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: 8
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 25 2008 @ 07:10 PM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Jun, 25 2008 @ 07:14 PM
reply to post by reject

Good grief! Judicious use of smilies please.
I think your post just caused my dog to have a seizure!

posted on Jun, 25 2008 @ 07:46 PM

A furry lifestyler is generally considered to be a person who has one or more of these characteristics:

Integrating a perceived animal nature into one's persona (gait, use of voice, personality, instincts, etc.)
Totemistic beliefs, specifically with regard to animal spirits
A belief that animal instincts exist within humans, regardless of whether they are separate, immaterial spirits, part of the genetic code, caused by reincarnation from a previous animal life, or anything else
A furry lifestyler may also take on physical attributes of an animal, although this is rare. Such attributes may be: hair style (including facial hair), tattoos, articles of clothing (e.g. a tail or ears), or jewelry. In a few extreme cases, some wealthy lifestylers have used elective surgery to affect a physical transformation.
Sound familiar?

Some furry lifestylers have a general dysmorphia, a strong, deeply rooted feeling that they are not in the right body. A few furries have gone so far as to use the term Species Dysmorphic Disorder, a neologism that puns on body dysmorphic disorder, though the simpler "species dysmorphia" is a slightly more common phrase. These seem to indicate a disassociation with the psychological identity of the public at large.

It should. At least this group recognizes they have a disorder. MAYBE because their symptoms are more pronounced. It really should sound familiar because a lot of these exhibit ANOTHER symptom

A common perception of the furry lifestyle is that a very high proportion of its members are gay or bisexual, especially the latter. However, some people dispute this, opining that furs are, as a rule, more likely than the general population to accept non-heterosexual orientations and that this, rather than any real difference in numbers, accounts for the perception. Estimates as to the actual proportion of gay and bi furs therefore range widely, but reliable statistics are absent since serious research into this subject is almost nonexistent.

[edit on 25-6-2008 by reject]

[edit on 25-6-2008 by reject]

posted on Jun, 25 2008 @ 07:56 PM

Originally posted by mysterychicken
reply to post by reject

Good grief! Judicious use of smilies please.
I think your post just caused my dog to have a seizure!
thanks for the idea, mysterychicken

[edit on 25-6-2008 by reject]

posted on Jun, 25 2008 @ 11:18 PM
reply to post by link777

I don't know that obesity and addiction can be "treated" any more effectively than homosexuality.
They are complex disorders with a myriad of causative factors.
Recall, people in times past have "treated" people for homosexuality with many of the same methods used for addiction.
So...I dunno.
Any disorder without a clear pathogenic agent really can't be treated in an objective sense...
Again, all manifestations of human behavior may be argued as genetic in origin, ultimately.
Homesexuality can be correlated to population density.
Additionally, having a reproductive urge or attraction to something other than the biological reproductive counterpart is not normal or healthy. Sorry. I'm not a proponent of censuring gay people, but I'm also not going to be bullied into saying something is normal and healthy that isn't.

posted on Jun, 25 2008 @ 11:26 PM
reply to post by djerwulfe

Do you have any facts to support this opinion?
Any studies or published works?
If not I suspect neither person or fact will ever be able to "bully" you.
That for sure, is neither healthy or natural.

posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 12:03 AM
reply to post by schrodingers dog

I would be happy to share, but I'm not sure what you're asking for. Seriously.
Homosexual population distribution?
Past "treatments" of homosexuality and success rates?
Addiction, obesity, treatment success?
It gets mirky and most studies of this nature are biased or confounded.
YET.. data does exist. But I'm really not sure what you're asking.

What have I said that flies in the face of facts?
If homosexuality was "normal" sexually then there would be reproduction. There is not.
The sex act must be considered distinct from human needs or desires for intimacy or tactile stimulation. Pre-sexual humans have these needs and they aren't reproductively motivated.

As I've said, it's really complicated and doesn't fit neatly into a category. Yes, homosexuality is "natural," no doubt. But so are many other deviant or undesirable elements.
Even defining a homosexual is subjective.
And I am not commenting on moralityity, here. That's beside the point.
But I will say that persistent cultural taboos usually have a pro-species population cause.

"Evolutionary" was the word. Homosexuality persisits because whatever gentic complex involved doesn't always express the homosexual phenotype. And gay people are capable of reproduction just like heterosexuals. Even if you're attracted to same sex partners, one may still very much desire to propagate his or her genetic line.

If you pick my statements apart I'll probably be able to give references.

[edit on 26-6-2008 by djerwulfe]

posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 12:40 AM
reply to post by djerwulfe

djerwulfe....I choose not to pick apart your post. Others likely will.

I feel that we are on the same page, as it may pertain to homosexuality versus heterosexuality....and the various fetishes inherent.

My point, if I didn't make it clear earlier, is simple. STRAIGHTS and GAYS both can have FETISHES!!!

My point was, there is a hypocritical nature of straights, because they seem to conlude, in their minds, that what THEY do behind closed doors, between consenting adults, somehow is different from what OTHERS do behind closed doors, between consenting adults.

AND, the only difference is ---- the two consenting 'adults' in this example happen to be of the opposite sex. Well, let me tell you.....people are not so 'cut and dried'.....

Sorry if this wrecks your "World View"

I submit, and this is abhorrent to me....most Straight men will have sexual satisfaction when they see two women, with one a Porno situation.

Hate to be so blunt, but without violating any T&Cs....I am just trying to prove a point, if you would only think about it!!

Straight men seem to 'get off' by fantacizing about being with two women!!!

So much for the 'monogamy' argument!!!!!!

posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 01:15 AM
reply to post by weedwhacker

I don't disagree with anything you said. Those are all deviant to one degree or another.
Most member of the non-human animal kingdom aren't aroused by the abstract. Most other beast are aroused by pheromones hormones and direct genital stimulation. This sets us apart in many ways from most of the other primates.
Fetish is a good word. I think this can all be lumped into that category and that category is deviant. The result of abstraction and creativity impulses.
No moral call. Mechanical.

Interesting to note, I've heard that it used to be a relatively common practice in group homes for mentally retarded adults to have same-sex group masturbation sessions. They were necessary and seemed to do the trick.

posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 01:35 AM
reply to post by weedwhacker

This is the problem: Heterosexuals who choose to be 'disgusted' by homosexuals later go on, behind the closed bedroom doors, to engage in nasty, disgusting fetishes (nasty, disgusting to me....but that's my point).

I take your point, but chacun â son gout, surely?

Anything goes between two consenting adults (or three. Or four. Or a regiment).

Bestiality is a little more problematic, though only because it might be hard to establish later, in court, that baa meant 'yes, darling'.

As for inanimate objects, just observe the golden rule: never eat anything you've had sex with.

posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 03:30 AM
reply to post by weedwhacker

Clearly you are confusing the activities from your pornography collections with activities carried out in real life by actual people.

And one man having sex with multiple women is the Human way. Donate as much spermatozoa as possible to as many women who want it. The joys of procreation... The dominant male gets the females. Welcome to earth.

Injecting the sperm into an anus is a definite way to make sure that procreation never occurs. Whereas injecting sperm into 2 women is actually doubling your chances of conception.

posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 08:40 AM
reply to post by doctormcauley

And what of women who fantasize about being with 2 men? Are they deviant or normal?

posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 09:34 AM
reply to post by endrun

Normal. The sperm from the healthier male has a greater chance of fertilizing the egg.

This is natural selection at the microscopic level.

We must assume the mates the female has selected meet her "standards" which are largely instinctual..

Of course in primates this doesn't normally happen. The weaker male would be dead or wounded and the female would be selected - not the other way around.

But since we are humans - in this case it is the female who gets to pick the two healthiets males, screw them both and them their sperm duke it out... of course she now has doubled her chances of getting an STD, which would reduce her future ability to get mates and conceive children.

But if those men were screwing her anally or were using contraception then there would be no natural selection - just like with gays, unnatural.

posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 04:14 PM

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by ChronMan many have done here, they speak their beliefs.

They often don't bring facts.

You have just followed that tradition, thanks for confirming the biases.

Homosexuality as being a Neuronal Glitch is a valid point (That would explain the you are born Gay argument). If the first people(s) to exist were homosexual, the human race wouldn't exist, drawing from their Sexual Orientation, you can understand that homosexuality would be a Neuronal Glitch inherited, thus affecting the prosperity of humanity.

The reason I refer to it as a Neuronal Glitch is because in its core, sexuality exists only in ones Mind. Therefore, you as a homosexual are Glitched. I think science needs to classify it as such. I would love for you to make an argument against it not being a Neuonal Glicth. Homosexuality is a Neuronal Glitch in the same sense as OCD.

I believe some homosexuals to make a choice early on in their child hood due to lack of guidance concerning sexuality so as a result they developed an attraction for those sorts of things and those views became cemented within them. In the same sense that one can adjust to cannibalism (No, I'm not comparing homosexuality to cannibalism so relax) via practice and alternative interpretation/thoughts, one can choose to be Gay.

I expect you to respond in opposition to everything I just said because though you refer to me as partial, its obvious you are the one who is partial. You have not even ackowledged any Articles or studies that have been provided as even in the slightest credible... Instead, what you do is challenge each and every one of them without ackowledging that the article does make Valid points.

I do have a question for Homos on here though...

Do you ever wish that Males had Vaginas and Females Penis'?

posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 08:12 PM
reply to post by undo

Anything that stunted the growth of the human population in their communities, was heavily frowned upon, including things which detracted from the birth rate of new humans,

Yes and not only then, but today as well. Consider the Mormon church for an example, and their mandatory 10% tithing practice. Take the average yearly income for an adult male and lets say 40 years of working, and supposing that this one Mormon male who is being "fruitful and multiplies" has 5 children who each have 3 children...then do the math and figure out the total revenue take by the church over those 4 decades among the family. Now, what if one or two of the kids were gay? What if the dad was gay? He could repress it, stay married and in the church and it would result in all of that revenue, however if he does not repress it, comes out and leaves the church, then the church looses all that money. Calculate it all up, you'll see we are talking about millions and millions of dollars throughout the organization, and the same goes for the Vatican, and other organized religions. Thus there is a strong incentive to support translation interpretations that do not accept the homosexual.

(using $40,000.00 average annual income for the example)

40 (years) x 40,000.00 (annual income) = 1,600,000.00
1,600,000.00 x .10 (LDS tithing rate) = $160,000 per working person between ages of 20 & 60, assuming they retire at 60 and start at 20)

5 children by age 25 (assuming their 20 years until they work) so 15 years of working time at 40,000 = $600,000.00 times the 5 kids gives us: 3,000,000.00. 10% of that finishing up the 40 years would be: $300,000.00

Add up the 5 Kids (remember this whole estimate only covers this one man's family for 40 years) and the dad gives us $460,000.00, but he has a wife and she probably works now as well, so using the same average yearly income we add another $160,000.00 to this, and now we have $620,000.00 in revenue for the let's finish this off with the 3 kids each that the five all have now say for the last five years of grandpa's working life and this would mean 3 x 5 = 15 kids at $40,000.00 for 5 years = $3,000,000.00 X 10% = $300,000.00

So I get a total of $920,000.00 for this one guy in revenue for the church. Now of course average incomes will vary and change over time. Some of the kids might be female. Not all will stay "believers", others might be excommunicated, maybe two will have incomes in excess of $100,000 per year....maybe grandpa works until he is 70, and maybe the kids all start working at younger ages etc...but this is just a rough estimate.

Almost a million dollars lost, if he goes gay before his mission (and this does not include adjustments to the revenue value over time as a result of returns on each yearly revenue streams investment...or interest if they hold the cash in a fund... if so, we would be talking about significantly more than a million dollars). Obviously someone being gay is a big threat to the church treasury.

Oh, and also we didn't account for all of these people having gone on a two year mission for the church (which the family pays for themselves) and say each one gets two new long standing members for the church each...well you just added a ton more money revenue stream for the church on top of that previous million or so...perhaps even $millions more.

Nope, I'm afraid god frowns on loving one of the same sex it would seem. It's so bizarre why so many continue to believe and give their money to such rackets!

*edit for spelling*

[edit on 26-6-2008 by skyshow]

posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 09:50 PM
reply to post by ChronMan

Nope, Chron. It IS NOT a choice!!!

Homosexuality is genetic, plain and simple. NOBODY would wish to bring down distain and scorn on themselves, by CHOICE!!!!!!

Christianity, Judaism, Islam.....those are choices!! Well, actually, you can be born into a family, and be indoctrinated into a certain religion. BUT this is where the similarity ends.

A religion is, at heart....a choice. Sexuality is NOT!!

It's as simple as, saying you (for instance) as a heterosexual male suddenly 'chooses' to have sex with men. AIN'T gonna happen!!!! You don't "choose" your brain, at birth, just as you don't "choose" your parents. You get what you are dealt, in life.

posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 09:59 PM
Just a question for those men who believe that homosexuality is a choice:
At what precise point in your life did you decide to be heterosexual?
Most of the comments proposing that suggest homosexuality is a choice are in the form of an opinion. And whilst everyone here is encouraged to share their opinion, it must be evaluated with the appropriate weight.
Opinions are fine, they are however a poor substitute for knowledge.

posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 02:27 AM
reply to post by reject
So its a disorder, now what? Do you make them suffer even more for a condition they have almost no control over?

Do you force special children to compete in regular curriculum for those who were born more fortunate due purely to the luck of the draw?

We're all dysfunctional one way or the other to a certain degree. The truly insane don't know they're insane. That goes for all sides concerned.
X infinity

posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 04:33 AM

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
reply to post by dave420

"Nope. All the evidence gathered on the subject blows your narrow-minded opinion out of the water. Sorry about that. Try learning science from a science book, not a bible or some other intolerant piece of rubbish."

Now who's being intolerant and narrow-minded? Isn't it funny how rampant hypocrisy runs through militant atheists?

As for your statement, it is condescending, yet wrong. Scientists still have NO consensus. Please refrain from insulting people with differing opinions, especially when you cite zero evidence in support of your own.

Yes I see you've met Dave. Typical response from this atheist is to assume he knows more than you, then suggest that you "clearly" do not understand science while be contradicts you with ad-hom grace and no proof to substanitate is baseless contradiction.

It is so common it has earned him the title of the cookie cutter dave form letter post. They gay brain thing is pure Bunk

- Con

posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 07:21 AM

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to
Nope, Chron. It IS NOT a choice!!!


Homosexuality is genetic, plain and simple. NOBODY would wish to bring down distain and scorn on themselves, by CHOICE!!!!!!

Hey we all pay for sex one way or another, look at the recent FBI investigation with the mayor in New York getting busted in that prostitution ring. Do you think he would risk his marriage, his carreer like that by CHOICE!!!! The sex dynamic is very powerful and we jump through all kinds of hoops for it. Most of the scorn I see being doled out is from gays these days.

A religion is, at heart....a choice. Sexuality is NOT!!.

gender isn't but sexuality is!

It's as simple as, saying you (for instance) as a heterosexual male suddenly 'chooses' to have sex with men. AIN'T gonna happen!!!!

It happens all the time my God man do some research

You don't "choose" your brain, at birth, just as you don't "choose" your parents. You get what you are dealt, in life.
You don't choose your sex partner at birth either, SO WHAT!

When you GROW UP, you can get emancipated if you don't like your parents and the sexual partner you want. Some people like it with animals, are you going to tell me they have the Goat brain or the Great Dane Brain! How about Jeffery Dahmers particular bent! Are you going to say pedophiles can't help what they like too!

They have just as much an argument for that as you do but klinefelters syndrome and transgendered notwithstanding, there is NO NOT ONE SOLID and I mean Proof prima facie evidence to support such an absurd position NONE

- Con

new topics

top topics

<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in