Hey Tonyrey, do you agree with the idea that gay people have bad eye to hand coordination (can’t throw) and thus are naturally bad at sports?They can’t!
“The data in men, however, are more complicated and contradictory. Some studies have shown hypermasculine finger length in gay men, while other studies show the opposite, a female-like finger pattern.”
I think it’s possibly an adaptation something like the ducks but the environment that is diminishing is the one structured on the bonds of family. As the social structures provided by the matrimonial bond diminish, the social structures that flow from the maternal bond replace them. As the maternal environment becomes less structured on the matrimonial bond it becomes less structured on bonds that require the exercise of intellect. Human society loses what makes it distinctly human. It’s structures, in the absence of the matrimonial bond, will flow from the maternal bond like the rest of the mammals.
It interesting that the percentages of incidence of homosexuality are pretty much the same across time and culture. There have been some interesting findings, such as increasing incidence with increasing pregnancy which is believed to correspond with hormone levels which increase with pregnancy rate. There are also some intriguing genetic studies. Nothing is conclusive at this point.
Nature provides certain defenses that make intercourse less infectious. Anal sex, whether with a man or woman, is much chancier.
It’s absurd to generalise about people who have one thing in common unless it is clearly related to it!Hey Tonyrey, do you agree with the idea that gay people have bad eye to hand coordination (can’t throw) and thus are naturally bad at sports?
That sounds to me like the most ridiculous pile of poo poo i have ever heard.
That is not entirely true with STD’s. Race seems to play a role For example, Japanese are extremely unlikely to contract HIV with anal or vaginal intercourse while Africans are in a high risk population for HIV infection regardless of form of sexual activity.
So, I wonder which comes first, the hormones or the conceptions?
Many homosexual men and women have the desire to raise a family. This is shown by adoption rates. The procreation urge you bring up may be common among all sexual orientations.
There is a much greater chance of skin rupturing with anal intercourse because the body was not designed for this kind of act. The female vagina is lubricated to make penetration easy, it’s what it was designed for. Not so with the the anus, which is why damage can occur, which makes transmission of any infection into the blood stream more likely.
Yup. That’s why I bring up the male ducks that pairbond because two males can guard more eggs. I think most same sex couples believe they could guard more eggs too.
… and duck eggs are delicious. There is the temptation to anthropomorphize, yet was are all biological systems with DNA more similar than dissimilar among species. One thing that we definitely know is that human sexuality, libido, reproductive urges, are far more complex than those who have an ideological position to prove. The arguments are not so simple because there are still more questions than there are answers.
For one thing, “race” is really about culture, and the personal habits --eg. cleanliness, aggressiveness etc)) of the people involved. But the anus was never intended to be used for sexual purposes, nor was the mouth. So whatever results natural selection has produced are easily frustrated by the sex “games” that people choose to play. But it all boils down to the fact that we really don’t care what “works” best for the health of the population. The fact is that suppression of urges and limitation of sexual activity, like temperance is most matters, is better for the greatest number than the intemperance that the modern age worships.
But gay activists are not interested in biology, but in an ideology. Ideologues don’t like anyone who questions them. This is why they are trying to suppress any discussion about the morality of homosexuality.
When you ask about the ‘functional’ aspect of SSA, or homosexuality, are you referring to the organism displaying the behaviour, or to the social context within it resides? Some here have attempted to explain the behaviour in a social context. Others have attempted to explain the behaviour from the organisms standpoint. In terms of the wider social context, the function of the behaviour is difficult to explain. There seems to be no rational explanation, no readily identifiable coherency to the expression of the behaviour, only many theories. In terms of the organism displaying the behaviour, it would seem that the behaviour serves a function that is coherent to the organism itself and only to the organism.
It’s not complex with the male pairbonded ducks. The behaviour successfully helps the ducks keep more of the baby ducks they produce from being killed. This is the argument used by same sex couples to allow them to adopt. But the violence is against the soul for humans not the flesh like animals. It’s complex for humans because humans are fallen. There exists for humans another realm with another kind of death to avoid that doesn’t pertain to animals.
No, I was referring to race, not culture. There are diseases whose transmissiblity is affected by genetics. HIV is one of those. Sickle Cell is another. Tay Sach. There are some rare muscular dystrophies which are genetic occur primarily among certain nationalities and races. With HIV, in particular, women of African descent have a much higher transmission rate than other racial heritages. Some Asians appear to have an extremely low transmission rate with the same sexual behavior.
I still say that duck eggs are delicious.
Only the disordered use of sexuality by heterosexuals increases the risk of STD infections. This line of reasoning needs developing and explaining more fully.
