was God on earth, never once called homosexuality evil or wrong. The people who wrote it in the old testiment probably personally thought it was wrong and because they were followers of God, thought he would be opposed to it as well. Don't mix up people's ignorance with God "beliefs".


Yes, but if you truly believe the Bible is your god's Holy Word, than you have to assume that everything in it is what he believes.

I wasn't getting anything mixed up, I was simply following the same guidelines as the pastor of the stupid baptist church my parents force me to go to.

I wasn't getting anything mixed up, I was simply following the same guidelines as the pastor of the stupid baptist church my parents force me to go to.

Ouch.. how do you make it through all the rhetoric?

Can't you just let people be gay and stop caring so much? Besides, there is nothing so beautiful as hot lesbian sex, WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO QUESTION LESBIAN SEX?

Ouch.. how do you make it through all the rhetoric?


Could you expand upon your question a little? I don't really understand it.

Could you expand upon your question a little? I don't really understand it.

Ok.. ya it was ambigious.. how do you get through sitting there listening to the guy speak?

Can't you just let people be gay and stop caring so much? Besides, there is nothing so beautiful as hot lesbian sex, WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO QUESTION LESBIAN SEX?
Only infidels question the Holy Exercise.

You said it! People really should know what they're talkin' about before posting a thread like this.

And I just thought of something, and I'm being totally hypothetical, but what if homosexuality is proven to be gentetic? What would those fundemental christians do when (still being hypothetical) scientists announce that they've not only found the gene but also found a way to test for it? I think that would be pretty funny. Fanatics like that fat dude on TBN runnin' around goin' crazy because they have in their bodies a gene that defies thier god.

But then, that would disprove god, wouldn't it? The fact that he allowed a gene he says is sinful into "his people" would be hypocritical and prove he's not real, right?Very little will change the opinions of small-minded people such as homophobes and racists. They warp fact to fit their world views and support their opinions. If it were proven that homosexuality was caused by genetics, gay people would cease to be "God's misguided children" and would be labeled "the children that Satan made". :p
I'll debate anything, but I don't bother to argue with the crazies.
[minor nitpick]Anal sex can cause pleasurable feelings and orgasm at least in some people. I am not sure about everybody, but I know at least some can.[/minor_nitpick]I'm being even more nit-picky here, but all people can enjoy anal sex. Nerve endings and whatnot. If you try it with an open mind, you'll have fun.

Ok.. ya it was ambigious.. how do you get through sitting there listening to the guy speak?

Oh, that. Well most of the time I just draw. And other times I simply try to tune him out. But it's really hard to do. I sometimes imagine myself yellin' at him how wrong he is. But I'd never actually try that, that would get me into much more trouble than it's really worth.

I support homosexuality we need less people not more.

But i think it's caused by their brains interpreting pheremones the wrong way(No offense)

Can't you just let people be gay and stop caring so much? Besides, there is nothing so beautiful as hot lesbian sex, WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO QUESTION LESBIAN SEX?

As a lesbian, I think it's wonderfully beautiful, but don't see any reason why you guys should get a look in :p Get your own girlfriends, you losers!

First off, lets get one thing clear: I have nothing against black people per se. The following question is an honest question that I would like cleared up. I will not mention the societal effects of black people, aside from the scientific point I put forth with regard to procreation. There is no insult in the following question, so please attempt to refrain from flaming me.


Not flaming, but quote altered to give you some perspective.


The last time I checked, children are the ethnicity of their parents... It's a sign of heritage.

The problem with your theory is that it assumes homosexual activity constitutes itself as an ethnicity. But, obviously, homosexual parents do not create homosexual children (as the same-sex proponents want everyone at the adoption clinic to believe).

So which is it? You can't have it both ways.

The last time I checked, children are the ethnicity of their parents... It's a sign of heritage.

The problem with your theory is that it assumes homosexual activity constitutes itself as an ethnicity. But, obviously, homosexual parents do not create homosexual children (as the same-sex proponents want everyone at the adoption clinic to believe).

So which is it? You can't have it both ways.

I suggest you read more "science" magazines and journals from the 1920s-1930s. You'd be surprised at how you can replace the word "homosexual" in the original post with "black people". It's called "perspective".

Homosexual parents may or may not produce homosexual children. Heterosexual parents may or may not produce heterosexual children.

Might I recommend a book (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0720612233/qid=1122251344/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_3_1/202-1091347-5307805).

I saw an interview with the authors on television, and apparently it contains all the latest research into the matter, so now you can educate yourself.

I suggest you read more "science" magazines and journals from the 1920s-1930s. You'd be surprised at how you can replace the word "homosexual" in the original post with "black people". It's called "perspective".

Homosexual parents may or may not produce homosexual children. Heterosexual parents may or may not produce heterosexual children.


It's not perspective, it's a misplaced synonym. They aren’t the same at all. If you are looking for a synonym, the deaf community would be better suited for a comparison. Homosexuality is not a ethnic heritage, inheritance of ethnic is passed onto the offspring, homosexuality is not.

Why does homosexuality exist?


dont question it, just sit back and enjoy it!

It's not perspective, it's a misplaced synonym. They aren’t the same at all. If you are looking for a synonym, the deaf community would be better suited for a comparison. Homosexuality is not a ethnic heritage, inheritance of ethnic is passed onto the offspring, homosexuality is not.
Oh any real solid evidence either way?

Regarding the genetic element, is it possible that there could be a gene associated with attraction to a particular gender, regardless of the gender of the person the gene expresses itself in?

For example, a gene that causes disproportionate attraction to men. When expressed in a woman, the gene is particularly viable (for the most part). When expressed in a man, the gene results in a homosexual man. For women with this gene, it can be passed on to a male and/or a female descendant; It may manifest in either child. When expressed in the boy, it results in a homosexual male, when expressed in the girl, it results in a particularly manhungry woman. The gene could continue to be transmitted from generation to generation via the female vector, sometimes dominant, sometimes not.

Until disproved, the possibility of this gene suggests that homosexuality (of either gender), is plausible as a persistent (but relatively rare) genetically influenced trait in a species.

As a side note, I continue to be a particular supporter of lesbian sex, primarily in the cinema. My wife, when approached on the subject, takes the Freudian stance, by saying "Keep dreaming".

However, anal or oral sex causes sexual pleasure for one person, but likely not the other, simply because the sensitive nerves, etc., are not in those regions.

Someone needs to show you how a prostate works.

Why does homosexuality exist?

So that I can take my new busboy home with me for hawt boy-boy sexxorz. I have no idea why I am attracted to other males, I can only assume it is because some of them are so sexy. Like, really, REALLY sexxay. Omg. *drool*

So that I can take my new busboy home with me for hawt boy-boy sexxorz.Omg. *drool*
That's hot. :fluffle:

So that I can take my new busboy home with me for hawt boy-boy sexxorz. I have no idea why I am attracted to other males, I can only assume it is because some of them are so sexy. Like, really, REALLY sexxay. Omg. *drool*

Couldn't of said it better. And omg.. a cute latino guy's sexy lips.. mmm.. my boyfriend is so sexy... mmm.. kissable too. I don't understand how someone can be attracted to someone of the opposite sex...

Couldn't of said it better. And omg.. a cute latino guy's sexy lips.. mmm.. my boyfriend is so sexy... mmm.. kissable too. I don't understand how someone can be attracted to someone of the opposite sex...

Can we hijack this thread now and make it about Eric from CSI: Miami? *eyes glaze over*

Can we hijack this thread now and make it about Eric from CSI: Miami? *eyes glaze over*

No ... this and all threads like it must be hijacked to speak of the beauty that is John Cusack.

No ... this and all threads like it must be hijacked to speak of the beauty that is John Cusack.

Are you telling us, via a multitude of unrelated topics/threads, that you are; an adult, converted intentionally to Islam, married, and gay? :confused: :eek: Does your wife know? Does your Mosque know? Does your Imam/Cleric know?

Are you telling us, via a multitude of unrelated topics/threads, that you are; an adult, converted intentionally to Islam, married, and gay? :confused: :eek: Does your wife know? Does your Mosque know? Does your Imam/Cleric know?

Gay? No. However, I can appreciate the beauty in humans ... some more beautiful than others. If you must know, I am bi.

Yes, my wife knows. She's known since high school ... when I met her.

I do not care what my Mosque or Imam thinks. My relationship with Allah is my own.

Why does homosexuality exist?

Cause I like cock. The end.

Cause I like cock. The end.

The hottie himself ;) I saw your photos..

Cause I like cock. The end.

You, sir, have just earned a rare Keruvalia Seal of Approval.

It comes with a pat on the back and a round of applause.

You, sir, have just earned a rare Keruvalia Seal of Approval.

It comes with a pat on the back and a round of applause.

I was gonna ask him if he was top or.. never mind.. I'll shut up now.

I was gonna ask him if he was top or.. never mind.. I'll shut up now.

I dunno ... let's see his pic ...

We can decide for ourselves if he should be top ...

You, sir, have just earned a rare Keruvalia Seal of Approval.

It comes with a pat on the back and a round of applause.

Success. *dies happily*

I dunno ... let's see his pic ...

We can decide for ourselves if he should be top ...

Cause I'm not.. lol

Cause I'm not.. lol

Woo! Bottoms of the world unite!

Success. *dies happily*

No! Don't die! We need you!

No! Don't die! We need you!

You only need me since your all bottoms, and if you have decided I am the only top around here, my nights will be satisfied.

Woo! Bottoms of the world unite!

Holy crap.. did I just say that.. *walks out slowly whistling*

You only need me since your all bottoms, and if you have decided I am the only top around here, my nights will be satisfied.

We'll meet tomorrow in the park ... I'll be wearing a red shirt.

Holy crap.. did I just say that.. *walks out slowly whistling*

Said what? Yeah ... you said nothing ... you're a good, upstanding American ... yeah ... that's right ...

You guys are so. funny!

This has to be the best hijack in the history of, well, ever. :D

You guys are so. funny!

This has to be the best hijack in the history of, well, ever. :D

I really don't know what got to me.. lol.. to reveal such a personal detail about being.. umm... bottom

You guys are so. funny!

This has to be the best hijack in the history of, well, ever. :D

Ha brilliantly stupid threads deserves brilliantly funny hijackers...haha jackers...haha jack off...haha word association is fun.

Ha brilliantly stupid threads deserves brilliantly funny hijackers...haha jackers...haha jack off...haha word association is fun.

:eek:

And i thought I was shocking.

How can so many people take offense at his theories and questions? He went to pains to word his query as non-offensively as possible while still asking questions and making his point.

I'm not asking everyone to agree with him, but I am quite surprised how many people answered him in a defensive, and sometimes just plain rude and antagonistic fashion.

I realise it's a sensitive subject, but come on people...you should be able to field questions or correct misconceptions without getting your back up...

How can so many people take offense at his theories and questions? He went to pains to word his query as non-offensively as possible while still asking questions and making his point.

I'm not asking everyone to agree with him, but I am quite surprised how many people answered him in a defensive, and sometimes just plain rude and antagonistic fashion.

I realise it's a sensitive subject, but come on people...you should be able to field questions or correct misconceptions without getting your back up...

I'm sorry but he is talking about gay and lesbians.. and me included. He made some statements that were horrid. I don't care if he tried to be non-offensive. If you think homosexuality is a choice or some kind of mental illness, you are being offensive no matter how much you try to sugar coat your statements.

I'm afraid we won't know for certain why homosexuality exists until more medical knowledge is available. I can say for certain that homosexuality is NOT a choice and not something created by morally deviant people. Anyone who puts down homosexuals has to also put down Leonardo Da Vinci, Michaelangelo, Tschaikowsky, and many other great historical figures.

I'm sorry but he is talking about gay and lesbians.. and me included. He made some statements that were horrid. I don't care if he tried to be non-offensive. If you think homosexuality is a choice or some kind of mental illness, you are being offensive no matter how much you try to sugar coat your statements.
...can you show me where, in his statement, he says that gays are lesser than heterosexuals?

...and BTW, I don't like your tone of of voice about mental illness - my mother is a long term schizophrenic!

In many species of animals, males have been known to take the role of the female in sex when the population is nearing the local environment's limit.

Something that goes against the individual procreating doesn't necessarily go against the survival in the species and, in the case of overpopulation, can actually increase the species' chance of survival.

Besides, I don't quite see how I can not understand a gay man being sexually attracted to - let's say - Eric Bana. After all, that would also mean that I couldn't understand how I might be sexually attracted to him.

...can you show me where, in his statement, he says that gays are lesser than heterosexuals?

...and BTW, I don't like your tone of of voice about mental illness - my mother is a long term schizophrenic!

Look at it this way, the way he talked including saying that 85-95% of homosexuals had mental illnesses pissed me off.

I'm not putting down people with mental illnesses. That was not my intention. Don't like my tone of voice? Umm.. you have a recording of my voice where I'm stating that? :confused:

Tone of text, perhaps? :p

Look, never mind, you obviously interpreted his words a little differently than I did...no harm, just a difference of opinion...

Apologies if this issue has already been raised/answered, but:

Now, "conventional" sexual intercourse creates intense pleasure for both the man and the woman. However, anal or oral sex causes sexual pleasure for one person, but likely not the other, simply because the sensitive nerves, etc., are not in those regions.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the male g-spot inside the anus? Thus meaning that the receiver and the giver (for lack of a better phrase) would enjoy the sex?

Also, a lot of people enjoy giving oral sex. Obviously it's not directy sexually stimulating for the giver, but being part of a sexual relationship with anyone is (or should be) about sharing.

How can so many people take offense at his theories and questions? He went to pains to word his query as non-offensively as possible while still asking questions and making his point.


I suspect it would have been a different matter, if the original poster HAD just asked questions... rather than throwing in heavy handed hearsay, and ridiculous assumptions, about 'homosexuality being the result of abuse', or the fact that 'anal sex doesn't work'.

In fact, has the Original Poster even been back to this thread? Or do we have another 'troll' thread?

Cause I like cock. The end.
LOL I am going to have to use that one more often lol

Apologies if this issue has already been raised/answered, but:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the male g-spot inside the anus? Thus meaning that the receiver and the giver (for lack of a better phrase) would enjoy the sex?Not exactly a 'g-spot' per se, but the prostate gland is located beneath the ventral surface of the rectum, approximately 2-3 inches in, on average. Stimulation of this can be greatly pleasurable.

Humans enjoy anal sex because the anal region contains one of the highest densities of sensory nerve endings in the human body, which is also why females (who don't have a prostate) can definitely enjoy the experience as well. I'd probably say that the majority of people who are repelled by the idea of anal sex do so because of social training, not any form of instinct. We're naughty animals, we like feeling good. :D

Also, a lot of people enjoy giving oral sex. Obviously it's not directy sexually stimulating for the giver, but being part of a sexual relationship with anyone is (or should be) about sharing.Indeed! :)

Something people seem to be forgetting, is that sex isn't just about reproduction, especially for social animals like humans. It's also a form of social interaction and bonding, which helps to reinforce our relationships with each other. So even though homosexual sex can't lead to offspring, it definitely can serve an important social function.