Homosexuals

[Alessandro17]

How would homosexuality make sense with evolution? It does not benefit the species in any way. Does not increase food consumption, reproduction, or anything beneficial.

 

One should ask nature why bonobos are the way they are:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo#Sexual_social_behavior

 

http://www.unl.edu/rhames/bonobo/bonobo.htm

 

And yes, their sexual behaviour seems to be beneficial to their society.

[johan]

STill not trying to start a flame war but.....

 

How would homosexuality make sense with evolution? It does not benefit the species in any way. Does not increase food consumption, reproduction, or anything beneficial.

 

Plato, Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo, Alexander the Great, Sir Isaac Newton,

Leonard Bernstein , James Baldwin, Oscar Wilde, Jodi Foster, Freddie Mercury etc.

All famous {censored}’s

Don’t you think, they contributed a lot of positive things to society?

 

So maybe evolution, made them {censored}, in order to enable them to focus on science, arts, music etc

In stead of just producing children

[socal swimmer]

Plato, Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo, Alexander the Great, Sir Isaac Newton,

Leonard Bernstein , James Baldwin, Oscar Wilde, Jodi Foster, Freddie Mercury etc.

All famous {censored}’s

Don’t you think, they contributed a lot of positive things to society?

 

So maybe evolution, made them {censored}, in order to enable them to focus on science, arts, music etc

In stead of just producing children

 

no. If that were true, most succesful people would be {censored}. While that list is impressive, it is but a small fraction of all famous inventors/artists/contributors to society.

 

Though I do find that extremely interesting.

 

I think homosexuality is irrelevant (but it may help with art/design..).

[superstition]

I think homosexuality is irrelevant.

This is at the heart of anti-{censored} prejudice.

 

Consider the ramifications of your statement. What you're saying is that homosexuals are irrelevant. Irrelevant things are censored, shunned, and ultimately, eliminated. Why? Because they don't matter. What's more... they are an intrusion - a problem.

 

The other aspects of anti-{censored} prejudice are:

 

1. I fear retaliation due to identification as homosexual, for myself or others.

2. I can profit from anti-{censored} prejudice.

 

Fear, ignorance, and greed are the cornerstones of anti-{censored} prejudice. {censored} invisibility rhetoric is designed to force {censored} people to disappear. I created a topic called "Homosexuality is never relevant" to discuss this in another forum. It disappeared after some time and was deemed irrelevant before it did.

 

If homosexuality were truly irrelevant, this topic wouldn't exist and you wouldn't have posted in it, eh?

[sxjthefirst]

You know what is unnatural ? CELIBACY. Monogamy too has very little support in the wild. What's the evolutionary benefit of monogamy? The male is meant to produce as many offspring as possible with as many females as possible. People make so many unnatural stuff moral but single out a few to be immoral.

 

The father of modern computer science Alan Turing was {censored} ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing) so we are all working on a technology that has a {censored} father

 

BTW Squirrels don't post in forums either so should we stop posting in forums?

[killbot1000]

You know what is unnatural ? CELIBACY. Monogamy too has very little support in the wild. What's the evolutionary benefit of monogamy? The male is meant to produce as many offspring as possible with as many females as possible. People make so many unnatural stuff moral but single out a few to be immoral.

 

Good Freakin' Point

[Software Updater]

You know what is unnatural ? CELIBACY. Monogamy too has very little support in the wild. What's the evolutionary benefit of monogamy? The male is meant to produce as many offspring as possible with as many females as possible. People make so many unnatural stuff moral but single out a few to be immoral.

 

The father of modern computer science Alan Turing was {censored} ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing) so we are all working on a technology that has a {censored} father

 

BTW Squirrels don't post in forums either so should we stop posting in forums?

You made a really good point there. One the topic of not seeing two guy squirrels doing it in your sisters tree. How do you know? Do you set there and sex every squirrel you see and watch it to see if it does another male squirrel? If so then I think homosexuality is the least of your problems.

[homer007]

i saw someone said that homosexually is there from the start, it has not been there from the start, i think first known discovery was about 3000 years ago!!, i have seen many people change there sexually from homo to straight!! so i think people who are homosexuals is all in their head!!

[^_^]

Darn! My attempts at starting a flame war have failed.....Anyways, my point was that I don't feel that homosexuality is natural. Not that homosexuals are the devil's personal servents and that they personally choose to ruin people's lives (not saying that they do.)How would homosexuality make sense with evolution? It does not benefit the species in any way. Does not increase food consumption, reproduction, or anything beneficial.

 

ok see if this make sense,

 

Again i am changing from {censored} to African Americans

 

Darn! My attempts at starting a flame war have failed..... Anyways, my point was that I don't feel that African Americans is natural. Not that African Americans are the devil's personal servents and that they personally choose to ruin people's lives (not saying that they do.)How would African Americans make sense with evolution? It does not benefit the species in any way. Does not increase food consumption, reproduction, or anything beneficial.

 

i saw someone said that homosexually is there from the start, it has not been there from the start, i think first known discovery was about 3000 years ago!!, i have seen many people change there sexually from homo to straight!! so i think people who are homosexuals is all in their head!!

Japan used to be a homosexual country, it properly still is if the western haven't came and influence us.

I wonder how long have we been on this earth.

 

This is for those who thinks homo is not natural:http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...MNG3N4RAV41.DTL

[Alessandro17]

i think people who are homosexuals is all in their head!!

 

 

http://www.yawningbread.org/apdx_2005/imp-203.htm

 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...gayscent_2.html

 

It's hard to see how a simple choice to be {censored} or {censored} would influence the production of body odor, he said.

[Paranoid Marvin]

Looks closely into Shakespeare's plays - there are a lot of inferences to homosexuality.

Shakespeare wasn't an idiot either, he was a smart man

[killbot1000]

On this subject I don't know why people care so much, why don't we all just mind our own damn business and stay out of other people's personal lives. We should let homosexuals have marriage if they want it, because theres no harm in allowing it, not one bit. We should have anti-discrimination laws on Homosexuality because its who one IS, not who one CHOOSES to be, and even if they did choose to be, we have anti-discrimination laws on religion (which is something one chooses to be).

 

We should simply be happy living our own lives and not living other people's lives for them. Who cares whether it makes sense through evolution or not (monogamy doesn't make sense through evolution either), who cares whether it's right or wrong.

 

When you add up the numbers at the end of the day, being {censored} never hurt anybody (except the people who ARE {censored} who have had other people who dislike them, harming them), so don't fight it, nobody is telling you that you have to be {censored} or anything, and that push will never come in the public so what are you really worried about?

 

It's my guess that these anti-{censored} people are just grossed out at the thought of two people of the same sex having sex. My advice is for these people to grow up and deal with it. For as long as people have been around, there have always been an "us" and a "them". I think it would be wise for us to pick our battles, and fight only what will destroy us in the end. Homosexuality is not a battle we should fight, its meaningless.

[Ravich]

On this subject I don't know why people care so much, why don't we all just mind our own damn business and stay out of other people's personal lives.

 

Because we are human beings. We interact with each other. As much as I'd like to applaud you for disagreeing with discrimination, this is extremely flawed thinking. It goes along with the state of mind that many people have where they claim support of equality, but their mindset is not so. The fact of the matter is that equality would bring homosexuality into same frame in which we view homosexuality. There are plenty of people out there that say there is nothing wrong with homosexuality when the idea of 2 men kissing in public is not quite right in their mind. Not saying you feel this way, but it's important to point out IMO.

 

But this is how we're conditioned. The media basically mind{censored}s society from age 0 until the day we die. Take a look at the stuff that's happening right now. Women are becoming more and more respected and on an equal level to men... at least from a legal standpoint. However look at image in the media. Over the past several decades, women have gotten smaller and smaller, to the point that it is considered "sexy" when a woman's ribs are showing (what the {censored}? seriously.) And then the body image of men over the past several decades: take a look at action figures from the 1970's and then today. Star Wars would be a good example, since they are the same characters. The arm and chest size proportions are absolutely absurd when you look at the difference.

 

Maybe it seem's irrelevant, but this is the root of the problem. Society conditions us in ways in which most people will go through their entire lives without knowing or acknowledging. It's improving, but men are hardly allowed to be real people by most standards. It's all tied into the same problems that both women and homosexual people have, because both are extremely threatening to the standard expectations of males in our society.

 

 

 

When you think about it, it's completely ridiculous. What on earth is it that really makes so many men SO uncomfortable about the idea of 2 men being together like that? Why is it that the thought of the possibility of being {censored} is terrifying to males going through their teens? What is the {censored} logic behind it? Even when men grow up in areas where it isnt acceptable to be anything but supportive of {censored} rights, it's still extremely common for lots of males to feel very uncomfortable about it, and only supportive on a very superficial level.

 

Can't really answer the question myself. Anyone want to think about it for a while and try explaining it to me? I have an idea of the main reason, but I'd like to hear someone else's opinion.

[killbot1000]

Because we are human beings. We interact with each other. As much as I'd like to applaud you for disagreeing with discrimination, this is extremely flawed thinking. It goes along with the state of mind that many people have where they claim support of equality, but their mindset is not so. The fact of the matter is that equality would bring homosexuality into same frame in which we view homosexuality. There are plenty of people out there that say there is nothing wrong with homosexuality when the idea of 2 men kissing in public is not quite right in their mind. Not saying you feel this way, but it's important to point out IMO.

 

But this is how we're conditioned. The media basically mind{censored}s society from age 0 until the day we die. Take a look at the stuff that's happening right now. Women are becoming more and more respected and on an equal level to men... at least from a legal standpoint. However look at image in the media. Over the past several decades, women have gotten smaller and smaller, to the point that it is considered "sexy" when a woman's ribs are showing (what the {censored}? seriously.) And then the body image of men over the past several decades: take a look at action figures from the 1970's and then today. Star Wars would be a good example, since they are the same characters. The arm and chest size proportions are absolutely absurd when you look at the difference.

 

Maybe it seem's irrelevant, but this is the root of the problem. Society conditions us in ways in which most people will go through their entire lives without knowing or acknowledging. It's improving, but men are hardly allowed to be real people by most standards. It's all tied into the same problems that both women and homosexual people have, because both are extremely threatening to the standard expectations of males in our society.

When you think about it, it's completely ridiculous. What on earth is it that really makes so many men SO uncomfortable about the idea of 2 men being together like that? Why is it that the thought of the possibility of being {censored} is terrifying to males going through their teens? What is the {censored} logic behind it? Even when men grow up in areas where it isnt acceptable to be anything but supportive of {censored} rights, it's still extremely common for lots of males to feel very uncomfortable about it, and only supportive on a very superficial level.

 

Can't really answer the question myself. Anyone want to think about it for a while and try explaining it to me? I have an idea of the main reason, but I'd like to hear someone else's opinion.

 

 

I understand your point, and there is a lot of validity to it. But not with me.

 

Watching two guys kiss neither excites me, or bothers me. I can say the same for heterosexual people. I was conditioned when I was younger, I would say things like "thats {censored}!" and {censored} like that.

 

But when Logic started to become my morality, that all...melted away slowly.

 

All I am saying is that other people should really learn some sociology coupled with logic, this will lead them to shrug off things that don't matter and to focus on the things that do. We will still have disagreements for sure, but nothing like we do today.

 

The problem is that most people aren't logical.

 

But...I practice what I preach, and I really do mind my own business, I have many friends who are {censored}, doesn't bother me one bit, in fact we still pretend to hit on each other in a joking way (like one does with their friends).

[aquanutz]

I have no problem with it. I think it all just boils down to preference rather than how a person was born. Of course, you can say your genetics play a part of what things you like, but so does your environment.

 

On the topic of homosexuality and evolution, it is a difficult thing to talk about because we, as humans, behave in different ways when compared to our ancestors (other species). You can not say that "Species A has had homosexual relations as part of their society for X amount of years" and make any correlation to humans because, even though we have evolved from them (key word being 'evolved'), we are able to rationalize things on a much higher level than they can. Evolution boils down to what benefits the entire species, not the individual and for humans, homosexuality does not benefit the (human) species in any form.

 

Just my two cents.

[Alessandro17]

On the topic of homosexuality and evolution, it is a difficult thing to talk about because we, as humans, behave in different ways when compared to our ancestors (other species). You can not say that "Species A has had homosexual relations as part of their society for X amount of years" and make any correlation to humans because, even though we have evolved from them (key word being 'evolved'), we are able to rationalize things on a much higher level than they can. Evolution boils down to what benefits the entire species, not the individual and for humans, homosexuality does not benefit the (human) species in any form.

 

Just my two cents.

 

Let's bring bonobo again into the equation, shall we?

We are very closely related to bonobo:

 

http://www.unl.edu/rhames/bonobo/bonobo.htm

 

the bonobo shares more than 98 percent of our genetic profile......................

 

Not too long ago the savanna baboon was regarded as the best living model of the human ancestor. That primate is adapted to the kinds of ecological conditions that prehumans may have faced after descending from the trees. But in the late 1970s, chimpanzees, which are much more closely related to humans, became the model of choice. Traits that are observed in chimpanzees--including cooperative hunting, food sharing, tool use, power politics and primitive warfare--were absent or not as developed in baboons. In the laboratory the apes have been able to learn sign language and to recognize themselves in a mirror, a sign of self-awareness not yet demonstrated in monkeys.

 

 

 

Although selecting the chimpanzee as the touchstone of hominid evolution represented a great improvement, at least one aspect of the former model did not need to be revised: male superiority remained the natural state of affairs. In both baboons and chimpanzees, males are conspicuously dominant over females; they reign supremely and often brutally. It is highly unusual for a fully grown male chimpanzee to be dominated by any female.

 

 

 

Enter the bonobo. Despite their common name--the pygmy chimpanzee--bonobos cannot be distinguished from the chimpanzee by size. Adult males of the smallest subspecies of chimpanzee weigh some 43 kilograms (95 pounds) and females 33 kilograms (73 pounds), about the same as bonobos. Although female bonobos are much smaller than the males, they seem to rule.

 

So it would seem that we are related to bonobo (almost) as much as we are related to chimpanzees.

Only, our aggressive, male dominated society seems to descend from chimpanzees, rather than from bonobo.

 

The bonobo are entirely different: "Amicable, Amorous and Run by Females", as the article describes them.

 

An extremely important part of the bonobo society is their sexual behaviour:

 

Nature's raucous bestiary rarely serves up good role models for human behavior, unless you happen to work on the trading floor of the New York Stock Exchange. But there is one creature that stands out from the chest-thumping masses as an example of amicability, sensitivity and, well, humaneness: a little-known ape called the bonobo, or, less accurately, the pygmy chimpanzee. Before bonobos can be fully appreciated, however, two human prejudices must be overcome. The first is, fellows, the female bonobo is the dominant sex, though the dominance is so mild and unobnoxious that some researchers view bonobo society as a matter of "co-dominance," or equality between the sexes. Fancy that.

 

The second hurdle is human squeamishness about what in the 80s were called PDAs, or public displays of affection, in this case very graphic ones. Bonobos lubricate the gears of social harmony with sex, in all possible permutations and combinations: males with females, males with males, females with females, and even infants with adults. The sexual acts include intercourse, genital-to-genital rubbing, oral sex, mutual masturbation and even a practice that people once thought they had a patent on: French kissing.

 

Bonobos use sex to appease, to bond, to make up after a fight, to ease tensions, to cement alliances. Humans generally wait until after a nice meal to make love; bonobos do it beorehand, to alleviate the stress and competitiveness often seen among animals when they encounter a source of food.

 

Lest this all sound like a nonstop Caligulean orgy, Dr. Frans de Waal, a primatologist at Emory University in Atlanta who is the author of "Bonobo: The Forgotten Ape," emphasizes otherwise. "Sex is there, it's pervasive, it's critical, and bonobo society would collapse without it," he said in an interview. "But it's not what people think it is. It's not driven by orgasm or seeking release. Nor is it often reproductively driven. Sex for a bonobo is casual, it's quick and once you're used to watching it, it begins to look like any other social interaction." The new book, with photographs by Frans Lanting, will be published in May by the University of California Press. In "Bonobo," de Waal draws upon his own research as well as that of many other primatologists to sketch a portrait of a species much less familiar to most people than are the other great apes -- the gorilla, the orangutan and the so-called common chimpanzee. The bonobo, found in the dense equatorial rain forests of Zaire, was not officially discovered until 1929, long after the other apes had been described in the scientific literature.

 

So an entirely different model of sexual behaviour can benefit an entire species.

 

If we behaved like bonobo, we would live in a much happier society: no violence, no war, no humans exploiting other humans...

 

See also:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo#Sexual_social_behavior

[AbsoFokinlutely]

If you happen to believe in God, then you are familiar with the story of Adam and Eve. ( In a homosexual sense , maybe it would be more appealing if it were Adam and Steve...) Anyway.....two men cant make babies and two women cant make babies. My opinion is not a favorable one. So , I say it like this: If you were a child at school and the teacher wants to have a parent conference with your parents and you live with your adopted parents which happen to be two (legally married) men......What do you feel like ??? --

[johan]

If you happen to believe in God, then you are familiar with the story of Adam and Eve. ( In a homosexual sense , maybe it would be more appealing if it were Adam and Steve...) Anyway.....two men cant make babies and two women cant make babies. My opinion is not a favorable one. So , I say it like this: If you were a child at school and the teacher wants to have a parent conference with your parents and you live with your adopted parents which happen to be two (legally married) men......What do you feel like ??? --

Children who are not taught to hate {censored}'s won't mind. I know from experience.

 

Well lets just exchange the word "{censored}" with ' black" in your story. Black people are discriminated, so you think that black people should not have children, in order to spare their children from discrimination?

 

Is that the logic of your story?

[Alessandro17]

If you happen to believe in God, then you are familiar with the story of Adam and Eve.

 

That doesn't sound right. It should be: "If you happen to believe in the bible", not in "God"

I believe in a God, but not the Christian one. My God couldn't care less whether you are {censored} or not:

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirguna_Brahman

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advaita

[aquanutz]

Let's bring bonobo again into the equation, shall we?

We are very closely related to bonobo:

 

http://www.unl.edu/rhames/bonobo/bonobo.htm

So it would seem that we are related to bonobo (almost) as much as we are related to chimpanzees.

Only, our aggressive, male dominated society seems to descend from chimpanzees, rather than from bonobo.

 

The bonobo are entirely different: "Amicable, Amorous and Run by Females", as the article describes them.

 

An extremely important part of the bonobo society is their sexual behaviour:

So an entirely different model of sexual behaviour can benefit an entire species.

 

If we behaved like bonobo, we would live in a much happier society: no violence, no war, no humans exploiting other humans...

 

See also:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo#Sexual_social_behavior

 

Humans share most of their genetic code with a few apes and many of them have different behavioral patterns. Does this mean that we should engage in all of those patterns? Definately not. The key thing that you seem to be missing here is that we are more evolved than they are. Saying that because we are derived from them, we should act like them would be a step backward in the evolutionary process.

 

To say that if we behaved like the bonobo, all having homosexual tendencies, would certainly not mean that we would be without violence or war. Alexandar the Great was a homosexual and look at the path of death he created.

 

You may as well say that if we all behaved like goldfish, we would have no wars. We would just happily swim around in our bowls looking all fishy faced.

 

Keep in mind, I'm not trying to say homosexuality is wrong or right by any means, I'm just saying that it most likely would not benefit evolution of the human race. When strict homosexuality is practiced by two people, their genes aren't passed on. End of story.

[Alessandro17]

The key thing that you seem to be missing here is that we are more evolved than they are.

 

It depends on the definition of evolution. Looking at how cruel and evil we are, I'd say we are less evolved.

 

To say that if we behaved like the bonobo, all having homosexual tendencies, would certainly not mean that we would be without violence or war. Alexandar the Great was a homosexual and look at the path of death he created

 

Alexander the Great was a bisexual in a violent world. Besides, he didn't kill for pleasure, he was a conqueror.

 

Keep in mind, I'm not trying to say homosexuality is wrong or right by any means, I'm just saying that it most likely would not benefit evolution of the human race. When strict homosexuality is practiced by two people, their genes aren't passed on. End of story.

 

Many homosexuals have been very beneficial to mankind. As to "passing genes on", this is the age old mistake: homosexuals can have children. Look at Ancient Greece if you don't believe me. Or look at bonobo again, they have sex with everybody (not just among males), and yet they normally have offspring, and their young are taken care of by the entire society.

[AbsoFokinlutely]

Keep in mind, I'm not trying to say homosexuality is wrong or right by any means, I'm just saying that it most likely would not benefit evolution of the human race. When strict homosexuality is practiced by two people, their genes aren't passed on. End of story.

 

 

That is it. ^

 

To the person trying to compare my first post on this subject to black people instead of homosexuals : There's nothing to compare - stupid to even bring it up as such.

 

{censored} people are how they are. On 60 minutes they had a story about 2 twin boys that grew up completely set in their ways from birth. It is possible that before birth , certain genes can make this decision for us. One of the twin boys grew up and didnt like any normal boy-type toys but rather, he liked pink, Barbies, and other dolls...while his twin brother was what we (society) would call normal. The mother didnt try to influence either boy in any (sexual) preference/direction. Interesting story....

The people that decide they are {censored} after trying regular relationships with the opposite sex...

What is that all about?

[aquanutz]

Many homosexuals have been very beneficial to mankind. As to "passing genes on", this is the age old mistake: homosexuals can have children. Look at Ancient Greece if you don't believe me. Or look at bonobo again, they have sex with everybody (not just among males), and yet they normally have offspring, and their young are taken care of by the entire society.

 

I'm not arguing that homosexuals haven't been beneficial to mankind as individuals. But have they benefited the advancement of the human race? No. I also said 'strict' homosexuals, not bi-sexuals.

 

Either way, this argument could go on for eternity. I think it's best I just bow out and chalk it up to different beliefs.

[mifki]

lol go {censored} yourself alessandro, you and your stupid bonobos.

[djet]

Aless you keep on saying that {censored} people can have children, so thus it's not bad for society, but (correct me if I'm wrong) I don't think that many homosexuals have hetero sex to make children..... they're homosexual..... they don't like people of the opposite sex... so why would they have sex with them?