Homosexuality & Anterior hypothalamus

Discussion in 'Human Science' started by ArtofWar, Dec 20, 2005.

  1. ArtofWar Registered Senior Member

    I saw nothing there to prove other wise. There was a special done by discovery, that fell on its face, stating real life specimins in night clubs reacting to special pheromone perfumes.

    I suggest yo do a google on the subject to find a tape of the special. Even if this were the case it would only strengthen my argument of Homoeroticism being abnormality among nature (right or wrong).
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Buddha1 Registered Senior Member

    Stop fighting with your feelings. Or accept that you're abnormal!
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Giambattista sssssssssssssssssssssssss sssss Valued Senior Member


    Are you just trying to start some kind of argument for argument's sake???
    I don't remember ever saying that men and women are attracted by pheromones.

    I was COMMENTING on the results of these tests which seem to indicate that there is AT LEAST a subconscious brain reaction (according to a PET scan) to these different scents. These tests may or may not be accurate. I didn't conduct them, I don't know. I was merely expounding on the implications.

    Wysocki's team at the Monell Chemical Senses Center studied the response of 82 heterosexual and homosexual men and heterosexual and homosexual women to the odors of underarm sweat collected from 24 donors of varied gender and sexual orientation.

    They found that gay men differed from heterosexual men and women and from lesbian women, both in terms of which body odors gay men preferred and how their own body odors were regarded by the other groups.

    This SEEMS to indicate, according to the people who conducted the test, that people CONSCIOUSLY preferred different samples over others. That is, they were able to tell the samples apart.

    This was apparently done in a laboratory setting by scientists, NOT in a nightclub by the Discovery channel.

    And I saw that show by the way, though I vaguely remember it. I believe it ran a few years back.

    So what was your point in all this?
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. ArtofWar Registered Senior Member

    No i am not trying "to start someking of argument"! Just trying to prevent the misguided like "buhdda1" from living out his life long goal of spreading Homosexuality. Something he fails to understand cannot be done! Just as spreading retardation would prove unproductive the thought of making Gay sex mainstream among the the masses would prove the same. Case in point the greeks! Just as paganism was a fad outlasted by the forerunning monotheistic churches, the participators of unnatural acts were either burned at the stake or forced to relocate towrds the back ogf the village. Making the world a much better place

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I don't truly believe that Homosexual males should be burned for their abnormalities, nor do i believe the act of Sodomy being sins. Though if your Nuerological or Biological structure leaves you inclined to do so, then so be it.

    I also luagh at Buhhdda1 and his attempt to label me as a soul in an internal struggle with my sexuality. His last quote just proves that he himself believes that homo sexuality is of the oddity, and shall be frowned upon

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  8. Giambattista sssssssssssssssssssssssss sssss Valued Senior Member

    Well, you went from "criticizing" my comments (or whatever you were doing)on the pheromone/sweat studies, to saying they were bogus and don't prove anything, to saying that it was preventing Buddha1 from "living out his life long goal of spreading Homosexuality." I don't quite get it.

    I was positing what-ifs about the results of the studies.

    These are your words:
    It appears very likely that they reacted to it in some way. It appears somewhat conclusive, but leaves many questions unanswered about its connection to gender preference and whether it's inborn or learned.
    Most of the commentary on the studies was my own, not Buddha's.

    It seems you have a personal issue with Buddha1.
  9. Giambattista sssssssssssssssssssssssss sssss Valued Senior Member

    Continuing from the idea that homosexuality is a biological failure:

    This is obviously because of the procreative aspects of male-female copulation. The people that make such assertions are usually in error, plainly put. What does biology even MEAN? How do they define failure?
    Unless we are talking strictly about humans as machines whose only purpose is to mindlessly replicate their particular genetic line, and that sexuality serves no other purpose but as a joyless act of coupling in order to reproduce, then yes, they are definitely in error. Furthermore, they are also hypocrites, most of them (except for maybe some Catholics or other conservative religionists), because of this:

    If homosexuality is a biological failure, then so are heterosexuals who make use of contraceptives.

    What is wrong with that last statement? Nothing at all, of course. It is true in every sense of the word, and this, not surprisingly, refers to most people who take the position of homosexuality as a self-serving and unproductive form of sexual expression, and thus a FAILURE. They are, in effect, exalting a certain fruit which most of them don't even partake of. And it is no surprise, because this fruit (reproduction) is rather a bittersweet one that can take a heavy toll on resources and emotions!
    For some people, it is little better than a poisoned apple, for both mother and child. Especially when the father, as in most NATURAL parallels with other species, feels it is his obligation to move as far away from the mother and baby as possible when the going gets tough.

    Anyone willing to argue that homosexuals are unnatural because of preferring a sexual relationship that by its very nature is incapable of producing offspring had better not EVER use artificial means to interfere with the natural process of conception! That excludes basically everything but abstinence, or some form of sexual expression that is other than penis-vagina interaction. However, oral sex and the like does NOT justify their assertions, because clearly two men or two women can accomplish that!
    If they choose the route of the hypocrites, then obviously they are fools for making such statements.
    Which is why most are NEVER justified with that argument, because they ARE hypocrites for the reasons I have just illustrated.

    Why does modern heterosexuality think it can get away with this faulty reasoning, when they are in most cases guilty of obstructing pregnancy, in a similar manner as they who are accused?

    I once stated that heterosexuality was not the highest form of sexuality. I was referring to this very attitude that people have so glibly put forth in response to Buddha1's theories.
    Someone took offense to that statement, and after I spoke of the negative effects of unchecked procreation, he proceeded to tell me that as people move up the ladder of economic success, procreation tends to decrease, and thus he apparently thought he had refuted my position. Actually, he unwittingly bolstered it, instead.

    What is that but evolution? Evolution isn't merely biological, but economical, intellectual, and technological as well. Evolution is, generally speaking, a development from something primitive or simplistic, to something more complex and often improved.
    So what we see here is an evolution away from the simplistic functions (conception and birth) of "natural" sexuality into something that is able to control those consequences and circumvent them entirely for more pleasurable (and some would say, selfish) pursuits.
    For people who choose not to reproduce (there are MANY in this day and age) or are naturally sterile (most of these are active heterosexuals), and people whose sexuality is naturally not inclined to this in the first place (homosexuals, asexuals), there is very little difference.
    So the person defending heterosexuality as the "highest" expression of sexuality, in order to be consistent, must also be willing to have the most natural intercourse possible at all times. This means UNAIDED by technological innovations in contraception. Otherwise they are in the same boat as those who are "biological failures"!
    And it does not matter what sexuality originally stemmed from. Even the simplest of animals makes use of reproduction, with very little, if any, pleasure derived from the process of copulation. This differs greatly from human sexuality, which is often an expression of love (or lust) with emphasis on pleasure, and very often none whatsoever on reproduction.
    If humans have evolved beyond sex for reproduction only, then obviously the meaning and purpose of sex has evolved also.
    Reproduction is not always useful, and it can often be both mindless and destructive.

    Apparently, all life originated with simple one-celled organisms. If we apply the same logic, then these organisms, being the originators of the human race so long ago, would also be the highest forms of life, just as heterosexuality is supposedly the highest form of sexual expression because of its intended function of reproducing. Do these people fail to remember that the most simple of organisms (again, where humans apparently came from) are all ASEXUAL? This demonstrates that the origin of reproduction didn't even involve more than one participant! Does this then make asexuality the highest expression of sexuality?

    If humans are the most evolved in intellect, and most of their sexuality focuses on pleasure and love, instead of reproduction, why do some think they are justified in fitting the human race's sexual expression into the cramped quarters occupied by reproduction? Do these people even carry out their own flawed doctrines to their fullest?

    The answer is usually no. And that is why people who make such statements are usually hypocrites.

    It's funny that "failure" is such a selective concept here!

    We could say that heterosexuality, in it's raw form, is the simplest as far as a single biological purpose of reproduction, but can we really say it is the most evolved because of that fact?
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2006
  10. Giambattista sssssssssssssssssssssssss sssss Valued Senior Member

    In conclusion, anyone who wants to say that modern heterosexuality (or even the primitive form of it) is the highest expression of it, they had better be willing to throw out more than "they can make babies" as a justification.

    Keep in mind that most homosexuals are also sexually fertile, and many of them can and do naturally or artificially reproduce. It's just that many of them choose not to. Just like many heterosexuals.

    I believe I stated before that it was only MY opinion, but that even at worst, it was nearly impossible to disprove entirely.

    Proving that ANY form of sexuality is the fullest and truest expression of it is a very tricky and subjective matter.
    I also note quite well that when I made the original statement, I never said the homosexuality was the highest. I did say that anything was. I was simply pulling an incompetent ruler from his throne.

    And by the way, what form of heterosexuality are we talking about anyway? Natural (leading to procreation) or artificial (not leading to procreation, but intended for pleasure)?

    If this is the case, what is the difference from the latter, and homosexuality, other than anatomy? Does anatomy really make one superior over the other?
  11. Giambattista sssssssssssssssssssssssss sssss Valued Senior Member

    And as far as overpopulation goes, homosexuality would obviously be a SUCCESS in that regard.
  12. Giambattista sssssssssssssssssssssssss sssss Valued Senior Member

    One more thing I would like to state...

    This isn't an attack on anyone in particular.
    Unless you are the one making such statements that reduce human life and sexuality to one purpose, and hypocritically use this criteria on one particular group of people, you have nothing to be upset about.
    A few statements were made in several threads here and there to that effect, but I do not know whether these people were actually serious or not.

    Again, unless you yourself are having sex without birth control and intending each act to do the "right" and "viable" thing, biologically, then you really have no argument to make.

    And if no one was really being serious, then let us all have something good to eat.
    Or else watch Star Wars for the thousandth time. Or kill Nazis in Call of Duty Deux.
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2006
  13. Giambattista sssssssssssssssssssssssss sssss Valued Senior Member

    The whole argument of which is better is subjective at its core and this argument is leading to a question: what is the true purpose of life/existence?
    For most humans, endlessly creating offspring is NOT the purpose of life, OR sex. For many of them, reproduction is more of an unwanted consequence that they control either by abstinence, condoms, birth control pills, or other methods, including oral sex and the like.
    If heterosexuality is the most valid of sexualities because of reproduction, then why does the human race (apparently the most evolved specie on the planet) constantly try to get away from it? Why, with the highest intellegence of any species, are they evolving away from reproduction? And by that, I mean many people, for MANY reasons, choose not to, or to do so only once or twice. Does this make them somehow wrong or inferior because they are consciously subverting what apparently all life is made to do: make more life? Do we have to base OUR human value of sex on what the SIMPLEST of organisms do, which is reproduction by themselves asexually? Or is the value and purpose of sex evolving?
    In order to truthfully say that heterosexuality is more viable than homosexuality because of reproduction, one would have to convince people that reproduction is the highest purpose. Clearly with an increasingly overpopulated world, and many people consciously NOT reproducing, making that assertion is VERY SUBJECTIVE.
    And if there is no other purpose than to increase the population, why even bother burdening someone else with that by creating children, who grow up and create children, who grow up and create children, all for one purpose?
    Does that actually go anywhere at all, or just in a circle?
    Will something break if humans stop reproducing and finally disappear? Does the survival of a species like humans make or break the universe?
    Humans are indeed an anomaly against all nature if they can even QUESTION the value of sex and procreation! How many other species question whether having offspring is the right thing to do? Can I take care of it? Is it going to solve problems, or create them? None of them, from all observations, consciously think about the purpose or impact of reproduction on themselves, their children, or other individuals around them.
    Should our notion of the purpose of sex (AND LIFE) be at the whim of these lower lifeforms and their uncontrollable urges, when humans appear to be the only ones who can control them to any great degree, not to mention question those urges and their purpose and validity?

    I don't think anyone can truthfully answer that question.
    Anyone care to try?
  14. Buddha1 Registered Senior Member

    The real significance of what you refer to as homosexuality (sic) lies not in controlling population, but in providing meaning to life. It's quality vs quantity.
  15. Giambattista sssssssssssssssssssssssss sssss Valued Senior Member

    You could be right.

    If, however, you want to look at it from a purely materialistic/biological aspect, it could DEFINITELY be seen as a natural expression of population control, thus actually desirable and important.

    They're probably both right.

    Who was it that originally remarked to you that homosexuality is a biological failure? Was that person really serious in the first place, or just trying to spite you in some way? Trolling? Nothing better to throw at you?
  16. Buddha1 Registered Senior Member


    The overwhelming conclusion of this thread is that the various theories advanced by 'science' as 'causes' for so-called homosexuality are a farce. The basic flaw is of course that the word 'homosexuality', and 'homosexual' themselves are to be proven to be anything more than social constructs, so finding a biological cause for them is a bit far fetched.

    The second conclusion is that the basic motive of 'science' in forwarding such fake theories is questionable. It is apparently to 'other' same-sex behaviour from the mainstream society by concretising the artificial 'sexual-divide'.
  17. Shourya Registered Member

    This sounds excellent.

Share This Page