Basically I want feedback on my thoughts of the matter of homo/bi/heterosexuality from male homosexuals. Anything I can now would be basically be reguirgitating what I wrote in an article. I don't care if you respond to me here or with a comment on the article, but thanks to anybody who responds.

One issue here, where's the article at? One thing we defenitely can't do is read minds through the interwebs.

Yes. I agree with GaGa guy. You need to give us the article. Pm it to me, if you want.

*no article*

oh shit haha, sorry. there's some problem with the link so here's the text

Of course everyone has had somebody come to them with a dish of some unfamiliar food, saying “try this, it’s great” to have had you spit it on the ground. “Listen to this song,” and you feel soul trying to eject. It is just taste. On these grounds nobody could say “I don’t like your taste, buying this music/food is illegal!” More absurd even would it be for someone to say that you should be fined, imprisoned, tortured or killed for having a different culinary or musical prefrence. However if we extend this train of thought past music and food preference and, say, onto preference for a marriage partner it seems to become perfectly reasonable to punish somebody for their tastes. This specifically applies to men. More specifically, men who have a sexual preference for other men. It is illegal almost everywhere for males to marry each other or even engage in sexual practice. In many places is it is STILL a crime punishable by whipping, imprisonment or execution. It is mostly illegal for women as well, but with men being primarily the people in control, and also being an animal that enjoys seeing females getting it on, it is not really a problem for them.
The root of this law and social practice is jealousy. Homosexual men call it attraction when they see a man that appeals to their taste. Heterosexual men refer to it as Jealousy.
If a heterosexual man sees a female to his tastes, he considers it attraction. At the base of this all is a subconscious motor of evolutionary progression. A man sees an attractive woman and he is interested in having sex with her because his subconscious evolutionary motor says she and he would have a more attractive offspring than he and a less attractive woman. The hope is that the child is more attractive so that the child may have a higher chance of reproduction in its lifetime.
Jealousy is a violent motor and is closely related to the evolutionary motor. A heterosexual man sees another attractive man and views him as an evolutionary threat. This man could potentially spread more seed than he, rendering him lower on the food chain.
The aggression associated with this jealousy is, to no surprise, also evolutionary. Homosexuals are difficult to consider beneficial for the human evolution to most people because they don’t reproduce. However, homosexuality is not a fashion fabrication, it is a natural means of skimming the population of a species. Nature often introduces homosexuality to species that have become overpopulated. Speaking in regards to the evolution of the planet, the human species is difficult to consider beneficial because it fucks up everything here. If you ever wonder why there is a Dennis Rodman, this is the reason. It’s not really that complicated nor is it even close to a big deal. Certainly not a big enough deal to kill people over. Talk about bad for the species.

To conclude with something a lot of people I know have heard me say, the closet analogy is most appropriate way to surmise this. If you live under a rock, somebody who is secretly homosexual is referred to as ‘not coming out of the closet.’ Well, if you are a man and you can say ‘yeah, that’s a good looking man’ it doesn’t matter if you’d have sex with him, you’re in the closet. The door is only a little open, only the tiniest sliver of light is allowed. If there’s a man who says ‘no, there is no such thing as an attractive man…’ well this man is a sexist towards himself and his closet door is completely closed. It must be too dark for him to see anything.


also, to further expand on the subject of attraction and intimacy, i've this: http://socyberty.com/philosophy/meditat ... and-holes/

Maybe to lay persons, but not to evolutionary biologists.


Not really. There's little to no evolutionary pressure to cap human population. Consider that infertile males have a negligible effect on population growth since one man can inseminate multiple bitches. To effectively control birth rates females would have to be affected (and their being lesbians does not accomplish this).

That is just plain wrong.



Utter tripe. In regards to everything I've underlined (your stated assertions) can you even source any of these?

You realize there is no scientific consensus on the issue of whether or not homosexuality is even genetic?

I appreciate what you're trying to say (and applaud you for it BTW, don't get me wrong), but the way you have expressed it, and the reasons you have provided are frankly, spurious.

The article talks about Humans as if we are nothing more than animals with animal feelings and instincts which is of course false.
First of all I am not religious but it is pretty clear to me that Human emotion, pain, love etc. are as real as anything else in the universe. We are not predictable robots of nature but the only part of the known universe that does more than simply exist.

Well maybe Im wrong but I've heard all that "We're just animals responding to each other's smells" stuff before.

So, what, we're some magical alien species that just popped up out of nowhere?
We ARE just animals. Yes, we're very different to other types of animals, but not much more different than each species is to the next. Assuming that we're somehow inherently separate or superior to all other species on the planet is both arrogant and ignorant.

we ARE just animals responding to each other's smells, we may be more intelligent than other species, but we are basically the same

Ever had someone go past with nice deodorant/aftershave on and thing "wow, he smells nice". There we go.

Of course I accept we are largely if not mostly controlled by our animalistic side but I believe there is more to us than just being creatures. I do not mean to say that we are in any way separate to other animals or the rest of the universe. We are all made from the dust that makes up everything in the universe I just believe there is more to it than that.

Nope.

We are incredibly more intelligent and complex (especially in regards to social interactions the structure of societies etc. and the tools we use), but beneath the veneer of civilization, we are nothing more than naked monkeys.