#straight

[quadz]

[quote author=j

[jägermonsta]

Doesn't your girlfriend like it in the ol' stovepipe ?

Sure does. But that doesn't make it ok for buttseks gays.

Evolution is amazing.

So humans evolved into being capable of liking the same sex? That is basically what I said, however it's not right. Again... sex is between a man and a women, the way it started and it should be forever. Same sex intercourse is not right. Something is wrong with these people mentally.

Oh well.  When you start off with "all that crap like pleasure and love," I have to suppose maybe you're just trolling. 

You must be a sentimental guy. Sorry if I offended ya there. 

I stated it like that because pleasure and love have nothing to do with animals breeding. It's an instinct. I don't see many male monkeys fucking each other in the ass. *shrug*

What gets me is that people who are 'anti-gay' are considered bigots... Just because we feel it's not right for the same sex to have intercourse. We're the bad people because we don't believe it's right... We discriminate against fellow human beings that are "different" because they have intercourse with the same sex.

Tell me why it's ok? Because it makes them happy? They 'love' each other? Well some people are happy having sex with animals... hell I'm sure the goat or whatever it is doesn't mind... I'm sure we all agree these people are wrong in the head... Why can men have sex with men? To me that's as wrong as 'fucking an animal' (GWAR plug) I don't understand I guess. It doesn't make sense to me that it's ok for people to be gay. That it's accepted the same sex can love each other to a point where they have sex with each other. The people who partake in being gay and the people that accept gay people are the ones who spawned irrational dumb ideas.

 

[haunted]

Haunted doesn't care about silly little homos and their butthole pleasures. 

[Whirlingdervish]

time for another rant..

as far as evolutionary processes are concerned, sex can't be "bad", but it can be "without merit".
Just because something feels good, it doesn't mean it is useful or meaningful or even "good".

to begin with, I'd like to state my belief that most animals that breed sexually have 2 main instincts in common.
survival of self.
survival of species. (breeding instincts)

Homosexuality seems to be caused by a misunderstanding of one's breeding instincts (or possibly a mutation of those instincts into something less useful).
The instincts I'm referring to are those that are developed by experiencing sex in some form (to completion) and the ones we are born with that make us want to live in groups of like animals and pair up with a partner.

These instincts are an effect caused by the genetically ingrained behavior(s) we know as the "sex drive".
Most animals that breed sexually, have instincts that drive them to have sexual congress with a member of their species who is appropriately equipped to complement their sexual organs. Some, like humans and dolphins, have a mutation in their DNA that makes us "enjoy" sex and by doing so, these genes cause us to be more successful as a species due to an increased rate of reproduction. (this increases our chances of useful mutations occuring in the near future, and the chances that your genes will be passed on)

Some people become addicted to sex, because your body releases chemicals that make you feel "good" when you bust one.
Since the release of these chemicals coincides with a successful sexual encounter, we develop a pavlovian response to sexual activities that makes us want and enjoy sex reflexively. Unfortunately, sex itself is not what we need to survive as a species.
It needs to be useful sex (that is, sex that's capable of creating life) to insure survival.

Many more types of animal have modifiers on the basic breeding instinct that make them "want" the most fit and advantageous breeding partner. These include the urges for certain animals to breed with the partner who's plumage is brightest or who's song/dance is the best. These behaviors drastically increase the chances of having offspring that will survive to breed and pass on their advantageous combination of genes.

Our instincts (as a species) have been diluted down to very basic urges that make us just want sex cause it "feels good" or "it's fun" because the conditions have begun to matter less and less as people have developed societies that insulate them from the disastrous side-effects of being sexually useless (in an evolutionary sense) and choosing a poor partner to have sex with. We don't need these urges to survive as much as we once did and so social acceptance is no longer based on virility and advantageous sexual preference.

People who are capable of being gay, have been around since we formed these instincts that make us want sex, but they haven't been accepted until now, for good reason. Back then, they wouldn't be capable of making strong offspring and insuring the survival of our species, but they used the resources of members of the society that were. Now that sexual potency and the ability to breed has lost some of it's importance, gays aren't seen as a drain on society as much as they once were.

I'd say there is something "wrong or negatively different" with someone who does not heed or misunderstands their instincts to further the species which allows them to survive to a ripe old age (thru cooperation) regardless of their lack of usefullness to their group of evolving beings for whom heterosexual intercourse is a main form of evolutionary opportunity.

[quadz]

[quote author=j

[Whirlingdervish]

I think it's unfortunate that some people are born with evolutionarily useless sexual preferences and/or mutated genitalia.

I wouldn't say that being born any certain way is not "OK", but choosing to have sex with a member of the same sex is not entirely based on genetic differences, and thus not exactly comparable to being born a hermie who had no choice whatsoever in the orientation and make-up of their genitals.

apples and oranges, buddy.   

[jägermonsta]

"Not right" based on what?

Based on what makes it ok? I'll argue as you do now and shoot back the question with out answering the one posed at me.

That's an interesting statement.  Frankly, how is it your business?

It was more of a question then a statement. I stated why I don't think it's ok, I don't understand why some think it is ok. I can say why it's not ok because I'm entitled to my own opinion such as you are.

[quadz]

I'd say there is something "wrong or negatively different" with someone who does not heed or misunderstands their instincts to further the species which allows them to survive to a ripe old age (thru cooperation) regardless of their lack of usefullness to their group of evolving beings for whom heterosexual intercourse is a main form of evolutionary opportunity.

The problem is, this is trying to apply survival-of-species logic in broad strokes to an individual person.

Some people are born deaf, blind, maimed, or even with both sets of genitaila.

One of the triumphs of culture and society is we've been able to lift ourselves out of the animal world governed by survival of the fittest.

I'm pretty sure gay people don't ask to be born gay, any more than hermaphrodites ask to be born hermaphrodites.

It's not helpful to wag fingers at such people, admonishing them for being born with DNA they didn't have any control over.

Just let them be.

[jägermonsta]

Respectable. However I don't believe every gay person is born that way...

I believe for the most part they are just whores. If they can't get it with a girl they will try with a man and vice versa.

[Whirlingdervish]

btw, I'm thoroughly enjoying this opportunity to have an in-depth discussion without personally attacking each other.
let's keep the replies on topic and attempt to glean an understanding of each others viewpoints instead of the usual bashing of the opposition..

we might gain a bit of enlightenment if we do.

back on topic...

It's not helpful to wag fingers at such people, admonishing them for being born with DNA they didn't have any control over.

I wouldn't bash on gays for their DNA. However, I won't say the same about their choices (that may or may not have been influenced by a difference in their genetic code) until there is some form of solid evidence that they had no choice at all.

[quote author=j

[jägermonsta]

btw, I'm thoroughly enjoying this opportunity to have an in-depth discussion without personally attacking each other.
let's keep the replies on topic and attempt to glean an understanding of each others viewpoints instead of the usual bashing of the opposition..

Kobra isn't a part of this one so that's nothing to worry about. I have nothing but respect for quadz even though he shares a different opinion then me. I'm pretty much done anyhow, made my points.

[Whirlingdervish]

 

good to know.
I didn't think you guys were getting out of hand, just nearing the threshold where people normally resort to less useful forms of arguement. But neither of you is all that normal, so there wasn't much to worry about... 

[quadz]

[quote author=j

[jägermonsta]

Not in accordance with what is morally right or good. It's not meant to be.


'Based on what makes it ok' is pretty simple to understand. I applaud you for figuring it out. 

[Whirlingdervish]

but "morally right" differs in different societies.

It's not a good ruler with which to measure the world since the units of measure are not always the same.

A sliding scale of evolutionary usefullness would be more productive and probably easier to apply to all groups of people.
In the short term, we may be insulated from our choices by our society, but how do we insulate the society from the dangers of becoming apathetic regarding some of the most vital causes of our societies' existence.

without heterosexual intercourse, there would be no society, and no humans, and no gays.
Using my ruler (of evolutionary usefullness) being gay and not caring that people are gay are equally useless and can lead to a dangerous erosion of the inclinations that keep us breeding successfully, and thus existing.

simply put, excessive amounts of gayness (or is it gaity?) among individuals in a society could concievably be the end of that society.