Seeing how Godfather is a douche and I don't want to waste a post...

[Goosemaster]

Well, here is a serious answer:

It has to do with love, and not sex. Fvkign a man is just like fvkign a sheep. Biologically speaking, it is counter-productive as it doesn't promote procreation. That said, the same thing can be said of having sex with an infertile women, and the list goes on. This is where love comes in. Humanity is an island in a sea of chaos and most people don't realize it. You may awe at the plight of other species on the Discovery channel from time to time, but those animals acutally live it. Many of those creatures live horid lives filled with fear and hunger. Their only solice is in procreation and survival.

Humanity is the exception.

We have extablished ourselves as a permanent fixture on this earth and we have the free time to enjoy the subtleties in life. Companionship is one of those subtleties. In such a crude world, even with all our amenities, almsot nothing is regarded with more esteem than companionship. Having someone to rely on without question, having someone who cares for your well being, and having someone who is willing to share their body with you are some of the most coveted things in a humans life.

That said, companionship does not have arcaic boundaries except for the most shrewd of societies. People fall in love with animals and infertile women not because of instinct but because of intellect.


That is why there are men out there that love men. That is why they are "homosexual" or"gay."

And that is why I am infatuated with hot, latin, women....

 

[SynthDude2001]

 

[mchammer]

Originally posted by: Goosemaster
Well, here is a serious answer:

It has to do with love, and not sex. Fvkign a man is just like fvkign a sheep. Biologically speaking, it is counter-productive as it doesn't promote procreation. That said, the same thing can be said of having sex with an infertile women, and the list goes on. This is where love comes in. Humanity is an island in a sea of chaos and most people don't realize it. You may awe at the plight of other species on the Discovery channel from time to time, but those animals acutally live it. Many of those creatures live horid lives filled with fear and hunger. Their only solice is in procreation and survival.

Humanity is the exception.

We have extablished ourselves as a permanent fixture on this earth and we have the free time to enjoy the subtleties in life. Companionship is one of those subtleties. In such a crude world, even with all our amenities, almsot nothing is regarded with more esteem than companionship. Having someone to rely on without question, having someone who cares for your well being, and having someone who is willing to share their body with you are some of the most coveted things in a humans life.

That said, companionship does not have arcaic boundaries except for the most shrewd of societies. People fall in love with animals and infertile women not because of instinct but because of intellect.


That is why there are men out there that love men. That is why they are "homosexual" or"gay."

And that is why I am infatuated with hot, latin, women....

Turtles do ok for themselves...

 

[Shawn]

hmm

 

[amol]

Originally posted by: Goosemaster
And that is why I am infatuated with hot, latin, women....

Adriana Lima ..... HOT

It was her birthday today (Sunday)

 

[Shawn]

Originally posted by: Amol

Originally posted by: Goosemaster
And that is why I am infatuated with hot, latin, women....

Adriana Lima ..... HOT

It was her birthday today (Sunday)

I :heart: Adriana Lima.

 

[Sheepathon]

I thought homosexuality existed in every society, even the ones where the people were killing each other over a scrap of food. And don't homosexual animals exist as well? I've read multiple accounts of homosexual behavior in the wild. Your post seems to indicate that gay people are gay simply because they have the luxury to do so. That might be the case on some occasions, but I doubt it explains homosexual behavior across the board.

 

[grrl]

Who are you?

 

[QuitBanningMe]

OK...as I said in the last thread love is a mechanism to ensure survival of the species. Why are there homosexuals?

 

[GeekDrew]

Originally posted by: QuitBanningMe
OK...as I said in the last thread love is a mechanism to ensure survival of the species. Why are there homosexuals?

Because maybe not everyone agrees with that definition of love. I can love a man, and I couldn't care less about survival of the species. Why? Idunno. I just know that I'm very much capable of loving a man.

Let's not have this thread deleted, too.

 

[Goosemaster]

Originally posted by: QuitBanningMe
OK...as I said in the last thread love is a mechanism to ensure survival of the species. Why are there homosexuals?

I wouldn't exactly describe love as a mechanism of our biological necessities, but that might the the truth.

I think companionship is something universal to most intelligent creatures, but is jsut more prominant and developed in humans. Perhaps homosexuality was just a decision of desire for companionship over instinct in animals that cohse that route....perhaps somethign akin to the human condition but much simpler.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: QuitBanningMe
OK...as I said in the last thread love is a mechanism to ensure survival of the species. Why are there homosexuals?

Presumably the genes leading to homosexuality serve some function which ensures they will remain in the gene pool. A recent study out of Italy found that women with gay male relatives are more fertile (have more children) than women with no male gay relatives. The researchers theorize that the genes which lead to homosexuality in males have a different effect - increased fertility - in females. The fertility effect, if strong enough, would counter any reduction in reproductive fitness associated with homosexuality, ensuring the genes remain in the population. Another finding is that the more older brothers a male has, the more likely he is to be gay. Assuming the early born sons have kids, maybe it is advantageous for later born sons to not have kids, allowing them to assist with raising their siblings' children. It's not hard to come up with these types of theories.

 

[QuitBanningMe]

Originally posted by: Goosemaster

Originally posted by: QuitBanningMe
OK...as I said in the last thread love is a mechanism to ensure survival of the species. Why are there homosexuals?

I wouldn't exactly describe love as a mechanism of our biological necessities, but that might the the truth.

I think companionship is something universal to most intelligent creatures, but is jsut more prominant and developed in humans. Perhaps homosexuality was just a decision of desire for companionship over instinct in animals that cohse that route....perhaps somethign akin to the human condition but much simpler.

It (love) is there as an evolutionary experiment.

 

[QuitBanningMe]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: QuitBanningMe
OK...as I said in the last thread love is a mechanism to ensure survival of the species. Why are there homosexuals?

Presumably the genes leading to homosexuality serve some function which ensures they will remain in the gene pool. A recent study out of Italy found that women with gay male relatives are more fertile (have more children) than women with no male gay relatives. The researchers theorize that the genes which lead to homosexuality in males have a different effect - increased fertility - in females. The fertility effect, if strong enough, would counter any reduction in reproductive fitness associated with homosexuality, ensuring the genes remain in the population. Another finding is that the more older brothers a male has, the more likely he is to be gay. Assuming the early born sons have kids, maybe it is advantageous for later born sons to not have kids, allowing them to assist with raising their siblings' children. It's not hard to come up with these types of theories.

So homosexuality is a byproduct of survival of the species?

 

[Goosemaster]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: QuitBanningMe
OK...as I said in the last thread love is a mechanism to ensure survival of the species. Why are there homosexuals?

Presumably the genes leading to homosexuality serve some function which ensures they will remain in the gene pool. A recent study out of Italy found that women with gay male relatives are more fertile (have more children) than women with no male gay relatives. The researchers theorize that the genes which lead to homosexuality in males have a different effect - increased fertility - in females. The fertility effect, if strong enough, would counter any reduction in reproductive fitness associated with homosexuality, ensuring the genes remain in the population. Another finding is that the more older brothers a male has, the more likely he is to be gay. Assuming the early born sons have kids, maybe it is advantageous for later born sons to not have kids, allowing them to assist with raising their siblings' children. It's not hard to come up with these types of theories.

Interesting...

Originally posted by: QuitBanningMe

Originally posted by: Goosemaster

Originally posted by: QuitBanningMe
OK...as I said in the last thread love is a mechanism to ensure survival of the species. Why are there homosexuals?

I wouldn't exactly describe love as a mechanism of our biological necessities, but that might the the truth.

I think companionship is something universal to most intelligent creatures, but is jsut more prominant and developed in humans. Perhaps homosexuality was just a decision of desire for companionship over instinct in animals that cohse that route....perhaps somethign akin to the human condition but much simpler.

It (love) is there as an evolutionary experiment.

Perhaps...

 

[morkinva]

Originally posted by: QuitBanningMe
OK...as I said in the last thread love is a mechanism to ensure survival of the species. Why are there homosexuals?

For the same reason men have nipples.

fun fact: humans are the only species that procreate facing one another, unless its doggie style... hehe

 

[amol]

Originally posted by: Shawn

Originally posted by: Amol

Originally posted by: Goosemaster
And that is why I am infatuated with hot, latin, women....

Adriana Lima ..... HOT

It was her birthday today (Sunday)

I :heart: Adriana Lima.

I met her once but I didn't have a camera since I just happened to be at the mall that day ...

But yes ... like it says in my sig ... Adriana Lima > *

 

[QuitBanningMe]

Originally posted by: morkinva

Originally posted by: QuitBanningMe
OK...as I said in the last thread love is a mechanism to ensure survival of the species. Why are there homosexuals?

For the same reason men have nipples.

fun fact: humans are the only species that procreate facing one another, unless its doggie style... hehe

autosomes?

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: QuitBanningMe

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: QuitBanningMe
OK...as I said in the last thread love is a mechanism to ensure survival of the species. Why are there homosexuals?

Presumably the genes leading to homosexuality serve some function which ensures they will remain in the gene pool. A recent study out of Italy found that women with gay male relatives are more fertile (have more children) than women with no male gay relatives. The researchers theorize that the genes which lead to homosexuality in males have a different effect - increased fertility - in females. The fertility effect, if strong enough, would counter any reduction in reproductive fitness associated with homosexuality, ensuring the genes remain in the population. Another finding is that the more older brothers a male has, the more likely he is to be gay. Assuming the early born sons have kids, maybe it is advantageous for later born sons to not have kids, allowing them to assist with raising their siblings' children. It's not hard to come up with these types of theories.

So homosexuality is a byproduct of survival of the species?

all sexuality is a by-product of survival of the species. if we reproduced asexually like amoebas, there would be no need for sexual attraction or sexual preference in the first place, because there would be no sex.

 

[QuitBanningMe]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: QuitBanningMe

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: QuitBanningMe
OK...as I said in the last thread love is a mechanism to ensure survival of the species. Why are there homosexuals?

Presumably the genes leading to homosexuality serve some function which ensures they will remain in the gene pool. A recent study out of Italy found that women with gay male relatives are more fertile (have more children) than women with no male gay relatives. The researchers theorize that the genes which lead to homosexuality in males have a different effect - increased fertility - in females. The fertility effect, if strong enough, would counter any reduction in reproductive fitness associated with homosexuality, ensuring the genes remain in the population. Another finding is that the more older brothers a male has, the more likely he is to be gay. Assuming the early born sons have kids, maybe it is advantageous for later born sons to not have kids, allowing them to assist with raising their siblings' children. It's not hard to come up with these types of theories.

So homosexuality is a byproduct of survival of the species?

all sexuality is a by-product of survival of the species. if we reproduced asexually like amoebas, there would be no need for sexual attraction or sexual preference in the first place, because there would be no sex.

So would you say homosexuality serves no purpose? That it is simply "collateral damage"? Not to be frowned upon of course but a glitch in the code?

 

[Goosemaster]

Originally posted by: QuitBanningMe

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: QuitBanningMe

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: QuitBanningMe
OK...as I said in the last thread love is a mechanism to ensure survival of the species. Why are there homosexuals?

Presumably the genes leading to homosexuality serve some function which ensures they will remain in the gene pool. A recent study out of Italy found that women with gay male relatives are more fertile (have more children) than women with no male gay relatives. The researchers theorize that the genes which lead to homosexuality in males have a different effect - increased fertility - in females. The fertility effect, if strong enough, would counter any reduction in reproductive fitness associated with homosexuality, ensuring the genes remain in the population. Another finding is that the more older brothers a male has, the more likely he is to be gay. Assuming the early born sons have kids, maybe it is advantageous for later born sons to not have kids, allowing them to assist with raising their siblings' children. It's not hard to come up with these types of theories.

So homosexuality is a byproduct of survival of the species?

all sexuality is a by-product of survival of the species. if we reproduced asexually like amoebas, there would be no need for sexual attraction or sexual preference in the first place, because there would be no sex.

So would you say homosexuality serves no purpose? That it is simply "collateral damage"? Not to be frowned upon of course but a glitch in the code?

Perhaps itt is not a glitch in the "code"; maybe it is the byproduct of introducing emotion. Remember, we are fallable.

And it might serve a purpose.

My knowledge of the mind and of biology is quite limited, so I wouldn't rule out evolutionary premonitions that made this so. Perhaps they are method of population control. Either way, far be it from me and many other who don't know the biological specifics to persecute a bunch of people for acting the way nature wants them to.

 

[QuitBanningMe]

Originally posted by: Goosemaster

Originally posted by: QuitBanningMe

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: QuitBanningMe

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: QuitBanningMe
OK...as I said in the last thread love is a mechanism to ensure survival of the species. Why are there homosexuals?

Presumably the genes leading to homosexuality serve some function which ensures they will remain in the gene pool. A recent study out of Italy found that women with gay male relatives are more fertile (have more children) than women with no male gay relatives. The researchers theorize that the genes which lead to homosexuality in males have a different effect - increased fertility - in females. The fertility effect, if strong enough, would counter any reduction in reproductive fitness associated with homosexuality, ensuring the genes remain in the population. Another finding is that the more older brothers a male has, the more likely he is to be gay. Assuming the early born sons have kids, maybe it is advantageous for later born sons to not have kids, allowing them to assist with raising their siblings' children. It's not hard to come up with these types of theories.

So homosexuality is a byproduct of survival of the species?

all sexuality is a by-product of survival of the species. if we reproduced asexually like amoebas, there would be no need for sexual attraction or sexual preference in the first place, because there would be no sex.

So would you say homosexuality serves no purpose? That it is simply "collateral damage"? Not to be frowned upon of course but a glitch in the code?

It is not a glitch in the "code" it is the byproduct of introducing emotion. We are fallable.

You have no emotion when these things are set in motion. The sequence is designed to make females more fertile but while doing so causes men to have feminine tendencies (being attracted to men).

 

[Goosemaster]

Originally posted by: QuitBanningMe

Originally posted by: Goosemaster

Originally posted by: QuitBanningMe

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: QuitBanningMe

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: QuitBanningMe
OK...as I said in the last thread love is a mechanism to ensure survival of the species. Why are there homosexuals?

Presumably the genes leading to homosexuality serve some function which ensures they will remain in the gene pool. A recent study out of Italy found that women with gay male relatives are more fertile (have more children) than women with no male gay relatives. The researchers theorize that the genes which lead to homosexuality in males have a different effect - increased fertility - in females. The fertility effect, if strong enough, would counter any reduction in reproductive fitness associated with homosexuality, ensuring the genes remain in the population. Another finding is that the more older brothers a male has, the more likely he is to be gay. Assuming the early born sons have kids, maybe it is advantageous for later born sons to not have kids, allowing them to assist with raising their siblings' children. It's not hard to come up with these types of theories.

So homosexuality is a byproduct of survival of the species?

all sexuality is a by-product of survival of the species. if we reproduced asexually like amoebas, there would be no need for sexual attraction or sexual preference in the first place, because there would be no sex.

So would you say homosexuality serves no purpose? That it is simply "collateral damage"? Not to be frowned upon of course but a glitch in the code?

It is not a glitch in the "code" it is the byproduct of introducing emotion. We are fallable.

You have no emotion when these things are set in motion. The sequence is designed to make females more fertile but while doing so causes men to have feminine tendencies (being attracted to men).

<--doesn't really feel that it is his place to criticize his own cells

 

[QuitBanningMe]

[q.[/quote]

<--doesn't really feel that it is his place to criticize his own cells[/quote]
ahhhh come on. I criticize/ diagnose mine all the time.

<-----destined to be one sick mofo by 60

 

[PricklyPete]

Originally posted by: Shawn

Originally posted by: Amol

Originally posted by: Goosemaster
And that is why I am infatuated with hot, latin, women....

Adriana Lima ..... HOT

It was her birthday today (Sunday)

I :heart: Adriana Lima.

Me too.