I don’t know about you, but I’ve never had to repress an urge to have sex with a man. It seems to me that the anti-gay argument of “you need to control it just like everyone else” comes from closet homos.
It’s probably why conservatives are over-represented among visitors to anonymous gay sex houses. If you are curious, read “The Tea Room Trade”. Lab studies have corroborated this, by the way.
Did you never have to repress an urge to have sex?
With whom or what is irrelevant to my argument.[/quote]
That’s why your argument sucks. Yep, I’ve had to repress the urge to have sex for like an hour or two, tops. If you told em to repress it for the rest of my life, I would recommend you engage in self-fornication.
Yours is the line of reasoning that sees “family men” sucking dick in bathroom stalls.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Franck wrote:
I don’t believe sexual orientation is a matter of choice. I’m no hetero by choice! If it was just a matter of choice there wouldn’t be homos in countries like Iran…
It’s not like one day you wake up and think “Oh yeah I feel so gay today! Let’s be a homo!”
I do believe most anti gay guys are themselves insecure about their own sexual identity so they feel threaten by gay people, they’re afraid to get teh ghey.
I’d say you’re right. It’s not like my parents ever told me to like breasts and pussy, I just do. It’s innate. The same probably holds true for homosexuals.[/quote]
Though I agree with the basic point of this thread (we shouldn’t be mean to homosexuals), we don’t really have a lot of solid handle on what causes it. Since gay people would produce fewer offspring in the past, it’s unlikely that a gay gene would be selected for and survive in the human population with any real frequency. It may be innate, it may be due to other causes.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Makavali wrote:
lixy wrote:
Mhhh…you’re born with black skin whereas you choose where to stick your cock.
Unproven at the moment. There are some studies confirming a genetic link and others trashing said link.
I don’t give a damn about genetic links. For all we know, there’s a genetic link for alcoholics, murderers, fatties and child molesters. My natural instinct tells me to stick it in anything with a pulse. It tells me to eat junk food.
Whether you choose to repress it or not, is nobody’s choice but yours. If we were all to act based on our instincts, the world would go to shit.
So I repeat: “You choose where to stick your cock”. It does not matter if you have a gene somewhere that make you more attracted to the same sex as yours. You still CHOOSE to fulfill it (no pun intended).
Clear?[/quote]
Not really. Not even if you accept everything you said as true. Why do your care where they stick their cocks? How does it affect or hurt you? Or anyone? Maybe they could fight their genetic hard-wiring. But why do you get to decide they should? Their conduct doesn’t hurt people like murderers and child molesters who don’t fight their natural instincts.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Pro-survival doesn’t mean pro-birth.
Just pointing that out. To extrapolate this logic…
One more time: China. Too many people. If more were gay, more people who were born would survive. Ta da! A pro-survival argument for homosexuality.
I’ve yet to meet a gay guy who didn’t know he was gay for his entire life, or was ever at any point hetero.
[/quote]
What do you mean by this? Evolution works by the production of offspring. If there were a gene that works against the production of offspring, then it’s unlikely it would survive, since our ancestors didn’t have sperm banks and artificial insemination.
[quote]bald eagle wrote:
The problem with gays is they are always in the public’s face. Look at the parades they have with all the freaks and weirdos. That is what people object to mnore than anything. They want to shout from the mountain tops that they are gay.
You don’t see heterosexual parades with all kinds of weird costumes and barely dressed people.
And let’s face it - heterosexual men just can’t comprehend how a guy can prefer a hairy rear end over someone like Eva Longoria for instance. There is something “bad wrong” about that.[/quote]
There’s some merit to what you say. That kind of conduct and display is pretty distasteful. Not a good way to act to be taken seriously and gain acceptance. HOWEVER, that’s one day a year. I’m not seeing all kinds of gay pride parades where people are pushing their sexuality and rubbing their agenda in my face all the time.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Pro-survival doesn’t mean pro-birth.
Just pointing that out. To extrapolate this logic…
One more time: China. Too many people. If more were gay, more people who were born would survive. Ta da! A pro-survival argument for homosexuality.
I’ve yet to meet a gay guy who didn’t know he was gay for his entire life, or was ever at any point hetero.
[/quote]
That’s true about China. Other things also emphasize this point. Animal studies have actually shown that there is more homosexuality in the animal population in areas of over-crowding. A protective mechanism for the species as a whole.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Pro-survival doesn’t mean pro-birth.
Just pointing that out. To extrapolate this logic…
One more time: China. Too many people. If more were gay, more people who were born would survive. Ta da! A pro-survival argument for homosexuality.
I’ve yet to meet a gay guy who didn’t know he was gay for his entire life, or was ever at any point hetero.
What do you mean by this? Evolution works by the production of offspring. If there were a gene that works against the production of offspring, then it’s unlikely it would survive, since our ancestors didn’t have sperm banks and artificial insemination. [/quote]
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Pro-survival doesn’t mean pro-birth.
Just pointing that out. To extrapolate this logic…
One more time: China. Too many people. If more were gay, more people who were born would survive. Ta da! A pro-survival argument for homosexuality.
I’ve yet to meet a gay guy who didn’t know he was gay for his entire life, or was ever at any point hetero.
What do you mean by this? Evolution works by the production of offspring. If there were a gene that works against the production of offspring, then it’s unlikely it would survive, since our ancestors didn’t have sperm banks and artificial insemination. [/quote]
Overcrowding is bad for species as a whole. Too much competition, not enough food, not enough resources. Can lead to larger problems and less longterm survival and success of the species as a whole. (from my biology and anthropology recollections)
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Though I agree with the basic point of this thread (we shouldn’t be mean to homosexuals), we don’t really have a lot of solid handle on what causes it. Since gay people would produce fewer offspring in the past, it’s unlikely that a gay gene would be selected for and survive in the human population with any real frequency. It may be innate, it may be due to other causes. [/quote]
That’s one reason why I figured homophobic people would support gay marriage - IF they are allowed to marry there is a much better chance that they won’t ever breed. Stigmatizing them keeps them in the closet and increases the likelihood that they’ll get married and have children to demonstrate that they are not gay.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Pro-survival doesn’t mean pro-birth.
Just pointing that out. To extrapolate this logic…
One more time: China. Too many people. If more were gay, more people who were born would survive. Ta da! A pro-survival argument for homosexuality.
I’ve yet to meet a gay guy who didn’t know he was gay for his entire life, or was ever at any point hetero.
What do you mean by this? Evolution works by the production of offspring. If there were a gene that works against the production of offspring, then it’s unlikely it would survive, since our ancestors didn’t have sperm banks and artificial insemination.
Overcrowding is bad for species as a whole. Too much competition, not enough food, not enough resources. Can lead to larger problems and less longterm survival and success of the species as a whole. (from my biology and anthropology recollections)[/quote]
True in a hunter-gatherer society. We have grain production and domesticated animals.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Pro-survival doesn’t mean pro-birth.
Just pointing that out. To extrapolate this logic…
One more time: China. Too many people. If more were gay, more people who were born would survive. Ta da! A pro-survival argument for homosexuality.
I’ve yet to meet a gay guy who didn’t know he was gay for his entire life, or was ever at any point hetero.
What do you mean by this? Evolution works by the production of offspring. If there were a gene that works against the production of offspring, then it’s unlikely it would survive, since our ancestors didn’t have sperm banks and artificial insemination.
Overcrowding is bad for species as a whole. Too much competition, not enough food, not enough resources. Can lead to larger problems and less longterm survival and success of the species as a whole. (from my biology and anthropology recollections)[/quote]
From what I remember about population growth (with access to food and no predators) it seems to climb geometrically and then plummet when food runs short. This does not fit with the notion homosexuality is a brake on population growth.
[quote]Thomas Gabriel wrote:
I guess the thing is being black isn’t a flaw. Be it either genetically or psychologically, I don’t think you can deny being gay is a flaw.
[/quote]
Why is it a flaw? If we look at it from even a sociobiological point of view, it could not be a flaw. If it were flawed, you would think that it would have been weeded out of the gene pool a long, long time ago. Yet, even though gays usually do not directly pass on their genes (and therefore would be the group most likely to get weeded out), homosexuality continues to be perpetuated.
So, it’s not a flaw from a biological point of view. You would need to come up with some metaphysical reason why it is a flaw
Just pointing that out. To extrapolate this logic…
One more time: China. Too many people. If more were gay, more people who were born would survive. Ta da! A pro-survival argument for homosexuality.
I’ve yet to meet a gay guy who didn’t know he was gay for his entire life, or was ever at any point hetero.
What do you mean by this? Evolution works by the production of offspring. If there were a gene that works against the production of offspring, then it’s unlikely it would survive, since our ancestors didn’t have sperm banks and artificial insemination.
Overcrowding is bad for species as a whole. Too much competition, not enough food, not enough resources. Can lead to larger problems and less longterm survival and success of the species as a whole. (from my biology and anthropology recollections)
True in a hunter-gatherer society. We have grain production and domesticated animals.
[/quote]
Our genes do not know that yet. Just like they don’t know how to deal with the abundance of food and carbohydrates that has resulted from agriculture and domesitication of animals.
Just pointing that out. To extrapolate this logic…
One more time: China. Too many people. If more were gay, more people who were born would survive. Ta da! A pro-survival argument for homosexuality.
I’ve yet to meet a gay guy who didn’t know he was gay for his entire life, or was ever at any point hetero.
What do you mean by this? Evolution works by the production of offspring. If there were a gene that works against the production of offspring, then it’s unlikely it would survive, since our ancestors didn’t have sperm banks and artificial insemination.
Overcrowding is bad for species as a whole. Too much competition, not enough food, not enough resources. Can lead to larger problems and less longterm survival and success of the species as a whole. (from my biology and anthropology recollections)
From what I remember about population growth (with access to food and no predators) it seems to climb geometrically and then plummet when food runs short. This does not fit with the notion homosexuality is a brake on population growth.
[/quote]
It does. Overcrowding results in food shortages. One way of dealing with this on a global scale has been reducing the number of offspring produced. This is most seen in rodents and other species who reproduce quickly and have a lot of offspring. Species where a meaningful difference in access to resources can be achieved in a short time.
Just pointing that out. To extrapolate this logic…
One more time: China. Too many people. If more were gay, more people who were born would survive. Ta da! A pro-survival argument for homosexuality.
I’ve yet to meet a gay guy who didn’t know he was gay for his entire life, or was ever at any point hetero.
What do you mean by this? Evolution works by the production of offspring. If there were a gene that works against the production of offspring, then it’s unlikely it would survive, since our ancestors didn’t have sperm banks and artificial insemination.
Overcrowding is bad for species as a whole. Too much competition, not enough food, not enough resources. Can lead to larger problems and less longterm survival and success of the species as a whole. (from my biology and anthropology recollections)
From what I remember about population growth (with access to food and no predators) it seems to climb geometrically and then plummet when food runs short. This does not fit with the notion homosexuality is a brake on population growth.
It does. Overcrowding results in food shortages. One way of dealing with this on a global scale has been reducing the number of offspring produced. This is most seen in rodents and other species who reproduce quickly and have a lot of offspring. Species where a meaningful difference in access to resources can be achieved in a short time. [/quote]
We have not hit the food shortage part of the curve yet (media reports to the contrary), do you suppose when we do 1/2 the population will go gay?
Hindus believe, I think, that one of the cycles of existence ends by everyone being gay.
Maybe the gay gene is the future and hetero is on the way out.
TC wrote a column (if memory serves) that the male gene is gradually dying off or something. 5000 years from now, there’ll be no males. The whole planet will be populated by asexuals.
