Homosexual evolution?

[Buffy]

...like a bad apple or shrivelled shoot it needs to be removed....rebuilding their minds so that they are whole new people able to live peacefully and productively once more in society.

You should read Anthony Burgess' "A Clockwork Orange". Expands upon your retraining idea in vivid ways. The best argument on this off-topic issue is, its cheaper not to kill them, solves the false-positive problem (executing the innocent), and ultimately gang rapes in the prison yard are better punishment than death (watch Oz). Now this is completely off topic, unless you're proposing that brainwashing is how we "cure" homosexuals, but that's no solution because it is programming:

 

No matter what level of nurture there is, its mostly nature and it has evolved for a variety of useful reasons, and its easy to propagate (epidemiological studies indicate it carries through siblings, although its obviously a recessive trait). The only "cured homosexuals" I've ever encountered had either tremendous cultural, social or familial pressure to "revert" and all of them simply became chaste by choice because try as they might, they still weren't attracted to the opposite sex.

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[alxian]

i don't know why but as compelling as its always been i can't seem to bring myself to

 

mentally i compare it to 1984 farenheit 451 blade runner and brave new world, can't see what ACO has that i haven't already been exposed to.

 

i'll have to make a point of picking it up once giants is offered in paperback.

 

 

unless you're proposing that brainwashing is how we "cure" homosexuals

 

:rant: NO!!, homosexuality is a choice that should not be judged. people have the right to do whatever they want within the rule of law. if you start reprogramming based on sexual deviance a good portion of the population would see their day in the clinic.

 

:eek: EEK not to imply homosexuality is a deviance..

 

but i walked right into that one. i always wondered about the significance of the rainbow, and settled on it meaning that they are just another hue in the human tapestry without them humanity would not whole.

 

...and all of them simply became chaste by choice

 

hmmm.. is that why.. its not that i'm not attracted to women.. its that i feel no pressing chemical/phisiological urgency. once you are forced to deal with, coonciously modify that irrational internal instinct driven desire its easier to say screw it and just live your life repressive all sexual desires or contrsuctively deflect them in other forms than trying to hump anything with legs and a smile.

[Fishteacher73]

mentally i compare it to 1984 farenheit 451 blade runner and brave new world, can't see what ACO has that i haven't already been exposed to.

 

Burgess specifically addresses the idea of "inforced" rehabilitaion. A good read, but if pressed for time, Kubric did a reasonable translation to film.

[IrishEyes]

That movie gave me the heebie-jeebies!

[Fishteacher73]

If anyone really loved me they would get me the chorus line of crucified jesuses(sp? jesi?) that he has on his night stand for my birthday.... :rant:

[Buffy]

A good read, but if pressed for time, Kubric did a reasonable translation to film.

...and not a very easy read as you have to keep paging back to the glossary to make sense of stuff like

"'Not to speak like that. No! no more droogie,' And he launched a bloshy tolchock right on my cluve, so that all red red nose-krovvy started to drip drip drip."

Its a *great* book though...

 

I'll be on the lookout for the Jesi doing the Can-Can for you Fish....

 

Viddy well, doobiedoob,

Buffy

[Fishteacher73]

It will really go with the rest of my tacky religious decor. (My set of Jesus and Mary action figures and a prismatic picture that changes between jesus and mary...)

[Mr. Potato Head]

Maybe the gay served some useful purpose to society at some point in history and now they are simply vestigial like so many of our other odd behaviors and some organs.

 

I mean, let's face it, choice or not, you cannot argue that being gay serves any purpose to the survival of the species (of any species) today. So you can't really be surprised when many people who haven't given completely in to political correctness are innately upset of something that looks and sounds just like they do not be able to contribute to propogation. I think it is almost natural for a straight (uninfluenced by today's society) person to look at a gay person as "off" or a "problem." In the end, we are some sort of animal type organism trying to win the survival of the fittest game. When someone isn't able to perform for the team, they are picked last from the group. Sometimes not at all.

 

So what purpose could they have served? Who knows, maybe they were created by God to be tools for ancient man. Maybe not. Maybe they were easy to part with as sacrifices. Maybe not. Whatever they were, today they require tippy toeing through conversation, jokes, work, and all other aspects of life so you don't offend them. I really don't care about them. It's not like some gay guy is going to steal my girlfriend (or potential mating partner :rant: ) so I'm not too concerned.

 

On a side note, is it true that Pompei was a city of gays or did I hear that wrong? I thought they discovered that under the ash.

[Buffy]

Maybe the gay served some useful purpose to society at some point in history and now they are simply vestigial like so many of our other odd behaviors and some organs....I mean, let's face it, choice or not, you cannot argue that being gay serves any purpose to the survival of the species (of any species) today.

No, its actually an ongoing useful trait in many social species! When ratios between the sexes are remarkably off (take a look at China and India where female infantcide is rampant or after wars or natural disasters), having some number of the population *not care* that they don't get a mate of the opposite sex is an *advantage* for the social group (although not for the individual). Some social species like ants and bees take this to an extreme!

So you can't really be surprised when many people who haven't given completely in to political correctness are innately upset of something that looks and sounds just like they do not be able to contribute to propogation.

Yes, we are surprised. And I'm talking about straight Fundamentalist Christians I know who say "*My*God doesn't hate gays."...

I really don't care about them. It's not like some gay guy is going to steal my girlfriend (or potential mating partner :eek: ) so I'm not too concerned.

That's nice that you're not worried about them "recruiting" your kids to become gay. Very progressive thinking! :rant:

On a side note, is it true that Pompei was a city of gays or did I hear that wrong? I thought they discovered that under the ash.

The Romans had a very healthy and open attitude about sex in general and it was depicted in their murals and other art, not just at Pompeii but throughout the empire, going back to its earliest days (i.e. it had no correlation to the "decline" of Rome). While there was some homosexuality, they seem to have been about 90% heterosexual, just like we are today.

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[alxian]

"'Not to speak like that. No! no more droogie,' And he launched a bloshy tolchock right on my cluve, so that all red red nose-krovvy started to drip drip drip."

 

hmm i thought you were trying to convince me to read it.. egad but does that ever reinforce my guts unwillingness to bother.

[Buffy]

hmm i thought you were trying to convince me to read it.. egad but does that ever reinforce my guts unwillingness to bother.

I am! What a chepooka appy polly loggy! Don't be such a gloopy chelloveck! Join the shlaga and have a moloko!

 

Baddiwad devotchka,

Buffy

[alxian]

bites lips and makes like to be taking one for the team.. what i'll do for a pretty face huh..

 

yes, i'll pick it up..

 

i mean if one can get used to gibsons virtual light and cards xenocide ACO can't be as bad as those quotes portend.

 

heck its not like my chiken scrabble is that great..

 

throwing stones in glass house,

hippocrite-boy the last alxian.

[Buffy]

There ya go...

 

Enjoy,

Buffy

[Mr. Potato Head]

No, its actually an ongoing useful trait in many social species! When ratios between the sexes are remarkably off (take a look at China and India where female infantcide is rampant or after wars or natural disasters), having some number of the population *not care* that they don't get a mate of the opposite sex is an *advantage* for the social group (although not for the individual). Some social species like ants and bees take this to an extreme!Yes, we are surprised. And I'm talking about straight Fundamentalist Christians I know who say "*My*God doesn't hate gays."...That's nice that you're not worried about them "recruiting" your kids to become gay. Very progressive thinking! :rant: The Romans had a very healthy and open attitude about sex in general and it was depicted in their murals and other art, not just at Pompeii but throughout the empire, going back to its earliest days (i.e. it had no correlation to the "decline" of Rome). While there was some homosexuality, they seem to have been about 90% heterosexual, just like we are today.

 

Cheers,

Buffy

 

 

Yes as it was discussed before, the population control theory seems very plausible. I was merely offering a previously unmentioned point of view.

If I have a gay kid then I do. You're right, I'm not worried about that. I'm all about progress! And thanks for the Roman information!

[Biochemist]

I scanned the entire thread, and noted that we did not make any real technical headway on the original topic. A couple of points:

 

1) There is no significant evidence that being gay is genetic. It certainly could be (or it could be driven by alien intervention) but the evidence is remarkably thin. There is a tendency for the media to latch onto any vague study conclusion and trumpet it as if the gay gene is emerging. But the evidence is really thin, to the point of being essentially hypothesis.

 

2) The fact that some gays are highly motivated to act out gay behavior does not make it "normal" or appropriate even for them. The vast majority of males have either occasional or routine difficulties with lust. Most of us regard this as something to be managed. Males that are heterosexual and wildly promiscuous may feel that they are acting out their "normal" lust, but most of us regard that as immaturity. A specific sex drive (quantity or orientation) does not prove anything, except perhaps that humans (and particularly males) are sexual animals.

 

3) The fact that specific social circumstances make homosexual behavior more likely, does not prove much, except that peers influence behavior. I suggest that most males that attends a strip club will be affected by the display of attractive nude bodies. Many of us choose to miniumize our contact with those environments because we do not prefer the effect it has. It would be perfectly reasonable to assume that increased contact with gay behavior would make gay behavior more likely.

 

4) It is perfectly reasonable to reject gay behavior (for moral reasons or otherwise) and still accept gays as peers, co-workers, employees, friends and citizens. This is not hypocritical, it is normal mature behavior.

 

5) I think it is reasonable to separate homosexual tendency by gender for academic purposes. The male sex drive is far higher than the female sex drive. This is not to say that females are not sexually motivated (thank goodness). But throughout history and thoughout essentially all world cultures, males are the sexual aggressors. I do not think there is any society in recorded history where women paid for sex. The market for males buying sex has existed in nearly all (and perhaps absolutely all) civilizations that were advanced enough to use money. This does not mean much, except it is reasonable to suggest that the motivations for lesbian behavior ought to be looked at independent of the motivations for male homosexual behavior.

 

Ciao.

[Happeh]

I'm curious... what aspect of evolution, natural selection, survival of a species, would give rise to homosexuality; and apparently such a plethora of it at that? Most homosexuals argue that they were born this way, as opposed to developing the preference due to social or preferencial reasons of choice. How does science/evolution view this? Note: I am not proposing this as an attack on homosexuals and no judgements are meant to be implied.

 

Homosexuality is usually caused by an energy imbalance or physical damage to the body. It is not genetic except in perhaps a small percentage of all homosexuals. I looked thru some of the other replies. I do not believe it is population control or anything of the other ideas mentioned.

 

A person can be turned gay. Any person who masturbates excessively stands a very high likelihood of going gay at some future time. This points to gay being caused by physical changes within the body. Not psychological or genetic factors.

 

Young boys can be turned gay in the manner that most people are familiar with. If they grow up in a one parent home with only the mother as an influence, there is more of a chance they might go gay. This is because the mother sucks the energy out of the boy and creates an imbalance in him. He desires gay sex in order to procure the energy he needs to rebalance himself.

 

Homosexuality is a pretty cut and dried subject honestly. I don't know why "experts" make it so hard. Unless studying homosexuality benefits them in some way. Grants for the studies or whatever.

 

Did you ever have the experience in life that people say they want an answer, but they really don't? You friend asks you "do you really think my girlfriend is a sleep around girl?". He is asking you but he really doesn't want you to say yes. I get that feeling with the homosexuality issue. People say "what is homosexuality and what is it all about?". I start to tell them and they get very unhappy. At first I thought they didn't like what they were hearing, that homosexuality is the cause of many health problems and is not a good idea. Then I began to wonder if the people were talking about homosexuality because they were curious about it. They couldn't actually do it because it is taboo, so they talked about it. If someone like me gives them the answers they say they want, there is no longer a need to talk about the subject. But that is what they want more than anything. To talk about homosexuality. :)

[EWright]

A person can be turned gay. Any person who masturbates excessively stands a very high likelihood of going gay at some future time. This points to gay being caused by physical changes within the body. Not psychological or genetic factors.

[/Quote]

 

:) Crap! :) Crap, crap crap!!! :)