The Third Gender

[Aberration]

OK! Then.

See the OP already shows you have no understanding of the subject of homosexuality or sexuality at all.

So let me break this down for you real quick.

There is no such thing as homosexual sex or straight sex.

Because if you say well... homosexual sex is when two gay people engage in sexual intercourse via for example Anal sex... then what does that make a straight couple that engage in anal sex?

Homo-Straight sex?

Not to mention the difference between Sexual Behaviour and Sexual Orientation.

Meaning that if a straight man engages for whatever reason in anal sex with another man. That's a sexual act... not homosexual sex not only because homosexual sex isn't a thing just like the homosexual lifestyle right wingers make up but that says nothing about the persons sexual orientation.

You following me so far or are we going back to invisible beings that there is no evidence of?

Homosexual sex would be sex with the same sex. Straight or heterosexual sex would be sex with the opposite sex.

Pretty elementary.

 

[wolfman24]

As I said, not everything has a purpose. To think otherwise is to misunderstand evolution. It is common for a physical feature or behavior to arise in the evolution of a species that may not have an advantage. But as long as it doesn’t disadvantage the species the trait may stick around. And I can already hear you thinking “but if you can’t reproduce isn’t that a disadvantage from an evolutionary point of view”. Just remember, that individuals do not evolve, populations do.

Amen brother. Right On

 

[wolfman24]

Why did God create you? What is your purpose? if its to procreate, then why? and why procreate with only one female as opposed to the more natural polygamy? do you realize there are female only species in nature?
When I think about my purpose in life even though am big on evolution and everything I don't think about sex at all, I think about the different values that I'd like to have and what sort of person I want to be.
Since you probably do not accept science I find it odd that you require scientific proof for an evolutionary purpose for homosexuality.

I am not aware of any single sex species in nature. I am aware taht there are species that appear female but have both the ability to produces eggs and fertilize them and species which have no distinguishing features but can do both and some species which begin life as one and turn into the other.

but not any that are single sex (organ) species. This is not a mistake that "nature" would make and would obviously die out quickly.

 

[wolfman24]

Have you ever thought that maybe the purpose is that they not procreate? We have an overpopulated world, dwindling resources...perhaps they are meant to serve as a counter to all the straight people out there who believe the sole human purpose in life is to procreate.

I don't personally ascribe to that view, but if you believe all creation must have a purpose, I don't see why you would discount that potential explanation.

Because homosexuality has existed long before we had a population issue.

 

[wolfman24]

I could speculate on a few evolutionary advantages that having homosexual members could give to a population of mammals. first, it could be a response to population density. potential mechanism : high population density would cause a stress response in the mother which could affect the sexual identity in the baby's developing brain. this effect is observed in other mammals when space is limited, but food is not. also, homosexual members of a tribe might take on the role of caring for the children of others. remember, not every bee is a mating queen. most serve to bring food back and build / protect the hive.

either way, homosexuality is entirely natural, and the behavior is observed in most mammals.

Very interesting hypothesis. Your premise of a stress factor resulting in a "sexual" development is intriguing. The question is would this response translate into a gene change that would "cause" a predisposition towards homosexuality over time. This is not a leading question. I would really like to know your response.
I agree with what you have said.

 

[wolfman24]

I think that as people, they can serve many purposes. They can procreate (but only if they engage in straight sex with women). But their gay sex has no purpose. None what so ever.

Gay sex is unnatural.
Gays (as gays) have no purpose (as apposed to gays as teachers, or gays as doctors).

Again GOD made them and decided that they have a purpose beyond your and maybe alot of peoples understanding. Are you questioning his judgement or assuming the role. Homosexuality exists in nature in more than us and therefore is NATURAL. God made them and so .

Why do you challenge this? No man knows the mind of God and anyone who says he does is having issues.

 

[wolfman24]

I agree. Not everything has a purpose.

Gays (as gays) and gay sex have no purpose.

So what is your agument. Some thngs in nature do not appear to have purpose and you agree with this. You contend that gays have no purpose. I see no logic in you now saying they are not natural. Its just bashing pure and simple

 

[wolfman24]

OK, I have to go now, but I think I have proved, once and for all, that gay sex, and homosexuality, having no purpose, is unnatural.

Sorry but I couldn’t answer all responses. Some responses were just illogical, a diversion, or some other disagreement.

If you still disagree, you can disprove my conclusion by simply answering the question.

We have repeatedly and you are ignoring them. You have proved absolutly nothing except to yourself because you really aren't absorbing the resonses just deflecting them.

 

[L0neW0lf]

I am not aware of any single sex species in nature. I am aware that there are species that appear female but have both the ability to produces eggs and fertilize them
and species which have no distinguishing features but can do both and some species which begin life as one and turn into the other.
but not any that are single sex (organ) species. This is not a mistake that "nature" would make and would obviously die out quickly.

No Sex Needed: All-Female Lizard Species Cross Their Chromosomes to Make Babies: Scientific American

They have sex too
Behavioral facilitation of reproduction in sexual and unisexual whiptail lizards

 

[wolfman24]

No Sex Needed: All-Female Lizard Species Cross Their Chromosomes to Make Babies: Scientific American

They have sex too
Behavioral facilitation of reproduction in sexual and unisexual whiptail lizards

You apparently did not read my post at all. Read what I said in my second sentence. So whats your point.

There are NO single sex species that I know of. Its physiology is female but it has the capability to reproduce.

a single sex species is one which is either all male or female but Cannot reproduce.

 

[L0neW0lf]

You apparently did not read my post at all. Read what I said in my second sentence. So whats your point.

There are NO single sex species that I know of. Its physiology is female but it has the capability to reproduce.

a single sex species is one which is either all male or female but Cannot reproduce.

Hmm where did you get that definition from?

Its all female and it can reproduce asexually I don't understand how your "but" fit in there>

 

[Chelsea]

So then what is the purpose of straight couples that can't procreate?

 

[joko104]

Well I was wondering if you were going to answer the question.

He doesn't answer. He just attacks gays.

 

[joko104]

You're trying to divert the conversation to gay bashing.

Do you have an answer, or not?

I did answer. You don't answer questions.

Do you condemn oral sex? Masterbation? Do you condemn kissing? Hugging? All have no practical purpose in nature.

Why don't you answer?

 

[Cameron]

Because gays have existed forever, even when we didn't have an over population problem.

Perhaps they are meant to teach people valuable lessons of tolerance, then.

 

[Omgitsme]

I suppose so, but I think that's just a side advantage.

Good try though.

Homosexuality giving humans an evolutionary advantage could be its purpose. However your asking a question that no one knows the answer too and doesnt really matter.

 

[Omgitsme]

I think that as people, they can serve many purposes. They can procreate (but only if they engage in straight sex with women). But their gay sex has no purpose. None what so ever.

Gay sex is unnatural.
Gays (as gays) have no purpose (as apposed to gays as teachers, or gays as doctors).

By definition gay sex is natural because it occurs in nature. As again you are assuming that there is no purpose to homosexuality.

 

[Chickenhawks]

It’s as if they’re a third gender without an interdependency, and that doesn’t sound natural to me.

Aww, a violently bigoted and hate filled person...you figured out how to use a computer, how cute

Fortunately the rest of the planet sees you for what you are and we will soon no longer have to listen to you other than for entertaining purposes...

 

[Omgitsme]

OK, I have to go now, but I think I have proved, once and for all, that gay sex, and homosexuality, having no purpose, is unnatural.

Sorry but I couldn’t answer all responses. Some responses were just illogical, a diversion, or some other disagreement.

If you still disagree, you can disprove my conclusion by simply answering the question.

You havent proved anything. You just made a bunch of assumptions based off of a lack off information and data available to us at the current moment.

 

[specklebang]

I've been "fixed" since I was 26. My "purpose" was to make my genitalia smile.

 

[Aderleth]

It’s as if they’re a third gender without an interdependency, and that doesn’t sound natural to me.

And yet homosexuality has existed in many human cultures for thousands of years, and has been obvserved to occur in hundreds or possibly thousands of animals. Whether or not it "sounds" natural is irrelevant. The evidence is clear: it exists in nature.

 

[Helix]

Very interesting hypothesis. Your premise of a stress factor resulting in a "sexual" development is intriguing. The question is would this response translate into a gene change that would "cause" a predisposition towards homosexuality over time. This is not a leading question. I would really like to know your response.
I agree with what you have said.

though i work in molecular / microbiology, embryonic development is not my specialty field, so this is just my opinion.

if i had to take a wild guess, it would be that the mechanism is partially hormonal. some environmental factor at a specific point in embryonic development causes the mother to produce a hormone that affects the development of the brain. there are probably other factors involved, as well, because there are cases of twins in which one is homosexual and the other is heterosexual. because of this, i find it exceptionally unlikely that they will identify one "gay gene;" the mechanism is much more complex. it's probably both genetic and hormonal, and environmental factors play a large role in triggering the process.

it might help to look at the brain as a programmable computer. it is programmed genetically, by hormones during development, and, after we are born, through learning. my guess is that sexual preference is set by a combination of these factors during early development.

 

[Sherman123]

I know, I know, I know.

I get it! Gays (according to some of you) are natural. Homosexuality is natural.

But I believe that everything in nature has a purpose. If it was created, then it fits in to a plan, or a system. It has to be part of something! And as any part of any system, there are usually inter-dependencies or interconnectivity. Some parts of a system interdepend or interconnect to other parts of the system.

Gays don’t seem to have any purpose. If they engage in homosexual sex, they can’t procreate. But they CAN procreate if they have straight sex. When it comes to sex, they can only fulfill its true purpose when they engage in straight sex. If gay sex is so natural, why is it that they can’t procreate without engaging in straight sex?

If gays and homosexual sex are natural, then why did God create them? And just how do they fit in? Where’s the interconnectivity? The interdependence?

It’s as if they’re a third gender without an interdependency, and that doesn’t sound natural to me.

This is a common misconception or myth concerning homosexuality, evolution, and naturalism. There are in fact plenty of theories and proposed explanations, and we are learning more every day due to advances in genetics and evolutionary biology. I'll list a few of the existing theories, bearing in mind these are short summaries:

1. The most prominent genetically based theory that exists today comes from research conducted earlier this year which gathered some evidence indicating that homosexuality may be related to a gene passed down matrilineally which relates to female fecundity and as a result may only have a tangential relationship as it increases the reproductive value of females by making them more attractive to males and relaxed to increase child bearing potential. It is a mistake to assume that selection pressures always produce reasoned or 'good' results, they are often completely unrelated to the gene that causes it. In this case the hypothesis is that it is an unanticipated balancing act of evolution, a common theme.

Factors Associated with Higher Fecundity in Female Maternal Relatives of Homosexual Men - Camperio Ciani - 2012 - The Journal of Sexual Medicine - Wiley Online Library
Male Homosexuality Can Be Explained Through A Specific Model Of Darwinian Evolution, Study Shows

2. Another common theory relates to pre-natal hormones and the impact that this has on human sexuality, as observed in both humans and test subjects like Rhesus Monkey's. In essence the idea being that in a small but predictable portion of the population (2-3%) differing hormonal balances affect the development of the fetal brain and contribute to the development of homosexuality. So the presence or absence of certain levels of testosterone, androgens, etc. This may or may not be related to the genetic argument made above.

Homosexuality and Biology - Chandler Burr - The Atlantic (a section discusses thus)

3. It may also have its relationship in several hypothesized evolutionary advantages that include anything from kin selection to advantages in actually acquiring a mate. For example a common theme in the animal world is observing animals that engage in homosexual behavior (usually among animals that have relatively exclusive sexual patterns) who will then in turn in the absence of other males mate with a female. Termed popularly the 'sneaky ****er' rule by some evolutionary biologists it is the idea that males who fall on some spectrum of homosexuality can evade their more aggressive male contenders who will dismiss them as rivals and instead will mate when the other males are away. This allowed homosexuality to perpetuate.

These are only a few theories mind you, but there is reams of literature on the subject and it is an emerging field with new discoveries and revelations constantly coming to the fore.

Edit: Also Epigenetics is probably pretty important alongside regular genetic reasons. It is widely believed that there is multiple biological causality for homosexuality and that it is what helps result in the spectrum we see.

 

[Gardener]

I know, I know, I know.

I get it! Gays (according to some of you) are natural. Homosexuality is natural.

But I believe that everything in nature has a purpose. If it was created, then it fits in to a plan, or a system. It has to be part of something! And as any part of any system, there are usually inter-dependencies or interconnectivity. Some parts of a system interdepend or interconnect to other parts of the system.

Gays don’t seem to have any purpose. If they engage in homosexual sex, they can’t procreate. But they CAN procreate if they have straight sex. When it comes to sex, they can only fulfill its true purpose when they engage in straight sex. If gay sex is so natural, why is it that they can’t procreate without engaging in straight sex?

If gays and homosexual sex are natural, then why did God create them? And just how do they fit in? Where’s the interconnectivity? The interdependence?

It’s as if they’re a third gender without an interdependency, and that doesn’t sound natural to me.

What is your purpose, RamFel?

I mean, other than the promotion of unintelligent dogma?

 

[wolfman24]

though i work in molecular / microbiology, embryonic development is not my specialty field, so this is just my opinion.

if i had to take a wild guess, it would be that the mechanism is partially hormonal. some environmental factor at a specific point in embryonic development causes the mother to produce a hormone that affects the development of the brain. there are probably other factors involved, as well, because there are cases of twins in which one is homosexual and the other is heterosexual. because of this, i find it exceptionally unlikely that they will identify one "gay gene;" the mechanism is much more complex. it's probably both genetic and hormonal, and environmental factors play a large role in triggering the process.

it might help to look at the brain as a programmable computer. it is programmed genetically, by hormones during development, and, after we are born, through learning. my guess is that sexual preference is set by a combination of these factors during early development.

Very logical and I think you might be on to something. This is an area where I am less than a novice