You’ve reversed it. Homosexuality is not caused by fairies.
It causes fairies.
It totally amazes me, how one single person can predictably come up with so many homophobic theories . . . none of which have any validity whatsoever.
It’s not her fault. The Devil made her do it.
Get with the program, Shodan. It is not toasters or toaster ovens that we give as a bonus to those we convert. It is Play Station and X-Box. Since our objective is to convert them young, I hardly think you are going to get teens and pre-teens to go gay with a toaster!
Say, this web site IS securely limited to members of the gay conspiracy, is it not? Because I would hate for what I just admitted to get into the wrong hands.
(Now, let’s see how long it takes for my comments to be read into the Congressional Record by some southern senator who thinks I am being serious.)
It may be my fault, considering how I phrased my OP, that we are dancing around the subject. It would appear that several of us seem to almost say what we mean, but not quite.
First of all, I am not asking what biological reason there would be for males and females to have sex. Cloning aside, you need the fusion of sex cells found in the male (sperm) and in the female (ovum) to procreate.
But heterosexuality really means the ATTRACTION or DESIRE of males and females to have sex with one another as opposed to sex with a member of their own gender.
As an anology, I am reminded of the old saw that a religious believer and an atheist are really not very different. The atheist disbelieves the existence of all gods and the believer disbeleives the existence of all gods save one.
Now, a question to my heterosexual friends out there. Assuming that you have sex (with a partner or with Mr Hand or Ms Finger or a vibrator) some 5,000 to 15,000 times in a lifetime, in how many of those do you really hope that your sexual activity will result in a pregnancy?
Maybe five, 10 or 20? Maybe more for couples who are trying to conceive but are having problems.
So the fact is that sexual activity, whether gay or straight, is either never (gay) or almost never (straight) related to a desire to procreate.
But the fact that heterosexual sex CAN cause procreation is somehow regarded as giving ALL heterosexual sex a blessing, a stamp of normality, an exemption from having to be explained.
Notice, for example, that opponents of gay marriage inevitably bring up the fact that gay sex cannot cause procreation. When it is pointed out to them that neither can straight sex involving men with vasectomies, menopausal women, infertile persons, or even just straights who choose not to have children, gay marriage opponents seem genuinely bewildered by that argument.
It is as if they are saying: “What does it matter if a man and woman can’t or won’t have children. Their sex sex is of the same KIND (male-female) that CAN produce offspring, so they should be allowed to marry.”
Have I given the debate a new spin or have I just further confused the issue? 
The issue is simple. No heterosexual sex = no reproduction = death of the species. If there was “just enough” biological incentive to heterosexually reproduce, that would be sufficient, but evolution does not set biological imperatives by careful calibration; it sets them by throwing darts blindfolded out of an airplane at a target a hundred miles below. So it happened to set the current heterosexual sex drive far in excess of what is (currently) needed to propogate the species; so what? Overcompensation isn’t a problem if it doesn’t kill us off. It doesn’t seem to have killed us off, so QED. That’s why we screw like rabbits. Simple.
Actually, that is my point. We do NOT screw like rabbits or any other creature. For example, human females desire sex even after they get pregnant. Even after menopause. We hve no “mating season”.
It think the problem is that people are adressing the idea of the “reason” for sex as if biological reproduction were the only one. It is obvious that sex plays a social and psychological role that is no more “secondary” as a purpose than procreation.
I am reminded of the argument that occurred between evolutionists and creationists early on regarding the human voice.
The existence of skilled opera singers with amazing voice ranges was brought out as an anti-evolution argument, believe it or not. How, people asked, could something so sublime as an opera diva’s voice have developed under evolutionary mechanisms?
The answer is that it did not. The human use of vocalization ability for purposes of pure art and pleasure (I am assuming one likes opera) is an entirely human “perversion” of that ability.
The strict biological purpose of vocalization, judging by birds, mammals, etc., seems to be to intimidate opponents, call mates, call offspring (e.g. lioness to cubs). But no animal sings, not even birds. It may happen that some bird species have sounds that strike us as pleasurable, but every sound they make has a biological purpose. Ars gratia artis does not exist in the animal kingdom.
Similarly, the “use” or “perversion” of the sexual process by humans seems different from the way it is used in the animal kingdom. It is questionable whether many sexual/reproductive activities of animal even involve pleasure. Spawning fish do not seem to enjoy what they are doing. I have seen cats having sex on several occasions and I have a lot of trouble blieving that they are “pleasuring” themselves rather than obeying an instinct.
Sex among humans seems to have avery strong pleasure/bonding component.
Or as we say in the gay world “Arse gratia arses”.
Fish don’t seem to enjoy what they’re doing? How on earth would you tell??
Congratulations on being the Cat Whisperer, but all that you’re really arguing is that humans are more self-aware and less instinct-driven than animals are. This is not a shocking idea, I should hope.
Here’s how it works. Humans probably started having heterosexual sex as a pure biological imperative, back when we were essentially mindless apes. As we developed greater intelligence, there were more pressing things on our mind than screwing, so we went off and did them instead. The people who didn’t have enough interest in sex to drive them to go to the trouble of mating didn’t have kids. The people who discovered they liked having heterosexual sex had more kids than those who didn’t. Add a few million years of evolution selecting for this, and bam: teenage boys think about sex once every fifteen seconds.
Or, alternatively, the ape we evolved from just happened to be really lusty from the start. With a lot of dogs out there humping anything that moves and some things that don’t, you can’t convince me that no animals have sex for fun. Maybe we were just one of the lucky ones. Who knows? (Who cares?)
“Heterosexuality” means a bit more than “sexual attraction to the opposite gender,” doesn’t it? It also excludes sexual attraction to individuals of the same gender, which is distinct from “bisexuality.” Strictly speaking, heterosexuality is completely unnecessary for the perpetuation of the human species. So why isn’t everyone bisexual?
What evolutionary benefit does humanity reap by producing people who lack the capacity to enjoy sexual bonds with members of their own gender? Surely masturbation is just as much a waste of evolution’s time; yet the practice hasn’t been noticeably selected against, no matter what my parents told me.
Sex time distributed amongst partners of both genders would be less reproductively productive than sex-time spent strictly with the opposite gender, wouldn’t it? Especially since humans seem to like pair bonding (probably for reasons of security and reduced rivalry), which would mean that ambivalently sexual persons would seem to, as a group, produce half as many dual-gender pairings, and thus half as many offspring.
I don’t know that people masturbate to the exclusion of sex too often, so that activity wouldn’t seem likely to reduce the number of offspring too much; ergo there would be little selection pressure in favor of those who don’t.
Well, I think we can agree I have never had sex as either a fish or a cat. But there are ways we can make reasonable suppositions.
Nature “uses” both the carrot and the stick to make creatures do things they ought to. I realize this is attributing intention to evolution, but let me just use this language for ease of communication.
Pleasure is a “carrot” a reward. Pleasure works as a motivator only if the creature in question is intelligent enough to remember that a certain activity felt good the last time and is therefore motivated to do it again. First of all, would it work as a motivator in fish? And of what possible use would it be in salmon who reproduce and then die? No matter how much they enjoyed it they are not going to do it again, are they?
Further (and I have no cites to give you, sorry) I remember reading that the reproductive organs of many fish and other animals do not seem to hav the nerve endings that would indicate that pleasure plays much of a role.
With cats, I recommend you look up cat reproduction. You will be amazed to learn that a male cat’s penis is covered in barbs DESIGNED TO TEAR AND CUT the female inside. It all plays a role in reproduction. I will not go into it all here but you can read about it in any good cat book. And yet the female will return to mate with several toms when she is in heat, in spite of the pain.
We often make false anthropomorphic assumptions about animal behavior. The mother bird sits on her eggs to keep them warm. Every so often she tuns them over to warm them evenly. She must be a good mother looking forward to the little hatchlings that will come out of the eggs, right? Wrong!
Mother birds develop a hot, itchy rash on their ass after laying eggs. The cool, smooth eggs provide relief. When one side gets too warm, they turn the egg over.
Do you see how easily we can fall iunto the trap of assuming that the animals are just like us? Read about experiments with dogs that can be made to fuck anything if you push the right nerves and stimulate them just right.
My guess is that the more intelligent the animal, the more they are motivated by pleasure in sex. The less intelligent, the more they are driven to do what nature “wants” them to by instinct, hard-wired programming, itches that need relief, etc.
So you’re saying that humans are more self-aware and less instinct-driven than animals are? Brilliant idea! I wish I’d thought of it.
Though I might stop short of assigning intelligence to “seeking pleasure” as opposed to “avoiding pain”. Firstly because the two concepts mean the same fundamental thing to me (if you’re in pain, a cessation of the pain is pleasurable), and secondly, we don’t breathe for the sheer pleasure of doing so. Just try holding your breath for ten minutes and see.