It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Why being Gay IS a Natural thing

page: 11
27
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 29 2013 @ 09:15 PM
link   
I have a theory when it comes to homosexuality among humans. I will not say all but a vey large percentage are victims of some kind of molestation or trauma that after years untreated, certain behavior patterns start to develop.

Three things that really bother me about gay people especially males.

1. Flamboyance is my biggest pet peave in gay males ( I refuse to call them men)
Stop trying to act like a woman.

2. Since when was it ok for these dudes to be running women's fashion and who gave them the right to implement this anorexic standard of beauty where in mainstream society a women is not pretty unless she is skinny.

3. Stop following me in the grocery store I'm handsome ok I get it. But I am not gay or even curious for that matter I like the things women have to offer too much to even consider it.

I would say go read the story about Sodom and Gomorrah. I'm not judging Gays that is in between you and God when you die. Just leave me alone.




posted on Jun, 29 2013 @ 09:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Spawn2001
 


Here's where I agree (and disagree)

Homosexuality, from an evolutionary point of you, is not a propitious position to be in. At the same time, it could logically be argued to be natural, since it emerges NATURALLY in nature.

The obvious downside is that homosexuals can't procreate. As individuals, that could be a serious loss. But some evolutionary biologists are working out theories that explain homosexuality as a boon to female fertility rates. They use all sorts of weird and unlikely arguments to justify this position. Personally, I'm unconvinced.

In any case, Rams seem to like homosexuality. They're the queers of nature.

When you say it is unnatural, you mean in ONTOLOGICAL terms, it is unnatural. As a phenomena, it is natural. It exists - by natural design. What is unnatural is the (abstract) fact that procreation and perpetuation of our species occurs through Male-Female mating. In that sense it seems to be devoid of explicit natural purpose. But again, this thread is about restoring purpose to the existence of homosexuality. Basically saying it helps populations from exploding. It's possible, but it is far less apparent than the straight forward fact that male + female = child.

If you're more religious minded, the male and female would represent two sides to a larger sum. But not many people care to see the world like that these days.



posted on Jun, 29 2013 @ 09:24 PM
link   
reply to post by beastnwokillah
 


And then you have this guy.

Yeah, gays are almost all traumatized. That's why all of those women that are sexually molested and raped are all lesbians. I'm not judging them, but I refuse to call them men. Who gave them the authority to control women's fashion!?! I mean.. seriously.. women can buy fashion from whoever they want, as long as it isn't from the gay men! I mean, why should they care about women's fashion anyway, right? It's not like they dress flamboyantly, or even as women sometimes, right? Whose with me? Women are all too skinny, because if they weren't then the gay men wouldn't find them sexually attractive anymore.



posted on Jun, 29 2013 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astrocyte
The obvious downside is that homosexuals can't procreate.


Homosexuals can and do procreate. I believe you mean that pregnancy isn't a result of sex acts involving two members of the same sex.



posted on Jun, 29 2013 @ 09:28 PM
link   

edit on 29-6-2013 by MichaelPMaccabee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2013 @ 09:32 PM
link   
reply to post by beastnwokillah
 


Some of your complaints are a bit silly.

Research has shown that homosexuality is largely related to low prenatal testosterone exposure (in males) and too much exposure (in females). Psychologists have tested kids with low testosterone and predicted that the ones with low levels would grow up to become a gay adult. The rates were surprisingly high - beyond chance, something called statistical significance.

Some of these gays were your more normal, less atypical, male type personalities. But other gays acted far more feminine in personality.

To be honest, I too find it irritating when I'm with a guy that acts like a girl. It's a cognitive dissonance that more men and women deal with than they'd care to admit. Were wired to see a masculine style in males, and a feminine style in females. When a man acts like a female, it disrupts that state of balance. I'm not saying I'll be mean to such a man, but I'm probably gonna have trouble befriending, him, because, well, there's something extremely cliche about the image.

Actually, let me be more precise. I hate pretense. Nothing annoys me more than falseness and mindless conformity. My gay cousins boyfriend (his name is Phil) has this femininity about him. But it's very subtle and somewhat difficult to notice. But, to his credit, hes such an affable guy with a quirky style about him that you just don't let it get to you.

Other feminine type guys aren't like that. They conform to the image out of desperation, it seems. They haven't really found themselves, it feels. There's an element of needless pretension, cliche and tastelessness, that simply turns me off.




2. Since when was it ok for these dudes to be running women's fashion and who gave them the right to implement this anorexic standard of beauty where in mainstream society a women is not pretty unless she is skinny.


Yeah I don't they're behind the standard. Not all fashion designers are gay; and even the woman within the industry perpetuate the standard.



posted on Jun, 29 2013 @ 09:34 PM
link   
I don't know if it's been mentioned, but I don't think homosexuality can be a natural thing. (I'll steer away as much as I can from the morality of it) If it were a natural thing, propagated by genetics, it would have been eliminated, or nearly so, by natural selection. Gays, by definition, are typically not reproducing, unless they are also bisexual. (now, if bisexuality were natural, it would have a basis for being propagated from generation to generation)

Now, I know that some gay people have had children, but most of them haven't reproduced, and never will, and the incidence of gay organisms having offspring in nature would most likely be even lower than in humans, because humans can choose to override their sexual desires and mate (or not) even if the desire is not there, whereas animals don't have that kind of rational thinking. However (and this just occurred to me) I suppose it is possible that heterosexual male animals could force themselves on homosexual female animals, and that it could be continued that way, but even then, if genetic, it would still eventually die out, just at a slower rate.

What I would like to see, if anyone can provide it, is some sort of data on whether the number/percentage of homosexuals has increased or decreased over time. However, due to the stigma around this subject, I doubt any accurate numbers can be found for it. Of those who are homosexual, many choose not to admit it for fear of discrimination, and the further back you go in time, the truer this is.



posted on Jun, 29 2013 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee
 





Homosexuals can and do procreate.


I know they can procreate; for hundreds of thousands of years homosexuals have been having children. But there is no biological incentive to have sex with members of the other sex. What drives them towards having children is: social pressure; paternal interests.



posted on Jun, 29 2013 @ 09:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astrocyte
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee
 





Homosexuals can and do procreate.


I know they can procreate; for hundreds of thousands of years homosexuals have been having children. But there is no biological incentive to have sex with members of the other sex. What drives them towards having children is: social pressure; paternal interests.



You don't believe that procreation in and of itself is a biological incentive?



posted on Jun, 29 2013 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by DragonsDemesne
I don't know if it's been mentioned, but I don't think homosexuality can be a natural thing. (I'll steer away as much as I can from the morality of it) If it were a natural thing, propagated by genetics, it would have been eliminated, or nearly so, by natural selection. Gays, by definition, are typically not reproducing, unless they are also bisexual. (now, if bisexuality were natural, it would have a basis for being propagated from generation to generation)

Now, I know that some gay people have had children, but most of them haven't reproduced, and never will, and the incidence of gay organisms having offspring in nature would most likely be even lower than in humans, because humans can choose to override their sexual desires and mate (or not) even if the desire is not there, whereas animals don't have that kind of rational thinking. However (and this just occurred to me) I suppose it is possible that heterosexual male animals could force themselves on homosexual female animals, and that it could be continued that way, but even then, if genetic, it would still eventually die out, just at a slower rate.

What I would like to see, if anyone can provide it, is some sort of data on whether the number/percentage of homosexuals has increased or decreased over time. However, due to the stigma around this subject, I doubt any accurate numbers can be found for it. Of those who are homosexual, many choose not to admit it for fear of discrimination, and the further back you go in time, the truer this is.



Here is some information for you to read that involves the genetic aspect of homosexuality in twins that were raised apart. You may be surprised by the findings.

hawaii.edu...



posted on Jun, 29 2013 @ 09:42 PM
link   
reply to post by DragonsDemesne
 


Scientifically speaking, your logic on genetics is a bit off. One can carry genes without them being "on", as it were.

For instance, two white mutts could potentially have one or a whole litter of black puppies ... simply because they carried the gene. As far as homosexuality goes, assuming there is a gay gene (not saying there is or isn't), it could be passed on by genetic carriers that never expressed that specific genetic trait.

I'm not arguing homosexuality. I'm arguing science.



posted on Jun, 29 2013 @ 09:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Astrocyte
 


Uhhhhhh, I have had gay friends before and have a gay cousin, I am young and open minded. I was just giving the OP what people talk or joke around about in private. "Oh that's gross I am not gay" in there living rooms. It wasn't PC and I got called a bigot for it. I wouldn't think anything is natural with the anal cavity. Sodomy is defined as any unnatural or different sex, I know unnatural again. Oral sex I think can even be defined as sodomy. Cause the tools we are born with to procreate and go to the bathroom, fit into each other with man and women. Gays got to get creative to have sex, that's why I said it was unnatural. As I was reading seven pages I got a little annoyed at how long this was and grandiose claims of population control and a dsyfunction in animals that have sex with same sex. I saw animals on TV that eat crap it doesn't mean anything. I got uncomfortable ly close to a gay person in a psych ward, when I was sleeping my pants got unzipped. I felt like Eminem while this kid trying to talk to family. I thought after reading this thread reply strong as I was reading. People are just people , I used to hang out with this gay kid and he was just a person not a deviant. My cousin is cool , she met someone online I don't think there are any gay bars around flew to San Francisco.



posted on Jun, 29 2013 @ 09:44 PM
link   
As I get the OPS point. I don't think saying that animals have homosexual tendencies would be the greatest point to use. Animals in my opinion have the ability to know the difference. Yes I get apes, dolphins and pigs are highly intelligent as far as the animal kingdom goes. However their thought process is completely different from a human beings. We as humans have logical thinking (at least most of us). Animals have.. Animal instincts and that's about it. Animals are driven by a few things. Food, Shelter and Procreation are ingrained deeply in them and their lives are driven by those things alone. Not friendship, not love, not money but survival. They have the ability to learn yes by way of mimicking what they see. But learning on their own without seeing action is perfectly impossible for any animal. The proof. Lets take a dog for example. I don't think a wild dog would go poop in the woods and expect a treat to fall out of the sky. They do their business, look for food and a mate and repeat. That's just a really bad example of why homosexuality is natural.

On the flip side of that. Human also are driven by a few things. Food, Shelter and Procreation. In this we are the same. Where we as humans are different is that we have a logical thought process. Logically speaking. A lot of gay couples do want children but for obvious reasons cannot. So they look for a someone to do this for them or they adopt. This is the unnatural part. We as Humans have the same instinct to procreate whether we are gay or straight. Doesn't it make sense to say Homosexuality on a human stand point is unnatural as our strongest instinct is to have children. Again even Homosexual people have an instilled instinct to have children. Animals have this same strong instinct and they do procreate with the opposite sex at some point in time. Because procreation is Natural. It is ingrained in every living thing on the planet. The most important thing we all have to remember is our Goal as humans is to survive. Part of that survival is to have children to keep our species alive. Without that we are doomed as a species.

Thus Homosexuality is a preference at least in my opinion.

I am not a basher of anyone with any race, creed, religion or sexual preference. To each their own I say. Logically saying that impeding the ability to allow our species to thrive is unnatural. That really is the bottom line.

Think about it. What gives you the drive to have sex? and no it's not just because it feels good.

No God explanation needed. Facts are facts.



posted on Jun, 29 2013 @ 09:45 PM
link   
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee
 





You don't believe that procreation in and of itself is a biological incentive?


No. Biology and procreation go hand in hand. It takes the DESIRE to procreate IN ORDER to procreate.

In fact, if we consider social factors as part of the picture (of biasing natural selection) that would mean that social forces like "lynch the gays", would entice gays to hide their homosexuality so they could procreate. But if we see that social influence as immoral, we shunt it aside. Now all we have is biological incentive (I want to have sex with the other sex) and the process of procreation.

It is a package activity involving factors beyond the ontological "procreation".

On the other hand, paternal interests exist. Plenty a homosexual has from the earliest age wanted to be a parent one day. That might compel some homosexuals to have sex for the sake of procreation.

But in any case, it complicates the issue. And there should be little doubt that homosexuals procreate less than heterosexuals (who have the much stronger sexual instinct factor)



posted on Jun, 29 2013 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by scolai
reply to post by DragonsDemesne
 


Scientifically speaking, your logic on genetics is a bit off. One can carry genes without them being "on", as it were.

For instance, two white mutts could potentially have one or a whole litter of black puppies ... simply because they carried the gene. As far as homosexuality goes, assuming there is a gay gene (not saying there is or isn't), it could be passed on by genetic carriers that never expressed that specific genetic trait.

I'm not arguing homosexuality. I'm arguing science.


Genetic conditions like Tay-Sachs comes to mind when people begin to discuss genetics and homosexuality. My question about a gay gene has always been how wide spread the genetic marker must be to be able to produce homosexual tendancies in every populace in our species. It must have been a pre-species mutation, as we also see this type of attraction in bonobos and gorillas from time to time.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jun, 29 2013 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astrocyte
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee
 





You don't believe that procreation in and of itself is a biological incentive?


No. Biology and procreation go hand in hand. It takes the DESIRE to procreate IN ORDER to procreate.


Oh good. So then no one has ever suffered an accidental pregnancy? Pregnancy has never occurred as the result of rape? Your theory is flawed on it's own merit.



posted on Jun, 29 2013 @ 10:09 PM
link   
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee
 


Some say that pregnancy is actually more likely after rape due to the "excitement" caused...



posted on Jun, 29 2013 @ 10:09 PM
link   
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee
 





Oh good. So then no one has ever suffered an accidental pregnancy? Pregnancy has never occurred as the result of rape? Your theory is flawed on it's own merit.


I don't think you've understood what I've written. Do you know what ontological means? You said that procreation initself was a biological incentive. In which I responded, the abstraction "procreation" MEANS male+female, facilitated by sexual desire.

Now why in the hell did you bring you accidental pregnancy?



posted on Jun, 29 2013 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astrocyte
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee
 





Oh good. So then no one has ever suffered an accidental pregnancy? Pregnancy has never occurred as the result of rape? Your theory is flawed on it's own merit.


I don't think you've understood what I've written. Do you know what ontological means? You said that procreation initself was a biological incentive. In which I responded, the abstraction "procreation" MEANS male+female, facilitated by sexual desire.

Now why in the hell did you bring you accidental pregnancy?


It isn't facilitated by sexual desire. It is facilitated by sexual congress.

This is a -huge- distinction.



posted on Jun, 29 2013 @ 10:22 PM
link   
So, merely to play the devils advocate...are you stating, in your OP, that all of those creatures displaying homosexuality, are all having sex for pleasure then? I thought that there were only a handful of creatures that have been viewed as having sex for pleasure as well as procreation?



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join