'We're married, we just don't have sex'

Homosexuality isn't genetic, I don't think. It's someone's personal preference, like the chap who says he's asexual. I respect that, but what I don't understand is why he masturbated. He really didn't explain it very well. Why would you masturbate if you didn't feel the need to have sex?

Funny, someone told me today that he thinks homosexuality is a choice. I hope that's what Terence's thread will be about :p

The man in the article desires genital stimulation. That's not sex. Sex (as defined in our society) is being sexual with another person.

The first and third of those tend not to reproduce and pass those traits along, so yes, by an evolutionary measure, they are mistakes, insofar as they don't contribute to the continuation and improvement of the species. And in doing so, they contribute that much more to the success of my own offspring. So it's a win-win situation.

And the second didn't get enough calories when food was scarce, hence didn't live long enough to reproduce. Yes, as far as their genes are concerned, they are all mistakes. But now people can reproduce regardless of their sexual orientation and food is not scarce. Does it mean they stopped being mistakes?

this has given me a good idea for a thread.

Is gay something you are or something you do? :D
 
Last edited:
Funny, someone told me today that he thinks homosexuality is a choice. I hope that's what Terence's thread will be about :p

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that people might be born gay, but that doesn't make it genetic.

Edit: Ok, I understand why I came across as that I was saying that. But I didn't mean it in that way.
 
Last edited:
I don't think your evolution theory works. Homosexuality and not liking sex didn't (and doesn't) stop people from having children. (if that would be the case I probably would not be here :o). It's just natural variation in the population, I think. It is thought that homosexuality constitutes a fixed percentage of the population, which implies that there is no evolutionary pressure against this characteristic. I've yet to come across a proper study about asexually and its percentage in the population.

This is an interesting point. I've often wondered whether the rate of homosexually isn't fixed across the entire human species, but rather that the rate of it goes up as the population density increases, and thus acts as a source of population pressure. On the other hand, if it is fixed species-wide, then it's like, say, the rate of identical twins, which is fixed. There is no evolutionary advantage or disadvantage to being a twin or having twins.
 
The man in the article desires genital stimulation. That's not sex. Sex (as defined in our society) is being sexual with another person.

Masturbation isn't sex?

And the second didn't get enough calories when food was scarce, hence didn't live long enough to reproduce.

There are very few naturally-occuring primitive sweet foods. Berries and honey; that's about it. I doubt that not having a sweet tooth would have been an evolutionary disadvantage; sweets seem to be more of a psychological than a physical need.

Yes, as far as their genes are concerned, they are all mistakes. But now people can reproduce regardless of their sexual orientation and food is not scarce. Does it mean they stopped being mistakes?

No, it just means that we have evolved to the point where we can afford to allow even the genetic mistakes to thrive.
 
I don't think your evolution theory works. Homosexuality and not liking sex didn't (and doesn't) stop people from having children. (if that would be the case I probably would not be here :o). It's just natural variation in the population, I think. It is thought that homosexuality constitutes a fixed percentage of the population, which implies that there is no evolutionary pressure against this characteristic. I've yet to come across a proper study about asexually and its percentage in the population.

However, when one identical twin is gay, there is considerably greater possibility that the other one will be gay than in case of two non-related people, or even fraternal twins.

However, in more than 50% of cases the other twin won't be gay, so that shows that there is something more to it than genetic code.
 
However, when one identical twin is gay, there is considerably greater possibility that the other one will be gay than in case of two non-related people, or even fraternal twins.

However, in more than 50% of cases the other twin won't be gay, so that shows that there is something more to it than genetic code.

Can you point me to that study, for obvious reasons?
 
Masturbation isn't sex?

Not in this thread. We have tacitly agreed to use different definition of sex.

There are very few naturally-occuring primitive sweet foods. Berries and honey; that's about it. I doubt that not having a sweet tooth would have been an evolutionary disadvantage; sweets seem to be more of a psychological than a physical need.

For every psychological need we have today there was a very real physical need our ancestors had to meet if they wanted to successfully pass on their genes.

No, it just means that we have evolved to the point where we can afford to allow even the genetic mistakes to thrive.

Did your doctor tell you that? :p
 
Not in this thread. We have tacitly agreed to use different definition of sex.

Oh, good. Now I have a good argument to use against the cops next time they try to arrest me for polishing the bishop in public.

For every psychological need we have today there was a very real physical need our ancestors had to meet if they wanted to successfully pass on their genes.

Hmmm. Explain emo culture in evolutionary terms, then. :D

Did your doctor tell you that? :p

Yes, he did. That's why I like him. The irony is just too beautiful.
 
Oh, good. Now I have a good argument to use against the cops next time they try to arrest me for polishing the bishop in public.

That law is ridiculous. However... It's impossible to tell a person simply satisfying their biological need from a person engaging other people in a sexual act. That's why it's forbidden for everyone.

Hmmm. Explain emo culture in evolutionary terms, then. :D

Do as others do. Get socialised. It was important to function as a group.
 
But what if that was what they wanted to do?

They are both adults. If they want to enter into a legal contract to prove they 'love' each other, then fine. I just hope they realize what exactly that legal agreement entails and how badly they could lose if the legal partnership ends.
 
I just cannot understand why anyone would want to deprive themselves of the best possible thing you can physically experience - orgasm.


Hi, I totally agree with your statement yet, for f'ugly people such as myself who don't get it....you must feel sorry for us...
 
Hi, I totally agree with your statement yet, for f'ugly people such as myself who don't get it....you must feel sorry for us...

Anybody can get sex if they so desire it. If you have doubts that so called 'f'ugly' people cannot get sex, simply look at some of the more run down neighbourhoods (which, if you live in NJ shouldn't be hard to find) and see the unwashed, sweaty, 300 lb fat rolls walking around with their 10 welfare babies.

Some man hit that, seriously.
 
Anybody can get sex if they so desire it. If you have doubts that so called 'f'ugly' people cannot get sex, simply look at some of the more run down neighbourhoods (which, if you live in NJ shouldn't be hard to find) and see the unwashed, sweaty, 300 lb fat rolls walking around with their 10 welfare babies.

Some man hit that, seriously.

You make it sound like it's bad to have welfare babies :confused:
 
This is an interesting point. I've often wondered whether the rate of homosexually isn't fixed across the entire human species, but rather that the rate of it goes up as the population density increases, and thus acts as a source of population pressure. On the other hand, if it is fixed species-wide, then it's like, say, the rate of identical twins, which is fixed. There is no evolutionary advantage or disadvantage to being a twin or having twins.

The way I understand evolution, that doesn't make sense. Natural selection is blind. Let's assume for a second there's a genetic background for homosexuality, and that the frequency of the genes/alleles that are involved is fixed. This balance will chance if the circumstances give homosexuality a reproductive advantage/ disadvantage to the individual carrying it. I can't think of a reason for homosexuality to be an advantage for the individual in a high density population.

(A disclaimer: evolution is one of my favorite pets :))
 
I can't think of a reason for homosexuality to be an advantage for the individual in a high density population.

There may be statistically more gay men in areas where women have many children, and consequently many sons, if this is true.

edit: it's not an advantage, of course, more an explanation for NRitH's reasoning.
 
There may be statistically more gay men in areas where women have many children, and consequently many sons, if this is true.

edit: it's not an advantage, of course, more an explanation for NRitH's reasoning.

I have to tell you, most of the things written there made me lol.

I couldn't really find there anything about a growing percentage of homosexuals in a growing population. (obviously, more people mean more homosexuals but I'm talking about frequencies- and I think that's with NRitH meant)
 
Tags
tmfl;dmfr
Back
Top Bottom