zona0924
Banned
- 411
- 19
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2006
^ cliffnotes maybe?
My view on HOMOSEXUALITY.... Am I wrong? how?
- 18,310
- 12,624
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2006
exactly. I believe male and female sex is natural because it promotes procreation of species. Homosexuality, since it is the exact opposite, is thusunnatural. Get it?
Anton: it's continually prevalent in nature because our species doesn't have a predator to prey on our defects.
antonlavey
Banned
- 28,211
- 847
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2008
You know this is NT fam, you better go back to the drawing board and whip out the highlighter cuz nobody is gonna read that whole wiki article.
The point I'm trying to make is that people are thinking about this at a Bio 101 level. There are traits we see in nature that seem counter-productive asfar as genetic fitness goes. Eg. Eusocialism in insects (most of the individuals do not reproduce). In some animal species the sisters forgo having kids oftheir own because it makes more sense to dedicate their resources to raise the children of their siblings. There's an equation that describes all thisit's called hamilton's rule.
antonlavey
Banned
- 28,211
- 847
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2008
Did you hatch from a moron egg? Imagines weak/defective/crippled homosexualanimals getting picked off by lions
- 87,735
- 50,125
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2007
As far as your view on homosexuality, think what you like. I've always figured if you're born gay there must be some gay gene or like you think sometype of defect/mutation in their biological make up or they're just consciously or subconsciously choosing to be homosexual.
Spoiler [+]
- 18,310
- 12,624
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2006
thanks for the personal attack, you seem to take things very literally like a child.
do you really think I mean humans don't have lions attacking them? SMH
you have to think of it as being a defect, and defective animals are easily preyed on in the wild.
humans don't have natural predators, so our defects continue to propagate.
there is no survival of the fittest when you are at the top, because most humans can still live with defects.
- 9,981
- 28
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2007
I only agree because I have a gay cousin in college now who I suspected 10 years back, before anyone liked anybody
antonlavey
Banned
- 28,211
- 847
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2008
Originally Posted by Master Zik
As far as your view on homosexuality, think what you like. I've always figured if you're born gay there must be some gay gene or like you think some type of defect/mutation in their biological make up or they're just consciously or subconsciously choosing to be homosexual.
Spoiler [+]
Again cause people missed my point about why homosexuality can confer genetic fitness. In an environment where there are limited resources according to(Hamilton's equation) it may be more beneficial to help you kin raise their kids than you having your own with little chance of survival.
You have kids=they all die
Your sis has kids but raises them alone=some survive
You forgo having kids and help your sister raise kids=they all live
In this scenario homosexual and according to Hamiltons rule (look it up), altruistic behavior may offer higher genetic fitness. Don't get me wrong this isa theory, but it is an explanation of how homosexuality can be beneficial. A lot of this doesn't apply to humans because of technology. But they arevestigial behaviors from our ancestors and shared by out closest relatives in nature.
D
Deleted member 41978
Guest
i got a question for you lizaker
do you only bust inside of women when having sex?
if not, that too could also seem unnatural, as it does not promote procreation.
do you only bust inside of women when having sex?
if not, that too could also seem unnatural, as it does not promote procreation.
- 3,038
- 10
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2007
I would see it as a problem. Most every animal in nature does what they do to spread their seed. Homosexuality wouldn't hinder animalsphysically like a missing leg would, but by not producing offspring, they're ultimately wasting resources that other members of their species/groups aretrying to get.
- 7,332
- 11
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2007
callin me a mutant son?
- 12,703
- 71
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2004
do u at least have super powers?
- 2,676
- 10
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2007
I understand where you are coming from because the biological "meaning" of life, and I say that lightly, is to survive long enough to procreate andcontinue your species. So I can understand how it can be seen as irregular as they are not fulfilling the "meaning" of life.
- 2,239
- 10
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2008
I just wanna know why people care so much about this crap.
- 8,139
- 5,318
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2007
Originally Posted by AntonLaVey
Originally Posted by Master Zik
As far as your view on homosexuality, think what you like. I've always figured if you're born gay there must be some gay gene or like you think some type of defect/mutation in their biological make up or they're just consciously or subconsciously choosing to be homosexual.
Spoiler [+]
Again cause people missed my point about why homosexuality can confer genetic fitness. In an environment where there are limited resources according to (Hamilton's equation) it may be more beneficial to help you kin raise their kids than you having your own with little chance of survival.
You have kids=they all die
Your sis has kids but raises them alone=some survive
You forgo having kids and help your sister raise kids=they all live
In this scenario homosexual and according to Hamiltons rule (look it up), altruistic behavior may offer higher genetic fitness. Don't get me wrong this is a theory, but it is an explanation of how homosexuality can be beneficial. A lot of this doesn't apply to humans because of technology. But they are vestigial behaviors from our ancestors and shared by out closest relatives in nature.
Anton...dog...comon...
I'm pretty sure we're both liberal individuals who would like nothing better than for homosexuals to receive equal societal treatment...but YOU KNOWand I KNOW because we're both SCIENCE people, that Homosexuality is "unnatural" from a biological and evolutionary standpoint...YOU KNOW THIS...Ireally can't see why you're debating...
And as for Hamilton's rule--that ishh only really works well with SOCIAL INSECTS. I know this because I've taken a class called SOCIAL INSECTS whichwas taught by my research advisor who studies Ants.
You cannot apply this "rule" to "us" for the mere fact that we humans are way more complex than SOCIAL INSECTS...
...
- 2,676
- 10
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2007
There is no homosexuality in nature because their instincts tell them the "meaning" of life is to reproduce. While saying this, there is bisexualityin nature, but they still do mate in the "natural" way for procreation
- 482
- 10
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2007
what is a moron egg?
antonlavey
Banned
- 28,211
- 847
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2008
1. My point is homosexuality isn't a defect that would leave you susceptible to attack by a predator
2. I just gave you a scenario where homosexuality would be beneficial. I will say it again there are many behaviors in nature that don't confer any directgenetic fitness to the individual. I refer you again to (Hamilton's Rule)
3. I would like to see a scholarly article or video of said observer of homosexual animal's accounts. Dominance humpings do exist but so does blatanthomosexual acts, eg. Bonobos are pretty gay.
Also another point i'd like to add.......many animals just have homosexual/bisexual relations simply becauseit is pleasurable. Homosexuality doesn't need to carry evolutionary weight. Sexuality isn't as black and white as we think or we define it with ourhuman higher thinking. Some homosexual behavior in nature may just be a by-product of strong sexual urges. If human-beings didn't have these restrictions,the behavior may be even more prevalent. Either way, it's natural.
- 3,038
- 10
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2007
Man i'm done with all this gay talk. I'm gonna go look for a food thread.
- 2,239
- 10
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2008
Right behind you. No ayo.
- 2,676
- 10
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2007
^The thing is with animals they may exhibit homosexual behavior, but will all reproduce with the opposite sex. Now while you can mention insects as an example,they have completely different dynamics when it comes to family units. Most insects work together as one unit for the betterment of their entire group and thisis why they may not reproduce, but rather tend to others, but they do not exhibit homosexuality, they just take the role of tending for others of their species
- 3,038
- 10
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2007
- 101
- 10
- Joined
- May 4, 2009
Arguments can go on and on with this. In the end homosexuality will always be accepted by some and neglected by others. No personal opinion on my behalf. Greatinsights though.
- 7,332
- 11
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2007
indeed
theyre so inappropiate though
antonlavey
Banned
- 28,211
- 847
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2008
Anton...dog...comon...Originally Posted by SuperAntigen
Originally Posted by AntonLaVey
Originally Posted by Master Zik
As far as your view on homosexuality, think what you like. I've always figured if you're born gay there must be some gay gene or like you think some type of defect/mutation in their biological make up or they're just consciously or subconsciously choosing to be homosexual.
Spoiler [+]
Again cause people missed my point about why homosexuality can confer genetic fitness. In an environment where there are limited resources according to (Hamilton's equation) it may be more beneficial to help you kin raise their kids than you having your own with little chance of survival.
You have kids=they all die
Your sis has kids but raises them alone=some survive
You forgo having kids and help your sister raise kids=they all live
In this scenario homosexual and according to Hamiltons rule (look it up), altruistic behavior may offer higher genetic fitness. Don't get me wrong this is a theory, but it is an explanation of how homosexuality can be beneficial. A lot of this doesn't apply to humans because of technology. But they are vestigial behaviors from our ancestors and shared by out closest relatives in nature.
I'm pretty sure we're both liberal individuals who would like nothing better than for homosexuals to receive equal societal treatment...but YOU KNOW and I KNOW because we're both SCIENCE people, that Homosexuality is "unnatural" from a biological and evolutionary standpoint...YOU KNOW THIS...I really can't see why you're debating...
And as for Hamilton's rule--that ishh only really works well with SOCIAL INSECTS. I know this because I've taken a class called SOCIAL INSECTS which was taught by my research advisor who studies Ants.
You cannot apply this "rule" to "us" for the mere fact that we humans are way more complex than SOCIAL INSECTS...
...
This is a theory, the truth is no one knows why homosexuality is so common.....Hamilton's rule doesn't only apply to Social insects. Itapplies to any situation where there isn't an obvious fitness gain to the individual. I also said homosexuality may just be a spill-over from normal animalsexuality. Animal don't have the restrictions we do. These are only theories to counter the overly simplistic.
Can't have kids=abnormal, not fit
Again, homosexuality is WAAAAY TOOO COMMON to be a meer aberration.
