Jump to content

Gay Marriages


cheesemonster2005

Should Gay Marriage (IoM) Be Allowed?  

76 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 217
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Glad to be Back - Well, sex being a pleasureable experience has evolutionary benefits. If something is pleasurable a creature is going to want to do it again, thereby increasing the chances of reproduction (and of having more babies and of having some of them live long enough to reproduce).

 

I think this is more important in intelligent creatures (I think dolphins also have sex for pleasure) because they will make rational choices about whether or not to have sex. As an extreme example, how many human males would agree to sex if the outcome for them was the same as for a male black widow spider?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Declan, but I think we are moving into a deeper debate. yes, sex is pleasurable and, if you take the evolutionary view, it is the only way to propagate and enhance the species. But what came first, the higher intelligence, or the desire for pleasurable sex? I suspect the former.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the UK, my understanding is Section 28 was the "promotion" of homosexuality in schools. It shouldn't be promoted in schools.

 

 

I think the nub of Clause 28 of the Local Government Act is that it bans promoting homosexuality as a "normal" behaviour or mode of living. This is slightly different than promoting homosexuality per se ..by which one might understand the active encouragement of homosexual lifestyles.

Hope this helps

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Declan, but I think we are moving into a deeper debate.  yes, sex is pleasurable and, if you take the evolutionary view, it is the only way to propagate and enhance the species.  But what came first, the higher intelligence, or the desire for pleasurable sex?  I suspect the former.

 

You have a point there. Maybe the more intelligent monkeys had the most pleasurable sex. And therefore were more likely to be sought out as sexual partners. Therefore, an increasing number of intelligent babies were born who grew up to have more pleasureable sex.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the difference with us "humans" as opposed to the "animals" is that we have "evolved" to an extent where we can have the "choice" of whether to reproduce or not - so by using contraception we have the choice of sex being for "recreational" or "reproductive" purposes.

 

The above IMHO separates us from the rest of the "animal kingdon".

 

Any form of "gay sex" is IMHO then about seeking "pleasure" - over the "natural" order of the universe.

 

But then in the same view - so is having sex "heterosexually" - if you're not "making babies".

 

Where does that leave us as a rce compared to the "animals"???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would really have a look at "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins - found it a very interesting read.

 

- His ideas are kind of along the idea that any animal/human/organism exists just to propogate it's own genes, not necessesarily it's own species - I found it a very interesting read - it totally "xxxxs on" many of the "Darwinian" ideas of evolution and offers IMHO a very plausible alternative.

 

- Just something I found interesting that really gave me food for thought no this whole "debate".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps "gayness" has arisen because, as a highly developed species, we have a choice?  Someone will probably correct me, but are we not the only species (apart from Chimpanzees, I think, who also indulge in murderous activities) that indulge in recreational sex?

 

Well you did ask to be corrected. Animals "enjoying it" and having recreational sex is about as common a thing as you can get. Elephants involved in bestiality with Rhinos, every form of monkey whacking the salami ... its the advantage of the opposable thumb, gay dolphins and sperm whales just getting on down ... the way they swim just makes it natural to get really locked in together!! As has been mentioned before Jack Russels will have sex with almost anything ... sofas, your leg ... I've heard some horrible stories about tortoises, but do we really need those sorts of details. Yep Chimpanzees really get down and do it ... especially the ladies when the pigmy Chimp is concerned ... toe jobs etc etc etc. This goes right back to Rogs original posts ... clearly lots of animals have Freudian complexes if you really think those ideas have any meaning at all!

 

Check out "Dr Tatiana's Sex Advice To All Creation" by Olivia Judson. Beyond the jokey style its an attempt to explain on sexual behaviour at an evolutionary level. An even better book is The Red Queen by Matt Ridley; the first half explains the evolution of sexual reproduction and the second half discusses the consequences of this on human behaviour. Both are scientifically based attempts to explain and educate.

 

Spread the knowledge!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would really have a look at "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins - found it a very interesting read.

 

- His ideas are kind of along the idea that any animal/human/organism exists just to propogate it's own genes, not necessesarily it's own species -  I found it a very interesting read - it totally "xxxxs on" many of  the "Darwinian" ideas of evolution  and offers IMHO a very plausible alternative.

 

- Just something I found interesting that really gave me food for thought no this whole "debate".

 

I did enjoy that book. Not sure that it pisses on Darwinian ideas, rather that it builds on the original theory with the 100 years or so of subsequent refinments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did enjoy that book. Not sure that it pisses on Darwinian ideas, rather that it builds on the original theory with the 100 years or so of subsequent refinments.

 

Maybe I've read into it a different way than you - he does "expand" on many of Darwins ideas, but at the same time - he does (IMHO) - totaly wreck the idea of the often quoted "but it's good for the survival of the species" over and above his ideas of "it's good for the survival of the genes".

 

I do find it a fundamental and very "different" approach to much of the "Darwanian" approach.

 

Of course might not be "True" TM - but as you say - still very interesting!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...