g_bambino Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 Which was my point altogether. So why do we need to classify it as abnormal? For my own benefit, allow me to spell this out. You originally said in relation to the study of animal behaviour: So it is normal. You then clarified: The it is gay. So that means then that you felt the study said: So gay is normal. But now I say: The conclusions of the research showed nothing about gay animals. And you agreed: Which was my point altogether. I'm sorry if I'm missing something, but I see a glaring contradiction between your original and your last claim. Could you clarify? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 Humans just seems to have a concious beef with it because of how we developed our social intereactions and expectations among each other. For thousands of years, humans were conditioned to believe than man and woman were physically engineered differently for the sole purpose of procreation. At this point in our development as a species, it is no longer necessary to seek out mates for procreation. New reproductive technologies fulfill the wishes of humans who want offspring without the need of forming a nuclear family. So with the procreation argument set aside, the basic need of humans accentuates love, affection and self actualization. Some humans are attracted to mates of the opposite sex, some humans are attracted to same sex and some don't want mates period. IMO, it's all part of our evolutionary process. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 For thousands of years, humans were conditioned to believe than man and woman were physically engineered differently for the sole purpose of procreation. At this point in our development as a species, it is no longer necessary to seek out mates for procreation. New reproductive technologies fulfill the wishes of humans who want offspring without the need of forming a nuclear family. So with the procreation argument set aside, the basic need of humans accentuates love, affection and self actualization. Some humans are attracted to mates of the opposite sex, some humans are attracted to same sex and some don't want mates period. IMO, it's all part of our evolutionary process. Frankenstein: an evolution!? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 For thousands of years, humans were conditioned to believe than man and woman were physically engineered differently for the sole purpose of procreation. At this point in our development as a species, it is no longer necessary to seek out mates for procreation. Also, men and women fit together. I think doing it any other way is playing with fire. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 (edited) For thousands of years, humans were conditioned to believe than man and woman were physically engineered differently for the sole purpose of procreation. No. For thousands of years, humans were conditioned to make peace with rival clans and tribes by exchanging young unmarried women. Edited June 19, 2009 by benny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 For my own benefit, allow me to spell this out. You originally said in relation to the study of animal behaviour:...... I'm sorry if I'm missing something, but I see a glaring contradiction between your original and your last claim. Could you clarify? Yes the study of same sex behaviour among other animals. As humans we classify this as 'teh gay', or homosexuality. The point I was making, was that since it is common among all other species to have a small population of same sex interactions, then we should not be so hastey and call it abnormal behaviour among the human population. Our view of homosexuality is what is not normal. The rest of the animals could not care one bit. You really think dolphins give a rats ass if their penisissss touch? I doubt it. Why should we care then? We are just animals right? If we classify some in our human population as gay, then why not call same sex interactions among other animals as gay? Since we don't call it gay, (which could conclude that it is normal behaviour) why do we call our homosexuals gay? Rare might be a better word instead of normal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 Yes the study of same sex behaviour among other animals. As humans we classify this as 'teh gay', or homosexuality. Ah, well here is the cause of the mutual misunderstanding: simple nomenclature. You are using the term "gay" as a synonym for "homosexual behaviour", whereas I am seeing a distinct difference between the two concepts. To me, "gay" is merely a label to define a subset of humans who have - for whatever reason - a life-long desire to be only sexually and romantically paired with someone of their own gender. I see that as being quite different to "homosexual behaviour" which describes an act that anyone of any sexual orientation can engage in: for instance, a man may have sex with a man - a homosexual act - but that does not necessarily make him gay - a sexual identity label. As the animals observed in the study displayed a tendency to have sexual encounters with both males and females, I therefore would never classify these creatures as "gay". So, nature shows us that heterosexual and homosexual acts are normal occurrences beyond humans, but not necessarily the exclusive desire to limit one's self to sexual partners of only one gender, which does seem to be the sole domain of the human species. From my view, the study puts the concept of "straight" as much in question as the concept of "gay". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 Ah, well here is the cause of the mutual misunderstanding: simple nomenclature. You are using the term "gay" as a synonym for "homosexual behaviour", whereas I am seeing a distinct difference between the two concepts. To me, "gay" is merely a label to define a subset of humans who have - for whatever reason - a life-long desire to be only sexually and romantically paired with someone of their own gender. I see that as being quite different to "homosexual behaviour" which describes an act that anyone of any sexual orientation can engage in: for instance, a man may have sex with a man - a homosexual act - but that does not necessarily make him gay - a sexual identity label. As the animals observed in the study displayed a tendency to have sexual encounters with both males and females, I therefore would never classify these creatures as "gay".So, nature shows us that heterosexual and homosexual acts are normal occurrences beyond humans, but not necessarily the exclusive desire to limit one's self to sexual partners of only one gender, which does seem to be the sole domain of the human species. From my view, the study puts the concept of "straight" as much in question as the concept of "gay". I gotcha now. That makes more sense to me. So maybe it is the gay love, as in actuall love of a man from another man, as opposed to the actuall behaviour of homosexuality. Are we the only species that has this thing called love? And are we the only species that has gay love? Let me think a moment. I could be considered not normal, because I do find some men attractive in a physical sense, but I am heterosexual in the sense that I have never had a homo-erotic encounter in my entire life. But I find many women quite attractive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 I gotcha now. That makes more sense to me. So maybe it is the gay love, as in actuall love of a man from another man, as opposed to the actuall behaviour of homosexuality. Are we the only species that has this thing called love? And are we the only species that has gay love?Let me think a moment. I could be considered not normal, because I do find some men attractive in a physical sense, but I am heterosexual in the sense that I have never had a homo-erotic encounter in my entire life. But I find many women quite attractive. Impenetrable! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 I gotcha now. That makes more sense to me. So maybe it is the gay love, as in actuall love of a man from another man, as opposed to the actuall behaviour of homosexuality. Are we the only species that has this thing called love? And are we the only species that has gay love?Let me think a moment. I could be considered not normal, because I do find some men attractive in a physical sense, but I am heterosexual in the sense that I have never had a homo-erotic encounter in my entire life. But I find many women quite attractive. You are normal...some gayishness on your part is quiet charming.. I adore all things of beauty also - trees - the face of a smiling infant - the sky - a fine horse - a beautiful woman or a beautiful man...now here is the difference - It seems in the gay community once they age --- and the beauty and youth fade - they seek out to possess the younger ones..not like heteros - who seek out younger woman because they are motivated to breed "one more time" like old dogs...BUT - as for love - gays like some hetros just love to possess beauty..and they dispose of it when they are done - this is not love. It is a power issue and an issue of control. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 You are normal...some gayishness on your part is quiet charming.. I adore all things of beauty also - trees - the face of a smiling infant - the sky - a fine horse - a beautiful woman or a beautiful man...now here is the difference - It seems in the gay community once they age --- and the beauty and youth fade - they seek out to possess the younger ones..not like heteros - who seek out younger woman because they are motivated to breed "one more time" like old dogs...BUT - as for love - gays like some hetros just love to possess beauty..and they dispose of it when they are done - this is not love. It is a power issue and an issue of control. Most of the gay couples I know ( and there are not many) are quite close in age to each other. Some middle 30s, some 40s .. some both in their 20s. So I'd say it is a minority that like the younger ones. But you know that is not much different from a old man yearning for a young woman. An old man yearning for a young man is in the same category, but somehow that is more disgusting than an old man and a young woman. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 Most of the gay couples I know ( and there are not many) are quite close in age to each other. Some middle 30s, some 40s .. some both in their 20s. So I'd say it is a minority that like the younger ones. But you know that is not much different from a old man yearning for a young woman. An old man yearning for a young man is in the same category, but somehow that is more disgusting than an old man and a young woman. The yearning an older man has for a young woman is a yearning to have a second chance - He knows his mistakes - and his kids are not perfect - but with his wisdom he knows that he can choose a more appropriate mate and make better kids ----just don't tell the kids that After that joke - I do believe it's about possessing beautiful things --- I know of one lesbian in the extended family - her mother is very masculine - and the lesbian daughter is middle age - she has a 19 year old girl friend - who lives in the upper suite with the daughter of the old lady they now stuck in the basement...point being --- the 19 year old left her for a man --- spent time in Europe and returned to the partnership --- I guess the man did not want to support her finacially and the old lesbian did - I guess hetros do the same things on occassion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 The yearning an older man has for a young woman is a yearning to have a second chance - He knows his mistakes - and his kids are not perfect - but with his wisdom he knows that he can choose a more appropriate mate and make better kids ----just don't tell the kids that After that joke - I do believe it's about possessing beautiful things --- I know of one lesbian in the extended family - her mother is very masculine - and the lesbian daughter is middle age - she has a 19 year old girl friend - who lives in the upper suite with the daughter of the old lady they now stuck in the basement...point being --- the 19 year old left her for a man --- spent time in Europe and returned to the partnership --- I guess the man did not want to support her finacially and the old lesbian did - I guess hetros do the same things on occassion. When it comes to financial dependency, children remain the best case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted June 20, 2009 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 When it comes to financial dependency, children remain the best case. Children must eat - sleep and be protected---it's not so much a finacial thing...its an effort and will to do your duty thing - any way you can - children have been coming into the world for thousands of years and only lately have we attached the word finacial to children. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted June 20, 2009 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 Children must eat - sleep and be protected---it's not so much a finacial thing...its an effort and will to do your duty thing - any way you can - children have been coming into the world for thousands of years and only lately have we attached the word finacial to children. Your primitivism is humanity's childhood. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted June 20, 2009 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 Your primitivism is humanity's childhood. I love children. And my buddy Jesus said if you want knowledge and intelligence and to enter into the kingdom "You have to be like one of these" He pointed to the children. I knew all I needed to know by the time I was 5 - and now I am returning to the age of wisdom ----don't forget to bring diapers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted June 20, 2009 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 I love children. And my buddy Jesus said if you want knowledge and intelligence and to enter into the kingdom "You have to be like one of these" He pointed to the children. I knew all I needed to know by the time I was 5 - and now I am returning to the age of wisdom ----don't forget to bring diapers. Diapers are a quite modern invention. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted June 21, 2009 Report Share Posted June 21, 2009 Diapers are a quite modern invention. Now that was silly - do you insist I swat and just let it rip? Got a report on a female crack head standing in front of a bank - she squatted an sprayed out watery feces as if she was having a polite burp - this is how low we have fallen . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted June 21, 2009 Report Share Posted June 21, 2009 Just an observation about this thread and a problem we seem to be having. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted June 21, 2009 Report Share Posted June 21, 2009 Now that was silly - do you insist I swat and just let it rip? Got a report on a female crack head standing in front of a bank - she squatted an sprayed out watery feces as if she was having a polite burp - this is how low we have fallen . Like anyone, gays have a right not to buy your peculiar version of primitivism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.