|
My evolution theory involving fa...*ahem* i mean homosexuality (pg. 14)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Omega_Blue |
| quote: | Originally posted by Vlad
Freud was a sick bastad. |
but, in my opinion, had some great ideas and opinions that i think many of us refuse to recognize or even contemplate.
| quote: | Originally posted by Slylee
umm yes you can.
that is exactly what i'm basing it on. if men want to screw other men, that's fine, but scientifically, it just doesn't fit. it wasn't meant to be. men weren't made like that. end of story. |
we usually agree on things jamie... but you keep mentioning it like guys are the only sex that can be gay. what about lesbos?
i doubt it's a gene. people are people, and judging another person's worth by their sexual orientation is, in my opinion, ignorant. your take on homosexuality from an ethical standpoint pretty much coincides with the christian view, which is fine.. but you can't objectively view the morality of homosexuality by this standard alone.
According to your example, science ought to explain the morality of our actions. If science/nature did not biologically intend humans to have homosexual relationships, then one ought not to do so. One could technically assume that we should not transplant foreign organs into our bodies, because science/nature did not biologically intend for humans accept them. Are organ transplants immoral?
.
....whoa, i just blacked out there for a second.. what just happened?? |
|
|
| trewqy |
Exactly what he said^
Nature allows species to kill each other.Survival of the fittest.
Alpha males kill other males to be number 1 among the chicks.
Incest is no problem in nature.
Just because thats science, doesnt mean we have to follow the code of conduct. Its a trippy subject. We humans have gone so distant from the animal kingdom, that we dont really know what to make of it all anymore. |
|
|
| CharetCutestroy |
| quote: | Originally posted by Omega_Blue
but, in my opinion, had some great ideas and opinions that i think many of us refuse to recognize or even contemplate.
we usually agree on things jamie... but you keep mentioning it like guys are the only sex that can be gay. what about lesbos?
i doubt it's a gene. people are people, and judging another person's worth by their sexual orientation is, in my opinion, ignorant. your take on homosexuality from an ethical standpoint pretty much coincides with the christian view, which is fine.. but you can't objectively view the morality of homosexuality by this standard alone.
According to your example, science ought to explain the morality of our actions. If science/nature did not biologically intend humans to have homosexual relationships, then one ought not to do so. One could technically assume that we should not transplant foreign organs into our bodies, because science/nature did not biologically intend for humans accept them. Are organ transplants immoral?
.
....whoa, i just blacked out there for a second.. what just happened?? |
haha
Good point but I think there is a difference. Organ transplants are used as a tool to save a persons life, but homosexuality has no real benefit. I in no way think that homosexuality is wrong, but i think it doesn't make sense from a strictly biological standpoint. It serves no purpose for survival and most all of the other "unnatural" things that it has been compared to do. They may not be directly related to survival but they usual benefit living people. Such as airplanes and oxygen bars; they simply benefit our lives. But sex is supposed to have the benifit of procreation and since this form of sex does not have a chance of procreation it is in biological terms invalid.
Ok so it serves the purpose of simply sexual gratification. True, but sexual gratification is the natural driving force for procreation. It's the natural and instinctual tool that causes all species to spawn. You could look at it like the use of the tool has now become it's own reason for use; like in some venues the use of a sword has become an artform and recreation and no longer is a tool of combat. But, then the question occurs; if these examples are to be compared is procreation no longer needed just as a sword is no longer needed in combat. The answer is of course no. Procreation is our's and every species' way of avoiding extiction. But, something does come to light about our particular species. We have a population control issue. We have become too good a maintaining our population growth and have, in no forseeable future, a threat to it. Homosexuality then, may be nature's way of curtailing that issue.
heh, just an interesting train of thought i guess.. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Ang ' ela_ie
It is a genetic mutation. Many studies have been done to prove so. Its a shame that the people "in charge" are too narrowminded to explore this research and make it available to the public, to the government, to the Vatican.... |
You're partially correct. Some studies have found a corrolation between a genetic mutation found to be present in approximately 50% of homosexual men. This mutation is also found in a very small percentage of heterosexual (or professed heterosexual) men. If these studies are correct (and given that they have now been reproduced several times they should be considered to be valid) that would suggest that half of MALE homosexuals are born homosexual. As for the other 50% and for women no genetic link has been established.... note, this is not to say it does not exist... simply, it has not been identified. |
|
|
| Slylee |
| quote: | Originally posted by CharetCutestroy
haha
Good point but I think there is a difference. Organ transplants are used as a tool to save a persons life, but homosexuality has no real benefit. I in no way think that homosexuality is wrong, but i think it doesn't make sense from a strictly biological standpoint. It serves no purpose for survival and most all of the other "unnatural" things that it has been compared to do. They may not be directly related to survival but they usual benefit living people. Such as airplanes and oxygen bars; they simply benefit our lives. But sex is supposed to have the benifit of procreation and since this form of sex does not have a chance of procreation it is in biological terms invalid.
Ok so it serves the purpose of simply sexual gratification. True, but sexual gratification is the natural driving force for procreation. It's the natural and instinctual tool that causes all species to spawn. You could look at it like the use of the tool has now become it's own reason for use; like in some venues the use of a sword has become an artform and recreation and no longer is a tool of combat. But, then the question occurs; if these examples are to be compared is procreation no longer needed just as a sword is no longer needed in combat. The answer is of course no. Procreation is our's and every species' way of avoiding extiction. But, something does come to light about our particular species. We have a population control issue. We have become too good a maintaining our population growth and have, in no forseeable future, a threat to it. Homosexuality then, may be nature's way of curtailing that issue.
heh, just an interesting train of thought i guess.. |
very interesting actually. a lot of great posts, i really enjoyed reading everyone's views on the subject.
oh and sorry for only talking about gay men...i mean women too:p
and i also didn't mean to come off as a hipocrite with the whole adam & eve and evolution. i actually happen to think that evolution could be god's work. but i'm not completely sold on that yet.
and i don't think being gay is wrong from a moral perspective, only from a biological perspective as someone pointed out (someone who actually read and understood what i posted, thanks).
also, i have been pretty close with some flaming gay guys and they all said they knew they were gay when they were 5. so i definitely think there is a gay gene. do you think it's possible to learn homosexuality by the age of 5 and decide for yourself at that time that you are going to be gay?
my original post was crude, but i was only doing that to add a little comic relief...you people need to lighten up.
btw stereo princess, i definitely got your sarcasm;) |
|
|
| FallingMoon |
soooo when you told me you wanted to make out with me you were lying?
sheeesh :rolleyes: |
|
|
| Slylee |
| quote: | Originally posted by FallingMoon
soooo when you told me you wanted to make out with me you were lying?
sheeesh :rolleyes: |
sorry i'm selfish, i don't want to have to fight lucid & melly for you. i would crush them. |
|
|
| Slylee |
| quote: | Originally posted by kadomony
soon, babies will be born from teh butt! :eyes: |
lol |
|
|
| FallingMoon |
but srsly...I don't think being gay in any way is wrong & I am not religious in the least. I believe it's in personal preference as is EVERYTHING else...some guys prefer ass to titties whereas some guys prefer a penis...whose to say what is right or wrong? The adam & eve thing just explains that man was created & woman was created for man for reproduction...but not everyone in this world can reproduce so it's not right to say that we were made for ONE specific purpose.
-edit- oh yeah & I PREFER men but I like making out with girls & I'm not gay so what does that say about me? |
|
|
| Psy-T |
| quote: | Originally posted by Slylee
and i don't think being gay is wrong from a moral perspective, only from a biological perspective as someone pointed out (someone who actually read and understood what i posted, thanks).
|
things that contributes to your pleasure can not be wrong from a bilogocial perspective except things that disable you as an individual from procreating and surviving.
or if you wanna look at the bigger picture...
things that contributes to your pleasure can not be wrong from a bilogical perspective at all. |
|
|
| Psy-T |
| quote: | Originally posted by FallingMoon
but srsly...I don't think being gay in any way is wrong & I am not religious in the least. I believe it's in personal preference as is EVERYTHING else...some guys prefer ass to titties whereas some guys prefer a penis...whose to say what is right or wrong? The adam & eve thing just explains that man was created & woman was created for man for reproduction...but not everyone in this world can reproduce so it's not right to say that we were made for ONE specific purpose.
-edit- oh yeah & I PREFER men but I like making out with girls & I'm not gay so what does that say about me? |
that you like giving guys hard-on's? :p |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by CharetCutestroy
homosexuality has no real benefit. I in no way think that homosexuality is wrong, but i think it doesn't make sense from a strictly biological standpoint. It serves no purpose for survival and most all of the other "unnatural" things that it has been compared to do. They may not be directly related to survival but they usual benefit living people. |
Sorry but I believe your position regarding benefit is too narrow in it's consideration of what "benefit" is to be correct. Certainly homosexuality does not serve the obvious benefit of sexual relationships, which is procreation, however, that is not to say it serves no purpose for survival or is of no benefit.
From a biological point of view there may be great benefits from homosexuality. SOME homosexuality is corolated to genetic mutations. It is uncertain what other effects this genetic mutation my cause. It is possible that the mutation corrolated to male homosexuality is something that could be dangerous to the human species if it were present in a large population. If this were the case then the homosexuality could be a natural evolutionary response to rid humanity of the mutation by preventing the carriers of said mutation from procreating. Perhaps homosexuality is simply a built in population control to keep the numbers of humans down. Perhaps the prevention (or at least reduction in probablility) of procreation associated with the existance of homosexuality is in and of itself the benefit to society glenned from homosexuality.
From a anthropologic point of view, there are some clear benefits of homosexuality. Perhaps the best known and most documented of which is that sexual connection creates a stronger bond between people then does other forms of social interaction. This was well known to the anchient Greeks. They knew and understood that lovers were closer then friends. Building on this they extrapolated that if soldiers were lovers then they would be more willing to risk their lives for each other and would function better as a unit. Subsequently, many Greek city-states, most noteably Sparta, structured their militaries to encourage homosexuality amongst the troops. This was extremely successful as anyone with any knowledge of Sparta's military history will readily acknowledge. I would imagine that the greeks were not alone in this knowledge and experience. I would also suggest that similar bonding/social benefits can be glenned from homosexuality today, however, they are likely less obvious. |
|
|
|
|
