My theory on Homosexuality and why it exist.

For along time I've always wondered why two men or two women can be sexualy attracted to one another.

OVer time I've searched for a reason why.

I've come to this theory.

If I was a person or part of a group of persons seeking to control or even kill another person or group of persons by using means that them nor anybody else can't and won't know about, Wouldnt turning the sexes against each other be the sure and best way to end a group of people?
as opposed to just going off with their heads?

For example,

Look at the Old Roman and Greek Empires.

They became, well, great. They flourished, conqured, and created.

Flash foward a couple of years of peace, they became corrupt.
Being forced by their self-proclaimed titles of "accepters of all" or what today we call "progressive".

They allowed all forms of sexual perversion and practices into their way of living.

The men would sleep with the children even though it was still frowned upon. Open homosexuals would be given leadership roles. The men would sleep with other men as the women would sleep with other women.

So much so that they well, feminized, themselves.

The men would think and act like women. Their birth rates declined and diesease and sickness abounded. As all this happened, they completely turned a blind eye to the threat that was growing to the north.

By the time the great empires realized what they turned themlselves into. The barbarians competely wiped them out.

Now here in 2008, I see the same thing happening.
We embrace and accept almost all ways of thinking into our culture.

But here is where my theory comes into play.

If say for example the NWO wants to control everybody and reduce the population.
Would'nt turning the men into women and the women into men seem the best way to covertly weaken a large population?

They tell us to say its natural and :"they are born that way"
well Im not sure if thats so but I do know that If you sprinkle some estrogen powder into a fish bowl the male fish will grow female genitailia.....

reply to post by n0b0DY


well,, you will no doubt not be suprised if this wont be the last comment on your topic post.....but it very well may be ... if the readers of this thread refrain from further comment....it will die...so let it be!

you are wrong... if you have any undersanding of...never mind ..you wouldn't understand it anyway........

let this thread die folks
edidit for spleling...i think...hee oh well
peace

[edit on 4-11-2008 by Zeptepi]

Roman empires didn't have nowhere as near as the population as half the world does now. And its highly unlikely that there will ever be that many homosexuals in the world for the NWO to operate like that....

[edit on 4-11-2008 by dion3976]

reply to post by n0b0DY


Why can't people just accept homosexuality as natural and move on? It occurs naturally in the animal kingdom, and however evolved we think we are, we are still animals.

It is natural, not some grand conspiracy.

Ah here we go....again....

Homosexuality is such a natural part of being human that, if we wiped us all out and started again with a couple of breeding pairs, 10% of every generation would be homosexual right from the start. It has nothing to do with the rise and fall of empires, or the New World Order's desire to extinguish us all by using our own "bad habits"...it just is. Get over it.

Cait

edit for early morning pre-tea spelling errors....

[edit on 4-11-2008 by caitlinfae]

mwahahahahha I iz in ur Mpirez,bringin down ur civilizashins


death by scatter cushion. It ain't gonna be pretty (well,it is )

dude...you known any gay guys?

I knew a dude so gay, a hot girl tried to push her crotch in his face cause she wanted to "convert" him or whatever...He threw up. That's how I finally changed my mind on it.

I thought about it for a minute...as straight as I am, He's gay. I'd probably throw up from revulsion if a guy pushed his crotch in my face.

There's gay, there's straight. Some people are just hardwired that way.

Besides, it's hot when girls are gay

DUDE! No. Your post is offensive. There is nothing wrong with the homosexuals GOD created. The Greeks did not chose to allow themselves to become feminine? Seriously I hope a big bull dyke( no offense meant) lets you have it or even a hetero female at that. To even suggest that female traits led to the downfall of any civilization is just Neanderthalish. We are not allowed to judge remember? There is only one judge and I doubt his own creation would be judged a sinner. Homosexuality occurs naturally in the animal kingdom. It very well could be population control, who knows. God works in mysterious ways...... I love my gay brothers and sisters, they are my god given family.They were not created by some vile human. Test tube gays, bah! They have been around before we could even fabricate the glass for the test tube.Thank god for femininity or I would only have your hairy butt to look at.


~Hyp

Homosexual behavior is the opposite extreme of heterosexual behavior. There are people who are both, and some who seek other...uhm, outlets? And some folk combine them into a menagerie of variously perverted behaviors.

That's my thought on the subject. The problem with defining an issue is sometimes lost in the mass of nonsense information infused in search for the greatest question "WHY?". That's probably base to say but I don't know any better so help me out please.

ok i will share my theory and this is copyright please so dont use any part of this in any way

apparently there has been a steady 10% of people born homosexual or lesbian in every generation and around 80% bi sexual and about 10% who are strict heterosexual

here is my theory

what if for survival we need that homosexual birth rate? and the bi sexual? anything that does not serve the survival of the species would soon die out if you believe in natural selection

we evolved from apes

apes like chimpanzees use sex for bonding and not just for procreation-
orangutans organise their family groups with an alpha male who has the harem of females and subordinate males who generally dont get the right to mate. [yes there is cheating going on too]

what if the reason for homosexuals and bi sexuals being born, is to make sure that this way of organsing their society would be practical?

In days gone by, a large family group would better survive than small nuclear family groups and one way to make males work for the good of the group even though it is not their own offspring is to bond by having sex with each other

perhaps that is left over from our most primitive times and no matter how hard we try to be civilised this primitive instinct is always there in some people who were not born to be an alpha male

and lesbians? having children is difficult so it is handy to have some females who cannot have babies - by choice of sex partners.
These women can be aunts to offspring born by other women in their group and so give selflessly to help bring up offspring of others - also very handy in case a child is orphaned.

survival of the species is served by homosexuals and bi sexuals and lesbians and may be again if we nuke our civilisation back to the stone age


what do others think about this? there has to be a reason why homosexuals born in every generation remain a steady percentage no matter what we do to kill them off in previous generations.

They tell us to say its natural and :"they are born that way"
well Im not sure if thats so but I do know that If you sprinkle some estrogen powder into a fish bowl the male fish will grow female genitailia.....

your not sure if thats so????

well then...STOP SMOKIN IT ....and get your hand outta da fish bowl..
oh and ps: you dont need to help the fish procreate...they DO know how
hmmmmm... simple folk... no fishin with you pal.

Peace

reply to post by megabyte


Damn well put. There is intelligence on ATS.


Thank you!!!




P.S. sorry for typos/misspellings in my previous post, Its late & I think you get in trouble for editing too much....


~Hyp

reply to post by megabyte


Damn well put. There is intelligence on ATS.


Thank you!!!




P.S. sorry for typos/misspellings in my previous post, Its late & I think you get in trouble for editing too much....


~Hyp

You are walking a thin line with this thread but since you've put it down respectfully I'll reply

I understand your theorie on population reduction. However the history of homosexuality goes back down the timeline so far that homosexuality isn't invented for population reduction in my opinion.

The Empires you speak of in your post, there is more to it than meets the eye. They had huge armies of homosexual men indeed. And this was an intentional strategy of the emperors. With all the sexual activities going on in the army, testosteron levels rose and made the men stronger in battle. Although there was no knowledge of hormones in these days, it was a known fact that sexuality could increase an armies moral.

This is a good example how homosexuality can be engineerd, or perhaps to put it better "infused" into the brain.

It is my personal opinion that in essence we are all bi-sexual, with a strong or mild preference towards a type of gender. Strong preference toward the same type gender as you are is refered to as homosexuality, strong preference towards the other gender is refered to as heterosexuality.

If you were to grow up under normal conditions (no sexual trauma's etc) you will find out about this preference during puberty. You either start to like boys or girls when you get in your teenage years.

In these years also your personality takes shape. You develop characteristics that will stay with you for the rest of your life. Your personality will be based on several things like social accepted behaviour, peers, parents, genes and people you admire.

Now let's say that the people you admire would be gay. (Gay rockstar or a gay soccerplayer) than it would not be unthinkable they influence your sexual preferences. Admiration is usually based on succes. If you see another person being succesfull somewhere in the back of your pro-evolutionairy brain a lightbulb ignites and concludes; this person is succesfull, being succesfull increases the chance to survival, I should become succesfull, let's copy this behaviour. Of course you can not and will not copy all of the behaviour of this person you admire, but we all know teens will do a lot to look like their idols. Next to that sexuality is a primary drive (call of nature so to say) and can be easely copied.

Now let's wrap up this post. If I were to be a NWO and wanted to reduce population, homosexuality would be an option. But it would be a very slow option. People would engage in homosexual relationships, then run into another admirable person and change their sexual preferences again....You know what, I would decide it would be to much hassel.

However if I was in that NWO I would say.... hey.... sexuality is a thing we can target. Let's engineer something that would kill of men and women and is transferable by sex. There are so little people who don't have sex and there are so much people that have sex with more than one partner.

I believe personally that HIV could be a creation of NWO, and for that matter I think you are closer to the truth than you think.

Nice theory Megabyte,for some reason,it tickles me that you've had it copywrited. But nuff respect for doing so,cos it makes alot of sense.

But,i will sy one thing....

this bit
"perhaps that is left over from our most primitive times and no matter how hard we try to be civilised this primitive instinct is always there in some people who were not born to be an alpha male"

I know alot of gays who are very "alpha male" very strong dominent men,head of comapnies and stuff. I myself,am a long way off from any stereotype of a feminate gay man. Infact one guy once said to me "you're the straightest poofter i've ever met" Not really saying anything about your theory,just that we're not all passive.

reply to post by megabyte

what do others think about this? there has to be a reason why homosexuals born in every generation remain a steady percentage no matter what we do to kill them off in previous generations.

well that data..in my mind... would lead to the fact that there is some proclivity for the natural selection of homosexuality prior to birth..
and, as has been pointed out , not merly a statistic of man..but of most primates..and species of the world.... why?...no one knows...(let me say it again..no one knows why this is so) but surely not
a planed program....also as pointed out..a most ineffectual plan of any NWO...; starvation would be far more efficient.

Peace

Actually, there are some really interesting arguments surfacing here today...I'm kinda glad it wasn't closed.

And Acid...instant friend add for the scatter cushion theory hunny!!

Cait

Originally posted by Acidtastic

Nice theory Megabyte,for some reason,it tickles me that you've had it copywrited. But nuff respect for doing so,cos it makes alot of sense.

But,i will sy one thing....

this bit
"perhaps that is left over from our most primitive times and no matter how hard we try to be civilised this primitive instinct is always there in some people who were not born to be an alpha male"

I know alot of gays who are very "alpha male" very strong dominent men,head of comapnies and stuff. I myself,am a long way off from any stereotype of a feminate gay man. Infact one guy once said to me "you're the straightest poofter i've ever met"

Not really saying anything about your theory,just that we're not all passive.

alpha male in the sense of being the head of a harem

many gay people can be excellent at what they do and are very smart and clever and this was not meant to put down anyone - somply talking about a way to organise a civilisation along the way the orangutans have done and likely we have too in very distant prehistory

reply to post by megabyte


just to clarify,you didn't offend me Sorry if it came across as if I was.

Far from it infact. (added this here so it wasn't a 1 liner)

reply to post by n0b0DY


If you care at all about the posterity of your species and the well being of your children, then you'll accept whatever role you have been cast in life. Denouncing this role is selfish and unimportant. A confident individual does not require sexual reassignment for purposes of psychological well being; actually, this is merely an appeasement to biological satisfaction.

This is not to say anything negative of one's constitution, it's just that the decision is irrelevant to anyone but yourself. There is no necessity for such deviation from the social norm to again, anyone but yourself. The recently emergent and exuberant liberal politicization of this trend has made it completely acceptable for psychologically ill patients to be treated with such surgery. Though this may ostensibly appear to cure their initial diagnosis, there are no long term studies suggesting that those patients are in any way better off than their counterparts.

That the current medical institution holds this impression to be unchallengeable is irrefutably irresponsible; it relinquishes all responsibility of the individual unto the organism to which it constitutes. This secularization of body from mind is a dangerous idea, for the aforementioned reason, and for the fact it will encourage the reckless inhibition of medical doctors prescribing all manner of drugs under all petty circumstances, a trend already apparent within the social norm of society today.

Perhaps in the near future murderers will be treated and then subsequently cured and released instead of condemned to life in prison. Perhaps this movement toward the realization that the individual is simply a product of its surroundings, more importantly of its own body is proof that we are unprepared to establish any sufficiently advanced civilization beyond our own planet, and that we and the Universe and many of its possible inhabitants would be better off without our species' unrelenting tendency for arbitrary exploration and usurpation of anything we come in contact with. We can almost conclude there is no such thing as the individual, and that it is in fact merely an extension of our psychology, a conduit through which our biological imperative manifests itself in the pursuit of the two significant motives, of hedonism and of reproduction.

A man is so similar to a woman biologically they are essentially one and the same. It simply comes down to a random expression in certain genetic qualities over others during the period and process of embryonic growth in a pregnant female. Even when you a compare a physiologically adult male with that of a woman, they are not all that different. Obviously that is to be expected from members of the same species. Of course, one must admit that the differences, when taken from a greater perspective, are minuscule. And that physiological differences should have such greater bearing on the cultural implications of an individual's life after birth, regardless of sex, is perplexing, especially in a civilized society. Obviously, such segregation would have proved beneficial in early hunter gatherer societies, and to all of our mammalian ancestors, who were incapable of directing its own specie toward selective adaptation. However, it's inevitable that the life after birth makes all the difference. It's those experiences that further segregate the sexes, forcing upon them highly contrasting psychological and behavioral profiles. But is finally during the latter portion of the twentieth century and this twenty-first century that we are seeing a desegregation of the cultural mores of society in respect to both gender and sexual preference. We are obviously following a more Enlightened path.

There is very little evidence established that the cultural mores of any given society are a reflection of the behavioral psychology attributed to the excess or deficiency of any one sexual hormone, whether estrogen or testosterone. That the notion a woman who has masculine tendencies will automatically feel more comfortable adapting the cultural trends of a man is not substantiated, but one of motivated or experiential belief (beliefs founded on principles acquired through life). Uncertainty can often produce great, and significant changes, which are not always warranted or even necessary. Information and literature must be made highly accessible to all people, from childhood throughout adolescence especially, as it is in that period of one's life that one usually comes to grip with the reality and consequentiality of their existence.

It is hoped a confident and psychologically durable individual will accept the reality of their condition for what it is, and when it comes time to procreate, to perpetuate life how they were, though not necessarily "destined" to do so, but by which utility they were gifted with so applying, they do so will little resistance and maximum enjoyment.

Personally, I don't see life as one choice over another. It's just how you've been placed into whatever role it was and how you have come to both deal and manage it that defines you. As an individual, sexual preference should not place one in a position of social disadvantage. Then again I'm conflicted between that and the concept of the familial unit, which has since time immemorial been the most effective method of the distribution of resources on the smallest scale, both of physical and potential, including both material and social support. Of course, economically this holds no weight considering that a homosexual union can provide equally as well as any heterosexual union. But then that brings us to the threat that it imposes on the power of the long established social and political bodies, by which they would love to believe our current life styles can only be attributed to them. But then again, within the next century that barrier will be completely broken and battered.

And for a simple answer to the author of this thread: I don't really think anything exists for a reason. Biology, it turns out, is the ultimate benefactor of sentient existence, and it could care less how we condone ourselves. Life can simply be described by the random configuration of carbon molecules at any given instant. It's an esoteric certainty that life is irrelevant to any observer not directly involved in this grand experiment, or part of something similar.

[edit on 4-11-2008 by cognoscente]