*blushes*
well then....
Meh to the hat.
...But I like Mortal Kombat(though I sure as hell ain't taking it even remotely seriously)...
It's fine to like a piece of media while still acknowledging what is messed up about it, very few things in the world are all good or all bad. In addition you can learn from the mistakes others make, increasing your own personal awareness of certain issues.
I must say... that looks a little... intimidating...
Ah, okay then.
*continues to glare at thought bubble of waffle fries*
Soon...
I know how that feels. Jelly Belly supports anti-trans causes.
I know how that feels. Jelly Belly supports anti-trans causes.Ah, okay then.
*continues to glare at thought bubble of waffle fries*
Soon...
What??? I'm suddenly very disappointed in them as people.
I need to start being more careful with what I buy; I'm also crossing out Barilla, Exxon Mobil, and Cracker Barrel.
Personally I don't descriminate companies based on politics...
I don't know about you but I love Jelly Bellies and Cracker Barrel always has awesome food (I am from the South :P)
Can someone explain more please.
Human decency isn't politics...
For all intents and purposes it is involved with politics. So long as the company ITSELF does not discriminate, I truly don't care. People can have whatever opinion they want. It is not my place to force people to accept my views or my opinions.
For instance, by all technicality, homosexuality is a biological aberration that came about from humanity's higher thought. Sex, at its most basic root, is meant for nothing more than genetic reshuffling and furthering the species. All other side effects (closer bonds and all that jazz) came about as a means to further cement a mate to increase probability of a successful pairing and full maturation of the child. Homosexuals, by their very nature, are not capable of reproducing without outside aid, thereby making any sort of sexual relationship, pointless. And remember, homosexuals should not be confused with PANSEXUALS (who truly do not care about gender and are instead focused almost exclusively on personality and emotional matches).
Despite this, I am a bisexual. I am just fully willing to accept it.
For all intents and purposes it is involved with politics. So long as the company ITSELF does not discriminate, I truly don't care. People can have whatever opinion they want. It is not my place to force people to accept my views or my opinions.
For instance, by all technicality, homosexuality is a biological aberration that came about from humanity's higher thought. Sex, at its most basic root, is meant for nothing more than genetic reshuffling and furthering the species. All other side effects (closer bonds and all that jazz) came about as a means to further cement a mate to increase probability of a successful pairing and full maturation of the child. Homosexuals, by their very nature, are not capable of reproducing without outside aid, thereby making any sort of sexual relationship, pointless. And remember, homosexuals should not be confused with PANSEXUALS (who truly do not care about gender and are instead focused almost exclusively on personality and emotional matches).
Despite this, I am a bisexual. I am just fully willing to accept it.
Ummmm, what? How did homosexuality come from "humanity's higher thought"?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm too tired to engage in this mess.
Contributor
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I know how that feels. Jelly Belly supports anti-trans causes.That killed me. Between Jelly Belly, The Root Beer Store, and Minea Farms Cider. I can easily live without chick fil a but those three really hurt.
Yeah, losing Jelly Belly killed me. But I can't give money to someone when I know they'll turn around and use it to harm me and people like me.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
For instance, by all technicality, homosexuality is a biological aberration that came about from humanity's higher thought.
Tell that to the animal kingdom.
I think my company store sells jelly beans that have been favorably compared to Jelly Belly and to the best of my knowledge don't engage in harmful politics.
I will check on that and if that is so, post about them here.
Yeah, losing Jelly Belly killed me. But I can't give money to someone when I know they'll turn around and use it to harm me and people like me.I know how that feels. Jelly Belly supports anti-trans causes.That killed me. Between Jelly Belly, The Root Beer Store, and Minea Farms Cider. I can easily live without chick fil a but those three really hurt.
I went to the grocery store a few hours ago (If you've never lived five minutes walking time from you local grocery outlet, it is awesome.), and spent a good fifteen minutes glaring at the Jelly Belly display (they have one of those with all the tubes of different flavors so you can customize what you get) wishing I could have them.
Okay, I know I should probably edit instead of follow up post, but I'm trying to be a helpful and informative ally and candy enabler. :)
These guys are the people who do all of our mini-mart candy orders now at my company store.
I can speak first hand as to the quality of the candy (he said, eyeballing the bag of chocolate covered cherries and cashews).
I've also not been able to find anything objectionable about their product or their business.
Perhaps a good alternative? I know I like them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For all intents and purposes it is involved with politics. So long as the company ITSELF does not discriminate, I truly don't care. People can have whatever opinion they want. It is not my place to force people to accept my views or my opinions.
For instance, by all technicality, homosexuality is a biological aberration that came about from humanity's higher thought. Sex, at its most basic root, is meant for nothing more than genetic reshuffling and furthering the species. All other side effects (closer bonds and all that jazz) came about as a means to further cement a mate to increase probability of a successful pairing and full maturation of the child. Homosexuals, by their very nature, are not capable of reproducing without outside aid, thereby making any sort of sexual relationship, pointless. And remember, homosexuals should not be confused with PANSEXUALS (who truly do not care about gender and are instead focused almost exclusively on personality and emotional matches).
Despite this, I am a bisexual. I am just fully willing to accept it.
I very much disagree with the statement on your belief of the origins of homosexuality. In fact homosexuality is found in many animals considered not to have higher thought. In fact I can tell you that we have found homosexuality in over 1500 species. Ranging from gut worms to primates. In 500 of of those species it is actually quite well documented and observed. In fact I know the main researcher who studied the lesbian Albatross phenomenon personally, through my husband who works for the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. And to show I don't just posit such things without evidence, I will even link where you can read more on the subject. I know Professor Bruce Bagimihl personally, he is a great mind, and a personable fellow his book should answer your questions quite easily.
Biological Exuberance
I need to start being more careful with what I buy; I'm also crossing out Barilla, Exxon Mobil, and Cracker Barrel.
cracker barrel? No....
|
For humans, at least, sex is 'for' more than just procreation; it's also about pair-bonding.
Since becoming sentient, humans have had increasing control over both reproduction and other aspects of sexuality. This doesn't mean that we control everything about it, but this is true with all aspects of humanity. We are still animals and still have instincts, but we have the ability to make choices. We should make these choices with the full knowledge of what our instincts are, while not being limited by them.
For example, one of the things that sex is 'for' is procreation. But if procreation were the only reason to copulate, then we wouldn't desire it if pregnant or if all potential mates were pregnant. This is not the case, I'm glad to say! If procreation were all sex is 'for', then we wouldn't need birth control because we simply would have no need to have sex if we didn't want to create a child. But we do want sex, at the very same times that we don't want a child. This very fact simply illustrates that, without any conscious philosophising, we naturally want sex for reasons other than procreation.
Other, *ahem* harder evidence also exists: the lack of a bone in the penis requires a larger organ than is strictly needed to inseminate, and this has evolved alongside the female orgasm response that is absent in other species. These adaptations have absolutely nothing to do with procreation and everything to do with pair-bonding.
Sorry to witter on, but every time I see someone claim that sex is only about procreation (usually followed by claims that sex for any other purpose is somehow 'wrong') I get an urge to...*ahem*...'put them right'.
|
|
If sex was strictly for procreation, we'd have an estrus cycle.For humans, at least, sex is 'for' more than just procreation; it's also about pair-bonding.
Since becoming sentient, humans have had increasing control over both reproduction and other aspects of sexuality. This doesn't mean that we control everything about it, but this is true with all aspects of humanity. We are still animals and still have instincts, but we have the ability to make choices. We should make these choices with the full knowledge of what our instincts are, while not being limited by them.
For example, one of the things that sex is 'for' is procreation. But if procreation were the only reason to copulate, then we wouldn't desire it if pregnant or if all potential mates were pregnant. This is not the case, I'm glad to say! If procreation were all sex is 'for', then we wouldn't need birth control because we simply would have no need to have sex if we didn't want to create a child. But we do want sex, at the very same times that we don't want a child. This very fact simply illustrates that, without any conscious philosophising, we naturally want sex for reasons other than procreation.
Other, *ahem* harder evidence also exists: the lack of a bone in the penis requires a larger organ than is strictly needed to inseminate, and this has evolved alongside the female orgasm response that is absent in other species. These adaptations have absolutely nothing to do with procreation and everything to do with pair-bonding.
Sorry to witter on, but every time I see someone claim that sex is only about procreation (usually followed by claims that sex for any other purpose is somehow 'wrong') I get an urge to...*ahem*...'put them right'.
Correct, of course.
There is more I could have written, but I suddenly became a bit self-conscious about slipping into lecture mode. Sorry about that, people. : )
If sex was strictly for procreation, we'd have an estrus cycle.For humans, at least, sex is 'for' more than just procreation; it's also about pair-bonding.
Since becoming sentient, humans have had increasing control over both reproduction and other aspects of sexuality. This doesn't mean that we control everything about it, but this is true with all aspects of humanity. We are still animals and still have instincts, but we have the ability to make choices. We should make these choices with the full knowledge of what our instincts are, while not being limited by them.
For example, one of the things that sex is 'for' is procreation. But if procreation were the only reason to copulate, then we wouldn't desire it if pregnant or if all potential mates were pregnant. This is not the case, I'm glad to say! If procreation were all sex is 'for', then we wouldn't need birth control because we simply would have no need to have sex if we didn't want to create a child. But we do want sex, at the very same times that we don't want a child. This very fact simply illustrates that, without any conscious philosophising, we naturally want sex for reasons other than procreation.
Other, *ahem* harder evidence also exists: the lack of a bone in the penis requires a larger organ than is strictly needed to inseminate, and this has evolved alongside the female orgasm response that is absent in other species. These adaptations have absolutely nothing to do with procreation and everything to do with pair-bonding.
Sorry to witter on, but every time I see someone claim that sex is only about procreation (usually followed by claims that sex for any other purpose is somehow 'wrong') I get an urge to...*ahem*...'put them right'.
I do wonder what that would be like.
Ummmm, what? How did homosexuality come from "humanity's higher thought"?For all intents and purposes it is involved with politics. So long as the company ITSELF does not discriminate, I truly don't care. People can have whatever opinion they want. It is not my place to force people to accept my views or my opinions.
For instance, by all technicality, homosexuality is a biological aberration that came about from humanity's higher thought. Sex, at its most basic root, is meant for nothing more than genetic reshuffling and furthering the species. All other side effects (closer bonds and all that jazz) came about as a means to further cement a mate to increase probability of a successful pairing and full maturation of the child. Homosexuals, by their very nature, are not capable of reproducing without outside aid, thereby making any sort of sexual relationship, pointless. And remember, homosexuals should not be confused with PANSEXUALS (who truly do not care about gender and are instead focused almost exclusively on personality and emotional matches).
Despite this, I am a bisexual. I am just fully willing to accept it.
Humans are well known for doing many things that, from evolutionary stand point, make not a lick of sense :P. This is because humans are one of the few animals that can over ride natural instinct with thought.
For humans, at least, sex is 'for' more than just procreation; it's also about pair-bonding.
Since becoming sentient, humans have had increasing control over both reproduction and other aspects of sexuality. This doesn't mean that we control everything about it, but this is true with all aspects of humanity. We are still animals and still have instincts, but we have the ability to make choices. We should make these choices with the full knowledge of what our instincts are, while not being limited by them.
For example, one of the things that sex is 'for' is procreation. But if procreation were the only reason to copulate, then we wouldn't desire it if pregnant or if all potential mates were pregnant. This is not the case, I'm glad to say! If procreation were all sex is 'for', then we wouldn't need birth control because we simply would have no need to have sex if we didn't want to create a child. But we do want sex, at the very same times that we don't want a child. This very fact simply illustrates that, without any conscious philosophising, we naturally want sex for reasons other than procreation.
Other, *ahem* harder evidence also exists: the lack of a bone in the penis requires a larger organ than is strictly needed to inseminate, and this has evolved alongside the female orgasm response that is absent in other species. These adaptations have absolutely nothing to do with procreation and everything to do with pair-bonding.
Sorry to witter on, but every time I see someone claim that sex is only about procreation (usually followed by claims that sex for any other purpose is somehow 'wrong') I get an urge to...*ahem*...'put them right'.
Except that, as I mentioned before, everything else that comes from sex is to further increase probabilities. For instance, as you mentioned, Pair-bonding. Humans are a VERY SLOW developing species at first. Additionally, unlike nearly every other animal, we remain completely and utterly helpless and are utterly dependent on our parent for EVERYTHING during the first year of life. This is MUCH different than many other animals who are capable of moving on thier own within a few weeks after birth. This often requires 100% of the mother attention for the first year. Furthermore, the mother for the first couple of weeks will also be recovering from child birth (human childbirth is easily one of the most difficult and life threatening), thereby making her incapable of going to go get food. Therefore, humans often NEED a mate to help take care of them and to further increase the chances of a child surviving past that first year. That is why sex a verys trong pair-bonding tool.
Again, everything boils down to reproduction and the furthering of the species. This thougth can actually be applied to just about near everything most creatures do (humans are a bit of an odd species since we are capable of over-riding our own natural instincts with force of will and capable of doing things that, to an evolutionary stand point, would be straight dumb and regressing)
Except, as others have said, homosexual behavior is well documented in many animal species.Humans are well known for doing many things that, from evolutionary stand point, make not a lick of sense :P. This is because humans are one of the few animals that can over ride natural instinct with thought.Ummmm, what? How did homosexuality come from "humanity's higher thought"?For all intents and purposes it is involved with politics. So long as the company ITSELF does not discriminate, I truly don't care. People can have whatever opinion they want. It is not my place to force people to accept my views or my opinions.
For instance, by all technicality, homosexuality is a biological aberration that came about from humanity's higher thought. Sex, at its most basic root, is meant for nothing more than genetic reshuffling and furthering the species. All other side effects (closer bonds and all that jazz) came about as a means to further cement a mate to increase probability of a successful pairing and full maturation of the child. Homosexuals, by their very nature, are not capable of reproducing without outside aid, thereby making any sort of sexual relationship, pointless. And remember, homosexuals should not be confused with PANSEXUALS (who truly do not care about gender and are instead focused almost exclusively on personality and emotional matches).
Despite this, I am a bisexual. I am just fully willing to accept it.
Again, biological aberattion.
Humans can be LGBT due to biological/genetic aberration OR by higher levels of thought (things like Pansexuals are only capable in humans due to their utter disregard of sex over mental stimulation and compatibility)
|
|
Except that, as I mentioned before, everything else that comes from sex is to further increase probabilities. For instance, as you mentioned, Pair-bonding. Humans are a VERY SLOW developing species at first. Additionally, unlike nearly every other animal, we remain completely and utterly helpless and are utterly dependent on our parent for EVERYTHING during the first year of life. This is MUCH different than many other animals who are capable of moving on thier own within a few weeks after birth. This often requires 100% of the mother attention for the first year. Furthermore, the mother for the first couple of weeks will also be recovering from child birth (human childbirth is easily one of the most difficult and life threatening), thereby making her incapable of going to go get food. Therefore, humans often NEED a mate to help take care of them and to further increase the chances of a child surviving past that first year. That is why sex a verys trong pair-bonding tool.
Again, everything boils down to reproduction and the furthering of the species. This thougth can actually be applied to just about near everything most creatures do (humans are a bit of an odd species since we are capable of over-riding our own natural instincts with force of will and capable of doing things that, to an evolutionary stand point, would be straight dumb and regressing)
I agree with all that. I think we disagree on definitions.
Pair-bonding and sex are different things. BOTH evolve to make us more likely to survive to beget future generations. Just like everything else.
Except that, as I mentioned before, everything else that comes from sex is to further increase probabilities. For instance, as you mentioned, Pair-bonding. Humans are a VERY SLOW developing species at first. Additionally, unlike nearly every other animal, we remain completely and utterly helpless and are utterly dependent on our parent for EVERYTHING during the first year of life. This is MUCH different than many other animals who are capable of moving on thier own within a few weeks after birth. This often requires 100% of the mother attention for the first year. Furthermore, the mother for the first couple of weeks will also be recovering from child birth (human childbirth is easily one of the most difficult and life threatening), thereby making her incapable of going to go get food. Therefore, humans often NEED a mate to help take care of them and to further increase the chances of a child surviving past that first year. That is why sex a verys trong pair-bonding tool.
Again, everything boils down to reproduction and the furthering of the species. This thougth can actually be applied to just about near everything most creatures do (humans are a bit of an odd species since we are capable of over-riding our own natural instincts with force of will and capable of doing things that, to an evolutionary stand point, would be straight dumb and regressing)
I agree with all that. I think we disagree on definitions.
Pair-bonding and sex are different things. BOTH evolve to make us more likely to survive to beget future generations. Just like everything else.
Not really. Evolution is not a teleological process, and it produces a lot of stuff with little or no adaptive value. Paraphrasing Gould, the evolution of the brain has also produced a lot of cognitive and behavioral sequelae, such as the ability to carry a tune or do calculus. Neither should it be assumed that extinction records poor adaptation (no one would argue that the dinosaurs were poorly adapted to their environments). Gould was one of the greatest writers and thinkers on this topic. "Spandrels" I think was his landmark statement.
For all intents and purposes it is involved with politics. So long as the company ITSELF does not discriminate, I truly don't care. People can have whatever opinion they want. It is not my place to force people to accept my views or my opinions.
For instance, by all technicality, homosexuality is a biological aberration that came about from humanity's higher thought. Sex, at its most basic root, is meant for nothing more than genetic reshuffling and furthering the species. All other side effects (closer bonds and all that jazz) came about as a means to further cement a mate to increase probability of a successful pairing and full maturation of the child. Homosexuals, by their very nature, are not capable of reproducing without outside aid, thereby making any sort of sexual relationship, pointless. And remember, homosexuals should not be confused with PANSEXUALS (who truly do not care about gender and are instead focused almost exclusively on personality and emotional matches).
Despite this, I am a bisexual. I am just fully willing to accept it.
I very much disagree with the statement on your belief of the origins of homosexuality. In fact homosexuality is found in many animals considered not to have higher thought. In fact I can tell you that we have found homosexuality in over 1500 species. Ranging from gut worms to primates. In 500 of of those species it is actually quite well documented and observed. In fact I know the main researcher who studied the lesbian Albatross phenomenon personally, through my husband who works for the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. And to show I don't just posit such things without evidence, I will even link where you can read more on the subject. I know Professor Bruce Bagimihl personally, he is a great mind, and a personable fellow his book should answer your questions quite easily.
Biological Exuberance
I also see you overlooked my post. On top of that of the idea you think that homosexuality could be a choice. Which no scientific expert (In the human sexuality field) supports. There is a scientific theory out there called the KIn gene theory which demonstrates how homosexuality is likely not an aberration or a mistake.
There are plenty of species where a couple or even just a single care for child of another. Humans are no different. Same sex couples can easily care for someone else's child if they are unwilling or unable to care for it themselves.
Humans are one of the few species that we know engages in sex for purely enjoyment with no intention on furthering the species. I'm not going to go into an explanation of body parts, nerve endings, and pleasure as I don't feel this is the right forum for that. Suffice it to say that we have evolved to enjoy sex quite a bit.
Now, what's the deal with Jelly Bellies?
Apparently they (Jelly Belly) send donations to anti-gay programs.
Humans are well known for doing many things that, from evolutionary stand point, make not a lick of sense :P. This is because humans are one of the few animals that can over ride natural instinct with thought.Except, as others have said, homosexual behavior is well documented in many animal species.Again, biological aberattion.
Humans can be LGBT due to biological/genetic aberration OR by higher levels of thought (things like Pansexuals are only capable in humans due to their utter disregard of sex over mental stimulation and compatibility)
Except humans are not generally homosexual by conscious choice.
I'm not at all convinced by the claim that pansexuals disregard sex either.And what is "biological aberration" and how do you distinguish? In context, it sounds like "Things that happen but don't make sense to me from an evolutionary standpoint."
When I say a biological aberration I mean it is a quirk in your genetic code and goes against the standard procedure of basic biology. Biology states that the primary reason why most everything has 2 genders is simply for genetic diversity. I.E. for reproduction and survival of the species. That is literally the ONLY reason for gender. And when cretures went from being Hermaphroditic to being sexual organismsm, the two opposing genders are naturally attracted to each other since that is the biologically "correct" way it works if you will. The male and the female reproductive systems compliment each other.
Now Homosexuality is a diviation from the biological norm (hence why, by definition, it is an aberration of the biological norm). As to whether it is a learned trait or an inherited trait or a mix of both is up in the air (for me it is more a natural thing.. ish. I am fairly open sexually and known to simply enjoy pleasure) to science. Some say it is learned, others say it is genetic.
There are plenty of species where a couple or even just a single care for child of another. Humans are no different. Same sex couples can easily care for someone else's child if they are unwilling or unable to care for it themselves.
Humans are one of the few species that we know engages in sex for purely enjoyment with no intention on furthering the species. I'm not going to go into an explanation of body parts, nerve endings, and pleasure as I don't feel this is the right forum for that. Suffice it to say that we have evolved to enjoy sex quite a bit.
Now, what's the deal with Jelly Bellies?
Regardless, even in the case of species like savannah lions who tend to rotatewho is mothering the all children of the pride, they are all exoected to mate and they all want to spread their genes to the next generation.
And remember, I am simply speaking from a BIOLOGICAL standpoint, devoid of all other factors. Yes, a homosexual couple can have children (adoption, artificial insemenation, a paid borth mother to carry the child, ect.) but those are not the biological normality for HUMANS.
Again though, humans have evolved to be able to override basic biological normalities to do things, that again from a biological stand point, make not a lick of sense.
...For all intents and purposes it is involved with politics. So long as the company ITSELF does not discriminate, I truly don't care. People can have whatever opinion they want. It is not my place to force people to accept my views or my opinions.
For instance, by all technicality, homosexuality is a biological aberration that came about from humanity's higher thought. Sex, at its most basic root, is meant for nothing more than genetic reshuffling and furthering the species. All other side effects (closer bonds and all that jazz) came about as a means to further cement a mate to increase probability of a successful pairing and full maturation of the child. Homosexuals, by their very nature, are not capable of reproducing without outside aid, thereby making any sort of sexual relationship, pointless. And remember, homosexuals should not be confused with PANSEXUALS (who truly do not care about gender and are instead focused almost exclusively on personality and emotional matches).
Despite this, I am a bisexual. I am just fully willing to accept it.
I very much disagree with the statement on your belief of the origins of homosexuality. In fact homosexuality is found in many animals considered not to have higher thought. In fact I can tell you that we have found homosexuality in over 1500 species. Ranging from gut worms to primates. In 500 of of those species it is actually quite well documented and observed. In fact I know the main researcher who studied the lesbian Albatross phenomenon personally, through my husband who works for the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. And to show I don't just posit such things without evidence, I will even link where you can read more on the subject. I know Professor Bruce Bagimihl personally, he is a great mind, and a personable fellow his book should answer your questions quite easily.
[url=http://www.amazon.co.uk/Biological-Exuberance-Homosexuality-Diversity-Stonewall/dp/031225377X][/url]
Again, it is not what biology normally entails. The fact that there is a gene controlling it means little. Changes to genetic code are ABERRATIONS. Now that is not to say an aberration in genetic code is bad (that is how we end up with evolution) but it is what it is.
Further more, Homosexuality actively works AGAINST the most basic need of all organism, from the smallest amoeba to the humans. The urge to spread their own DNA to the next generation and to continue the species.
If 2 specimens are homosexual, they are effectively removing their genes from the gene pool. This actively works against Evolution. Additionally, they put more strain on the rest of the population because now you have 2 healthy adults who are not reproducing. Therefore, in order for the species to maintain where they are or to grow, the others need to increase birth rate, which ALSO becomes harder because you are removing potential mates and reducing the gene pool.
A Simple way to imagine it would be like this:
Lets say you have 10 individuals (5 male, 5 female). In order for them to maintain population levels, each couple needs to give birth to (on average) 2 children. But now lets say you made 2 of the females homosexual. That now makes the population look like (5 male, 3 females, 2 removed). Now suddenly you are reducing the prospect of potential mates (there are less viable females to go around). Additionally, you can only have 3 couples now that can produce off spring. Now, in order to maintain population numbers, each couple needs to have 3 children with one couple having 4. That puts a MUCH heavier strain on the hetero-sexual couples to maintain the species and population.
THAT is why LGBT is, for all intents and purposes, an aberration. It actively works AGAINST the primary driving force of adapation and development.
And again, I myself am Bi-sexual, I am just willing to admit that, yes technically me being with another girl would actually hurt the population.
|
|
Not really. Evolution is not a teleological process, and it produces a lot of stuff with little or no adaptive value. Paraphrasing Gould, the evolution of the brain has also produced a lot of cognitive and behavioral sequelae, such as the ability to carry a tune or do calculus. Neither should it be assumed that extinction records poor adaptation (no one would argue that the dinosaurs were poorly adapted to their environments). Gould was one of the greatest writers and thinkers on this topic. "Spandrels" I think was his landmark statement.
Fair enough, I was imprecise with my language.
While life has no conscious purpose, organisms behave and evolve as if they had the purpose of Begetting Future Generations. I'm not saying that this is an actual purpose, because that requires sentience. I'm saying that the organisms which didn't behave as if this was their purpose tended to be less fit to survive so tended to die out, leaving the surviving species the ones that do behave that way.
From an evolutionary standpoint, any individual evolution in form or behaviour wasn't consciously evolved to pursue a purpose, but they are nevertheless put through the sieve of 'survival of the fittest'. This doesn't produce absolutes like 'bad adaptations WILL die out' and 'good adaptations WILL survive to breed', but the change in survivability is a huge factor over time.
So the pair-bonding increases the chances of the offspring surviving to breed. Now that we are sentient and know about fertility and pair-bonding (not even from the POV of a scientist but from the POV of an average person), we can choose to take pleasure in the act which evolved for pair-bonding even if we know it's a one-night stand, and we can choose to (try to) prevent procreation because we don't feel the need to procreate right now.
This is good news for the LGBT community! Reduced need for birth control, can still have children (adoption/surrogacy/whatever) if they want.
That judge mentioned a short while ago in this thread was saying that marriage is 'for' children, therefore there can be no same-sex marriage. This is a huge logical disconnect, showing an astonishing and disappointing ignorance in a judge. First, marriage as an institution has itself evolved over time, and while it has never been only about procreation, nowadays marriage can be whatever the couple wants it to be, and it's no-one else's business thank you very much mister judge! Secondly, if his 'logic' were to be followed then there would be a ban on couples marrying if they couldn't have children for any reason, while allowing same-sex couples to marry if they can have a child somehow. Both of these are incompatible with his decision to ban same-sex marriage: even if he were correct (he isn't) his decision doesn't follow from his premise.
Additionally, you cann't look at things like worms for homosexual behavior because they are hermaphroditic. By definition, they are both homosexual AND heterosexual :P
"Things that...Humans are well known for doing many things that, from evolutionary stand point, make not a lick of sense :P. This is because humans are one of the few animals that can over ride natural instinct with thought.Except, as others have said, homosexual behavior is well documented in many animal species.Again, biological aberattion.
Humans can be LGBT due to biological/genetic aberration OR by higher levels of thought (things like Pansexuals are only capable in humans due to their utter disregard of sex over mental stimulation and compatibility)
Except humans are not generally homosexual by conscious choice.
I'm not at all convinced by the claim that pansexuals disregard sex either.And what is "biological aberration" and how do you distinguish? In context, it sounds like "Things that happen but don't make sense to me from an evolutionary standpoint."
When I say a biological aberration I mean it is a quirk in your genetic code and goes against the standard procedure of basic biology. Biology states that the primary reason why most everything has 2 genders is simply for genetic diversity. I.E. for reproduction and survival of the species. That is literally the ONLY reason for gender. And when cretures went from being Hermaphroditic to being sexual organismsm, the two opposing genders are naturally attracted to each other since that is the biologically "correct" way it works if you will. The male and the female reproductive systems compliment each other.
Now Homosexuality is a diviation from the biological norm (hence why, by definition, it is an aberration of the biological norm). As to whether it is a learned trait or an inherited trait or a mix of both is up in the air (for me it is more a natural thing.. ish. I am fairly open sexually and known to simply enjoy pleasure) to science. Some say it is learned, others say it is genetic.
Again, it is not that it does not make sense to me. It is simple biology.
Heck, if you want we can use electricity. The male end of a plug is designed to pair with a female socket or female end of an extension plug.
The Penis and Vagina didn't just happen because some committee formed up and decided it would be a good idea to have and it would be fun to have (Robin Williams for the win!). They are decided to be complimentary for a reason.
Not really. Evolution is not a teleological process, and it produces a lot of stuff with little or no adaptive value. Paraphrasing Gould, the evolution of the brain has also produced a lot of cognitive and behavioral sequelae, such as the ability to carry a tune or do calculus. Neither should it be assumed that extinction records poor adaptation (no one would argue that the dinosaurs were poorly adapted to their environments). Gould was one of the greatest writers and thinkers on this topic. "Spandrels" I think was his landmark statement.Fair enough, I was imprecise with my language.
While life has no conscious purpose, organisms behave and evolve as if they had the purpose of Begetting Future Generations. I'm not saying that this is an actual purpose, because that requires sentience. I'm saying that the organisms which didn't behave as if this was their purpose tended to be less fit to survive so tended to die out, leaving the surviving species the ones that do behave that way.
From an evolutionary standpoint, any individual evolution in form or behaviour wasn't consciously evolved to pursue a purpose, but they are nevertheless put through the sieve of 'survival of the fittest'. This doesn't produce absolutes like 'bad adaptations WILL die out' and 'good adaptations WILL survive to breed', but the change in survivability is a huge factor over time.
So the pair-bonding increases the chances of the offspring surviving to breed. Now that we are sentient and know about fertility and pair-bonding (not even from the POV of a scientist but from the POV of an average person), we can choose to take pleasure in the act which evolved for pair-bonding even if we know it's a one-night stand, and we can choose to (try to) prevent procreation because we don't feel the need to procreate right now.
This is good news for the LGBT community! Reduced need for birth control, can still have children (adoption/surrogacy/whatever) if they want.
That judge mentioned a short...
Very true. Of this I agree with you
Oh and for those who are saying "it is not learned it is genetic! Biologists have a theroy showing it!" while that may be true it is not entirely true...
It is ALSO a learned trait as well... There are numerous physchological tests that show a person can LEARN to become homosexual. It is especially true of bi sexuals who only became bisexual later in life. A lot of times people default to heterosexuality because their genetics will naturally push them that way AND society is very biased in that direction, but if a person was in a society was was flipped, and say homosexuality was the majority/norm, a person could learn to become homosexual since that is what they will see as "normal".
For instance, myself. I didn't fully become bi-sexual until a friend of mine (she was bi) had sex with me while I was not entirely sober. She then explained to how it still felt good and how I still enjoyed it. And it was true, it was pleasurable. And since I was still budding in my sexuality, I craved anything that felt good. Additionally, I grew up in a rather laid back home so I did not possess the rigid mentality of those who grew up in more conservative house-holds. With all these factors, I just kind of learned to embrace the pleasure and am now bi-sexual.
Another example of this is many Porn Stars. More than a few porn stars tend to start their careers as pretty much heterosexual. But as they became bigger stars, they tend to expand their horizons (if for no other reason than to make new films) and "learn" to become bi-sexual.
So yes, technically a person can learn to become homosexual/bi-sexual. Granted females tend to be more open than males (since males tend to be less open around other males as females are around other females.)
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's interesting that you assume that someone who has sex with someone of the same gender and finds they like it has "learned" to be gay or bi, rather than always having been gay or bi, and simply not being aware that they enjoyed sex with people of more than one gender.
That's certainly a theory, but it's only speculation on your part. It's not science. (And as for the "aberration" or "bad for the species" stuff, plenty of scientists have speculated, due to things like the fraternal birth order effect, that homosexuality in men is actually beneficial to the chances of the family's genes surviving.) That's the thing about human behavior: it's complex and multifactorial, and that's why things like evopsych, which attempt to reduce all human behavior to a few simple explanations, are viewed as pseudoscience by most scientists. (Evopsych's the phrenology of the 20th century.)
But all of that aside, I'm not sure that this thread is the appropriate venue for you to expound your theories. It's not intended to be a space where our LGBT players have to constantly defend the legitimacy of their sexualities. I'd suggest, if you want to discuss whether homosexuality is "good for the species," that you take it to the Off-Topic Forum.
There are plenty of species where a couple or even just a single care for child of another. Humans are no different. Same sex couples can easily care for someone else's child if they are unwilling or unable to care for it themselves.
Humans are one of the few species that we know engages in sex for purely enjoyment with no intention on furthering the species. I'm not going to go into an explanation of body parts, nerve endings, and pleasure as I don't feel this is the right forum for that. Suffice it to say that we have evolved to enjoy sex quite a bit.
Now, what's the deal with Jelly Bellies?
Regardless, even in the case of species like savannah lions who tend to rotatewho is mothering the all children of the pride, they are all exoected to mate and they all want to spread their genes to the next generation.
And remember, I am simply speaking from a BIOLOGICAL standpoint, devoid of all other factors. Yes, a homosexual couple can have children (adoption, artificial insemenation, a paid borth mother to carry the child, ect.) but those are not the biological normality for HUMANS.
Again though, humans have evolved to be able to override basic biological normalities to do things, that again from a biological stand point, make not a lick of sense.
I think you're confusing "some mammals" with the entirety of the animal kingdom. There are many species with more than 2 sexes.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, this is the "LGBT Gamer Community Thread". If I wanted to read about posters, well-meaning or otherwise, expounding on theories about why I may or may not have made deliberate choices in my sexual attraction or identity (assumably in utero), or whether such elements are a biological aberration/abnormality, I would read & post in the existing thread. Not in the Community Thread. This is where I lurk to take a break from dealing with all that crap/noise on a daily basis.
Edit: This reads weird now that a couple posts have been removed.
Edit 2: I'm not trying to stifle political or scientific discussion; I'm just tired of seeing the same bones re-re-re-re-re-gnawed.