The next time someone tells you homosexuality is wrong or a danger to society etc...

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 01, 2010 3:17 PM GMT


    Show them or explain to them this...

    "In early human societies, e.g. those of many of the indigenous Americans,
    homosexual members of the tribe were accepted into their societies and
    fulfilled vital roles as members of their tribe. They brought to their kinship
    groups an increased capacity for the production of food and other essentials,
    and a greater ability for that group to defend itself, while at the same time
    they did not increase the load on the vital supplies of the group, by
    producing children of their own.
    The benefits produced by these individuals accrued most fully to the
    advantage of the homosexual’s siblings and of those siblings’ children.
    Thereby, the effect of the existence of these homosexuals was to increase the
    survivability of those most likely to be most closely genetically related to
    them. Homosexuality is an adaptation that augments the survivability of
    the gene pool most closely related to that individual. It is prima facie
    evidence that bearing offspring is not the only way Nature has developed
    for ensuring the passage of a majority of one’s genes to future generations."

    http://www.danaanpress.com/alib/hs.pdf

    Have a good day, gents!

    -Doug of meninlove
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 01, 2010 3:44 PM GMT
    I think I have read that before, but I would also add that homosexuals probably add more to civilization than people realize. You know, all the Michelangelo and DaVinci's out there. What's the saying? Nature abhors a monoculture?
  • jrs1

    Posts: 4388

    Feb 01, 2010 3:46 PM GMT

    ha. cute.
  • Celticmusl

    Posts: 4330

    Feb 01, 2010 3:46 PM GMT
    Having children that one cannot afford is dangerous to society.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 01, 2010 4:12 PM GMT
    This was sort of covered in this thread for anyone interested.

    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/811817
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 01, 2010 4:18 PM GMT
    If I can get them to sit still and shut up long enough, guys, I will certainly do so. How are ya both, by the way?

    --Adam
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 01, 2010 4:20 PM GMT
    Haha, that's awesome. Nice post.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 01, 2010 5:03 PM GMT
    Homosexuals can be compared to worker bees. icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 01, 2010 5:11 PM GMT
    meninlove said Homosexuals can be compared to worker bees. icon_wink.gif


    I can be quite lazy at times though icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 01, 2010 5:27 PM GMT
    i'm trying hard to picture village princesses producing food and helping the tribe to defend itself.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 01, 2010 5:35 PM GMT
    Thanks Doug!

    You always provide insightful info.icon_smile.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 01, 2010 6:55 PM GMT
    xassantex saidi'm trying hard to picture village princesses producing food and helping the tribe to defend itself.

    Humans are social creatures, not loners. And as they developed a more complex culture, division of labor & specialization became more important to the welfare & success of the entire community.

    Yet breeding men & women had to prioritize their efforts to the raising of their own offspring, unable to devote as much effort to the community as a whole. In this respect, gays are "free agents" who aren't hindered by having their own children, who can focus on the community good.

    Furthermore, I think gays were evolved to provide abilities that breeding men & women did not have, that were not part of the essential skill set to simply provide food, procreate and raise children. Gays could satisfy the creative and artistic needs that all humans began to crave, as they became more intelligent & sophisticated.

    Therefore, I see gays as an outcome of the division of labor that humans underwent during our evolution. We fulfill a need, because if that is not the case, then current models of evolution must be revised, and some other reason found for why gays consistently appear in the population at a steady percentage.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 01, 2010 7:09 PM GMT
    I agree w Red Vespa, the gay native americans must have something different to offer the community. As far as I've read or heard, homosexuals in the tribe were considered people with great "medicine" (mana/spiritual power/magic/ whatchamacallit), giving them a certain status.

  • Anto

    Posts: 2035

    Feb 01, 2010 9:30 PM GMT
    We fulfill a need, because if that is not the case, then current models of evolution must be revised, and some other reason found for why gays consistently appear in the population at a steady percentage.

    Homosexuality doesn't have to fulfill some need to exist though. It could be that there is no evolutionary pressure to remove homosexuality from happening.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 01, 2010 10:08 PM GMT
    Not too long ago I read a paper similar to this from a research group in Italy. Their observations and conclusion was that gay males increase the fertility of females that they associate with, mostly by making them more sexually active, and therefore creating a viable need for homosexuals to increase the number of offspring a female produces, and a mechanism for passing on homosexuality to future generations. Nonetheless, this conclusion did not make sense genetically, because they did not show that the genetic cause of homosexuality could be passed through their gene pool by making females of other gene pools produce more progeny. Altruistic behaviors, such as homosexuality, are only passed through gene pools if they benefit their own kin. If an altruistic individual does not benefit their own family, then there is no advantage to having altruism to respond to evolutionary pressures, and the altruism will become a disadvantage to the gene pool. Therefore they failed to show that a homosexual's altruism provides an advantage to their own gene pools over a pool without individuals expressing altruism.

    On the other hand, this article seems to address that issue by saying that homosexuals benefit their own families. Nonetheless, they did not give substantial evidence to back it up. It would be nice if they explained this critical point with more detail, perhaps with some statistical evidence.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 01, 2010 10:11 PM GMT
    homosexual couples are Gods way of sending angels down to Earth to take care of the children straight couples cant icon_smile.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 01, 2010 10:11 PM GMT
    waxon saidhomosexual couples are Gods way of sending angels down to Earth to take care of the children straight couples cant icon_smile.gif


    ...even tho i hate kids and never want any


    the end icon_smile.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 02, 2010 2:58 AM GMT
    Well, that was fun. Thanks guys.

    The article came from a site where there are LOTS of American heterosexuals arguing for your rights - all of 'em. Their arguments are witty, lucid, well researched (lol, sometimes) and heartfelt.