Conquer Club

Guiscard wrote:

this whole argument has been based on opinion, experience, and no real facts other than those that are obvious, and no evidence like links to scientific studies and articles, so we all basically had to believe eachother.

That was why I was offering you links.

And just to say again, your idea of what is sexually normal in society is very much based in the last 100 years or so. Before that, and in other cultures throughout the world, it is very very different to what you seem to view as the 'norm'. Your opinions are very specific to a Christian, western post-Industrial society.

ya and I declined the links thank you

and are you qualified to analyze my opinions?

oh and unless someone can get this thread back on topic, I don't think there's anything else...
[size=0]I completely forgot how the hell we got to the amount of sex in a culture from a debate on whether or not gays can suddenly become straight...[/size]

Okay staticice you're just making bad assumption. I think that your idea of sex is that we do it because we are reminded of it by advertising. Not true. We actually used to have sex a lot more, its just that it was harder to have children that lived in the past, so we did it often.

How did we get to the history of fucking? Back to where we were, gays are gay, srtaights are straight. No switching.

unriggable wrote:Okay staticice you're just making bad assumption. I think that your idea of sex is that we do it because we are reminded of it by advertising. Not true. We actually used to have sex a lot more, its just that it was harder to have children that lived in the past, so we did it often.

How did we get to the history of fucking? Back to where we were, gays are gay, srtaights are straight. No switching.

ahh...I believe we got into the history of sex to prove a small detail in the argument of switching sides. I don't even think guiscard or flashleg (1 of the 2) were here back then... look I'm not gonna go in circles because our latest argument hasn't brought us any closer to the main argument...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oedipus_complex

Another theory and speculation this time it's from someone who was in the 1920s

I read it and thought it was minorly interesting you should read it now.

max is gr8 wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oedipus_complex

Another theory and speculation this time it's from someone who was in the 1920s

I read it and thought it was minorly interesting you should read it now.

Been pretty widely debunked in the field of psychology now to be honest (although there is still a lot of merit in it).

Its a pretty famous bit of 'what? Freud's a freak!' type stuff really.

static_ice, you have been saying that men and women genitals fit together, yet their sex drives do not. Why is it that "God" made them so fucking incompatibal. Yet men have a perfectly good hole that they can stick something in to make them… arrive. Some people say that gay men have a lot of sex because they are gay, but that is so very wrong. It's actually because they are men with a sexual desire that cannot be stopped. Yet most women would rather eat chocolate. So tell me, are men and women really all that sexually compatibal?

sorry I haven't posted here in a while hecter knows what I'm talking about

hecter wrote:static_ice, you have been saying that men and women genitals fit together, yet their sex drives do not. Why is it that "God" made them so fucking incompatibal. Yet men have a perfectly good hole that they can stick something in to make them… arrive. Some people say that gay men have a lot of sex because they are gay, but that is so very wrong. It's actually because they are men with a sexual desire that cannot be stopped. Yet most women would rather eat chocolate. So tell me, are men and women really all that sexually compatibal?

with my lack of experience, I reeeeally don't see how the advantages of sticking your best friend up something where sh*t pops out of everyday beat the obvious disadvantages...

...if we were to go your way (or someone else who previously disagreed), animals don't f*ck eachother in the asses...and don't tell me to do some research first, I think I know this...

oh and something else that goes against this "gay gene" theory you guys have. If there is a gay gene, then it would have to have been remotely present at the beginning of life, or near there. You guys say that it was, but it was and still is recessive. Well have there been gays in the history of humankind? I mean the far history, think B.C. time period. But with all recessive genes, once in a while a carrier mates with another carrier and a baby is born with both recessive genes, causing that gene to be a trait. Has this ever happened? Why have gays come out only recently in human (and animal) history? I cannot answer that question, but I think it goes against your gene theory.

ALSO, if there is a gay gene, even if it isn't recessive, the theory of evolution disproves it. The survival of the fittest, the survival of the species most fit to survive and reproduce. If there was a gay gene, and gay's can't have natural babies, then how would they reproduce and pass on their gene?

static_ice wrote:ALSO, if there is a gay gene, even if it isn't recessive, the theory of evolution disproves it. The survival of the fittest, the survival of the species most fit to survive and reproduce. If there was a gay gene, and gay's can't have natural babies, then how would they reproduce and pass on their gene?

Makes sense to me. Can't argue with that. Makes you wonder how genetic diseases like sickle cell disease and cystic fibrosis manage to survive, though.

static_ice wrote:
...if we were to go your way (or someone else who previously disagreed), animals don't f*ck eachother in the asses...and don't tell me to do some research first, I think I know this...

They do. There are plenty of examples of homosexuality in the animal kingdom (I believe Jesse mentioned a few earlier).

static_ice wrote:
oh and something else that goes against this "gay gene" theory you guys have. If there is a gay gene, then it would have to have been remotely present at the beginning of life, or near there. You guys say that it was, but it was and still is recessive. Well have there been gays in the history of humankind? I mean the far history, think B.C. time period. But with all recessive genes, once in a while a carrier mates with another carrier and a baby is born with both recessive genes, causing that gene to be a trait. Has this ever happened? Why have gays come out only recently in human (and animal) history? I cannot answer that question, but I think it goes against your gene theory.

There have been homosexuals throughout history. Ancient greeks were always at it... Well documented in antiquity...

Now I've never said I think homosexuality is a gene, or genetic in any sense. I think your sexuality is formed by your upringing. Its psychological to an extent. It is a part of your personality formed when you are very young, and you may well be predisposed to one side or the other but it can change either way.

I'm sorry, but if you keep coming out with what you think the world should be like rather than actually learning what it is
like then yes, we're gonna tell you to go dp some research. You might not like the thought of animals bumming but it happens I'm afraid
[/b]

Stopper wrote:

static_ice wrote:ALSO, if there is a gay gene, even if it isn't recessive, the theory of evolution disproves it. The survival of the fittest, the survival of the species most fit to survive and reproduce. If there was a gay gene, and gay's can't have natural babies, then how would they reproduce and pass on their gene?

Makes sense to me. Can't argue with that. Makes you wonder how genetic diseases like sickle cell disease and cystic fibrosis manage to survive, though.

thank you!
but also, if there is a gay gene, wouldn't it give a "mental" or maybe "sexual" trait? Those genetic diseases only give "physical" traits...maybe that has something to do with it...

static_ice wrote:thank you!
but also, if there is a gay gene, wouldn't it give a "mental" or maybe "sexual" trait? Those genetic diseases only give "physical" traits...maybe that has something to do with it...

Not true at all. In the same way that AIDS is transmitted from parent to child via recessive gene, 'the gay gene' does not necessarily have to impact the physical properties of a human.

static_ice wrote:

Stopper wrote:

static_ice wrote:ALSO, if there is a gay gene, even if it isn't recessive, the theory of evolution disproves it. The survival of the fittest, the survival of the species most fit to survive and reproduce. If there was a gay gene, and gay's can't have natural babies, then how would they reproduce and pass on their gene?

Makes sense to me. Can't argue with that. Makes you wonder how genetic diseases like sickle cell disease and cystic fibrosis manage to survive, though.

thank you!
but also, if there is a gay gene, wouldn't it give a "mental" or maybe "sexual" trait? Those genetic diseases only give "physical" traits...maybe that has something to do with it...

Sorry, I were being sarky. I thought my last sentence would sort of reinforce that, but the point is, all kinds of genes that you'd think wouldn't survive, in fact do, and you can't immediately dismiss the possibility of a "gay gene" just because homosexuals of the same sex can't reproduce with each other.

Can't go further than that, mind, you'd have to ask someone who was actually qualified in this stuff.