Nobody is suggesting that penile-vaginal sex is not useful for reproduction, Rook. But sex has lots of other functions beyond reproduction, and those functions are just as natural as use of the involved body parts as any other.
I’m not asking that, Kelly- I’m asking if you’d agree that the origin of sexual activity is reproduction? Especially since you’re not technically a “living being” (as a species of course) if you do not have the ability to reproduce?
wait…let me put that a different way because i know you’ll twist my intentions. Since animals have an urge to procreate (example of salmon swimming up stream to mate), do you think man also has a certain instinct to do the same? Many homosexual couples want offspring, right?
Well, as a married man with a great deal of compassion for our gay friends, since none of them care to take your latest batch of questions into account (and, frankly, I don’t blame them; three-quarters of the time it seems like your mind is made up about the “facts” before you get the answer, and the other quarter you seem willing to listen and hear what they have to say), here’s an attempt at getting solid answers for you:
First off, there is no more such a thing as a “homosexual lifestyle” than there is a “heterosexual lifestyle.” Or at least Satan and Navigator live substantially different life styles from each other or from me and my wife. What I know of the gay posters here leads me to believe that each of them has his own lifestyle. If you start with that premise, then your question is partially meaningless.
However, taking it to mean, “there must be those who … actually choose to live as gays.” The flip answer is, no. However, you have a very slight point. A few years before AIDS became a serious public health threat, there was a period when the jet-set types, looking for new kicks, decided that “being bi was in.” This was a fad; it came and went (pun not intentional, but funny anyway). Other than that isolated instance and its equivalent in the 1st century, against which one of Paul’s letters gets down and dirty, there are no known cases of people “deciding to be gay.” There are a few people who tend to associate with a coterie of gay people while not being gay themselves, for a variety of reasons. Is that by any chance what you’re asking about? In view of the phrasing, I doubt it, but to give you the benefit of the doubt…
And, given that, the answer to “can the pure homosexual tell them apart?” would be, first, not applicable, second, for those bi-wannabes, yeah, probably, and why should anyone care?
Yep. 100% the first, 0% the second, with the miniscule historical exception noted above. And to the second question, absolutely, in view of “those who convert themselves” being meaningless.
Nope. It is remotely possible that one of the contributing environmental factors, if there are any, may be “bad experiences with the opposite gender” in early childhood. This was part of the old environmentally-caused theory, since fairly well exploded by scientific evidence (it wasn’t borne out statistically). It did give rise to a classic joke, though:
“My mother made me a homosexual.”
“Really? If I get her the wool, will she make me one too?”
Fascinating question. What’s a homosexual? A fair proportion of boys in early adolescence engage in same-sex sex play and then go on to be heterosexually-oriented adults. (Anybody got stats. on this?) Are they gay or bi? Why or why not?
I’d limit the term to people who are convinced of their primary orientation being to be attracted to people of the same sex. And in that case, the answer is, clearly, no.
Well, discarding the “lifestyle” phrase, it’s not unheard of for gay men in denial to, more or less in desperation, find a woman who is attracted to them and try to make a go of being straight. Some are halfway successful at it. Others are not. The term bisexual seems appropriate.
Absolutely. The former, used in its stricter sense, are males, the latter females. In the more general sense, Lesbians are gay women, or women gays.
Is there a distinction in how they behave? Not in general terms. A few generalizations can be made but they are stereotypical – meaning true for many but not all people.
Just as a comment, and on the presumption that you are serious about learning about how gays think and feel, may I suggest that you pick up a short coming-out biography in a used book store and learn how it feels to be gay “from the inside” by reading that person’s account. One of the first and still one of the best of this genre is “The Best Little Boy in the World” by Andrew Tobias (the original edition was under the pseudonym John Read). Other posters, more knowledgeable than I, may have better suggestions.
i kind of like Come Out Smiling.
I accept your opinion. Although there is no way to know if someone who claims they are gay, is actually gay to your preferences or decides that it fits them more. But what you did to back your theory by saying that if that was to happen, they weren’t actually gay to begin with, correct? I respect that answer. So according to you, women who claim to be lesbian after a sexual attack or harsh treatment by the opposite sex, aren’t REALLY gay since they weren’t born with that notion? Interesting……
Could you please answer the questions I previously asked to KellyM? I’d like to here your answer
Many, but not all. Nor do all heterosexual couples desire children. You view things from a very narrow perspective and expect codification for your narrow beliefs from the people on this board. Surprise, surprise… it isn’t happening.
Do you? You seem to refute everything any gay person on here has to say and then restate your claims as if we were slow-witted children. If we wanted breeders to patronize us, we’d have attended the Republican National Convention.
Hastur, as someone not afraid to speak his mind and, for obvious reasons, much more knowledgeable than I, would you be so good as to vet my post (about five above) attempting to deal with Rook’s questions? I’d appreciate knowing how close I came to accuracy.
Look, buster, my ability or lack thereof to reproduce has NOTHING to do with my status as a living being.
Lots of people are infertile for any of a number of reasons. Classifying infertile people as “second class” members of a society is divisive and stupid. While infertile individuals may not contribute to species preservation by creating new copies of themselves, they can still contribute in other ways. Especially in advanced societies with complex socioeconomic structures. Maybe when you crawl out of your cave you’ll understand that.
Nor will I speculate as to the “origin” of sexual activity. There’s very little factual information to be had in this area, unless you have a time viewer or something and can actually see what protohumans were doing 125,000 years ago. We can only guess at it. It does appear to me that today people engage in sexual activity a lot more for personal and shared pleasure than out of a desire to procreate. And I have no reason to believe that sharing pleasure is unnatural.
Everything I’ve heard about the way homosexuals feel about attraction tells me that they have no desire, instinctive or otherwise, to mate with members of the opposite sex. To that end, I believe that gay males have no instinctive desire to have sex with women. Some gay men also appear to have a desire to procreate, which may also be instinctive. Admittedly, this combination of instincts would be somewhat problematic. But then again, there’s no reason to believe that instincts always work to every individual’s best advantage. Evolution doesn’t guarantee the best possible species. Species survival is not prevented by having a few members who are unable to procreate or who are perpetually frustrated by having contradictory instincts.
On the issue of “conversions”: I think people who “convert” themselves are probably technically bisexuals who have made the free choice to add sex as a mate selection parameter. People can choose to disregard their natural tendencies, although doing so can create psychological stress. A “pure homosexual” would be unable to “convert” to being heterosexual without incurring a great deal of psychological stress. Trying to deny your own identity tends to be bad for your mental health.
My question was, Does MAN (as a species) have an instinct to procreate? So your answer of, “Many, but not all,” is irrelevant. I’m sure talked about a certain species as a whole before. I believe every living species has an instinct to procreate? So my question is, viewing the human race as a species (which we all should do sometimes to eliminate prejudice), do you believe we have an instinct to procreate? it’s not a complex question…
Correct. There is no “Homosexual Lifestyle.” None of us live or think the same. We are as diverse as every other ethnic or religious group. We are individuals, and there is no one thing we all do or all believe in.
Yes, there was Bi and Lesbian chic in the past 15 years. It was trendy and cool. Right up until that same sex physical thing for most of them. None of us decided to be gay. But, whether or not to come out and be ourselves is a decision, and a hard one at that. Misinformation and homophobia cause problems with that, and having people have to “understand” why we are who and what we are and to catagorize us does not help. No one should be pigeonholed.
{QUOTE]
And, given that, the answer to “can the pure homosexual tell them apart?” would be, first, not applicable, second, for those bi-wannabes, yeah, probably, and why should anyone care?
[/QUOTE]
There is no such thing as a pure homosexual or heterosexual.
Just because your sexual experiences have been limited to one gender or another, this does not encompass fantasies or thoughts one may have had. Sexuality and gender identity are not simple things, and are not rigid structures, as our society would have you believe. Sexuality and gender identity are vast continuums that encompass a great deal.
To try and simplify it is silly as it just cannot be done.
No one converts themselves. Either you are gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgenders, or you aren’t. If you are not attracted to the same sex, then you won’t be no matter what you do. The same is true in the reverse.
The thought that men should all be with women is ludicrous.
After all, if gay men desired women, they would be in happy, fulfilling relationships, and Rook would have no one to disappoint.
I concur. Gay men do marry women for security, to hide their orientation, and at times… to get her insurance.
Or, to get the tax benefits. There are a lot of reasons.
But, if a man is gay, he’s not going to find a woman attractive sexually and wish to have sex with her. That is called bisexuality. Being gay is not a phase. And the claims to the contrary are insulting and demeaning. It reduces us to a developmental phase that one should pass through to be a complete person, rather than accepting the fact that we are complete already.
Lesbians are different, but I will leave that to a lesbian to explain, rather than speaking about something I am not as informed about as I could be. Where’s Lea DeLaria when I need her?
It is irrelevant? Whatever. You again refute poorly that which you disagree with. Not all animals care to reproduce either. If you want to eliminate prejudice, see why you care so much what gay men do in bed and why you are sickened by it when it shouldn’t matter to you.
No, it isn’t a complex question, but you want a black and white answer when one does not exist.
“Look, buster, my ability or lack thereof to reproduce has NOTHING to do with my status as a living being”
The funny part is, I knew you would take it the wrong went and that’s why I said “AS A SPECIES” and added the second comment saying, “let me put that a different way because i know you’ll twist my intentions.”
now do you see how difficult you’ve made it for me to explain any of my ideas which in turn makes me look as if i have know idea what i’m talking about. (though i do admit to making some comments without proof)
I’m speaking as a species KellyM, a SPECIES- it’s obvious in every species there are subject that, “vary from the norm” but I’m strictly speaking as a species……
You know, you criticize me for not listening to our arguments but yet don’t choose to cooperate with mine when you KNOW it’s right. A species that has any desire to survive, MUST have a natural instinct to procreate which PROVES my point that nature SUGGESTS heterosexual sex. POINT EXPLAINED AND UNDERSTOOD BY ALL OF YOU NO MATTER WHAT THE HELL YOU SAY BECAUSE I KNOW YOU’RE NOT A BUNCH OF IDIOTS. Now this was just one of my points and i’m willing to find some more material. From the first few comments I’ve made, I’ve been saying that nature SUGGESTS heterosexual sex but yet defensive, stubborn, homosexuals like yourselves are too proud to agree with me. Your quick to be upset at people for who don’t except you but uninterested in reviewing the facts. I’ve even admitted I was wrong about a few things is this debate but none of you can admit I have a point by saying this. Maybe you should think in a more logical manner when listening to someone else with a different view before jumping down their throats and calling them bigots.
Also, just because I find the ACT of homosexuality disgusting, doesn’t mean I find Homosexual’s disgusting! My friend licks his girlfriends anus during sex and I personally find that disgusting. What the hell does that mean? So what, I still like being in his company and respect him as a person! I hope you’ve learned something about how closed minded YOU are and stop calling everyone else who has a different view points “ignorant” or “stupid” because of the type of material THEY were exposed to. Just because you’re homosexual doesn’t mean you know absolutely everything about human sexuality, the origin of homosexuality, and how many true homosexuals exist and how many are just faking it BECAUSE YOU CAN’T POSSIBLY KNOW THE TRUTH!
Rook, why do you assume that everyone who is replying to you is homosexual?
Yeah! And what’s up with all the Black people too! Everybody know that the Europeans are more highly evolved and intelligent due to having to cope with the extreme conditions, BUT NO! You’re all too stupid to understand it!
And what about all the WOMEN! There all so weak and frail and dumb from gathering berries and having babies. I mean let’s be real. They’re not as smart as men. Everybody knows it! Why deny it? I mean it’s not like you guys are stupid. Why don’t you understand? It’s a valid point! Why don’t you learn right-thinking behavior!?!
I’m with you Rook! I’m gonna sign up for the Secret Police. Why don’t you join the Lutwaffe. We’ll show 'em!
(don’t even think about misinterpreting this)
Okay, now we’re taking my point out of context ONCE more. When I was speaking about homosexuals I was speaking of the ones I’m been debating with. You next comments are extremely far from my ideas and again, your misinterpreting what I actually meant. So the stubbornness is ongoing
It isn’t our stubbornness, but your refusal of reality and desire to maintain your insipid homophobic beliefs. Does your woman support these stupid thoughts, or does she just nod and make a noise like when you ask if the sex was good for her too? You’re a promisekeeper, aren’t you?
I’ve been following this whole thread, and I can ascribe no other motivations to your actions.
The human body is a nifty piece of engineering. It’s parts can perform more than a single function. Not all functions have a direct evolutionary/survival significance.
WHy don’t you seem to understand this?