Male Homosexuality Study: Gay Men Have Evolutionary Benefit For Their Families, New Research Suggest

reply to post by chadderson

Originally posted by chadderson
It is only 'against' biology when two guys are having a sexual relationship, as it is a completely selfish act, as it produces nothing but momentary pleasure.

Is it "against biology" when a male and a female have sex, even though they cannot reproduce? I ask because I want to know if my husband and I are "against biology".

Also, if you think sex is a completely selfish act, you're doing something wrong...

Originally posted by chadderson
This can be caused by one's own willpower or an imbalance in their body chemistry. Either way it is natural to be gay, but it is a negative trait in the sense that it goes against the entire purpose of the human body, to reproduce and continue the circle of life.

I would like to point out - - we are all mutations from the original humanoids.

And it wasn't a heterosexual who painted the Sistine Chapel. I would not call that a negative trait.

It seems to me when one human ability is denied - - other abilities are heightened.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


You are correct. Sex without intention to create life is a selfish act.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


If you want your husband ejaculating without the intention of having a child, he is receiving some pleasure, and his body is losing immense amount of recouperative and regenerative abilities. I would have to ask, is your goal to be as fit and sharp as you can possibly be? If not, then continue your business. I myself choose to refrain from spraying my seed without a justified cause, and i grow from this in more ways than one. To each their own.

Reply to post by chadderson

"Spraying my seed without a justified cause"... Thanks for the image : /

As someone else said- if that's all you are getting out of it, you aren't doing it right. Haha humans aren't the only species to have "recreational sex", granted very few do. I like to think that its more than just the need to "make a life", to me simply having sex ONLY to have a child is in itself selfish.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

homosexuality is in nature

homosexuality is some odd strange naturistic force

Nature = God

Homosexuality is population control

end of story

Originally posted by chadderson
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

You are correct. Sex without intention to create life is a selfish act.

So, you're implying that gays are selfish people. I've known plenty of gay people who have committed many selfless acts of kindness and charity. I've heard of gay couples adopting special needs children that no one else wants to deal with. That's pretty selfish, isn't it.

Have you ever gone out to eat a nice meal at a restaurant? That's selfish. You could have taken that money and given it to the poor so they could eat. Every time you spend money on yourself, you are being selfish. Any act, large or small, that you do for yourself throughout the day is a selfish act. Are you a selfish person?

Originally posted by chadderson
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

You are correct. Sex without intention to create life is a selfish act.

Name ONE unselfish reason to have a child.

Originally posted by chadderson
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

You are correct. Sex without intention to create life is a selfish act.

What a limited outlook you have - one of the greatest things about sex is giving pelasure to someone else.

Perhaps you should try that some time??

Originally posted by chadderson
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

 

If you want your husband ejaculating without the intention of having a child, he is receiving some pleasure, and his body is losing immense amount of recouperative and regenerative abilities. I would have to ask, is your goal to be as fit and sharp as you can possibly be? If not, then continue your business. I myself choose to refrain from spraying my seed without a justified cause, and i grow from this in more ways than one. To each their own.

Bonobo - - other wise known as the "sex monkeys" - - actually they're chimps and our nearest relatives.

The bonobo is popularly known for its high levels of sexual behavior. Sex functions in conflict appeasement, affection, social status, excitement, and stress reduction. It occurs in virtually all partner combinations and in a variety of positions. en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by Jordan River

Homosexuality is population control

I don't think you read the article very carefully.

• gays benefit by claiming government benefits
  
  
  
  
  
• gays evolve by eating genetically modified foods

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul


I knew it - it's all the fault of women!!

however what is even more interesting is -

While no one knows which genes, exactly, these might be, at least one of them appears to be located on the X chromosome, according to genetic modeling by Camperio Ciani and his colleagues. Males inherit only one X chromosome — the one from their mother — and if it includes the gene that promotes gayness in males and fecundity in females, he is likely to be gay while his mom and her female relatives are likely to have lots of kids.

so.......women who tend to have gay offspring also tend to have bigger families........now I'm thinking that a lot of fundies of all persuasions like to think they can breed their way to world domination - but the corollary seems to be that that will also result in them having more gay offspring.

If it is true then the irony is quite delicious!!

www.huffingtonpost.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

It's not women per se, it's the X chromosome. The father can pass on either an X or a Y, the mother has two X's. MEN don't get it from their father's side because they got the Y from their father. However, the female children of a man with it in his family would likely carry the gene since the father passes the X chromosome (along with the mother's X) to his daughter. That's the way genetics works. The X chromosome has more genes than the Y chromosome, which is basically an X with one of the legs cut off in a very layperson description of it.
....That would also mean that women have more genetic diversity since they have two of the X's and men only have 1, so most of the diversity in the human race is a result of the X, not the Y.
I guess since the genetic cause is found on the X chromosome, there should technically be twice as many lesbians as gay men since they get two X's and men only get one.... but I don't think that's the case due to other factors involved, I just haven't looked into it more deeply due to lack of interest on my part.

Originally posted by DarthMuerte
So, if it is genetic and they can find the gene, they can turn that gene off in everybody thus ending homosexuality altogether. Something to think about as TPTB play with our genes. That being said, I believe that it is a choice, whether made consciously or unconsciously.

Why would they turn it off?? It's not like they're "broken" or something.... Should they turn off the gene for blue eyes because people don't want blue eyes??? for red hair to keep someone from being a "ginger" ?? The trait is necessary or it wouldn't exist.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by DarthMuerte

 

Or they could turn it on - thus making everyone gay........including all the fundies.....now that might actually be worth turning gay to see!!

Of course we are nowhere near being able to turn individual genes on or off yet....but it's still worth a giggle

OK, that would DEFINITELY be HILLARIOUS!!! I'd pay to watch it on a reality show!! LOL

reply to post by ZombieJesus


A good friend of mine always said "homosexuality is God's way of ensuring the truely gifted aren't burdened with children". I LOL'd so much the first time he said it, it was very witty and hillarious.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by chadderson

 

Originally posted by chadderson
It is only 'against' biology when two guys are having a sexual relationship, as it is a completely selfish act, as it produces nothing but momentary pleasure.

Is it "against biology" when a male and a female have sex, even though they cannot reproduce? I ask because I want to know if my husband and I are "against biology".

Also, if you think sex is a completely selfish act, you're doing something wrong...

Yes, you choose to be incapable of reproducing you horrible horrible sinner you!!

....just in case there's somebody out there who can't tell, it is extreme sarcasm against the people who would disagree with the poster. I'm not saying she's bad, she isn't
.....it's saying the people who are homophobic and full of hate are bad. Just to be absolutely clear on that since I know the homophobic aren't always capable of logical though.

Originally posted by chadderson
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

 

If you want your husband ejaculating without the intention of having a child, he is receiving some pleasure, and his body is losing immense amount of recouperative and regenerative abilities. I would have to ask, is your goal to be as fit and sharp as you can possibly be? If not, then continue your business. I myself choose to refrain from spraying my seed without a justified cause, and i grow from this in more ways than one. To each their own.

Dude..... seriously..... it's not working

Originally posted by DarthMuerte
So, if it is genetic and they can find the gene, they can turn that gene off in everybody thus ending homosexuality altogether. Something to think about as TPTB play with our genes. That being said, I believe that it is a choice, whether made consciously or unconsciously.

I respect your right to your own opinion, but the evidence for a biological and/or genetic link to homosexuality is quite strong and new studies are strengthening that argument every day.

From a social/behavioral standpoint, I cannot see the benefit in "choosing" to be homosexual. And the argument that homosexuality is a byproduct of childhood abuse or exposure to certain behaviors doesn't hold water either; there are no studies that link such abuse to homosexuality.