A Thought on homosexuality... - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Mojo_PeiPei · 06-30-2003, 11:54 PM

Here is something I have been thinking about recently with all the hoop-la about sodomy and homosexual marriages recently in the news. Anywho in regards to evolution and preservation of the species it seems that homosexuals are at a disadvantage. Their seeds will not be passed on and their genes eliminated from the pool. Now I see that there are 3 possible explainations for all of this, two are related. 1. There is a genetic defect. It is a common arguement that homo's don't choose to be gay, they are "born that way". 2. Funny that homosexuality has exploded in the last century along with the worlds biggest known baby boom (by that I mean a world population of 7 billion). Is it possible it is a natural effect to perhaps lower the population? or 3. Hedonism in the parlence of our times? Perhaps it is a tell-tale sign of western civilizations decline. Rome was experiencing much of the same problems as it came to a fiery end. Perhaps homosexuality is one of many societal woes?

sportsrule101 · 07-01-2003, 07:48 AM

I have has always believed it to be number 3. Throughout history the way the best cut down on population was, natural disaster and war. I don't think that our genetics are changing in order to cut down on population, it would be unprecidented. If they will change it probable won't be till there are over 20 billion, because that is the number that the world can succesfully support.

Darkblack · 07-01-2003, 08:05 AM

Actually I think sex is sex. We have sex for pleasure and sex for reproducing. IF all you homophobes would just drop it and stop making a big deal out of it the world would be a better place.

Again, like I have said in other threads. IF it is a sin to your God, he will deal with it after death. For now, don't knock it til you try it.

sportsrule101 · 07-01-2003, 08:49 AM

How can you say the world would be a better place, how do you think the main way AIDs spreads

warrrreagl · 07-01-2003, 08:51 AM

I prefer to think of human society (as a whole) as being capable of self-organizing behavior. Therefore, when populations increase to stretch the living conditions to a breaking point, society (not nature) will find ways to reduce the problem. The easy argument would be to say that if homosexuality is genetic, then nature is the culprit (a thinning of the herd action). However, I still maintain that if a human society faces enough duress, it can force physical changes to manifest in the population. For example, amphibians can undergo spontaneous sex changes if their populations are too tilted toward one gender.

On a related topic, would we all agree that humans who suffer from Down's Syndrome exhibit certain similar physical features? The extra chromosome obviously causes changes in facial characteristics that are similar throughout their population subset. I would also offer that anyone attending a women's basketball game would notice that several of the alternative lifestyle females in the crowd seem to exhibit similar facial features to each other.

No, not all lesbians look alike. Of course not. However, it seems plain to me that many, many lesbians do have remarkably similar facial characteristics, and this lends credence to the notion that homosexuality is a physical manifestation; i.e., not by choice.

Darkblack · 07-01-2003, 10:11 AM

The world would be a better place because there would be less judging each other and telling each other what is morally right and wrong.

AIDS is not a "gay" disease, as many of you seem to think. That was propaganda from the 80s. Anyone that has multiple partners can spread aids.

rogue49 · 07-01-2003, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Darkblack
The world would be a better place because there would be less judging each other and telling each other what is morally right and wrong.

AIDS is not a "gay" disease, as many of you seem to think. That was propaganda from the 80s. Anyone that has multiple partners can spread aids.

Bingo, we have a winner.

sportsrule101 · 07-01-2003, 12:10 PM

It had its beginning though through homosexual relations. Its rampant spread comes from both regular and homosexual contact. Both of which need to carefully examined, a plan needs to be made to cut down on its spread before everychild is an orphan.

papermachesatan · 07-01-2003, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mojo_PeiPei
1. There is a genetic defect. It is a common arguement that homo's don't choose to be gay, they are "born that way".

It's probably a mixture of nature and nurture.

Quote:

2. Funny that homosexuality has exploded in the last century along with the worlds biggest known baby boom (by that I mean a world population of 7 billion). Is it possible it is a natural effect to perhaps lower the population?

Homosexuality has always been there. It was just supressed during Christanity was in power in the west.

Quote:

3. Hedonism in the parlence of our times? Perhaps it is a tell-tale sign of western civilizations decline. Rome was experiencing much of the same problems as it came to a fiery end. Perhaps homosexuality is one of many societal woes?

Homosexuality was common before Rome started to decline. It had nothing to do with Rome's collapse.

sportsrule101 · 07-01-2003, 12:13 PM

Certain things are morally wrong and hurtful to a society, such as murder, sexual deviance. If you think there is moral wrongs and rights, i pity your employer, because you have nothing to determine what is right or wrong, good or bad other then whatever pops into your mind, as you make the decision.

papermachesatan · 07-01-2003, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sportsrule101
How can you say the world would be a better place, how do you think the main way AIDs spreads

AIDS wasn't spread primarily by homosexuality:

Quote:

What caused the epidemic to spread so suddenly?

There are a number of factors that may have contributed to the sudden spread including international travel, the blood industry, and widespread drug use.

International Travel

The role of international travel in the spread of HIV was highlighted by the case of 'Patient Zero'. Patient Zero was a Canadian flight attendant called Gaetan Dugas who travelled extensively worldwide. Analysis of several of the early cases of AIDS showed that the infected individuals were either direct or indirect sexual contacts of the flight attendant. These cases could be traced to several different American cities demonstrating the role of international travel in spreading the virus. It also suggested that the disease was probably the consequence of a single transmissible agent.[Promiscuous sex by both homosexuals and hetrosexuals]

The Blood Industry

As blood transfusions became a routine part of medical practice, this led to a growth of an industry around meeting this increased demand for blood. In some countries such as the USA paid donors were used, including intravenous drug users. This blood was then sent worldwide. Also, in the late 1960's haemophiliacs began to benefit from the blood clotting properties of a product called Factor VIII. However, to produce the coagulant, blood from thousands of individual donors had to be pooled. Factor VIII was then distributed worldwide making it likely that haemophiliacs could become exposed to new infections.

Drug Use

The 1970s saw an increase in the availability of heroin following the Vietnam War and other conflicts in the Middle East, which helped stimulate a growth in intravenous drug use. This increased availability together with the development of disposable plastic syringes and the establishment of 'shooting galleries' where people could buy drugs and rent equipment provided another route through which the virus could be passed on.
the source

Darkblack · 07-01-2003, 12:19 PM

sportsrule101 where do you get your facts?

AIDS got its start from eating raw monkey meat.

Every child will not be an orphan either. Do to break throughs in medicine AIDS can be controlled and maintained. People are living long almost normal lives with AIDS. AIDS has been on the decrease the last couple of years. I predict we will have a cure in the next 15 years.

sportsrule101 · 07-01-2003, 12:21 PM

raw monkey meat huh, where exactly did you get that from. post link ?

papermachesatan · 07-01-2003, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sportsrule101
It had its beginning though through homosexual relations. Its rampant spread comes from both regular and homosexual contact. Both of which need to carefully examined, a plan needs to be made to cut down on its spread before everychild is an orphan.

A good sexual education programs at school is a great start. Abstincence only programs make the idiotic assumption that people are going to have sex anyways. A better program that will help stop the spread of AIDS, other STDs and teen pregnancy would give the students the facts they need to know to protect themselves when they're engaging in sexual relations.

sportsrule101 · 07-01-2003, 12:24 PM

Yes drug use, and blood transfusions help spead it.
But unprotected homosexual relations was also a part of it. I
What a person does in private is his business, i won't through him in jail for it. Will i discuss with him why he does it, of course.

Darkblack · 07-01-2003, 12:25 PM

Quote:

Most scientists agree that monkey, or simian, immunodeficiency viruses (SIV) became HIV when they eventually transferred to humans (zoonosis) through hunting accidents and eating raw or undercooked monkey meat.

Link
http://www.austinchronicle.com/issue...aboutaids.html

I can give you about 10 more links if you like.

papermachesatan · 07-01-2003, 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sportsrule101
raw monkey meat huh, where exactly did you get that from. post link ?

http://www.avert.org/origins.htm The link I provided covers how the diseases could have spread from monkeys to humans.

sportsrule101 · 07-01-2003, 12:27 PM

Yes they help here in the USA both safe sex and abstincence programs, but other countries don't have a reliable, proven, repeatable way of doing this education yet. If you have a way, there are many people with open ears.

Lebell · 07-01-2003, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sportsrule101
raw monkey meat huh, where exactly did you get that from. post link ?

Google.

Use it, people.

-------------------------------------------------------

LINK

Aids origin 'discovered'

The origin of the main HIV virus that causes Aids in humans has been discovered by an international team of scientists.

A chimpanzee named Marilyn enabled them to confirm that the Aids virus first passed into people from a particular sub-species of chimp in the Central African rainforest.

Infected chimps do not develop Aids and it may now be possible to learn why. This would greatly help efforts to prevent and treat the disease in humans.

Human infection occurred in the first half of the century as a result of people hunting and eating the chimps, the scientists believe. This practice continues today.

The team said that genetic tests show the main human virus, HIV-1, is closely related to a virus that infects chimps but does not make them sick.

Dr Beatrice Hahn of the University of Alabama and colleagues made the discovery when analysing frozen blood and tissue samples from a lab chimp named Marilyn which died in 1985. The genetic tests were not available at that time.

"She had never been used in Aids research and had not received human blood products after 1969," said Dr Hahn.

Dr. Sarah Nelson-Jones: "This is an exciting piece of research"
Her team, which will publish the results in the journal Nature, found in Marilyn a "grandparent" virus to the human one. Similar viruses had been seen before in four chimps but the latest research confirmed that only Marilyn's sub-species, Pan troglodytes troglodytes, carried the virus which infects humans.

In the early days of Aids research, dozens of chimps were deliberately infected with the HIV virus to see if they developed the disease. To the surprise of scientists, they did not, despite sharing 98% of their genetic material with humans.

Now that the specific sub-species of chimp has been identified, the scientists behind the latest study believe new treatments could be developed by studying why the chimps do not get Aids.

"This is an important finding with significant potential," said Dr Anthony Fauci of the US National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), which helped fund the study.

"This may allow us to study infected chimpanzees in the wild to find out why these animals don't get sick. This information that may help us better protect humans from developing Aids."

It is not yet known whether the chimps do not develop Aids because of their genetic differences with humans or because their immune systems deal better with the virus. The answer will determine whether studying the chimps could lead to better treatments or better vaccines for Aids.

Professor Paul Sharp at Nottingham University is one of the team members and told the BBC: "We now need to find out how common this virus is in the chimpanzees in the wild, but that could be difficult as the species is endangered."

The sub-species population is estimated at 80,000 but the annual number killed is thought to be thousands, putting these chimps on the "brink of extinction".

There is evidence that HIV may have transferred to humans throughout history, but only became an epidemic in the 20th century. The reasons for this are increased sexual promiscuity, civil unrest and movement of people to cities, according to Dr Hahn.

Last year, researchers said they had found the first known case of Aids - in a Bantu man who died in 1959 in the Belgian Congo, now the Democratic Republic of Congo and the home of the sub-species of chimps.

Lebell · 07-01-2003, 12:31 PM

And it is also ignorance to say that homosexual conduct is the main spread of the disease.

The truth is that homosexual conduct in the late 70's and 80's was a major factor in the spread of the disease in North America as was poor blood screening procedures and intravenous drug use, however, the disease was and is mainly spread in Africa and the East by heterosexual contact.

papermachesatan · 07-01-2003, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sportsrule101
Yes drug use, and blood transfusions help spead it.
But unprotected homosexual relations was also a part of it.

As my sources clearly pointed out.

Quote:

What a person does in private is his business, i won't through him in jail for it. Will i discuss with him why he does it, of course.

wtf are you talking about?

sportsrule101 · 07-01-2003, 12:32 PM

The monkey start is theory, it might prove to be correct, i didn't mean that the disease was started by humans, but it was transmitted especially early on by homo relations, along with other factors. That article is well written, but is by no means a definite athority. And in 20 years, there will more theories that might prove it right or wrong. As with any scientific data, the only way to prove it out is time, and more research.

papermachesatan · 07-01-2003, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sportsrule101
Yes they help here in the USA both safe sex and abstincence programs,

Abstincence programs refuse to address proper ways to protect yourself from sex other than "just don't do it". Safe sex is not discussed.

Quote:

but other countries don't have a reliable, proven, repeatable way of doing this education yet. If you have a way, there are many people with open ears.

What is your point?

sportsrule101 · 07-01-2003, 12:36 PM

The whole gaining knowledge of the world we live in, he can do what he wants as long as it doesn't cause harm to a society. this determination is made by somebody, and many will have differing opinion, just as many have different opinions on world peace, homosexuality, abortion and many other topics.

sportsrule101 · 07-01-2003, 12:38 PM

all this complaining from us in america aren't helping stop the spread of it.

papermachesatan · 07-01-2003, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sportsrule101
The monkey start is theory, it might prove to be correct, i didn't mean that the disease was started by humans, but it was transmitted especially early on by homo relations, along with other factors.

Yes, homosexual relations did introduce AIDS into the U.S. but drug use and blood transfusions were crucial to it's fast spread.

Quote:

That article is well written, but is by no means a definite athority. And in 20 years, there will more theories that might prove it right or wrong. As with any scientific data, the only way to prove it out is time, and more research.

I haven't seen you producing any alternate links or pointing out where the article is wrong. You must do those things if you wish to discredit my source.

papermachesatan · 07-01-2003, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sportsrule101
The whole gaining knowledge of the world we live in, he can do what he wants as long as it doesn't cause harm to a society. this determination is made by somebody, and many will have differing opinion, just as many have different opinions on world peace, homosexuality, abortion and many other topics.

That didn't make any sense. Please rephrase it.

papermachesatan · 07-01-2003, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sportsrule101
all this complaining from us in america aren't helping stop the spread of it.

Again, wtf are you talking about?

CSflim · 07-01-2003, 01:24 PM

Should we start a new thread? The original question was about the "reason" behind Homosexuality, not the origin of AIDS. Both are interesting topics, worthy of descussion, but they are independant of each other.

BTW: I'm not complaining about the thread being "derailed", conversations always take new turns, but I think the origina question was not really paid much attention.

and sportsrule101, I think the rest of the posters would appreciate it, if you thought about what you are trying to say before posting. I'm not saying that you have nothing worthwhile to say, It seems that you do have a number of interesting points to make, but I think you would do yourself and others well, if you thought first of all, how best to compose your thoughts.

duckznutz · 07-01-2003, 01:40 PM

Well this is a fiery topic and no mistake!

Homphobes have there fear rooted in the fact that they dont want homosexuality 'promoted' to their children as an equal alternative to heterosexuality.

I have to agree with DarkBlack and say that everyone should just chill and live and let live . . . unfortunately there are sections of the homosexual 'community' who dont follow this example and actively 'campaign'. After many years of observing this I have reached the conclusion that homosexuals desire 'acceptance' more than anything else . . .a desire to be treated equally in the eyes of society.

Now maybe that desire for acceptance is a mask for their guilt on account that deep down they know their actions to be wrong . . . . or maybe that desire for acceptance is simply out of a genuine feeling of persecution? Whatevr reason . . . . it is a fact that society as a whole does NOT regard same-sex couples as equal to heterosexual couples. This is not out of narrow-mindedness or moral high ground but has its roots in the days of the industrial revolution when factory workers with families to support were accorded benefits and rights, becuase the hard-nosed factory bosses realised that these children were the future workforce.

It is becuase homosexuals do not contribute anything to society (by virtue of their homosexuality) that they are held in lower esteem than child producing heterosexuals.

Its all commercial . . . not moral or societal.

papermachesatan · 07-01-2003, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by CSflim
Should we start a new thread? The original question was about the "reason" behind Homosexuality, not the origin of AIDS. Both are interesting topics, worthy of descussion, but they are independant of each other.

BTW: I'm not complaining about the thread being "derailed", conversations always take new turns, but I think the origina question was not really paid much attention.

I'm not so sure that's its inappropriate in this thread. The original poster's #3 cause suggests that homosexuality is a soceital woe. If homosexuality is wrong because it spreads disease, then it would support #3.

However, homosexuality isn't anymore wrong than hetrosexuality as far as disease spreading goes. What is guilty of proliferating STDs is promiscuous homosexual sex and promiscuous hetrosexual sex.

papermachesatan · 07-01-2003, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by duckznutz
It is becuase homosexuals do not contribute anything to society (by virtue of their homosexuality) that they are held in lower esteem than child producing heterosexuals.

Since I couldn't say it any better:
PsygnisFive (4:45:23 PM): thats so bullshit
PsygnisFive (4:45:50 PM): homosexuals DO add to society because they do not add the extra burden of children while providing labor and economic force

While homosexuals do not actually increase the population, they also do not strain schools system, etc. while contributing to soceity in the form of labor and putting money into the economy.

CSflim · 07-01-2003, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by duckznutz
It is becuase homosexuals do not contribute anything to society (by virtue of their homosexuality) that they are held in lower esteem than child producing heterosexuals.

Wow! Thats a very interesting point, I had never thought of it in that way. I'm not sure how correct it is, but it's a possibility, that on a subconcious level, people hold these beliefs.

Although I wouldn't agree that they don't contribute to society, they work jobs and pay taxes like the rest of us!

My guess is that they are simply victims of "racial" prejudice. "They" are different from "us". Plus I think the church played a large role in reinforcing these attitudes, especially in America.

I would also ask that people on this board read all posts in the context of the discussion before throwing out accusations of homophobia (I'm not accusing anyone, this is premtive). People should be able to make their point without having to put the "politically-correct" sheen onto it. Read it, but make it your duty not to get offeneded by it.

For instance, I am absolutely not homophobic. I can say this without doubt, and would demand absolutely equal rights for all people of any sexuality. I would definatly not be of the opinion that homosexuality should be considered as a "disease"
That being said, from a purely naturalistic sense, being a homosexual is a defect. In nature, your sucess as an animal is based soley on your reproduction.

It poses a very interesting question about evolution: Since homosexuality is such a major disadvantage, why haven't we evolved more protective traits to "protect" us from it?

There is no evidence to suggest that homosexuality is genetic. Even when you think about it, it seems almost contradictory: Those people in whom the gene manisfested itself, would not pass on the gene. Hence it could only be passed on, if it were to lie dormant!

My guess is that it is an error in the embryonic development, at the stage when the embryo "decides" to be male or female. And instead of becoming purely "male" or purely "female" it takes on characteristics of both.
This seems to fit the evidence. Homosexual men tend to have soft, feminine facial features, and their personality also tends to be more feminine, as do their interests: fashion, art v.s beer and sport. This is perhaps why homosexual men often get on so well with women as "one of their own" (And yes I am WELL aware that I am making massive generalisations and sterotypes).
Homosexual women tend to have "butch" masculine features. They tend to be more well built, with larger muscles. (Again with the stereotypes).
This could also be the reasoning behind transvestitism and transsexualism.

So, in a way it could be similar to mental and physical handicaps...yes a "disease" of sorts

.

But this still doesn't answer the question of why we haven't evolved a protection mechanism for this kind of "error" in embryonic development. It seems that it is quite a rampant "disease". Anyone have any statistics on this?

Again, I may have appeared to make some "offensive" remarks, but bear in mind the context in which they were said: A naturalistic context as opposed to a social or humanistic point of view, so please don't accuse me of being anything I'm not. I can't stand homophobia!

That being said, I welcome any criticisms/comments on my idea, and/or associated linkage.

CSflim · 07-01-2003, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by papermachesatan
Since I couldn't say it any better:
PsygnisFive (4:45:23 PM): thats so bullshit
PsygnisFive (4:45:50 PM): homosexuals DO add to society because they do not add the extra burden of children while providing labor and economic force

While homosexuals do not actually increase the population, they also do not strain schools system, etc. while contributing to soceity in the form of labor and putting money into the economy.

I don't think duckznutz was implying that this was HIS opinion, or that it was even a rational opinion, rather that it is a deeply engrained prejudice of society (which often tend NOT to be rational).

monody · 07-01-2003, 07:59 PM

well- here's a different take:

why is a person's reproductive capabilities such a large consideration in their sociological placement? if it is such a huge factor, why wouldn't adults who have chosen not to have children be as shunned as the gay community?

personally, i think that human evolution has passed the point of needing to continuously reproduce. there's a whole bunch of us now. we're straining the earth's limitations. why should we continue to double and triple our population until we have somewhere to put them (i.e. when we begin to settle space).

back on topic.
no- homosexuality is not a 'defect'. it is not a 'choice' any more then breathing is a 'choice'.
and no- i would not say that there is more homosexuality present in these times unless you are simply number crunching. there are more people then ever, therefore; there are more homosexuals then ever.

and i would not say that "many lesbians do have remarkably similar facial characteristics" anymore then i would say that many straight males happen to be around 5'9" and have brown hair. most of the similarity seen in the homosexual communities came from simple fashion choices.

watch any war movie and tell me that most men don't look alike when their heads are shaved and they wear the same uniform.

and hey! there have been some wonderfully thought out and open-minded posts on this board, and i would like to commend you all for them!

papermachesatan · 07-01-2003, 10:50 PM

Quote:

There is no evidence to suggest that homosexuality is genetic. Even when you think about it, it seems almost contradictory: Those people in whom the gene manisfested itself, would not pass on the gene. Hence it could only be passed on, if it were to lie dormant!

My guess is that it is an error in the embryonic development, at the stage when the embryo "decides" to be male or female. And instead of becoming purely "male" or purely "female" it takes on characteristics of both.
This seems to fit the evidence. Homosexual men tend to have soft, feminine facial features, and their personality also tends to be more feminine, as do their interests: fashion, art v.s beer and sport. This is perhaps why homosexual men often get on so well with women as "one of their own" (And yes I am WELL aware that I am making massive generalisations and sterotypes).
Homosexual women tend to have "butch" masculine features. They tend to be more well built, with larger muscles. (Again with the stereotypes).
This could also be the reasoning behind transvestitism and transsexualism.

You acknowledge your reasons as being sweeping generalizations and you still hold onto the view depends on those reasons.

To the general idea of the rest of your post:
A person's default sexuality seems to be bisexual-whatever generates pleasure is okay. There's precedent for this in nature and in history. In greece, rome, etc., bisexuality was popular amoung men. Homosexuality also occurs in nature and Dolphins, the only known species to have sex for pleasure, also engages in homosexuality.

It, of course, is changed through nurture especially in our soceity where homosexuality is generally disaproved in.

There doesn't need to be a "homosexual gene". You've got a gene that tells you to like male or female. Sometimes they may just get mixed up.

duckznutz · 07-02-2003, 12:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by monody
well- here's a different take:

why is a person's reproductive capabilities such a large consideration in their sociological placement? if it is such a huge factor, why wouldn't adults who have chosen not to have children be as shunned as the gay community?

Well . . have you not noticed that adults who do not have children ARE in fact considered to be 'lesser' than those who do?

How many mothers (and it is usually mothers!) constantly nag their unmarried children into 'settling down' (a euphemism for producing children) . . . . . . . . . and how many dinner parties have you attended where the couple with no children are constantly asked "so no plans to start a family then?"

I very carefully stated that homosexuals add nothing to society by virtue of their homosexuality . . . . we all pay taxes, we all contribute equally . . . heterosexuals (who produce children) ALSO extend the fabric and network of humanity into the future . . . . . . that is why they will ALWAYS be considered as 'superior' (cant think of a better word sorry!) to any other relationship.

Its not "Woman and children first!" for nothing.

duckznutz · 07-02-2003, 01:03 AM

Gay, straight, bi, childless . . whatever . . we all have the right to choose for ourselves how we wish to live our lives WITHOUT being judged by others.

My personal dislike is people (often self-righteous religious people, or indeed gay 'rights' people) who castigate others for their point of view, and dictate, persuade, or otherwise try to influence how another human being lives their life.

I think it is OK to have a private dissapproval of being gay . . . but keep it to yourself!

I think it is OK to be gay . . . but keep it to yourself!

And if you are gay . . . you must simply accept that other people have the right to disapprove of that lifestyle choice.

Interestingly . . now my thoughts are on this subject . . . I notice that a LOT of gays (and certainly the few gay friends and colleagues I have) . .are 'artistic' and 'wealthy'.

It strikes me as odd that the gay community have so many well-educated, well-off, usually in artistic or aesthetic professions! I conclude that it is in fact a 'lifestyle choice' invariably associated with a degree of decadence, and NOT genetic. It can be no coincidence that tolerance of alternative lifestyles is greatest in the most socially developed, culturally diverse and affluent areas of the world.

papermachesatan · 07-02-2003, 01:15 AM

Quote:

I very carefully stated that homosexuals add nothing to society by virtue of their homosexuality . . . . we all pay taxes, we all contribute equally . . . heterosexuals (who produce children) ALSO extend the fabric and network of humanity into the future . . . . . . that is why they will ALWAYS be considered as 'superior' (cant think of a better word sorry!) to any other relationship.

except when you take "overpopulation", public school expenses, etc. etc. into consideration.

warrrreagl · 07-02-2003, 09:08 AM

Hey papermachesatan, I saw a website last year where a guy built a cool paper mache satan and documented the construction on his website. Are you that guy?

06-30-2003, 11:54 PM	#1 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	A Thought on homosexuality... Here is something I have been thinking about recently with all the hoop-la about sodomy and homosexual marriages recently in the news. Anywho in regards to evolution and preservation of the species it seems that homosexuals are at a disadvantage. Their seeds will not be passed on and their genes eliminated from the pool. Now I see that there are 3 possible explainations for all of this, two are related. 1. There is a genetic defect. It is a common arguement that homo's don't choose to be gay, they are "born that way". 2. Funny that homosexuality has exploded in the last century along with the worlds biggest known baby boom (by that I mean a world population of 7 billion). Is it possible it is a natural effect to perhaps lower the population? or 3. Hedonism in the parlence of our times? Perhaps it is a tell-tale sign of western civilizations decline. Rome was experiencing much of the same problems as it came to a fiery end. Perhaps homosexuality is one of many societal woes? __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

07-01-2003, 07:48 AM	#2 (permalink)
sportsrule101 Insane	I have has always believed it to be number 3. Throughout history the way the best cut down on population was, natural disaster and war. I don't think that our genetics are changing in order to cut down on population, it would be unprecidented. If they will change it probable won't be till there are over 20 billion, because that is the number that the world can succesfully support. __________________ winning isn't everything but losing isn't anything

07-01-2003, 08:49 AM	#4 (permalink)
sportsrule101 Insane	How can you say the world would be a better place, how do you think the main way AIDs spreads __________________ winning isn't everything but losing isn't anything

07-01-2003, 08:51 AM	#5 (permalink)
warrrreagl pinche vato Location: backwater, Third World, land of cotton	I prefer to think of human society (as a whole) as being capable of self-organizing behavior. Therefore, when populations increase to stretch the living conditions to a breaking point, society (not nature) will find ways to reduce the problem. The easy argument would be to say that if homosexuality is genetic, then nature is the culprit (a thinning of the herd action). However, I still maintain that if a human society faces enough duress, it can force physical changes to manifest in the population. For example, amphibians can undergo spontaneous sex changes if their populations are too tilted toward one gender. On a related topic, would we all agree that humans who suffer from Down's Syndrome exhibit certain similar physical features? The extra chromosome obviously causes changes in facial characteristics that are similar throughout their population subset. I would also offer that anyone attending a women's basketball game would notice that several of the alternative lifestyle females in the crowd seem to exhibit similar facial features to each other. No, not all lesbians look alike. Of course not. However, it seems plain to me that many, many lesbians do have remarkably similar facial characteristics, and this lends credence to the notion that homosexuality is a physical manifestation; i.e., not by choice. __________________ Living is easy with eyes closed.

07-01-2003, 12:10 PM	#8 (permalink)
sportsrule101 Insane	It had its beginning though through homosexual relations. Its rampant spread comes from both regular and homosexual contact. Both of which need to carefully examined, a plan needs to be made to cut down on its spread before everychild is an orphan. __________________ winning isn't everything but losing isn't anything

07-01-2003, 08:05 AM	#3 (permalink)
Darkblack Banned Location: Pennsytuckia	Actually I think sex is sex. We have sex for pleasure and sex for reproducing. IF all you homophobes would just drop it and stop making a big deal out of it the world would be a better place. Again, like I have said in other threads. IF it is a sin to your God, he will deal with it after death. For now, don't knock it til you try it.

07-01-2003, 10:11 AM	#6 (permalink)
Darkblack Banned Location: Pennsytuckia	The world would be a better place because there would be less judging each other and telling each other what is morally right and wrong. AIDS is not a "gay" disease, as many of you seem to think. That was propaganda from the 80s. Anyone that has multiple partners can spread aids.

07-01-2003, 12:13 PM	#10 (permalink)
sportsrule101 Insane	Certain things are morally wrong and hurtful to a society, such as murder, sexual deviance. If you think there is moral wrongs and rights, i pity your employer, because you have nothing to determine what is right or wrong, good or bad other then whatever pops into your mind, as you make the decision. __________________ winning isn't everything but losing isn't anything

07-01-2003, 12:19 PM	#12 (permalink)
Darkblack Banned Location: Pennsytuckia	sportsrule101 where do you get your facts? AIDS got its start from eating raw monkey meat. Every child will not be an orphan either. Do to break throughs in medicine AIDS can be controlled and maintained. People are living long almost normal lives with AIDS. AIDS has been on the decrease the last couple of years. I predict we will have a cure in the next 15 years. Last edited by Darkblack; 07-01-2003 at 12:22 PM..

07-01-2003, 12:21 PM	#13 (permalink)
sportsrule101 Insane	raw monkey meat huh, where exactly did you get that from. post link ? __________________ winning isn't everything but losing isn't anything

07-01-2003, 12:24 PM	#15 (permalink)
sportsrule101 Insane	Yes drug use, and blood transfusions help spead it. But unprotected homosexual relations was also a part of it. I What a person does in private is his business, i won't through him in jail for it. Will i discuss with him why he does it, of course. __________________ winning isn't everything but losing isn't anything

07-01-2003, 12:27 PM	#18 (permalink)
sportsrule101 Insane	Yes they help here in the USA both safe sex and abstincence programs, but other countries don't have a reliable, proven, repeatable way of doing this education yet. If you have a way, there are many people with open ears. __________________ winning isn't everything but losing isn't anything

07-01-2003, 12:31 PM	#20 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	And it is also ignorance to say that homosexual conduct is the main spread of the disease. The truth is that homosexual conduct in the late 70's and 80's was a major factor in the spread of the disease in North America as was poor blood screening procedures and intravenous drug use, however, the disease was and is mainly spread in Africa and the East by heterosexual contact. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate! Last edited by Lebell; 07-01-2003 at 12:40 PM..

07-01-2003, 12:32 PM	#22 (permalink)
sportsrule101 Insane	The monkey start is theory, it might prove to be correct, i didn't mean that the disease was started by humans, but it was transmitted especially early on by homo relations, along with other factors. That article is well written, but is by no means a definite athority. And in 20 years, there will more theories that might prove it right or wrong. As with any scientific data, the only way to prove it out is time, and more research. __________________ winning isn't everything but losing isn't anything

07-01-2003, 12:36 PM	#24 (permalink)
sportsrule101 Insane	The whole gaining knowledge of the world we live in, he can do what he wants as long as it doesn't cause harm to a society. this determination is made by somebody, and many will have differing opinion, just as many have different opinions on world peace, homosexuality, abortion and many other topics. __________________ winning isn't everything but losing isn't anything

07-01-2003, 12:38 PM	#25 (permalink)
sportsrule101 Insane	all this complaining from us in america aren't helping stop the spread of it. __________________ winning isn't everything but losing isn't anything

07-01-2003, 01:24 PM	#29 (permalink)
CSflim Sky Piercer Location: Ireland	Should we start a new thread? The original question was about the "reason" behind Homosexuality, not the origin of AIDS. Both are interesting topics, worthy of descussion, but they are independant of each other. BTW: I'm not complaining about the thread being "derailed", conversations always take new turns, but I think the origina question was not really paid much attention. and sportsrule101, I think the rest of the posters would appreciate it, if you thought about what you are trying to say before posting. I'm not saying that you have nothing worthwhile to say, It seems that you do have a number of interesting points to make, but I think you would do yourself and others well, if you thought first of all, how best to compose your thoughts. __________________

07-01-2003, 01:40 PM	#30 (permalink)
duckznutz Addict Location: Brook Cottage, Lanark, Scotland	Well this is a fiery topic and no mistake! Homphobes have there fear rooted in the fact that they dont want homosexuality 'promoted' to their children as an equal alternative to heterosexuality. I have to agree with DarkBlack and say that everyone should just chill and live and let live . . . unfortunately there are sections of the homosexual 'community' who dont follow this example and actively 'campaign'. After many years of observing this I have reached the conclusion that homosexuals desire 'acceptance' more than anything else . . .a desire to be treated equally in the eyes of society. Now maybe that desire for acceptance is a mask for their guilt on account that deep down they know their actions to be wrong . . . . or maybe that desire for acceptance is simply out of a genuine feeling of persecution? Whatevr reason . . . . it is a fact that society as a whole does NOT regard same-sex couples as equal to heterosexual couples. This is not out of narrow-mindedness or moral high ground but has its roots in the days of the industrial revolution when factory workers with families to support were accorded benefits and rights, becuase the hard-nosed factory bosses realised that these children were the future workforce. It is becuase homosexuals do not contribute anything to society (by virtue of their homosexuality) that they are held in lower esteem than child producing heterosexuals. Its all commercial . . . not moral or societal. __________________ Where your talents and the needs of the world cross . . there lies your vocation.

07-01-2003, 07:59 PM	#35 (permalink)
monody Tilted Location: with the dust bunnies	well- here's a different take: why is a person's reproductive capabilities such a large consideration in their sociological placement? if it is such a huge factor, why wouldn't adults who have chosen not to have children be as shunned as the gay community? personally, i think that human evolution has passed the point of needing to continuously reproduce. there's a whole bunch of us now. we're straining the earth's limitations. why should we continue to double and triple our population until we have somewhere to put them (i.e. when we begin to settle space). back on topic. no- homosexuality is not a 'defect'. it is not a 'choice' any more then breathing is a 'choice'. and no- i would not say that there is more homosexuality present in these times unless you are simply number crunching. there are more people then ever, therefore; there are more homosexuals then ever. and i would not say that "many lesbians do have remarkably similar facial characteristics" anymore then i would say that many straight males happen to be around 5'9" and have brown hair. most of the similarity seen in the homosexual communities came from simple fashion choices. watch any war movie and tell me that most men don't look alike when their heads are shaved and they wear the same uniform. and hey! there have been some wonderfully thought out and open-minded posts on this board, and i would like to commend you all for them! __________________ Wickedness is a myth invented by good people to explain the curious attractiveness of others. -Oscar Wilde.

07-02-2003, 01:03 AM	#38 (permalink)
duckznutz Addict Location: Brook Cottage, Lanark, Scotland	Gay, straight, bi, childless . . whatever . . we all have the right to choose for ourselves how we wish to live our lives WITHOUT being judged by others. My personal dislike is people (often self-righteous religious people, or indeed gay 'rights' people) who castigate others for their point of view, and dictate, persuade, or otherwise try to influence how another human being lives their life. I think it is OK to have a private dissapproval of being gay . . . but keep it to yourself! I think it is OK to be gay . . . but keep it to yourself! And if you are gay . . . you must simply accept that other people have the right to disapprove of that lifestyle choice. Interestingly . . now my thoughts are on this subject . . . I notice that a LOT of gays (and certainly the few gay friends and colleagues I have) . .are 'artistic' and 'wealthy'. It strikes me as odd that the gay community have so many well-educated, well-off, usually in artistic or aesthetic professions! I conclude that it is in fact a 'lifestyle choice' invariably associated with a degree of decadence, and NOT genetic. It can be no coincidence that tolerance of alternative lifestyles is greatest in the most socially developed, culturally diverse and affluent areas of the world. __________________ Where your talents and the needs of the world cross . . there lies your vocation.

07-02-2003, 09:08 AM	#40 (permalink)
warrrreagl pinche vato Location: backwater, Third World, land of cotton	Hey papermachesatan, I saw a website last year where a guy built a cool paper mache satan and documented the construction on his website. Are you that guy? __________________ Living is easy with eyes closed.