Interesting theory about homosexuality

[BlackShanglan]

The only thing that really grips me here is minsue's insanely cute AV! Nice one.

Shanglan

 

[Boxlicker101]

I think the female population is slightly higher than the male.

I believe that, considering only natural causes, there are more females but the excess is mostly older women, past child-bearing age.

 

[BlackShanglan]

I believe that, considering only natural causes, there are more females but the excess is mostly older women, past child-bearing age.

I think I read that males are born in greater numbers, but die more quickly. I can't remember where the balance changes.

Shanglan

 

[Boxlicker101]

I've only read the first page-- but maybe homosexuals *and* other non-reproducing people ("hermits" "spinsters" infertile people) are purposely created for several purposes- amoung them, to nurture other children, to care for orphaned and abandoned children, as well as to expend time and energy on other pursuits to benefit life on the planet (whatever they may be)

Such as with ants (and surely other creatures) some members reproduce and others have other roles that do not include reproduction.

(So the original theory would be *partially* right)

That's my theory.

Why would you refer to homosexcuals as being "non-reproducing"? There are several women on Lit. who would disagree with that designation. In addition to that, I have frequently read or heard of persons leaving their straight mates, after producing several offspring, and starting to live a gay or lesbian life, which they have come to see as what they should have been doing all along. Hermits and spinsters are not born. Hermits might actually produce several children before becoming hermits. A spinster is a woman who has never married and/or had children and this condition is not determined at birth.

 

[sweetnpetite]

I was going off of the original idea posted on the thread. Also, whether they are made or born is somewhat beside the point. I was trying to say that I think that nature fully intends that some will reproduce and others won't (vs the idea many have that everyone is *supposed* to reproduce.) I wan't even saying that it's true, just that it's an alternative thought.

I do realize that homosexuals can and do reproduce. I was giving examples of some who might fall into the category- to point out that I wasn't *only* talking about homosexuals but any poeple who do not reproduce by choice or by design.

And while you could say that not marrying is not a condition determined at birth, one could argue that the reasons for not marrying are indeed present at birth. Amoung those reasons could be 1) tallents, drives, desires toward other areas, 2.) lower sex drive resulting in no desire to mate 3.)higher sex drive resulting in no desire to mate for life 4.)Unfortunate physical appearance or personality traits that result in the person not finding anyone willing to marry them. 5.) physical defects that leave the person feeling unlovable, ect ect. [is our destiny in our DNA- that's a whole other thread]

I did not mean to be insulting to anyone by my post- and mearly used recognizable words such as 'spinster' and 'hermit' that would be easily understood. My point was that although mankind as a whole is made to reproduce, nature did not necessarily intend for *every* individual to reproduce, but rather intends that some use their creative intellectual or nuturing capacity in some other way. And I am not saying who should or shouldn't reproduce, simply that some don't and perhaps that is not an anomally but perfectly normal and natural and healthy to the species and the planet.

Why would you refer to homosexcuals as being "non-reproducing"? There are several women on Lit. who would disagree with that designation. In addition to that, I have frequently read or heard of persons leaving their straight mates, after producing several offspring, and starting to live a gay or lesbian life, which they have come to see as what they should have been doing all along. Hermits and spinsters are not born. Hermits might actually produce several children before becoming hermits. A spinster is a woman who has never married and/or had children and this condition is not determined at birth.

 

[gauchecritic]

I've said this before, quite recently and on another thread.

Homosexuality is a built in by-product of sexual attraction. In order that the largest part of humanity shall continue then each individual needs to be programmed to be attracted to or to pro-create with (which is why sex is rewarding in itself) almost any other individual.

The fact that the other individual is of the same sex or that the sex isn't procreative is neither here nor there to the planetary population just as long as 'most' individuals do it 'properly' at some point.

Individuals are of no concern to a species so the broader the preferential spectrum throughout, the better.


Worlds without numbers.

I would beg to differ that a world without numbers is a world containing nothing.

The only thing that a world without numbers needn't contain is an un-naturally exploitative population i.e human (alien, whatever)

The minimum concept required in order to go about the business of living is self v. not-self.

I propose that maths (numbers), logic and language do not exist other than as reference points for thinking beings.

A labeled concept or structured tool is not the thing itself.

A description of a thing and how we can use that thing and how that thing interacts with other things are not the things themselves, the things exist without our thinking or observing them. Hence quantum states.

An animal in danger needs no numbering logic to decide that danger is before it and behind it. There is no useful knowledge in the fact that there are two dangers.

Numbers would then imply choice. Choice implies logic.

You may argue that fight or flight is a choice. I would say that fight is what remains when flight is hindered.

A popular theory is that a cornered rat will attack even a human being, I would say that (as per martial arts training) striking out is merely a pre-cursor of further flight. I'm led to understand that a cornered rat jumping at your throat isn't actually attacking, it's jumping over. The instinct is to duck thereby leaving a get-away.

Some animals hunt in pairs. The fact that there are two making a pair has no useful connotations for the hunters. For them it is simply self and another. After self and another there is a pack.

So a numberless world needs only no higher than animal thought to exist.

 

[Kassiana]

Why can't it just be accepted that we are what we are and that we are all different?
--Because we want there to be some grand design, some wonderful scheme and purpose to things. Just look at Creationists as an example. You object to their religious belief that God made things six thousand years ago based on science and they object (because they don't feel special without it, I think).

Well, I know, and have heard of even more, women who have high sex drives, then have kids. After that it somewhat diminishes..
--Not in my case.

 

[Kassiana]

Carson: There is only one compelling reason for a man to be a homosexual. He likes cock.
--Good for him. So do I.

 

[Guest]

Lou, I know all of that. Never said they were magic.

(But...rainbows aren't circular because the earth is round, but because the breaking of the visible colors always occur in the same angle to the source point. Sorry, just nitpicking. )

But that's still how rainbows work.
I know a fair lot about the mechanics of a lot of things, but the reasons for the mechanics to be as they are, the reason why 2+5=7....I have absolutely no idea.

#L

Ok, I get you.

Now I look stupid (what's new? LOL!). It was late, I was thinking literally, I remembered something I was told in Primary School, blah blah.

Anyway, what I was getting at was that there is a scientific (and, yes, Joe, logical) explanation for rainbows, mathematical equations, etc, etc. But, there isn't one for why we are like we are.

All we are left with is theory, speculation, opinion, guesswork, rationalisation and just plain old acceptance.

Lou

 

[domjoe]

I agree. I think of logic as sort of the math of statements. It even comes in graphic form, like geometry, with Venn diagrams and diagrams of sets. I await with glee a calculus of logic, which I personally would find very satisfying.

cantdog

logic was originally "rules of thought". Russell and Whitehead sought to reduce arithmetic to logic last century, but in 1930 Kurt Godel managed to prove that it's possible to have true statements in arithmentic (or any sufficiently rich symbolic system), which are unprovable. Nice trick, proving that some things are unprovable!

People have tried to apply the arguments of Godels trick to computers (Von Neumann machines) , in order to "prove" that robots will never be like people, (who presumably can wriggle out of Godels paradox, because God made them).

This post, like most subjects dear to my heart, is all complete and utter wank from beginning to end, to paraphrase Wittgenstein's "Tractatus".

 

[Boxlicker101]

Ok, I get you.

Now I look stupid (what's new? LOL!). It was late, I was thinking literally, I remembered something I was told in Primary School, blah blah.

Anyway, what I was getting at was that there is a scientific (and, yes, Joe, logical) explanation for rainbows, mathematical equations, etc, etc. But, there isn't one for why we are like we are.

All we are left with is theory, speculation, opinion, guesswork, rationalisation and just plain old acceptance.

Lou

That last one will always be the most important.

 

[SlickTony]

Such as with ants (and surely other creatures) some members reproduce and others have other roles that do not include reproduction.

It's interesting that, as far as we know, these creatures whose roles do not include reproduction are not bothered with a sex drive. The more evolved the organism, evidently it's there, but efforts are made to excise it. In the case of naked mole rats, there is a queen in every bunch who arrogates every scrap of male attention to herself; like the bees, her children exist merely to nuture the offspring that she bears. The children never get any; she ensures that they do not even want it by literally treading on them so that they are too stressed out. (Actually, I can think of some human families that operate somewhat like this).

In humans, not everybody seems destined to reproduce, but they still have the sex drive, whether it is sublimated in artistic impulses or manifests itself in variants and paraphilias. The stomping of the naked mole rats is replaced by societal pressures and guilting.

 

[Guest]

That last one will always be the most important.

Indeed!

 

[Svenskaflicka]

There is only one compelling reason for a man to be a homosexual.

He likes cock.

Thank you and good night.

Oh my god, I'm a gay man!

 

[domjoe]

SF's been outed at last

 

[Svenskaflicka]

I used to think that humans were the only creatures who had sex for other reasons than to reproduce, seeing as we're the only creature that don't need to follow a "in heat season" to mate.

Then, to my surprise, I read that scientists had discovered homosexuality among dolphins!

Apparently, the more intelligent the creature, the more they enjoy sex for pleasure's own sake.

 

[SlickTony]

And they do it to relieve stress and to gain comfort from each other. The dolphins in Sea World and places like that are usually put into a deep, protected pool during hurricanes. After that, an unusual amount of baby dolphins come along.

 

[Guest]

I used to think that humans were the only creatures who had sex for other reasons than to reproduce, seeing as we're the only creature that don't need to follow a "in heat season" to mate.

Then, to my surprise, I read that scientists had discovered homosexuality among dolphins!

Apparently, the more intelligent the creature, the more they enjoy sex for pleasure's own sake.

Chimps are like that, too. When they get stressed or excited, massive orgies ensue, during which each individual will fuck anyone. They seem not to care a jolt about gender. Incest is very common, too.

 

[carsonshepherd]

When they get stressed or excited, massive orgies ensue, during which each individual will fuck anyone. They seem not to care a jolt about gender.

Why can't I get invited to the really good parties?

 

[ABSTRUSE]

Why can't I get invited to the really good parties?

stop shaving your back.

 

[Guest]

Why can't I get invited to the really good parties?

You have a thing for chimps? My god, you are weird.

 

[carsonshepherd]

You have a thing for chimps? My god, you are weird.

 

[matriarch]

You people are starting to scare me.

 

[carsonshepherd]

You people are starting to scare me.

Hurray!

 

[Liar]

You people are starting to scare me.

Was it that easy?

Aww, come on, join the mayhem.