1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaJebus, I was trying to post things to please you -- adopting the baboon submission position, if you will. (I don't know where the kak you're coming from on this one.)
Did anything I said made you believe I think homosexuality is "bad"? 😕 Your arguments are sounding conspicuously Fabian-like.
Are homo sapiens peaceful?
No, cuz they don't got the gayness sufficiently.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageWhat is gayness?
Jebus, I was trying to post things to please you -- adopting the baboon submission position, if you will. (I don't know where the kak you're coming from on this one.)
No, cuz they don't got the gayness sufficiently.
Sishi were perfect warriors, Ieros Lochos' soldiers were terrific warriors; it seems to me that sexuality has to do with one's personal taste. I prefer the ladies, you prefer the monkeys, he prefers the gentlemen and she prefers the strawberries and the lamps, not to mention those cliffothic OTOs that they were one behind the other like the slow train comin
😵
2 edits
Originally posted by Bosse de NageThe problem with "stories" regarding possible benefits/disadvantages of a certain trait is that one can speculate about anything. How can we weigh each of the advantages against each disadvantage? Worse: Even if there was an ex-ante net advantage (resp. disadvantage), it wouldn't mean that it must be so that homosexuality is (resp. not)genetical.
Jebus, I was trying to post things to please you -- adopting the baboon submission position, if you will. (I don't know where the kak you're coming from on this one.)
No, cuz they don't got the gayness sufficiently.
Evolution was one of the historical arguments used against homosexuality being genetic. I was against arguments of that form before (for the reasons above), I cannot now defend my views based on an argument of similar form.
Side note: In the end, I think we both agree that it doesn't matter whether I love sardines because it's in my Portuguese genes or because my culture imbued me with pilchard love. And it doesn't matter if homosexuality is cultural or biological.
Originally posted by PalynkaOf course it doesn't matter; and it's not "anomaly"
The problem with "stories" regarding possible benefits/disadvantages of a certain trait is that one can speculate about anything. How can we weigh each of the advantages against each disadvantage? Worse: Even if there was an ex-ante net advantage (resp. disadvantage), it wouldn't mean that it must be so that homosexuality is (resp. not)genetical.
E ...[text shortened]... d me with pilchard love. And it doesn't matter if homosexuality is cultural or biological.
😵
Originally posted by PalynkaCmon Pal, you feel like wanting having sex with somebody, that's it; some like lass and some do not😵
Modern obscurantists! That it doesn't "matter" doesn't mean it's not interesting in itself. This is the same type of reaction as the one of the thread "Women and chess"... What's wrong in trying to learn how our brain functions? Or what drives our sexuality?
Originally posted by PalynkaI don't! I am just indifferent coz I already have the person I love in my life; if my beutiful Maria was a man I would be gay and if I was a woman I would be a lesbian, no prob at all, no abnormality at all, that is
Of course! But learning about what drives our sexuality can only improve our understanding of ourselves. So why do you want the thread to die?
😵
1 edit
Originally posted by adam warlockWhy do you think "anomaly" has negative connotations? In what instance is it usually used in a negative way?
Why use the negatively connoted word anomaly?
Aside from that, I will gladly apologize for and withdraw the use of the term, if it means we can intelligently discuss this issue.
2 edits
Originally posted by Bosse de NageOur brain drives it. The difference between talking about desire or the brain process, for a biologist/neurologist, is ultimately semantics. So I don't see where you're going.
What drives our sexuality? Desire. So let's talk about desire and the basis of desire. You go first.