It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Evolutionary dynamics of male homosexuality.

page: 6
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 01:33 PM
Probably would be a good idea if you read my previous post on this subject.
The New Testament treats homosexuality the same way it treats heterosexuality -, ya don't need it. When you become a christian, the idea is to slowly whittle away at the demands of the flesh, so that you are more spiritually minded and less fleshly minded (at least to the point you are able without starving to death or something). It discusses this over and over again. The real issue here is the natural aversion some people have to the idea of homosexuality as a choice. They just have problems separating it in their heads. Honestly people, just read the texts for yourself.

In the Old testament the outlawing of homosexualtiy was a human survival necessity, just like proper dietary and sanitary practices. In the New Testament it's just one of many things the new christian is asked to do away with because it's a flesh desire. Whatever separates us from communion with God is a flesh desire. It's that simple. It's not complicated. It isn't specifically anti-gay, it's anti-anything to do with the demands of the flesh. The buddhist understands this because they learn to ignore pain and so on for similar reasons.

Read, read, read! It'll calm your nerves on the subject and bring the joy back in your heart.

posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 04:31 PM

Originally posted by djerwulfe
reply to post by endrun

It makes sense, now that I think about it.
But if you don't take my word for psychotherapists as charlatans, maybe this guy carries a little more weight.
I raise you a Wiki...

Why would I take your word for it, when I'm in the field and you appaerntly aren't? You don't seem to know much about psychotherapy, either, sorry. Not all psychotherapists are charlatans, most are well-meaning but misguided. I have a Jungian orientation, which is different from mainstream psychology.
What does Norm Chomsky, a linguist, have to do with the topic?

Undo, who are you addressing your last post to? you didn't say. I really like what you have to say, even though I'm not Christian. It least makes sense out of something I've always wondered about in regards to the Bible. Thank you for your contribution.
Now here's another question for everyone: How can it be a bad thing to deeply love someone, even of the same sex?

[edit on 23-6-2008 by endrun]

posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 08:44 PM

Originally posted by djerwulfe

"Animals- homo behavior turns up under stress, lack of prospective hetero mates and limited resources"

How is that bad?

"Urbanity, and dense populations are the main root of homo behaviors. In the old days, alot of people just chose to be aesexual. We're really oversexed today. It seems if you don't hook up with SOMEONE, you're shunned. Be it homo or hetero. Gots to have a lover."

Where you live has nothing to do with what your sexual orientation is. People won't have sex with someone of the same sex just to have a lover...WHAT are you talking about

Obesity and and addiction are not normal. They can be treated to be healthy individuals. Homosexuality cannot be treated since it is NOT something that can be treated and gay people are just as healthy as everyone else.

Mod Note: How to Quote– Please Review This Link.

[edit on 23-6-2008 by Jbird]

posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 08:51 PM

Originally posted by endrun
"If there is such a thing as the gay gene, why has it not been bred out, seeing as how most gay men do not procreate?? I'd love to hear your answer to that one."

Could some gay men have children with some women? Yes

Could there be more gay people in the world then we think who are in the closet and will never leave but live straight lives? Definitely

Could the gene(if it exists) be turned off and on in some? Maybe, some brown eye people can give birth to blue eyed....and heres an article on a gender blind gene that scientists have found in fruit flies.

[edit on 23-6-2008 by Jbird]

posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 07:22 AM
reply to post by WickedStar

ok, here are just 2 very recent news articles. The 1st one is actually sympathetic to the practice (MSM: males having sex with males) but chose to remain pragmatic

Ignorance and stigma surrounding men who have sex with men and male sex workers

Anal sex is more damaging than vaginal sex,” Rinyiru explained. Njoroge explained, “Water-based lubricants are not readily available, as they are too expensive.

Vaseline or lotions are being used, which can lead to tearing of a condom and consequently a higher HIV prevalence.”

Rinyiru identified this problem in her study, where “MSWs had little knowledge about water-based lubricants.”

This ignorance about male to male sex accounted for the high prevalence of HIV in MSMs, where Njugore reported that a study found that 47% of MSMs were HIV positive. Runyiri added that “STI infections were common in MSMs,” she added.

Therefore, access to information and resources relating to MSMs should be on the agenda, Njugore encouraged.

Threat of world Aids pandemic among heterosexuals is over, report admits

One of the danger areas for the Aids strategy was among men who had sex with men. He said: " We face a bit of a crisis [in this area]. In the industrialised world transmission of HIV among men who have sex with men is not declining and in some places has increased.

"In the developing world, it has been neglected. We have only recently started looking for it and when we look, we find it. And when we examine HIV rates we find they are high.

"It is astonishing how badly we have done with men who have sex with men. It is something that is going to have to be discussed much more rigorously."

[edit on 24-6-2008 by Jbird]

posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 09:51 AM
Imagine that an organism is sick. Imagine that the sick cells convince the organism that they were healthy, and in fact, the healthy cells are sick. The gullible organism would just get sicker and sicker.

This is the relationship between society and homosexuals today. Gays argue that same-sex behavior is no different than being left-handed. On the other hand, they say heterosexual behavior is not natural, but socially conditioned and "oppressive." Heterosexual society and family are taking heavy casualties. Our stupid, opportunistic and craven leaders have betrayed us. We don't even know we are at war.

Let's decide whom, in fact, is sick.

Let's look at gay behavior:

a surprisingly high percentage of pathological liars and con men are gay. This results from a natural habit of self-concealment, and leads to a stubborn self-deception about one's own gayness and its implication.

gays tend to reject all forms of morality and value judgments. Gay morality boils down to "I can do whatever I want and you can go to perdition. (If it feels good, I'll do it!)" If a gay feels like seducing a trusted friend's lover, he'll do it, justifying it as an act of "sexual freedom" and the friend be damned.

gays suffer from a "narcissistic" personality disorder and give this clinical description: "pathological self absorption, a need for constant attention and admiration, lack of empathy or concern for others, quickly bored, shallow, interested in fads, seductive, overemphasis on appearance, superficially charming, promiscuous, exploitative, preoccupied with remaining youthful, relationships alternate between over idealization and devaluation."

a very sizable proportion of gay men who have been diagnosed HIV positive continue to have unprotected sex.

Many gays are "single minded sexual predators" fixated on youth and physical beauty alone. When it comes to the old or ugly, gays are "the real queer bashers." Disillusioned themselves, they are cynical about love.

Relationships between gay men don't usually last very long." They quickly tire of their partners and fall victim to temptation. The "cheating ratio of 'married' gay males, given enough time, approaches 100%

gays tend to deny reality in various ways: wishful thinking, paranoia, illogic, emotionalism and embracing crackpot ideas.

Is there any doubt that this behavior is sick? Obviously this is not true of all homosexuals. I feel no malice toward gays. I feel the same way about people who have the flu. I want them to get better and I don't want it to spread.

posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 12:58 PM


I refrain from any expression beyond that. It would be personally abusive - and not discussing the subject.


posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 01:12 PM
reply to post by doctormcauley

I -- though it bores me to admit it, given this context -- am straight. However, your gay-bashing nastiness compels me to point out that your post is a farrago of caricature and ignorance that would be offensive if it were not so sad.

Why do you hate gay people so much? What are you so afraid of, dear doctor?

I do hope, for your sake, that it isn't yourself...

[edit on 24-6-2008 by Astyanax]

posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 01:14 PM
reply to post by Annee

Bless, you Annee!!!

I think it (the post above) demonstrates a true sickness, the sickness of hate. Pure and simple hate, no other way to describe it.

I had to duct-tape my virtual mouth until I calmed down enough to be able to think this through, and post in a responsible manner.

*sarcasm* But, as you know, can't trust me, since all Gays are 'con-men' and 'habitual liars'......Gee, way to go with that broad-brush of hate, 'doctor'. *sarcasm*

posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 01:16 PM
reply to post by Astyanax beat me to it!!

But, still, great response!!

posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 01:26 PM
question: Why do many think that male homosexuality would remove a man from potential breeding population? If indeed homosexuality performed the function of preventing overpopulation it doesn't prevent those males from fathering children if the population were to dip. I would imagine that if population dipped that many homosexual men would be willing to father children for the sake of the community. It sounds more like (following OP posted link) that it's more of a reserve measure. Sounds horrible but like natures living sperm bank.

posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 01:55 PM
reply to post by weedwhacker

WW buddy, thanks for fighting the good fight against these tiny tiny people, whilst I've been away.
Astyanax, welcome to my circle of "friends". Star for you.

Annee, you rock.
As for doctormcauley there's a special place in the universe waiting for you. I won't spoil the surprise, all I'll say is you won't need to bring a sweater.

Please try to stay on topic and try to back up your claims with some facts or documentation.

Edited cause I've calmed down. Serenity now!
Edited again cause I'm back in my happy place.

[edit on 24-6-2008 by schrodingers dog]

[edit on 24-6-2008 by schrodingers dog]

posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 01:55 PM
reply to post by mysterychicken

Actually, quite a few homosexuals happen to be of above-average intelligence, very tolerant of others' views, and all-around nice people.

Just as in any segment of society, there are the arrogant, evil nasty people in it for themselves only, who happen to be Gay.

Dick Cheney (I have to resist the obvious joke here) is an arrogant, evil nasty person. Not that I'm suggesting he's Gay....but he did sire a Gay daughter. Fortunately, Mary did not take after her evil, nasty...did I say evil yet? --- father.

posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 02:02 PM
reply to post by schrodingers dog

Thanks for the star, my friend.

Now -- don't let the haters blow your cool. They aren't worth yourself getting banned for.

I wanted to u2u this, but that facility seems to be down right now, or something. Sorry for putting it in the thread, but I needed to say it.

posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 02:06 PM
reply to post by weedwhacker

Weedie I'm a bit confused. It said you were replying to me but I never said anything about the general qualities of homosexuals or heterosexuals. I was addressing the fact that some people think that someone who's homosexual is not part of (or potentially of) the breeding population. The last time I checked homosexuality doesn't make one infertile.
I was looking at a purely logical view of the orientations would play in reproduction.
Hetro males would be 1st line sperm donors, hetro women would be incubators and homosexual males would be reserve sperm donors (presumptively lesbians would be reserve incubators?). I thought it was awful because I was de-humanizing people. In reality people don't fall neatly into those groups. However, in overall function it's a thought.
It was more of a further potential answer to the "why" of it all.

Also, in a robust community wouldn't the number of non-reproducing adults give better odds to the survival of the children that are born in said community?

[edit on 24-6-2008 by mysterychicken]

posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 02:14 PM
reply to post by Astyanax

Oh dear, Astyanax, you ended a sentence with a prepositon!!!! Eeek!

Ok, poor humor attempt, and U2U are down....

Schrodinger, Asty is right. I just take a sec, sit back, watch Jon Stewart or Kathy Griffin to get a laugh, and a perspective, before I type. Works like a charm, and prevents those cute little red tags over there under your avatar.......

posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 02:22 PM
reply to post by mysterychicken

MC, I think I got your point. You apologized for it....but what I didn't expand on was this: Nothing would stop a homosexual man from donating sperm to a sperm bank. (That oughtta rattle some cages!!)

Of course, if it was a crisis of population, naturally any man with viable testes could impregnate a viable woman. If the continuation of the race itself were at stake!

THAT would be a choice!! What is not a choice, is what activates our sexual centers, what 'turns us on' to be crass about it.

It is individual, it is personal, and it is somewhat ineffable...and it is nobodies business, unless it damages another's rights in some way. That is the basis for organized societal behavior.

posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 02:33 PM
reply to post by doctormcauley

This has to be one of the most repulsive threads I've ever seen on ATS. You have no proof, evidence, sources or even experience for your viewpoints. They are opinions, no more than that. Everything you have said about homosexuality is utter rubbish. How many gays have you known? Not many, I'm willing to bet.

This is what happens when people decide to become armchair psychologists, they simply assume things rather than do any research or exchange of opinions with others. I'm willing to bet that most of the gaybashers on this thread have never really been very close to a gay person and have no idea what they are talking about - they just speak from their own emotional reactions, which are emotions, but not facts, not at all.

And to all of you who are gay and have been brave enough to say so on this thread, I give you lots of kudos, stars and flags. I've always thought it takes a REAL MAN to be able to live openly as a homosexual, given that their very lives are often at stake when they're open about it, not to mention all of the hate, violence and disrespect they receive from the rest of the public.

To the homophobes: How about drumming up enough courage to explore your innermost self, as so many gays and lesbians have had to do in order to come to terms with themselves, due to the constant barrage of hate that is inflicted on them.

If people would simply take a look at their own dark side, they would be too occupied to hate on someone else, which is what happens when we don't do our work at keeping our side of the street clean.

posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 02:36 PM
reply to post by weedwhacker

I'm more confused than ever. I think we're talking apples and oranges. I don't think I posted anything offensive nor apologized for anything I posted. I never made any judgments about anyone.
I was just addressing the original assertional that homosexuality has a function and expanded upon it. What function does "x" perform and why, that's all.

I never said anyone was good or bad or should/shouldn't be sperm donors or parents or anything. I didn't say anything morally was/wasn't inherent or that one who is of any type of group should/shouldn't make certain decisions.

If you're using a response to my post as a conduit to address the moral and philosophical judgments that others made

I'm just confused how it has anything directly to do with what I posted.

When I used the words "sperm donor" and "incubator" in my previous post I wasn't referring to actual donors to sperm banks but the functions played as organisms. Was that the source of confusion?

[edit on 24-6-2008 by mysterychicken]

posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 02:44 PM
reply to post by mysterychicken

MC, nothing directed against you, I think we're dancing about to the same tune.

Your last sentence was 'nature's living sperm bank'. You were analytical, and somewhat apologetic for being so blunt, that's what I picked up from your post, that's all.

Actually, I think it's important to keep emotions out of it, sometimes....and let the analytical and practicality come's good to have facts over 'opinions' quite often.

top topics

<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in