3 of 11
3
Survey shows enormous upswing in percentage of men accepting of gays & lesbians
Posted: 25 June 2010 09:02 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 31 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7641
Joined  2008-04-11

I no longer have the medical library I had when I worked in pediatrics. In my current field of neonatalogy I only see the very rare ambiguous genetalia. Do go to your local junior college and take a class on human sexuality, you would learn a lot and what you learn would be very illuminating.

Yes, if everyone WERE homosexual, we would have fewer people. The fact that our population on earth is doubling faster and faster, shows that the population of homosexuals have not hindered growth. Evolution is about procreation. It doesn’t care how it occurs. A high population of homosexuals would be selected against. Genes do not exist in isolation. Everything with a plus also has a minus. Since homosexuality is a stable population, it must have some evolutionary advantage. One theory is that the same genes that make men gay, make women more fertile. The sex drive is such that in a county like Uganda, where the death penalty has been proposed for the gays, people contiue to express their innate sexuality. There is no country on earth without a population of homosexuals, no matter what is claimed by their governments.

 Signature 

Church; where sheep congregate to worship a zombie on a stick that turns into a cracker on Sundays…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 June 2010 09:03 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 32 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  137
Joined  2008-10-09

...

Did you read that?

Your assertion was that homosexuality remained at a CONSTANT percentile across MULTIPLE SPECIES.

I asked you what your source for that assertion is.

Your reply is numersous articles (from a single source) showing VARYING amounts of homosexuals among a SINGLE species.

And I really like the last one… “you may be gay, you just don’t know it.”

 Signature 

My superiority complex is better than yours.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 June 2010 09:10 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 33 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7641
Joined  2008-04-11
Stormy Fairweather - 25 June 2010 09:03 PM

...

Did you read that?

Your assertion was that homosexuality remained at a CONSTANT percentile across MULTIPLE SPECIES.

I asked you what your source for that assertion is.

Your reply is numersous articles (from a single source) showing VARYING amounts of homosexuals among a SINGLE species.

And I really like the last one… “you may be gay, you just don’t know it.”

LOL, I thought I forgot something, I’ll get right back to you!

 Signature 

Church; where sheep congregate to worship a zombie on a stick that turns into a cracker on Sundays…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 June 2010 09:10 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 34 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  695
Joined  2007-10-14
Stormy Fairweather - 25 June 2010 06:53 PM

Axegrrl… you are being unreasonable. The only ‘argument’ that you present is that sex that cannot facilitate procreation is viable. This is like saying food that does not nourish is viable, or water that does not hydrate is viable. Clearly you do not see this.


`
Stormy, you ‘clearly don’t see’ that you’ve completely and consistently avoided the point that sex/sexuality has ‘purpose’ outside of procreation. 

Are you denying this or simply trying to ignore it altogether?

 

`

 Signature 

‘we are so fundamentally constituted of desire that we go on hearing music…...even though we know the band is gone and the stage is silent’

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 June 2010 09:17 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 35 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  695
Joined  2007-10-14
Stormy Fairweather - 25 June 2010 06:53 PM

Here is a fact: A homosexual population is unsustainable.


`
So what?  a population that consisted only of women would be ‘unsustainable’ too.  Would you then argue that ‘being female’ is somehow isn’t ‘right’ or isn’t ‘efficient’ according to nature?

Do you see the point I’m making?  My example might be described as a little silly/irrelevant because what population consists solely of one gender?  None that we know of.  By the very same token, I ask you:  what population consists solely of homosexuals?

You’re failing to demonstrate the apparent grave-danger-to-society that you’re trying to peddle here.


`

 Signature 

‘we are so fundamentally constituted of desire that we go on hearing music…...even though we know the band is gone and the stage is silent’

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 June 2010 09:20 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 36 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  137
Joined  2008-10-09

Sex does NOT have a purpose outside of procreation.

When a couple has sex, even in the absence of the possibilty of procreation, the purpose remains.

To facilitate the union between mother and father, as two parents are twice as likely to be successful at rearing said children. (much like buying lottery tickets, every additional chance gets diminishing returns, making TWO the best cost/ratio compromise)

It makes SENSE for a man and a woman to share such a connection, because even in the absence of children, OUR evolution has demonstrated a family structure consisting of a mother and a father to be the most successful.

And even in that circumstance the purpose of sex remains constant: procreation, and the suvival of such progeny.

 Signature 

My superiority complex is better than yours.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 June 2010 09:32 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 37 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  695
Joined  2007-10-14
Stormy Fairweather - 25 June 2010 09:20 PM

Sex does NOT have a purpose outside of procreation.

When a couple has sex, even in the absence of the possibilty of procreation, the purpose remains.


`

Uhm, which is it?  First you say it has NO purpose outside of procreation and then, in the very same breath, you say the complete opposite.

Being consistent between 2 sentences would be the first step to bringing coherence to your argument.


`

 Signature 

‘we are so fundamentally constituted of desire that we go on hearing music…...even though we know the band is gone and the stage is silent’

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 June 2010 09:34 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 38 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  137
Joined  2008-10-09

/facepalm

The offspring are a part of procreation. Having children is of little benifit if they do not reach adulthood.

Ergo, facilitating a union between parents is STILL PART OF PROCREATION!

Edit - I used bad terminolgy, I should have said “even in the absence of the possibility of impregnation”

 Signature 

My superiority complex is better than yours.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 June 2010 09:44 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 39 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  695
Joined  2007-10-14
Stormy Fairweather - 25 June 2010 09:34 PM

/facepalm

The offspring are a part of procreation. Having children is of little benifit if they do not reach adulthood.

Ergo, facilitating a union between parents is STILL PART OF PROCREATION!


`
Stormy, seriously here….......are you truly not aware of how many human beings engage in mutually satisfying, non-procreative sex?  Are you not aware of how many people who have had vasectomies/hysterectomies who have engaged in non-procreative sex for years?  And are you truly not aware that those people will happily give you first hand testimony as to why/how this sexual activity is enjoyable/beneficial to them?

If non-procreative sex has ‘no other purpose’ then why does it happen so often when there’s NO chance of offspring being produced? (and we’re not just talking about human beings here ~ do a little reading into the Bonobo apes, for example)

I’m feeling lazy tonight, but I’ll try to get some oomph and dig up some of the research/data that’s out there on the subject that you obviously haven’t read yet…...

`

 Signature 

‘we are so fundamentally constituted of desire that we go on hearing music…...even though we know the band is gone and the stage is silent’

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 June 2010 09:52 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 40 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  137
Joined  2008-10-09

I am tired of addressing fallacies as serious arguments. Here, chew on this and come back with a fresh argument.

http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/popular.html

 Signature 

My superiority complex is better than yours.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 June 2010 09:54 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 41 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7641
Joined  2008-04-11

This is a story that was in the news recently:
(you’ll have to google ‘gay elephant’ for the story, the forum will not allow me to post it)

Gay elephant sparks anger in Poland
A Polish zoo has been condemned by politicians for acquiring a “gay"elephant called Ninio who refuses to mate with female companions.

This was a popular pair at this zoo near my home:
http://www.ebar.com/news/article.php?sec=news&article=1543

As the zoo and its animals get ready to celebrate Valentine’s Day – for the penguins it is the start of breeding season – the male penguin pair is the sole same-gender couple struck by Cupid’s arrow among the zoo’s colony of 53 birds.

“They’ve been boyfriends for a long time,” said their former keeper, Jane Tollini, who left the zoo after 24 years – 19 with the penguins – in 2005. 

On this issue, Nature has spoken: Same-sex lovin’ is common in hundreds of species, scientists say.

Roy and Silo, two male chinstrap penguins at New York’s Central Park Zoo, were a couple for about six years, during which they nurtured a fertilized egg together (given to them by a zookeeper) and raised the young chick that hatched.

yet another pair of gay penguins at the NY zoo.

Apparently the forum will not allow posting of the websites. google ‘gay penguins’ ‘gay animals’ and ‘gay elephant Polish’ and you will link to the articles

 Signature 

Church; where sheep congregate to worship a zombie on a stick that turns into a cracker on Sundays…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 June 2010 09:56 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 42 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7641
Joined  2008-04-11
Stormy Fairweather - 25 June 2010 09:20 PM

Sex does NOT have a purpose outside of procreation.

When a couple has sex, even in the absence of the possibilty of procreation, the purpose remains.

To facilitate the union between mother and father, as two parents are twice as likely to be successful at rearing said children. (much like buying lottery tickets, every additional chance gets diminishing returns, making TWO the best cost/ratio compromise)

It makes SENSE for a man and a woman to share such a connection, because even in the absence of children, OUR evolution has demonstrated a family structure consisting of a mother and a father to be the most successful.

And even in that circumstance the purpose of sex remains constant: procreation, and the suvival of such progeny.

Stormy, have you EVER taken a class on human sexuality???? It sure doesn’t look like it.

 Signature 

Church; where sheep congregate to worship a zombie on a stick that turns into a cracker on Sundays…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 June 2010 09:57 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 43 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  695
Joined  2007-10-14
Stormy Fairweather - 25 June 2010 09:34 PM

/facepalm

The offspring are a part of procreation. Having children is of little benifit if they do not reach adulthood.

Ergo, facilitating a union between parents is STILL PART OF PROCREATION


`
Then why do couples who have NO children get the same satisfaction/benefits from a sexual relationship?  I mean, there are no kids to stay together for, so (according to your line of thinking) one would think there’d be no reason for sex to be fulfilling/bonding in such a situation….....and yet, it is!

Stormy, it doesn’t matter if you say that there’s “NO other purpose” for sexual relationships (outside of procreation) ~ when there are countless people out there to tell you all of the things that sexual relationships ‘bring’ to their lives, to describe all of the benefits they enjoy from sex completely unrelated to reproduction…........do you just say to them “you’re mistaken”?

Or is your argument that people shouldn’t engage in sex unless it’s in the context of procreation?

And seriously, check out the Bonobos, to see the MUCH broader role that sexuality plays in that society…....


`

 Signature 

‘we are so fundamentally constituted of desire that we go on hearing music…...even though we know the band is gone and the stage is silent’

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 June 2010 10:00 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 44 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  695
Joined  2007-10-14
Stormy Fairweather - 25 June 2010 09:52 PM

I am tired of addressing fallacies as serious arguments.


`
Stormy, please don’t say things like that when I’ve got a mouthful of water :)

 


`

 Signature 

‘we are so fundamentally constituted of desire that we go on hearing music…...even though we know the band is gone and the stage is silent’

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 June 2010 10:00 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 45 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7641
Joined  2008-04-11
Stormy Fairweather - 25 June 2010 09:52 PM

I am tired of addressing fallacies as serious arguments. Here, chew on this and come back with a fresh argument.

http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/popular.html

No, argument as populum is YOUR argument. WE are presenting ‘argument from science’. WHY is the fact that people are gay so threatening to you? I can’t have children, but I sure enjoy sex. Procreation doesn’t enter my mind. When I was younger and ‘fruitful’, I did everything I could to AVOID having children (except having sex!!). Have you ever heard of, or used contraceptives??

 Signature 

Church; where sheep congregate to worship a zombie on a stick that turns into a cracker on Sundays…

Profile
 
 
   
3 of 11
3