0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
quote:Originally posted by MayoFlyFarmerwhile I have ABSOLUTLY no moral qualms with homosexuality, and I am a HUGE supporter of gay rights from a societal stand point, this is a SCIENTIFIC discussion, and from an evolutionary standpoint, being srtictly homosexual IS a disadventageous trait. so as ugly and vugar and policically incorrect as it may sound, what you said about homosexuality being a "disease" is somewhat true FROM A BIOLOGICAL STANDPOINT.
quote:Originally posted by Ottehg StarI think this question has no place in science forum.
quote: The descision to be gay isnt in your genes and is highly dependent on environmental factors.
quote: Is another one of those things that is created by a series of electrical impulses in that mushy thing called our brains. Choice is something you cant explain or recreate,
quote:Which then poses the question, Could computors evolve to be gay??? Answer that one. go on just try it, I dares ya........
quote:Originally posted by another_someonequote:Originally posted by MayoFlyFarmerwhile I have ABSOLUTELY no moral qualms with homosexuality, and I am a HUGE supporter of gay rights from a societal stand point, this is a SCIENTIFIC discussion, and from an evolutionary standpoint, being strictly homosexual IS a disadvantageous trait. so as ugly and vulgar and politically incorrect as it may sound, what you said about homosexuality being a "disease" is somewhat true FROM A BIOLOGICAL STANDPOINT.Is it?Are worker bees, who for the most part will never reproduce, suffering from a disease FROM A BIOLOGICAL STANDPOINT?Ggeorge
quote:Originally posted by MayoFlyFarmerwhile I have ABSOLUTELY no moral qualms with homosexuality, and I am a HUGE supporter of gay rights from a societal stand point, this is a SCIENTIFIC discussion, and from an evolutionary standpoint, being strictly homosexual IS a disadvantageous trait. so as ugly and vulgar and politically incorrect as it may sound, what you said about homosexuality being a "disease" is somewhat true FROM A BIOLOGICAL STANDPOINT.
quote:Originally posted by ukmickyquote:Originally posted by another_someoneAre worker bees, who for the most part will never reproduce, suffering from a disease FROM A BIOLOGICAL STANDPOINT?No they are just sexually immature females.
quote:Originally posted by another_someoneAre worker bees, who for the most part will never reproduce, suffering from a disease FROM A BIOLOGICAL STANDPOINT?
quote:Originally posted by ukmickyinfertile due to them being sexually immature [] a sexually immature girl of say 2 years isn't fertile and she wont become fertile until she reaches the point or is near the point of sexual maturityMichael
quote:Originally posted by parsleyOne thing that I noticed reading this topic, especially some of the earlier posts, is the negative attitude towards gays. Talking of it as a disease, in a negative way does give the impression that it is thought of to be 'wrong'.
quote:I object to this negativity towards gayness.
quote:Also, how can it be genetic, if for genes to be passed on, you have to reproduce, and the majority of gay people do not do this (for obvious reasons)? Is it 'genetic' in the same way one inherits an ability for music, or maths, or being good with words? Almost like a gene that is there if you encourage it to be there?
quote:Originally posted by geckohas anyone heard of the tendency to be homsexual attributed to an instinct for controlling the population? more homosexuals= less breeding; and a thinning or stabilization of the herd. im not sure where i picked this up and wether it has any creedence, but it would make alot of sense.
quote:Originally posted by neilepWithin the context of this topic, I think it's agreeable to say that the feelings of sexual attraction towards the same sex for a gay, is the same experience for a heterosexual attracted to the opposite sex, the only difference being the gender. In this case I would say that a gays sexual attraction feels normal to them akin to non gays......
quote:However, I am finding it difficult to comply with your opinion that murder is normal. I believe I may understand why I think you may state that and so that is why I am asking if you could elaborate please ? ...Stating Murder Is Normal is quite a citation....(hmm..perhaps another thread beckons)...I just need to understand the context.
quote:Originally posted by neilepI don't see how self evaluation can determine normalcy without comparable protracted historical data of the very thing that one is self evaluating and that the ability to understand the results has remained constant.
quote:I would expect the differences between genders to be far and wide also. It seems apparent to me that the female of the species finds same sex relationship far more acceptable than males. Women are far more comfortable to accept a gay embrace than a man and I am sure this would be reflected in the data.
quote:Originally posted by another_someonequote:Originally posted by neilepI don't see how self evaluation can determine normalcy without comparable protracted historical data of the very thing that one is self evaluating and that the ability to understand the results has remained constant.It rather depends upon what one regards as 'normal'.Normal is a relative notion. What may be normal for a particular person, may not necessarily be regarded as normal for the species as a whole, or you could argue that anything that is normal for any member of the species must be regarded as normal for all of the species.quote:I would expect the differences between genders to be far and wide also. It seems apparent to me that the female of the species finds same sex relationship far more acceptable than males. Women are far more comfortable to accept a gay embrace than a man and I am sure this would be reflected in the data.What do you mean by a 'gay embrace'?
quote:Women, in western cultures, do embrace more than men – but in other cultures, that may vary. In Arab cultures, men will kiss and embrace, just as women might in the West, but there is nothing sexual in it (any more than one should interpret a parent kissing and embracing their child as being a sexual act).This is ofcourse one of the problems with providing an objective definition of what homosexuality is. Do you define homosexuality by a specific set of acts (and if one includes same gender kissing amongst those acts, you will offend a great number of Arabs)?Up until the Victorian era, there was no such notion as homosexuality. There was the crime of sodomy (which most modern cultures on any of the continents would consider a sexual act) , but this was as much a crime when applied to male/female relationships. Even the Victorians had a problem with defining female homosexuality (this was made the more complex by the fact that female masturbation was seen as a medical procedure that was undertaken by a physician to relieve 'hysteria', and the dildo was a medical tool; and was not seen as seen as a sexual act).It is clear that looking through much renaissance art that there was a clear sensual pleasure taken in the young male body, although it is not at all clear whether they would have regarded this as a sexual desire or not. Were they homosexual paedophiles, or just people who appreciated the sensual beauty of the young male form?This goes back to the question of who judges whether human behaviour falls into one category or another: the individual who commits the act? The society in which that individual belongs? Or does each society simply apply its own labels to the act even if they disagree with the labels either that person or their peers might apply to the act?George