Can Anyone Argue With This?

[bigguns7]

Let me begin by saying that this thread is not anti-homosexual or homophobic in any way.

I do not disagree with the gay lifestyle, I am not disgusted by gay people, I don't oppose gay unions or marriages, I don't think gay people are any less important than straight people, and I don't play the "homosexuality is immoral" card either.

BUT . . .

It is my understanding that all animals in this world are here for one reason, and that is THE PROPAGATION OF THE SPECIES. Whether God put us here or the Big Bang put us here, we are here to make sure that our species is potentiated. We are here to make more of us. We are here to procreate. Period.

Now, this simply cannot be accomplished through homosexual sex. Homosexuals cannot reproduce without heterosexual activity. I don't think anyone can provide evidence to the contrary.

So, what is homosexuality? Is it a choice, is it a preference, is it an affliction, is it a defect, is it a hiccup in the genetic code?

This is only a question, not an offensive remark or assertion, but . . . Where does homosexuality fit in with respect to the biological workings of the earth that we live on?

 

[3Vandoo]

Actually ever heard of over population, so homosexuality can be a way to solve it
jk

Homosexuality is thought to be not from genetic but from birth, related to testosterone.

but some peoples might know it and be more able to explain it.

 

[bigguns7]

I guess not.

 

[mini_mouse]

Here's a bit of an article I found, thought it might interest you:

"Studying what we know of our evolution and studying the habits of our closest living relatives allows the reasonable conclusion to be drawn that we were once a much more sexually open species. This includes both heterosexual and homosexual relationships as it does in our primate relatives. But why was homosexuality developed in the first place and if it did evolve then why is it now frowned upon?

Over 430 large animal species (mammals, birds, fish and reptiles) participate in scientifically confirmed homosexual relationships (Christensen). There are two main theories behind why this is so. The first is biological, the second social. The biological argument examines the fact that since homosexuality has been propagated through generations it must have some significance or it would have been removed through the process of natural selection. It is thus suggested that the advantages of homosexuality may revolve around dominance hierarchies (Pedro et al). This is generally known as the heterozygous argument and is described in more detail as follows:

“The heterozygous argument suggests that homosexuality results from genes for submissive behavior. An animal possessing only submissive genes would fail to reproduce for lack or trying. But an animal possessing only genes for dominance would also fail to reproduce because it would get killed for taking too many risks. It is the “heterozygous” males, who would most likely pass on their genes.” (Pedro et al)

Heterozygous is the biological term meaning that an individual has two different traits in one chromosome pair, in this case one gene for dominance and one for submissiveness. The heterozygous argument would leave a quarter of the population dominating, half the population heterozygous and likely to reproduce, and the last quarter of the population submissive. Submissive individuals are seen as more likely to be homosexual although not all will be so. While producing some traits that are ‘un-wanted’ this theory biologically provides for the most significant number of reproducing members while maintaining genetic diversity.

The social theory of homosexuality defines this type of sexual behavior as a way of keeping peace and helping to insure the survival of offspring. By not producing any offspring themselves, homosexual individuals are able to provide for the offspring of others, thus insuring a lower infant mortality rate as well as not overtaxing resources. Peace is also maintained through alliances and trust relationships emphasized and touted through homosexual acts. Thus such relationships can be seen as aiding individual and population survival. (Kirkpatrick, 11)

There is no concrete evidence that either of these theories is true but there is significant evidence that they are, in whole or in part, influential. However, examining these theories still doesn’t answer the question of why homosexuality is now seen as un-natural or wrong. The reason is probably because it isn’t seen this way. Homophobia is, for the most part, a Western concept. Sixty four percent (64%) of the worlds’ population engages in or approves of homosexual activity (Christensen).

Homosexuality as a general or approved practice in the West seems to have ended at a time when there was a great push for procreation, specifically, at the onset of the Industrial Revolution (Etiology). The expansionist and sociopolitical systems of the West at that time required a population that was as large as possible. Homophobia is a concept that is often associated “with objections to birth control and abortion” (Christensen). One of the largest supporters of the anti-homosexual mentality is the segment of the Christian Church that is dedicated to evangelism and expansion. These Churches are a primary factor in the naturalness debate as they promote biased scientific studies of the topic resulting in an emphasis on homosexuality being unnatural and therefore un-God-like and sinful. In reality they defined homosexuality as being socially abnormal or unacceptable to their populations. Through cultural behaviors impressed upon people by the Church, these ideas generally continue today in the societies the Church influences."

 

[mini_mouse]

In The Beginning...

 

[The_Mexican]

 

[bigguns7]

Here's a bit of an article I found, thought it might interest you:


The social theory of homosexuality defines this type of sexual behavior as a way of keeping peace and helping to insure the survival of offspring. By not producing any offspring themselves, homosexual individuals are able to provide for the offspring of others, thus insuring a lower infant mortality rate as well as not overtaxing resources. Peace is also maintained through alliances and trust relationships emphasized and touted through homosexual acts. Thus such relationships can be seen as aiding individual and population survival. (Kirkpatrick, 11)

Mini-Mouse, thanks for a good read.

I can see where this might apply to a certain extent in other animal species, but not so much in humans. This article presents some interesting points, but in my own underqualified opinion it seems a little weak.

 

[TN MuscleBear]

Good post Mini...

My two thoughts are:

1. If sex was purely functional and not meant have redeeming value in and of itself, it wouldn't feel so damn good and bring such a feeling of closeness between two (or more - ha) people. The procreation arguement can be used to question birth control as well.

2. Regarding the population issue...it's just possible that God makes some homosexual as a kind of "natural release valve" for crowding of the planet.

Oh, dear guru, what other pearls of wisdom can ye bestow.....

 

[bigguns7]

The procreation arguement can be used to question birth control as well.

How?

 

[TN MuscleBear]

How?

Well, look at this quote from your original post:

It is my understanding that all animals in this world are here for one reason, and that is THE PROPAGATION OF THE SPECIES. Whether God put us here or the Big Bang put us here, we are here to make sure that our species is potentiated. We are here to make more of us. We are here to procreate. Period.

Heterosexual couples having sex while using birth control are doing nothing to propagate the species. It is sex for the sake of sex - be it pleasure or to promote closeness or whatever...but certainly not with the goal of producing offspring.

This is the very reason why the Pope will not budge on birth control for catholics - he agrees with you...that sex without procreation has no purpose and therefore shouldn't be done. But, I am not catholic, and I do not agree with him or with you on this issue.

 

[bigguns7]

Well, look at this quote from your original post:


This is the very reason why the Pope will not budge on birth control for catholics - he agrees with you...that sex without procreation has no purpose and therefore shouldn't be done. But, I am not catholic, and I do not agree with him or with you on this issue.

First off, I think you've misunderstood me. I'm not saying that I don't think homosexuals should have sex, I'm just saying that i don't see the point as far as nature goes. I don't agree with the Pope's viewpoint in the least.

Secondly, using birth control is a choice that heterosexuals make in order to regulate the number of children they produce. But, they CAN reproduce whenever they want. Homosexuals, on the other cannot, cannot reproduce ever, no matter what, until they engage in heterosexual sex.

 

[TN MuscleBear]

First off, I think you've misunderstood me. I'm not saying that I don't think homosexuals should have sex, I'm just saying that i don't see the point as far as nature goes. I don't agree with the Pope's viewpoint in the least.

Secondly, using birth control is a choice that heterosexuals make in order to regulate the number of children they produce. But, they CAN reproduce whenever they want. Homosexuals, on the other cannot, cannot reproduce ever, no matter what, until they engage in heterosexual sex.

That's true. I think I do now understand you. My only reply to what you've just said is that there are heterosexuals on this earth who cannot reproduce also....even though the biology should be there. But, these people have some part in God's grand plan, I believe. Their purpose is something other than to procreate.

 

[TN MuscleBear]

Hey bigguns7 - I just saw that you are in Atlanta...I am also, in spite of my screen name. Are there a lot of others on here from here?

 

[mini_mouse]

1. If sex was purely functional and not meant have redeeming value in and of itself, it wouldn't feel so damn good and bring such a feeling of closeness between two (or more - ha) people. The procreation arguement can be used to question birth control as well.

But don't you think that the reason sex is enjoyable (for most) is so that we are more inclined to fulfil it's function i.e. procreate. If sex were an unpleasant experience, or even a neutral one, then we'd engage in it far less often. Sex and eating are - for the most part - considered life's two greatest physical pleasures and I think this is because both of these activities are life sustaining.

Re: birth control. It's true that birth control seems to go against the human function to reproduce but, unlike homosexuality, it's a manmade device and not related to evolution.

2. Regarding the population issue...it's just possible that God makes some homosexual as a kind of "natural release valve" for crowding of the planet.

Yeah, could be. We're at the top of the food chain so we don't have predators to cull us and prevent overpopulation like other animals do so homosexuality could be one preventitive measure (although, according to the article I posted, we're not the only animals that participate in homosexual behaviours). I think war could be seen as a similar 'culling device' too, especially given that we're the only species that kill our own en masse ... but that's for a different post

 

[bigguns7]

Hey bigguns7 - I just saw that you are in Atlanta...I am also, in spite of my screen name. Are there a lot of others on here from here?

Kakdiesel, Cornholio (I think), Bailey, Wlibbe, RyanH (I thinK), Dballer, Jae (I think)

There are some more from Atlanta for sure, but I can't remember them right now.

 

[TN MuscleBear]

Kakdiesel, Cornholio (I think), Bailey, Wlibbe, RyanH (I thinK), Dballer, Jae (I think)

There are some more from Atlanta for sure, but I can't remember them right now.

Well fuck-howdy....

 

[The Shadow]

Athens.