Post: #26

(03-20-2013 08:28 AM)Teedub Wrote:  Homosexuality occurs in many animals, but I agree with Lemmo that it is sort of a defect as it negates the ability to reproduce. I'm interested in the evolutionary reasons for it.

If I had to guess - and it would be exactly that - the prevalence of homosexuality in the population acts as a brake on reproduction frequency to ensure a smooth generational cycle relative to population resources.

If this is true, there should be more gays in harsher environments.

Post: #27

(03-20-2013 10:59 AM)Timoteo Wrote:  Personally, words like fag, faggot and queer aren't part of my vocabulary. Nigger isn't either.

It's one thing to demand protection from discrimination and harm, but it's another to demand acceptance by society as a whole for the way you live your life. That's a tall order. Putting aspects of your lifestyle out front, and attempting to get others to see it as normal is counterproductive. Just live your life. If someone attempts to, or brings harm to you because of it, they should be dealt with harshly. But the mantra that "I'm no different than you" is ridiculous.

I know there was huge pushback against "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" in the military. The gay community's problem with it was they were being told that they had to hide who they were. They want to put sexuality above the job they are in the military to do. The policy may not have been perfect, but I think Clinton's intent was to take sexuality off the table. You're all just soldiers. If we don't make a declaration of sexuality, no one can abuse or discriminate against you because of it. If it's illegal for an employer to ask you about it, you in turn shouldn't be declaring it either. Clinton was attempting to be practical - men in the military will probably never be thrilled about the presence of gays. Gays demanding that they be able to serve openly is a demand to be accepted, and you simply can't force that on someone. You can demand that someone not be able to beat your ass because of your sexuality, but you can't demand that someone accept it and see it as normal. You can't demand that others be comfortable around you.

I use some of those words. But then again, I'm also harsh on my two nationalities: gentile Russian and Ashkenazi Jewish.

Post: #28

(03-20-2013 11:28 AM)megatron Wrote:  

(03-20-2013 10:59 AM)Timoteo Wrote:  Personally, words like fag, faggot and queer aren't part of my vocabulary. Nigger isn't either.

It's one thing to demand protection from discrimination and harm, but it's another to demand acceptance by society as a whole for the way you live your life. That's a tall order. Putting aspects of your lifestyle out front, and attempting to get others to see it as normal is counterproductive. Just live your life. If someone attempts to, or brings harm to you because of it, they should be dealt with harshly. But the mantra that "I'm no different than you" is ridiculous.

I know there was huge pushback against "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" in the military. The gay community's problem with it was they were being told that they had to hide who they were. They want to put sexuality above the job they are in the military to do. The policy may not have been perfect, but I think Clinton's intent was to take sexuality off the table. You're all just soldiers. If we don't make a declaration of sexuality, no one can abuse or discriminate against you because of it. If it's illegal for an employer to ask you about it, you in turn shouldn't be declaring it either. Clinton was attempting to be practical - men in the military will probably never be thrilled about the presence of gays. Gays demanding that they be able to serve openly is a demand to be accepted, and you simply can't force that on someone. You can demand that someone not be able to beat your ass because of your sexuality, but you can't demand that someone accept it and see it as normal. You can't demand that others be comfortable around you.

I use some of those words. But then again, I'm also harsh on my two nationalities: gentile Russian and Ashkenazi Jewish.

not to mention Cybertronian

Post: #29

(03-20-2013 11:01 AM)lurker Wrote:  

(03-20-2013 08:28 AM)Teedub Wrote:  Homosexuality occurs in many animals, but I agree with Lemmo that it is sort of a defect as it negates the ability to reproduce. I'm interested in the evolutionary reasons for it.

If I had to guess - and it would be exactly that - the prevalence of homosexuality in the population acts as a brake on reproduction frequency to ensure a smooth generational cycle relative to population resources.

If this is true, there should be more gays in harsher environments.

The currently accepted "explanation" for homosexuality among Evolutionary biologists is that being homosexual >>> No children>>>more time and achievement>>> better able to help near kin like nieces and nephews get ahead. So they help their own genes resident in near kin, rather than their own children.

Seems a bit of a stretch to me. When biologists explain why a birds wing is swept back at 19 degrees rather than 20 degrees because it helps it fly very slightly faster, but are then happy to maintain that not reproducing at all can still be squared with evolutionary theory I don't know. Sounds more like a political explanation to me. It is a genuine biological puzzle which I don't think has been solved yet.

PS: The bit about harsh vs other environments is irrelevant. For mammals we only care about our own genes, not about the genes of the group. If we cooperate in a group it is only because we expect a personal payoff down the line. i.e there is no group selection in mammals. I understand it is different among bees and ants were most bees/ants in a group share almost identical DNA so communality can thrive there.

Post: #30

(03-20-2013 11:31 AM)Bad Hussar Wrote:  The currently accepted "explanation" for homosexuality among Evolutionary biologists

What? Says who? There isn't even any agreement among biologists on whether homosexuality even has any sort of an evolutionary explanation, much less any consensus on a specific explanation.

It could simple be a developmental disturbance that natural selection has not managed to weed out like, say, Down's Syndrome - nobody runs around trying come up with some reason why Down's Syndrome is actually beneficial, it's just an error in copying chromosomes that seems to be hard enough to prevent and rare enough that natural selection hasn't gotten rid of it yet. Homosexuality might well be something similar.

Post: #31

To me, for every gay man there is, is one less man competing for the pussy I want.

I dislike girly, feminine men, gay or not.

Post: #32

The late Gore Vidal (who was gay) had an interesting take on this. He believed that there was no such thing as a "gay person", only "gay acts", and that some people simply preferred to partake in gay acts (or sexual activity with a person of the same gender) with more frequency than others. Essentially, he gave the sexual identity no more weight than he would a person's dietary preferences.

I think this is a more natural way to look at homosexuality. I don't have a problem with gays and lesbians who enjoy homosexual activity. What bothers me is this culture of identity that has blown up around the issue. People are encouraged to entirely define themselves by the gender of the people they prefer to fuck. It's very much an us versus them dichotomy, and straight people are portrayed as bigots or villains if we object to having homosexuality shoved in our faces constantly. I think homosexuals should not be discriminated against, but I don't think they should be encouraged to shove their preferences into the mainstream culture at every opportunity. It's just fucking annoying. If you like to fuck men, fine, go fuck men. But don't feel the need to tell the entire world you enjoy fucking men and that fucking men is totally natural and that we should all encourage young boys to fuck men if they so choose. Homosexuals must accept that their sexual preference is a minority one and it should not be treated as mainstream.

On the other hand, I think transgender people have a mental illness. Any man who wants to chop off his dick is seriously fucked up in the head, period. Political correctness can go fuck itself. It's laughable that this is taken seriously these days. I'm not denying that some people are born with feelings they are the wrong gender, but guess what? Some weird motherfuckers actually think they are animals (furries) and adopt animal sexual identities. What's next, are we going to have media campaigns that urge us to accept the furry sexual preference and bestiality? Will plastic surgeons begin "transitioning" these freaks so that they have a more animal-like appearance?

These people are simply mentally defective, and their bizarre behaviors should in no way be encouraged or facilitated by society. We should be giving these people therapy to help them deal with their obvious mental issues, not "acceptance" and "transition surgery" and pretending like there's nothing wrong with them.

Post: #33

(03-20-2013 12:08 PM)jaakkeli Wrote:  

(03-20-2013 11:31 AM)Bad Hussar Wrote:  The currently accepted "explanation" for homosexuality among Evolutionary biologists

What? Says who? There isn't even any agreement among biologists on whether homosexuality even has any sort of an evolutionary explanation, much less any consensus on a specific explanation.

It could simple be a developmental disturbance that natural selection has not managed to weed out like, say, Down's Syndrome - nobody runs around trying come up with some reason why Down's Syndrome is actually beneficial, it's just an error in copying chromosomes that seems to be hard enough to prevent and rare enough that natural selection hasn't gotten rid of it yet. Homosexuality might well be something similar.

Ha. You are right in that there is seldom agreement among Evolutionary Biologists. As for who: Dawkins that I know of. He tied it into his whole "Selfish Gene" framework. And no doubt he got the idea from others.

It's probably expecting too much to expect consensus among Evolutionary biologists, especially with something as charged as homosexuality.

Post: #34

I've never had problems with gays or lesbians carrying out their lifestyle. I even have a few masculine lesbian friends, who understand the concept of game. They're actually better wingmen than most guys I know, probably due to the fact that they also have sex with girls and can see both sides of the game from past experience. Now, that doesn't mean they don't rationalize and still do things women do, but they're definitely more masculine overall. My real problem is that it has turned into another form of victimization, always being played up for any gain or wrong doing in society. We have multiple television shows, hundreds, if not millions of support groups, and more that promote gays, and most of them still whine about perceived injustices.

Then there was this one time I was at a small party with a drinking buddies social circle. One male in the group of friends was gay, which included females otherwise I wouldn't have gone, my friend has a track record of inviting me places swarmed with fat chicks. But anyway, on topic, this guy would always hit on me, while I made it pretty clear I wasn't gay. He would constantly insinuate I was, or use pick up strategies I use on girls, and he wouldn't give up. I always ignored it until eventually he got angry, and always accused me of being in denial, or homophobic, and not in a playful way. How fucking dense can you be? If a chick blows me off, I get the message, I don't call them lesbian. Anytime I ran into him after that at social gatherings he would accuse me of stealing beer, among many other things. Of course, I would be the bad guy for telling him to fuck off, because I'm just a straight white guy with all my evil power. (In reality I'm poor, and can't find a decent job or girl)

Post: #35

(03-20-2013 01:27 PM)scorpion Wrote:  The late Gore Vidal (who was gay) had an interesting take on this. He believed that there was no such thing as a "gay person", only "gay acts", and that some people simply preferred to partake in gay acts (or sexual activity with a person of the same gender) with more frequency than others. Essentially, he gave the sexual identity no more weight than he would a person's dietary preferences.

I think this is a more natural way to look at homosexuality. I don't have a problem with gays and lesbians who enjoy homosexual activity. What bothers me is this culture of identity that has blown up around the issue. People are encouraged to entirely define themselves by the gender of the people they prefer to fuck. It's very much an us versus them dichotomy, and straight people are portrayed as bigots or villains if we object to having homosexuality shoved in our faces constantly. I think homosexuals should not be discriminated against, but I don't think they should be encouraged to shove their preferences into the mainstream culture at every opportunity. It's just fucking annoying. If you like to fuck men, fine, go fuck men. But don't feel the need to tell the entire world you enjoy fucking men and that fucking men is totally natural and that we should all encourage young boys to fuck men if they so choose. Homosexuals must accept that their sexual preference is a minority one and it should not be treated as mainstream.

On the other hand, I think transgender people have a mental illness. Any man who wants to chop off his dick is seriously fucked up in the head, period. Political correctness can go fuck itself. It's laughable that this is taken seriously these days. I'm not denying that some people are born with feelings they are the wrong gender, but guess what? Some weird motherfuckers actually think they are animals (furries) and adopt animal sexual identities. What's next, are we going to have media campaigns that urge us to accept the furry sexual preference and bestiality? Will plastic surgeons begin "transitioning" these freaks so that they have a more animal-like appearance?

These people are simply mentally defective, and their bizarre behaviors should in no way be encouraged or facilitated by society. We should be giving these people therapy to help them deal with their obvious mental issues, not "acceptance" and "transition surgery" and pretending like there's nothing wrong with them.

Post: #36

The friends I've grown up with who turned out to be gay are frankly more red pill than a lot of straight dudes I know. They are the first to say un-PC shit about feminism, equal rights etc.

My Doctor is gay and is a being proponent of the idea that HIV is a non-entity for straight men who don't use IV drugs. I remember the first time I asked for an HIV test after raw dogging some gross broad, he laughed at me and told me I had a better chance of winning the lottery.

It's always the uptight SWPLs who get uptight when you say this shit. To them, "offending" anyone is a mortal sin.

Post: #37

The transgender thing isn't so clear cut. Our gender isn't determined by our genitalia, but by chromosomes and the brain. Sometimes you're one gender with the "wrong" genitalia. Some people are actually born with BOTH genitalia, and the wrong choice is made when the child is young. I know people tend to be more comfortable putting certain people in one box and categorizing them all the same, but the reality is it isn't that simple.

Post: #38

I deplore the "normalization" of homosexuality in the public sphere. If they want to fuck guys, let them fuck guys in the privacy of their own bedroom, but it should not be a publicly-acceptable "lifestyle" which we all are obliged to pay homage to, lest we be considered "homophobic." By any objective standard it is unnatural to want to fuck a man, and the farthest thing from masculine to have some guy's dick in your ass.

Gay men and straight men should not be "labeled" as such, there are simply men. And some of those men, a small percentage, but a percentage which historically seems to grow when life is easier and there is more leisure to indulge in pleasures, have the desire to have sex with other men.

Whether any and every desire we have is good and ought to be acted upon is another question, however.

Post: #39

(03-20-2013 07:15 AM)bojangles Wrote:  dunno really, what i do know is no one gave a shit whether you were gay, bi or whatever before christianity and islam came along.

You don't know shit about history, do you? The Romans had rules about this. Getting fucked in the ass made you a pussy, and fucking little boys in the ass wasn't great either. There were warriors like Sparticus who were gay, there was even a small army of gay men that were apparently unstoppable, but overall, ancient civilizations recognized that hedonism was a terrible idea.

Say all you want to about "more women for me," but know that there is a correlation with the rise of hedonistic activity (see pre-war Berlin, where homeless people would sell their children prostitutes, and the rich would use them) and the fall of great civilizations (Rome too).

It can't be chalked up as pure genetics, although there may be a gene for predisposition to homosexual/bisexual behavior. There are definite societal causes for it. Discrimination used to keep it at the healthy minimum. Is more mental anguish caused by propagating mental illness? It seems obviously so. The percentage of natural hermaphrodites is minuscule, because it is an accident of nature. Two-headed cows are born every now and then. There is something beyond nature at work when the rates rise so prominently.

Post: #40

I respect gay people. This world is fucked up already. So to get mad at a guy who likes getting fucked in the ass is stupid because feminism is fucking the average guy in the ass everyday.

I had a female to male transgender friend and its weird as fuck. A guy who sounds 100% like a chick just creeps me out man.

Gays > trans

Post: #41

I was born a wolf in a man's body, why is it illegal to have my procedure done in the US??

Post: #42

I agree with the bizarreness of forcing people's whole identities into who they prefer to diddle their fiddle. It means straight people are a bunch of paranoid homophobes, and the only people who can safely claim to be "secure" (wtf?) in their sexuality are the flaming homos with a forced lisp that parade around loudly and proudly everywhere they go dropping queer-eye-for-the-straight-guy wisdom left and right for all to hear. I mean so many of them have more or less the same personality and style of speech, wtf. It's worse than sorority girls.

Same thing with so many lesbians: the butch, man-hating, angry or pompous stereotype is commonly found to be true. And of course they can't fart without it having some tremendous impact on "gender relations" and "women's issues".

Who people like to fuck just shouldn't be so important. In fact, I hypothesize that if we didn't make such a huge fuss about sexual preferences, there would be less overall homosexual acts. There would certainly be more healthy, hormonally congruent gender roles. Why, for example, are there so few openly gay men like Jack Donovan?

I always thought trannies were scary, but then I started seeing pictures of ladyboys in Thailand and I think those...people... really kind of are a third gender. We know that gender has so much to do with hormones, and there can be complications at birth that can make some people truly gender ambiguous. So for those people I say do your thing -- just don't cram your agenda down my throat like every other minority group and we're cool.

Post: #43

My views toward homosexuality are nuanced. I don't hate them and I'm against homophobia because there's absolutely no reason to hate people for some condition they had no choice in and that doesn't hurt anyone else. At the same time, I don't support embracing homosexuality as an equal lifestyle alternative or the promotion of it.

I believe at the fundamental level, homosexuality is a sort of mistake of nature that probably has no purpose, like Chrone's disease, color blindness, albinism or any of the zillion other birth defects out there. It's just that this one happens to effect people's sexual preference and a whole movement has built up around this one particular malady to convince everyone that's it's normal and great and that even implying that it's a defect is homophobic and bigotted. No liberal can ever admit that something is wrong with homosexuality, not morally wrong, I'm talking functionally wrong. They can't explain the enigma of why gay men would have sperm and why lesbians would have eggs if their sexuality was functional. The parts just don't fit. They will just deflect, all names, get emotional or change the subject.

Although I do support civil unions for gays that offer the same package of legal rights and protections as marriage does, I think symbolically, it's important to leave the definition of marraige alone. I think gay marraige is the ultimate result of a country that has adopted feminine values. I have no doubt that in 15 years all Western countries will have gay marraige by then. Certain things had to happen to make this possible. The importance of gender roles would need to be undermined to the point that it means little to be a man or a woman. Men and women marrying and starting a family has always been the ultimate expression of gender roles. Feminism has destroyed that. Not only workplace feminism but gender feminism that undermines what it means to be a man and woman. Combine that with the rapid acceptance of the gay lifestyle which happened in the last 15 years via nonstop promotion by Hollywood, MTV and reality/talk/tabloid. And that's how we got to were we are. In countries that have not undermined the value of what it means to be a man and a woman and don't have a strong culture of gender feminism, gay marriage is nowhere on the horizon as there is no use for it in their culture. So there's no great move for it in Eastern Europe, much of Latin America or pretty much anywhere in Africa or the middle east.

Post: #44

Sociology, science's hamster.

Post: #45

(03-20-2013 03:33 PM)SkeletonJelly? Wrote:  

(03-20-2013 07:15 AM)bojangles Wrote:  dunno really, what i do know is no one gave a shit whether you were gay, bi or whatever before christianity and islam came along.

You don't know shit about history, do you? The Romans had rules about this. Getting fucked in the ass made you a pussy, and fucking little boys in the ass wasn't great either. There were warriors like Sparticus who were gay, there was even a small army of gay men that were apparently unstoppable, but overall, ancient civilizations recognized that hedonism was a terrible idea.

Say all you want to about "more women for me," but know that there is a correlation with the rise of hedonistic activity (see pre-war Berlin, where homeless people would sell their children prostitutes, and the rich would use them) and the fall of great civilizations (Rome too).

It can't be chalked up as pure genetics, although there may be a gene for predisposition to homosexual/bisexual behavior. There are definite societal causes for it. Discrimination used to keep it at the healthy minimum. Is more mental anguish caused by propagating mental illness? It seems obviously so. The percentage of natural hermaphrodites is minuscule, because it is an accident of nature. Two-headed cows are born every now and then. There is something beyond nature at work when the rates rise so prominently.

Did i hit a bible note? keep your knickers on lad

Post: #46

(03-20-2013 02:25 PM)Donnington93 Wrote:  My Doctor is gay and is a being proponent of the idea that HIV is a non-entity for straight men who don't use IV drugs.

This reminded me of last year when I was at the doctors office. In the office there are multiple doctors, I had seen one a couple months earlier. When I tried to explain to the nurse which one it was I had seen, I stated how he looked and she didn't seem to be getting it. Finally at the end I said, "I'm pretty sure he was gay." A couple minutes later she comes back with the paper work and says, "Oh, it was doctor so and so who saw you last time, and no he isn't gay." HA! I could have sworn.

But didn't mean to hijack the thread. Gays are all good with me as long as they don't try and come on to me or cause girly drama, which a few gay guys I used to work with would do. On the other hand, one of the coolest dudes I worked with was gay. I personally don't really hang out with gay people outside of work functions or through other friends, only because we usually aren't into the same shit and aren't very like minded, but I have no problem with them.

Post: #47

Is it getting more taboo to criticize or say anything bad about these groups? Or is that just with SWPL and PC people?

Post: #48

(03-20-2013 11:31 AM)Bad Hussar Wrote:  

(03-20-2013 11:01 AM)lurker Wrote:  

(03-20-2013 08:28 AM)Teedub Wrote:  Homosexuality occurs in many animals, but I agree with Lemmo that it is sort of a defect as it negates the ability to reproduce. I'm interested in the evolutionary reasons for it.

If I had to guess - and it would be exactly that - the prevalence of homosexuality in the population acts as a brake on reproduction frequency to ensure a smooth generational cycle relative to population resources.

If this is true, there should be more gays in harsher environments.

The currently accepted "explanation" for homosexuality among Evolutionary biologists is that being homosexual >>> No children>>>more time and achievement>>> better able to help near kin like nieces and nephews get ahead. So they help their own genes resident in near kin, rather than their own children.

Seems a bit of a stretch to me. When biologists explain why a birds wing is swept back at 19 degrees rather than 20 degrees because it helps it fly very slightly faster, but are then happy to maintain that not reproducing at all can still be squared with evolutionary theory I don't know. Sounds more like a political explanation to me. It is a genuine biological puzzle which I don't think has been solved yet.

PS: The bit about harsh vs other environments is irrelevant. For mammals we only care about our own genes, not about the genes of the group. If we cooperate in a group it is only because we expect a personal payoff down the line. i.e there is no group selection in mammals. I understand it is different among bees and ants were most bees/ants in a group share almost identical DNA so communality can thrive there.

The 'helpful gay' theory assumes 2 things:

1)Homosexuality is genetic
2)Homosexuality gives an evolutionary advantage, and is not simply a random mutation like hair colour.

I'm not anti-gay, but this is a political idea. They've decided that homosexuality has to be good for evolution, so they've rationalised this decision. It's a reactionary argument against those who attempt to criticise homosexuality from an evolutionary perspective.

Personally I don't think it is good for evolution, but I also don't see why that's a problem or makes it 'wrong'. It doesn't help our species when I wear a condom, or spunk in a girls mouth.

As heterosexuals, we don't feel the need to justify our lifestyles from an evolutionary perspective, and we aren't asked to. It's unfair to hold homosexuals to a standard that we do not hold ourselves to.

Post: #49

why does my female dog hump my leg?

that's not gay because that's what male dogs do

i could never figure that one out

Post: #50

My guess is that it's ultimately a no-cost mutation linked to something beneficial. Genes don't operate in isolation, for example blacks getting sickle-cell is connected to malaria resistance. The penalty of homosexuality assumes that gays are incapable of producing children, but in a traditional society where women are married off like cattle and men associate their status with maintaining a family you would have incentive for gays to breed while occasionally popping out to the bath house for a little "philosophy" with some other ancient greek dudes. The benefit may be that the genes causing gayness to a certain extent make the person more attractive to the opposite sex. I've seen way more gay guys that manipulate their female friends easily, compared to the screeching Nathan Lane types. Same with lesbianism, at the cost of a few disgusting bulldykes you get bi girls willing to do threesomes.