Jump to content

Homosexuals


  • Please log in to reply
97 replies to this topic

#41
Alessandro17

Alessandro17

    Chief of Security

  • Administrators
  • 8,312 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sector 001, Italy

On the topic of homosexuality and evolution, it is a difficult thing to talk about because we, as humans, behave in different ways when compared to our ancestors (other species). You can not say that "Species A has had homosexual relations as part of their society for X amount of years" and make any correlation to humans because, even though we have evolved from them (key word being 'evolved'), we are able to rationalize things on a much higher level than they can. Evolution boils down to what benefits the entire species, not the individual and for humans, homosexuality does not benefit the (human) species in any form.

Just my two cents.


Let's bring bonobo again into the equation, shall we?
We are very closely related to bonobo:

http://www.unl.edu/r...nobo/bonobo.htm

the bonobo shares more than 98 percent of our genetic profile......................

Not too long ago the savanna baboon was regarded as the best living model of the human ancestor. That primate is adapted to the kinds of ecological conditions that prehumans may have faced after descending from the trees. But in the late 1970s, chimpanzees, which are much more closely related to humans, became the model of choice. Traits that are observed in chimpanzees--including cooperative hunting, food sharing, tool use, power politics and primitive warfare--were absent or not as developed in baboons. In the laboratory the apes have been able to learn sign language and to recognize themselves in a mirror, a sign of self-awareness not yet demonstrated in monkeys.



Although selecting the chimpanzee as the touchstone of hominid evolution represented a great improvement, at least one aspect of the former model did not need to be revised: male superiority remained the natural state of affairs. In both baboons and chimpanzees, males are conspicuously dominant over females; they reign supremely and often brutally. It is highly unusual for a fully grown male chimpanzee to be dominated by any female.



Enter the bonobo. Despite their common name--the pygmy chimpanzee--bonobos cannot be distinguished from the chimpanzee by size. Adult males of the smallest subspecies of chimpanzee weigh some 43 kilograms (95 pounds) and females 33 kilograms (73 pounds), about the same as bonobos. Although female bonobos are much smaller than the males, they seem to rule.


So it would seem that we are related to bonobo (almost) as much as we are related to chimpanzees.
Only, our aggressive, male dominated society seems to descend from chimpanzees, rather than from bonobo.

The bonobo are entirely different: "Amicable, Amorous and Run by Females", as the article describes them.

An extremely important part of the bonobo society is their sexual behaviour:

Nature's raucous bestiary rarely serves up good role models for human behavior, unless you happen to work on the trading floor of the New York Stock Exchange. But there is one creature that stands out from the chest-thumping masses as an example of amicability, sensitivity and, well, humaneness: a little-known ape called the bonobo, or, less accurately, the pygmy chimpanzee. Before bonobos can be fully appreciated, however, two human prejudices must be overcome. The first is, fellows, the female bonobo is the dominant sex, though the dominance is so mild and unobnoxious that some researchers view bonobo society as a matter of "co-dominance," or equality between the sexes. Fancy that.

The second hurdle is human squeamishness about what in the 80s were called PDAs, or public displays of affection, in this case very graphic ones. Bonobos lubricate the gears of social harmony with sex, in all possible permutations and combinations: males with females, males with males, females with females, and even infants with adults. The sexual acts include intercourse, genital-to-genital rubbing, oral sex, mutual masturbation and even a practice that people once thought they had a patent on: French kissing.

Bonobos use sex to appease, to bond, to make up after a fight, to ease tensions, to cement alliances. Humans generally wait until after a nice meal to make love; bonobos do it beorehand, to alleviate the stress and competitiveness often seen among animals when they encounter a source of food.

Lest this all sound like a nonstop Caligulean orgy, Dr. Frans de Waal, a primatologist at Emory University in Atlanta who is the author of "Bonobo: The Forgotten Ape," emphasizes otherwise. "Sex is there, it's pervasive, it's critical, and bonobo society would collapse without it," he said in an interview. "But it's not what people think it is. It's not driven by orgasm or seeking release. Nor is it often reproductively driven. Sex for a bonobo is casual, it's quick and once you're used to watching it, it begins to look like any other social interaction." The new book, with photographs by Frans Lanting, will be published in May by the University of California Press. In "Bonobo," de Waal draws upon his own research as well as that of many other primatologists to sketch a portrait of a species much less familiar to most people than are the other great apes -- the gorilla, the orangutan and the so-called common chimpanzee. The bonobo, found in the dense equatorial rain forests of Zaire, was not officially discovered until 1929, long after the other apes had been described in the scientific literature.


So an entirely different model of sexual behaviour can benefit an entire species.

If we behaved like bonobo, we would live in a much happier society: no violence, no war, no humans exploiting other humans...

See also:

http://en.wikipedia....social_behavior

#42
AbsoFokinlutely

AbsoFokinlutely

    InsanelyMac Protégé

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 7 posts
  • Gender:Female
If you happen to believe in God, then you are familiar with the story of Adam and Eve. ( In a homosexual sense , maybe it would be more appealing if it were Adam and Steve...) Anyway.....two men cant make babies and two women cant make babies. My opinion is not a favorable one. So , I say it like this: If you were a child at school and the teacher wants to have a parent conference with your parents and you live with your adopted parents which happen to be two (legally married) men......What do you feel like ??? -- :unsure:

#43
johan

johan

    Nuke ATWT fan

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 427 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Netherlands

If you happen to believe in God, then you are familiar with the story of Adam and Eve. ( In a homosexual sense , maybe it would be more appealing if it were Adam and Steve...) Anyway.....two men cant make babies and two women cant make babies. My opinion is not a favorable one. So , I say it like this: If you were a child at school and the teacher wants to have a parent conference with your parents and you live with your adopted parents which happen to be two (legally married) men......What do you feel like ??? -- :unsure:

Children who are not taught to hate {censored}'s won't mind. I know from experience.

Well lets just exchange the word "{censored}" with ' black" in your story. Black people are discriminated, so you think that black people should not have children, in order to spare their children from discrimination?

Is that the logic of your story?

#44
Alessandro17

Alessandro17

    Chief of Security

  • Administrators
  • 8,312 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sector 001, Italy

If you happen to believe in God, then you are familiar with the story of Adam and Eve.


That doesn't sound right. It should be: "If you happen to believe in the bible", not in "God"
I believe in a God, but not the Christian one. My God couldn't care less whether you are gay or not:


http://en.wikipedia....Nirguna_Brahman

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advaita

#45
aquanutz

aquanutz

    InsanelyMac Sage

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 349 posts

Let's bring bonobo again into the equation, shall we?
We are very closely related to bonobo:

http://www.unl.edu/r...nobo/bonobo.htm
So it would seem that we are related to bonobo (almost) as much as we are related to chimpanzees.
Only, our aggressive, male dominated society seems to descend from chimpanzees, rather than from bonobo.

The bonobo are entirely different: "Amicable, Amorous and Run by Females", as the article describes them.

An extremely important part of the bonobo society is their sexual behaviour:
So an entirely different model of sexual behaviour can benefit an entire species.

If we behaved like bonobo, we would live in a much happier society: no violence, no war, no humans exploiting other humans...

See also:

http://en.wikipedia....social_behavior


Humans share most of their genetic code with a few apes and many of them have different behavioral patterns. Does this mean that we should engage in all of those patterns? Definately not. The key thing that you seem to be missing here is that we are more evolved than they are. Saying that because we are derived from them, we should act like them would be a step backward in the evolutionary process.

To say that if we behaved like the bonobo, all having homosexual tendencies, would certainly not mean that we would be without violence or war. Alexandar the Great was a homosexual and look at the path of death he created.

You may as well say that if we all behaved like goldfish, we would have no wars. We would just happily swim around in our bowls looking all fishy faced.

Keep in mind, I'm not trying to say homosexuality is wrong or right by any means, I'm just saying that it most likely would not benefit evolution of the human race. When strict homosexuality is practiced by two people, their genes aren't passed on. End of story.

#46
Alessandro17

Alessandro17

    Chief of Security

  • Administrators
  • 8,312 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sector 001, Italy

The key thing that you seem to be missing here is that we are more evolved than they are.


It depends on the definition of evolution. Looking at how cruel and evil we are, I'd say we are less evolved.

To say that if we behaved like the bonobo, all having homosexual tendencies, would certainly not mean that we would be without violence or war. Alexandar the Great was a homosexual and look at the path of death he created



Alexander the Great was a bisexual in a violent world. Besides, he didn't kill for pleasure, he was a conqueror.

Keep in mind, I'm not trying to say homosexuality is wrong or right by any means, I'm just saying that it most likely would not benefit evolution of the human race. When strict homosexuality is practiced by two people, their genes aren't passed on. End of story.


Many homosexuals have been very beneficial to mankind. As to "passing genes on", this is the age old mistake: homosexuals can have children. Look at Ancient Greece if you don't believe me. Or look at bonobo again, they have sex with everybody (not just among males), and yet they normally have offspring, and their young are taken care of by the entire society.

#47
AbsoFokinlutely

AbsoFokinlutely

    InsanelyMac Protégé

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 7 posts
  • Gender:Female
Keep in mind, I'm not trying to say homosexuality is wrong or right by any means, I'm just saying that it most likely would not benefit evolution of the human race. When strict homosexuality is practiced by two people, their genes aren't passed on. End of story.


That is it. ^

To the person trying to compare my first post on this subject to black people instead of homosexuals : There's nothing to compare - stupid to even bring it up as such.

{censored} people are how they are. On 60 minutes they had a story about 2 twin boys that grew up completely set in their ways from birth. It is possible that before birth , certain genes can make this decision for us. One of the twin boys grew up and didnt like any normal boy-type toys but rather, he liked pink, Barbies, and other dolls...while his twin brother was what we (society) would call normal. The mother didnt try to influence either boy in any (sexual) preference/direction. Interesting story....
The people that decide they are {censored} after trying regular relationships with the opposite sex...
What is that all about?

#48
aquanutz

aquanutz

    InsanelyMac Sage

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 349 posts

Many homosexuals have been very beneficial to mankind. As to "passing genes on", this is the age old mistake: homosexuals can have children. Look at Ancient Greece if you don't believe me. Or look at bonobo again, they have sex with everybody (not just among males), and yet they normally have offspring, and their young are taken care of by the entire society.


I'm not arguing that homosexuals haven't been beneficial to mankind as individuals. But have they benefited the advancement of the human race? No. I also said 'strict' homosexuals, not bi-sexuals.

Either way, this argument could go on for eternity. I think it's best I just bow out and chalk it up to different beliefs.

#49
Kiko

Kiko

    You Dont Understand Me

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,889 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:United States Of Israel
lol go {censored} yourself alessandro, you and your stupid bonobos.

#50
djet

djet

    𐑒ᒢᘍਾ

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 942 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bill Watterson
Aless you keep on saying that {censored} people can have children, so thus it's not bad for society, but (correct me if I'm wrong) I don't think that many homosexuals have hetero sex to make children..... they're homosexual..... they don't like people of the opposite sex... so why would they have sex with them?

#51
Paranoid Marvin

Paranoid Marvin

    Insanely Around Sometimes

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,714 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:127.0.0.1, Scotland, UK

lol go {censored} yourself alessandro, you and your stupid bonobos.


Yeah, Alessandro17, I get the feeling you really like those monkeys :D

#52
Alessandro17

Alessandro17

    Chief of Security

  • Administrators
  • 8,312 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sector 001, Italy

Aless you keep on saying that gay people can have children, so thus it's not bad for society, but (correct me if I'm wrong) I don't think that many homosexuals have hetero sex to make children..... they're homosexual..... they don't like people of the opposite sex... so why would they have sex with them?


I believed this was quite clear by now. Study ancient Greece: homosexuality was "better", sex between a man and a woman was done in order to have children.


Yeah, Alessandro17, I get the feeling you really like those monkeys ;)


Yes I do :D

As I have said many times, they could be a great example for mankind:

http://www.unl.edu/r...nobo/bonobo.htm

#53
Guest: h2a_*

Guest: h2a_*
  • Guests
This argument is phrased different ways, from the cliche (e.g. "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve") to the vulgar (e.g. various comments about "plumbing"). The argument is the same: Our bodies were designed to interact in a certain way, so we shouldn't use them in any other way.

It's certainly true that our bodies were designed with heterosexuality in mind; that's how new human beings come into the world. I don't think anyone can deny that heterosexual sex is the way our bodies were built to function.

Our ears and mouths were designed so we could communicate - we listen, and we talk. Every culture on earth communicates this way. But some people are deaf, maybe because they were born that way or maybe because of something that happened to them. Either way, they can't communicate the way the rest of us do, so they have to improvise with what they have. Most deaf people today use sign language to communicate, and even though that's not what our hands were designed for, it gets the job done. None of us would call that "wrong"

The argument that "you shouldn't do that because that wasn't the way we're designed" is really more of an excuse than a real argument. If anything becomes wrong just because it wasn't part of the original design or creation, we'd have to condemn wheelchairs, makeup, open-heart surgery, bicycles, acrobatics, pre-packaged foods... well, you get the idea.

As far as the "sex is for pro-creation arguement--
Sex is for other purposes as well; it forms a bond between people and is a marital responsibility. Procreation is only one part of the reason for sex, and many couples have sex on a regular basis without ever conceiving (sometimes by choice; other times not).

Couples are allowed to have sex even when they know they are infertile, and fertile couples can deliberately plan their sexual encounters at times they know they will not conceive (known as "natural family planning"), as long as they don't use condoms or other so-called "artificial" means of birth control. Why should sex by an infertile couple be considered "open to procreation" when sex with a spermicide isn't? Is Natural Family Planning considered acceptable only because it is less reliable? (If condoms were less reliable, would they be acceptable?) Is there really anything "open to procreation" about a couple who know they are infertile because of physical deformities, age, medical conditions, previous surgery, or any other reason?

If you're going to use this argument, you'd have to condemn sterile heterosexual relationships just as strongly.

#54
killbot1000

killbot1000

    InsanelyMac Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,232 posts

Keep in mind, I'm not trying to say homosexuality is wrong or right by any means, I'm just saying that it most likely would not benefit evolution of the human race. When strict homosexuality is practiced by two people, their genes aren't passed on. End of story.
That is it. ^



One word...Technology! Adopted or not, parents are parents. The fact that we share blood with our parents is actually quite UNIMPORTANT. It is literally the least important part of being a parent (but most people confuse it with the most important part) which is that you actually do a good job raising your child (empathy, critical thinking, compassion, etc.).

#55
 Suzie's Soliloquy

 Suzie's Soliloquy

    Professor of Mac-Ology

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Location:Bradford
To even consider posting this thread was inexplicably insensitive; and it's just trying to stir up an argument over a perfectly normal occurrence in life.

#56
Kiko

Kiko

    You Dont Understand Me

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,889 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:United States Of Israel
"normal", you mean like little timmy the kid who is "special"? lol

#57
killbot1000

killbot1000

    InsanelyMac Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,232 posts

"normal", you mean like little timmy the kid who is "special"? lol


Its normal enough, and it happens a lot more than people think. Also, it used to happen A LOT more than it does now because it used to be socially encouraged rather than scorned (not that I think that's good either, it should be a non-issue altogether).

Normal Enough...

Timmy isn't "special" enough to actually be called special. He might be special in his own "special" way but that doesn't mean he's ACTUALLY special.

#58
Paranoid Marvin

Paranoid Marvin

    Insanely Around Sometimes

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,714 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:127.0.0.1, Scotland, UK
God, I hate that word....

#59
 Suzie's Soliloquy

 Suzie's Soliloquy

    Professor of Mac-Ology

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Location:Bradford
I agree; it should be a complete non-issue, it's as nonsensical as judging someone from their hair colour

#60
QuietOC

QuietOC

    InsanelyMac Sage

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 264 posts
We should recognize that masculinity and feminity are social contructs. The site that Alessandro17 linked to that discussed the behaviorial differences between bonobos and chimpanzis partially illustrates (and confusses) this with these genetic relatives of humans. Anthropology shows us that our modern western culture is not typical.

I am not surprised that there are genetic indicators for people who are predominately attracted to their own sex, but it is a mistake to see genetic determism apart from cultural determinism. The reality is that genetics do not operate alone in the area of human activity. Our genes determine part of our individualness, but not the sum total of it. Our evironment (culture) partly determines us, and we are partly able to determine ourselves.

What attracts yousexually is both somewhat your own choice and somewhat handed to you. None of that really has much bearing on whether your current sexual condition is particularly good. I see no reasonto embrace human homosexuality as good in itself, but there is every reason for supporting homosexuals. It is also possible to address the environmental factors that are involved.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

© 2014 InsanelyMac  |   News  |   Forum  |   Downloads  |   OSx86 Wiki  |   Mac Netbook  |   PHP hosting by CatN  |   Designed by Ed Gain  |   Logo by irfan  |   Privacy Policy