Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

?

How many threads are we gonna do like this?

Come oin, whirly..it's enough at some time....we understand you really have to think a lot aboot homosexuality.....

But if by Biological-Purpose you mean, to multiply ones Species....then no....

whats up with this gay infatuation of yours, ready to finally come out of the closet or?

Originally posted by finti
whats up with this gay infatuation of yours, ready to finally come out of the closet or?

Come on finti...that's a touchy subject.....Whitrly needs time and all the help we can give him...it's ok...

no its not infatuation I just find it confusing (Alan Partridge joke)

Seriously though whats the point from a biological point of view, I know many do procreate - So if it is genetic and their is evidence it is, the "gay gene" gets passed on, but it is not a gays primary drive like it can easily be argued it is for straights (at least until recent years). So do gays offer something, Meer Cats have a carer class, which do not procreate, this is not uncommon in mammals. I woould suggest the education system has more homosexuals than most other professions - do Gays often serve a "carer" role in humanity.

sidebar - Why are people inferring my interest in "gayness" might be an insult do they consider calling a straight guy "gay" an insult?

well they could do wonders to my wardrobe

....^

Great to know you won't be lusted after if he's your friend...

One thing I will never, ever, ever understand in the entire timespan of my life, is why guys say that homosexuals are disgusting.

"Yuk! Sleeping with other men?! Gross!"

What? You WANT men to go around having sex with women? Surely you would be glad that the straight male to straight female ratio was more in the male favour.

It's like girls who dislike lesbians. Surely you'd be glad there's more men available.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
One thing I will never, ever, ever understand in the entire timespan of my life, is why guys say that homosexuals are disgusting.

"Yuk! Sleeping with other men?! Gross!"

What? You WANT men to go around having sex with women? Surely you would be glad that the straight male to straight female ratio was more in the male favour.

It's like girls who dislike lesbians. Surely you'd be glad there's more men available.

-AC

All true but do they serve a biological purpose.
Perhaps AC is right the gene serves to provide more choice and opportunity for straight men - no, no because lesbians exist, they must have a more complex function - back to the carer concept perhaps.

do sterile people?

Originally posted by finti
do sterile people?

sterility is where something has gone wrong - are you saying gays are "gone wrong"?

"I woould suggest the education system has more homosexuals than most other professions"

What the bloody hell is this nonsense?

Like the thread, nonsense in of itself- as if biologicalmpurpose matters.

These continuous threads of yours are very tiresome, Whirly. Make one damn thread and ask all your questions in there.

Originally posted by Whirlysplatt
no its not infatuation I just find it confusing (Alan Partridge joke)

Seriously though whats the point from a biological point of view, I know many do procreate - So if it is genetic and their is evidence it is, the "gay gene" gets passed on, but it is not a gays primary drive like it can easily be argued it is for straights (at least until recent years). So do gays offer something, Meer Cats have a carer class, which do not procreate, this is not uncommon in mammals. I woould suggest the education system has more homosexuals than most other professions - do Gays often serve a "carer" role in humanity.

sidebar - Why are people inferring my interest in "gayness" might be an insult do they consider calling a straight guy "gay" an insult?
Realistically, the gay gene can't be passed on without straight proecreation anyway.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
"I woould suggest the education system has more homosexuals than most other professions"

What the bloody hell is this nonsense?

Like the thread, nonsense in of itself- as if biologicalmpurpose matters.

These continuous threads of yours are very tiresome, Whirly. Make one damn thread and ask all your questions in there.

OK I will, I apologise.
As my thread to post ratio shows I rarely make threads, I don't understand why I felt the need for a spree.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
What the bloody hell is this nonsense?

Like the thread, nonsense in of itself- as if biologicalmpurpose matters.

These continuous threads of yours are very tiresome, Whirly. Make one damn thread and ask all your questions in there. Ditto. Tedious. And it's pretty obvious "why you felt the need for a spree".

Wrongs aint the deal here it is whether a group serves a bilogocal purpose

Originally posted by eggmayo
Realistically, the gay gene can't be passed on without straight proecreation anyway.

As I stated is that why some are bisexual, If it turns out the gay gene is part of a mosaic complex, this could be how it happens.

Originally posted by finti
Wrongs aint the deal here it is whether a group serves a bilogocal purpose

however sterile people definately do not serve any purpose from a biological point of view in terms of procreation. The difference is sterility is normally in genetic terms the result of an unfavourable mistake. Gays I think would argue they are not a mistake, so if they are not a mistake what purpose do they serve?

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Ditto. Tedious. And it's pretty obvious "why you felt the need for a spree".

lets get to the "bottom" of this

serve just as much purpose as those who dont want to reproduce and those who cant, which again is they (all of them)serve a purpose and that purpose is to inflict on others lifes whatever way they can

Originally posted by finti
serve just as much purpose as those who dont want to reproduce and those who cant, which again is they (all of them)serve a purpose and that purpose is to inflict on others lifes whatever way they can

I see so you see no evidence for procreation as the main drive for sex in humans i see, thank you for your contribution.

well after you are in a comitted relationship procreationn is a part of the sex part, it aint the main part though...the main part of sex is sex in itself.
If you are not in a relationship the main part is to get laid as often as possible

Originally posted by finti
well after you are in a comitted relationship procreationn is a part of the sex part, it aint the main part though...the main part of sex is sex in itself.
If you are not in a relationship the main part is to get laid as often as possible

yes this is a biological drive aimed at procreation, this is why most men want sex with women and even there mastabatory fanasies are centred on women, as women are the recepticles of seed and other half of the genetic information required to produce a zygote. again thank you for your contribution.

yeah doi use those lines when you try to pick up women

Originally posted by finti
yeah doi use those lines when you try to pick up women

No I live with one and like all women she can be a pain j/k, however it does not alter my sexual preference

For someone who is so profoundly educated, enjoying an advanced degree in micro biology, as you stated in your multiple PMs...perhaps you should share your well-educated insight on the subject.


As Xmarks said, the reason for your rash of threads regarding homosexuality is pretty apparent. You seem to think that creating multiple threads on homosexuality, and small minded bigots sharing their opinions, is going to hurt my feelings...or irritate me in some way...or embarass me? This is not the case.


But, perhaps turn about is fair play.

well, when you think about it, humans serve no real purpose...only to ourselves.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
For someone who is so profoundly educated, enjoying an advanced degree in micro biology, as you stated in your multiple PMs...perhaps you should share your well-educated insight on the subject.


As Xmarks said, the reason for your rash of threads regarding homosexuality is pretty apparent. You seem to think that creating multiple threads on homosexuality, and small minded bigots sharing their opinions, is going to hurt my feelings...or irritate me in some way...or embarass me? This is not the case.


But, perhaps turn about is fair play.

actually its molecular biology - my special interest is enzymes
my knowledge of micro is very limited
you see you never understand anything.

This threads not about you

please contribute I would be interested in your insights as to biologically what purpose you feel you serve as a gay man

Originally posted by PVS
well, when you think about it, humans serve no real purpose...only to ourselves.

true enough and from a biological standpoint heterosexual sex is the only way we can reproduce.

THIS MUST BE ANOTHER ONE OF THOSE GAY THREADS

Originally posted by Whirlysplatt
true enough and from a biological standpoint heterosexual sex is the only way we can reproduce.

yes, the same as a virus. but how do we benefit anything but ourselves? reproduction is only self beneficial, and due to our skyrocketing world population, quite unnecessary on the scale it exists at.

if anything, i think homosexuality is a blessing to mankind. thats a percentage of people who (mostly) wont reproduce and add to an already overabundant world population, which in turn saves resources for the rest of us.

good point

Originally posted by PVS
yes, the same as a virus. but how do we benefit anything but ourselves? reproduction is only self beneficial, and due to our skyrocketing world population, quite unnecessary on the scale it exists at.

if anything, i think homosexuality is a blessing to mankind. thats a percentage of people who (mostly) wont reproduce and add to an already overabundant world population, which in turn saves resources for the rest of us.

PVS I am sure you realise its debateable if a virus is alive as outside a host it is inert and it actually has few characteristics of a living organism, in the traditional sense.
So Homosexual slow down overcrowding by being an evolutionary dead end?
or are you saying they are like a fire break against the ever expanding population.

Originally posted by Whirlysplatt
As I stated is that why some are bisexual, If it turns out the gay gene is part of a mosaic complex, this could be how it happens.

"Gay gene". I guess that's like the "homocidal gene" in serial killers, right? It's developed. Mass murderers don't come out of the womb slinging a knife, as homosexual males come out grabbing at their Dad's crotch. Why else would you delay your instinctual urge to act on this supposed genetic imbalance until you're almost fully developed physically?

Prove to me the "homosexual gene" exists, and I'll shut up. It's an imbalance, but not a genetic one.

But to answer the question, homosexuals don't serve any biological purpose or physiological need. But, as pointed out before, it doesn't really matter. Straight people who don't engage in sexual activities are rendered equally as useless in the way of "purpose".

Originally posted by Cinemaddiction
"Gay gene". I guess that's like the "homocidal gene" in serial killers, right?

Interesting - No a gay gene may well exist, as may a gene comples which makes people do extreme things e.g. serial killers - evil may be part inherited

Originally posted by Cinemaddiction
"Gay gene". I guess that's like the "homocidal gene" in serial killers, right?

Mass murderers don't come out of the womb slinging a knife, as homosexual males come out grabbing at their Dad's crotch.

Prove to me the "homosexual gene" exists, and I'll shut up. It's an imbalance, but not a genetic one.


Look over the chosen or genetic thread. There is quite a bit of evidence posted in that thread.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Look over the chosen or genetic thread. There is quite a bit of evidence posted in that thread.

Their is evidence for it - Their is evidence against, it is an interesting topic of discussion.

Originally posted by Whirlysplatt
PVS I am sure you realise its debateable if a virus is alive as outside a host it is inert and it actually has few characteristics of a living organism, in the traditional sense.
So Homosexual slow down overcrowding by being an evolutionary dead end?
or are you saying they are like a fire break against the ever expanding population.

its not an evolutionary dead end because gay people will always be a minority.
and if it WAS a matter of evolution and there was in fact a "gay gene" you should still find comfort in the fact that most gay people dont have offspring.
so any "gay gene" would be well contained, correct?

all im saying is they cut the poulation a bit. nothing significant im sure, but certainly nothing harmful.

and for the life of me, i cant see why people feel so threatened by gay people.
as if they somehow can brainwash everyone else into being gay, and destroy the human race
.
when you think about it, they have the least impact/threat on society in that they rarely raise children. meanwhile millions of straight 'family oriented' and 'godfearing' parents are neglecting their children, who will one day smoke crack and carjack/shoot me.

lets have some sense of priority is all im saying.

Originally posted by PVS
if anything, i think homosexuality is a blessing to mankind. thats a percentage of people who (mostly) wont reproduce and add to an already overabundant world population, which in turn saves resources for the rest of us.

Yeah and so is the Holocaust and abortion...

Originally posted by Echuu
Yeah and so is the Holocaust and abortion...


So, you're saying that homosexuality is as terrible an affront to the human condition as the holocaust, and your opinion of what purpose abortion serves?

from the closed thread. i think it deserves answering:

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Come on PVS, we're not talking about where words came from. We're talking today. I appreciate your insight, but I'm confused as to why you think calling someone a "rectal ranger" is any less offensive than calling them a f@ggot?

offense yes.
but less offensive, yes.

why?

because one simply mocks a sex act. im sure its hurtful and offensive im not arguing that. but its not a laughing mockery of human suffering and tragedy like the word 'f@ggot'. so i find 'rectal ranger' to be unnecessary and offensive, but i find 'f@ggot' to be so disgusting it makes me sick to the pit of my stomach. (for those unaware of the definition check the closed thread) hope that answers your question.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
So, you're saying that homosexuality is as terrible an affront to the human condition as the holocaust, and your opinion of what purpose abortion serves?

I certainly do not see homosexuality in this way, what gays do is up to them, all I am doing is trying to give it a reason to exist.

Originally posted by Echuu
Yeah and so is the Holocaust and abortion...

that is by far the stupidest post i have ever seen.
i mean, there were far more stupid posts, but they were intended to be stupid.
you think you have an actual point there dont you?

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
So, you're saying that homosexuality is as terrible an affront to the human condition as the holocaust, and your opinion of what purpose abortion serves?

Now, now......just by what he is saying he is actually right...all three keep the world population fro rising faster...but he didn't say they were the same generally.....

Originally posted by PVS
from the closed thread. i think it deserves answering:



offense yes.
but less offensive, yes.

why?

because one simply mocks a sex act. im sure its hurtful and offensive im not arguing that. but its not a laughing mockery of human suffering and tragedy like the word 'f@ggot'. so i find 'rectal ranger' to be unnecessary and offensive, but i find 'f@ggot' to be so disgusting it makes me sick to the pit of my stomach. (for those unaware of the definition check the closed thread) hope that answers your question.

agreed

Individual children who die before they reach sexual maturity serve no "biological purpose". Fertile straight individuals who consciously decide not to have children serve no "biological purpose". A woman past menopause serve no "biological purpose". A gay individual who has a child is serving a "biological purpose". Does it really matter whether or not a person serves a "biological purpose". No.

If we take it to logical conclusions the only part of a human that serves a biological purpose is his or her gametes. We should deposit them in a big machine and it can gestate a new generation and extract the gametes from the future generation in an endless futile cycle. What a perfect world.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
So, you're saying that homosexuality is as terrible an affront to the human condition as the holocaust, and your opinion of what purpose abortion serves?

No

I think you know what I mean.

Originally posted by Whirlysplatt
I certainly do not see homosexuality in this way, what gays do is up to them, all I am doing is trying to give it a reason to exist.
haha funnys.....no human has actually a reason to live.....stupid reasons like "They can reproduce" are nothing real, actually.

Originally posted by PVS
that is by far the stupidest post i have ever seen.
i mean, there were far more stupid posts, but they were intended to be stupid.
you think you have an actual point there dont you?

Maybe my sarcasm has a point but it seems you missed that.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Now, now......just by what he is saying he is actually right...all three keep the world population fro rising faster...but he didn't say they were the same generally.....

no, its a parallel between the holocaust and simply not having children.
should i have put the contrary in a disclaimer under my post to avoid such
an ignorant comment?

Originally posted by PVS
from the closed thread. i think it deserves answering:



offense yes.
but less offensive, yes.

why?

because one simply mocks a sex act. im sure its hurtful and offensive im not arguing that. but its not a laughing mockery of human suffering and tragedy like the word 'f@ggot'. so i find 'rectal ranger' to be unnecessary and offensive, but i find 'f@ggot' to be so disgusting it makes me sick to the pit of my stomach. (for those unaware of the definition check the closed thread) hope that answers your question.

But ****** nowadays is not the same as back then anymore......so I think it*s on Cap and all other Homosexuials to decide which theyx find ore insulting....

Originally posted by PVS
no, its a parallel between the holocaust and simply not having children.
should i have put the contrary in a disclaimer under my post to avoid such
an ignorant comment?

Of course not....and I agree there is no need to say it ....but just going by facts there are parallels which do exist..........

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Individual children who die before they reach sexual maturity serve no "biological purpose". Fertile straight individuals who consciously decide not to have children serve no "biological purpose". A woman past menopause serve no "biological purpose". A gay individual who has a child is serving a "biological purpose". Does it really matter whether or not a person serves a "biological purpose". No.

If we take it to logical conclusions the only part of a human that serves a biological purpose is his or her gametes. We should deposit them in a big machine and it can gestate a new generation and extract the gametes from the future generation to continue the cycle.

Very politically correct X - but you are purposely missing the point now - do gays serve a socially biological role making the trait desirable enough that it must be a dominant trait, for it to get passed on at all looking at ratios as it is not a reproductive role first and foremost by definition.

Originally posted by PVS
from the closed thread. i think it deserves answering:



offense yes.
but less offensive, yes.

why?

because one simply mocks a sex act. im sure its hurtful and offensive im not arguing that. but its not a laughing mockery of human suffering and tragedy like the word 'f@ggot'. so i find 'rectal ranger' to be unnecessary and offensive, but i find 'f@ggot' to be so disgusting it makes me sick to the pit of my stomach. (for those unaware of the definition check the closed thread) hope that answers your question.


But, you're just as aware as I am, that a vast majority have no idea where the term came from, nor why it was used.

Originally posted by PVS
no, its a parallel between the holocaust and simply not having children.
should i have put the contrary in a disclaimer under my post to avoid such
an ignorant comment?

You still don't seem to understand that I was JOKING.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
But, you're just as aware as I am, that a vast majority have no idea where the term came from, nor why it was used.

well you have a point in that i find it sickening because i know the definition.
before i knew, it was just another hateful word. i just didnt realise how low it went. but like i said, i find one term more offensive than the other. its all subjective, as you yourself know that many gay men playfully call eachother 'f@g'. maybe because they never learned what it means either...who knows.

Originally posted by Bardock42
But ****** nowadays is not the same as back then anymore......so I think it*s on Cap and all other Homosexuials to decide which theyx find ore insulting....

I agree and created a thread where he could do just that but he trolled it and it was shut

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
But, you're just as aware as I am, that a vast majority have no idea where the term came from, nor why it was used.

I certainly had no idea it was a very tragic story

Originally posted by Whirlysplatt
I agree and created a thread where he could do just that but he trolled it and it was shut

Lie

Originally posted by Echuu
You still don't seem to understand that I was JOKING.

oh ok. just remember, playful gestures and a sarcastic tone are impossible to pick up when reading text.

Originally posted by Great Vengeance
Technically it does, animals in nature are supposed to reproduce and that is rather hard with two males.

reason for this thread so do they have a biological reason

Originally posted by PVS
oh ok. just remember, playful gestures and a sarcastic tone are impossible to pick up when reading text.

especially when one uses the wrong smilie......

Originally posted by Whirlysplatt
I agree and created a thread where he could do just that but he trolled it and it was shut


I didn't get it shut, you did...simply by starting it.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Lie

on what do you base this - I have stated I have no problem with homosexuality and I don't!

Originally posted by PVS
well you have a point in that i find it sickening because i know the definition.
before i knew, it was just another hateful word. i just didnt realise how low it went. but like i said, i find one term more offensive than the other. its all subjective, as you yourself know that many gay men playfully call eachother 'f@g'. maybe because they never learned what it means either...who knows.

Cheers, as long as we understand one another.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
I didn't get it shut, you did...simply by starting it.

I think someone complained about it or a post - who knows who that could be

Originally posted by PVS
oh ok. just remember, playful gestures and a sarcastic tone are impossible to pick up when reading text.

gotcha

Originally posted by Whirlysplatt
on what do you base this - I have stated I have no problem with homosexuality and I don't!
because it is wrong and you should know it

Originally posted by Whirlysplatt
I agree and created a thread where he could do just that but he trolled it and it was shut


So, I should be grateful to you for starting a thread that encourages people to post as many derrogatory terms for gay people as they can think of? That's total BS

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
So, I should be grateful to you for starting a thread that encourages people to post as many derrogatory terms for gay people as they can think of? That's total BS

- that wasn't the point it asked why were there so many - I was attempting to explain the hate of gays by some individuals

You can thank me if you wish

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
So, I should be grateful to you for starting a thread that encourages people to post as many derrogatory terms for gay people as they can think of? That's total BS

he's heterosexual...you should be grateful he's even talking to you

Originally posted by Bardock42
because it is wrong and you should know it

Being gay is not wrong Bardock, its unelightened thinking to suppose it is imo

Originally posted by Whirlysplatt
I think someone complained about it or a post - who knows who that could be

Oh, I reported it. No question about that. But I didn't "troll" it. All of your gay themed threads have been a direct attack on me because I called you out in the holocaust thread.

You don't see me starting threadsd like:

Biologically speaking, what purpose does a gypsy with no children serve?

OR

How many derrogatory terms for someone with dyslexia can you think of?

OR

Can dumbass Gypsies act gay?


And the only reason I didn't report the others is because they weren't offensive to an entire protion of the population. But when you basically start a thread where everyone is encouraged to post insults, it isn't just me you're insulting anymore. A similar thread about black people being called n*ggers would have met teh same fate.

Unecessary and rude.

Here is a big thread about homosexuality - homosexuality - chosen or genetic

Please use it.

Closing.