LGBTQ

[edwardmurphy]

ED, you and it seems the author of the report, are confusing Bisexuality ( which the happens in nature and was practiced by the Spartans as a way to Forster mentor-ship and warrior camaraderie) with homosexuality which is EXCLUSIVE sexual relations between people of the same gender and CAN NOT lead to procreation via natural means.

Nothing happens in a vacuum and you can't just ignore social, religious, and economic factors. If you're a gay English farmer in the 1200s you're hardly going to meet a nice guy, settle down, and open a hair salon.* You're going to hide your sexuality so as not to be executed for it, and you're going to get married and have a passel of kids because you need the manpower to keep the farm going. That same individual would likely have behaved very differently if he'd had the freedom to be himself without the guaranteed loss of his freedom, property, life, and eternal soul.

Spartan warriors were expected to do their part to make more Spartans. A gay Spartan wouldn't have had any interest in a physical relationship with a woman, but marriage and procreation were matters of state security. He wouldn't have been into it, but he'd have done what needed doing with dutiful stoicism. We're talking about Spartans here. You could expect Spartans to do the expected. Their entire society was basically a dam holding back a flood of angry Helots, and they all knew what would happen if it started to crack.



* Yes, I know that I'm stereotyping, but the fact remains.

[PaulSacramento]

Again, I think you may be confusing Bisexuality with Homosexuality.
There is no reason to ASSUME that societies in which there was sexual activity between everyone ( men with men and men with women, women with women and women with men) were homosexuals and NOT bisexuals since the historical evidence tends to lead on to believe that the societies were predominately bisexual.

There is no evidence for a 100% homosexual society surviving without actually going against their "nature".

[edwardmurphy]

I more or less agree with you here. My understanding of sexuality in general is that it's more of a spectrum than a binary set. Bisexuality was the norm in many cultures and most of human history, but a spectrum has edges. There have clearly always been a small percentage of people who strongly identified as homosexual, even in the face of social stigma and brutal persecution.

I'm also wondering about the role of reproduction. It seems clear that there is at least a genetic component to homosexuality, but there's also a biological imperative to reproduce. I've never heard anything about how those two things interact, but I wonder. It sure seems like there's an internal conflict there. That's not something that would really mean much to humans - we've pretty much moved past that point in our development as a species - but I could see it being a factor in the perpetuation of those genes in our pre-human ancestors.

Regarding the survival of a 100% homosexual society, has there ever even been such a thing? It seems unlikely. To my knowledge homosexuals have never made up more than a small percentage of any society, which makes sense being that they're only a small percentage of the human population.

[PaulSacramento]

One can argue, from a scientific and biological ( evolutionary) perspective that, bisexuality is a evolutionary advantage.

[PaulSacramento]

An example is how women and men can appreciate the same sex, how they can see the beauty and attractiveness in their own gender.
The running joke of a man secure in his sexuality can see the sex appeal of another man isn't really a joke but a very valid point.
While I have no sexual desire towards any man, I can appreciate a good looking male and admire the discipline to get a well muscled and athletic body and, of course, both men and women tend to have sex gender friends more than opposite ( though when they find the right mate, the bond of friendship is far higher then with even the closest same gender friend).

[RickD]

An example is how women and men can appreciate the same sex, how they can see the beauty and attractiveness in their own gender.
The running joke of a man secure in his sexuality can see the sex appeal of another man isn't really a joke but a very valid point.
While I have no sexual desire towards any man, I can appreciate a good looking male and admire the discipline to get a well muscled and athletic body and, of course, both men and women tend to have sex gender friends more than opposite ( though when they find the right mate, the bond of friendship is far higher then with even the closest same gender friend).

I don't know what they call that in Canada, but in the US, we call that being gay.

[Hortator]

I actually wish I understood what counts as looking good for a man, so I could emulate it. :sigh:

[RickD]

One can argue, from a scientific and biological ( evolutionary) perspective that, bisexuality is a evolutionary advantage.

Advantage? How so?

[PaulSacramento]

One can argue, from a scientific and biological ( evolutionary) perspective that, bisexuality is a evolutionary advantage.

Advantage? How so?

From the evolutionary viewpoint, bisexuality improves one chances of survival, two "mates" instead of one for example, with one mate being the protector. ex:
A bisexual male will have a women to procreate with and a male lover to protect him.
A bisexual female will have a woman to socialize and, depending on the female, to protect her and a male to protect and procreate with.
Now, in the real world we know it doesn't work like that and there are other issues to deal with ( there is a reason that it didn't work in Sparta for example), but it can be argued that it CAN be advantageous.

[edwardmurphy]

Who said it didn't work in Sparta?

[abelcainsbrother]

I more or less agree with you here. My understanding of sexuality in general is that it's more of a spectrum than a binary set. Bisexuality was the norm in many cultures and most of human history, but a spectrum has edges. There have clearly always been a small percentage of people who strongly identified as homosexual, even in the face of social stigma and brutal persecution.

I'm also wondering about the role of reproduction. It seems clear that there is at least a genetic component to homosexuality, but there's also a biological imperative to reproduce. I've never heard anything about how those two things interact, but I wonder. It sure seems like there's an internal conflict there. That's not something that would really mean much to humans - we've pretty much moved past that point in our development as a species - but I could see it being a factor in the perpetuation of those genes in our pre-human ancestors.

Regarding the survival of a 100% homosexual society, has there ever even been such a thing? It seems unlikely. To my knowledge homosexuals have never made up more than a small percentage of any society, which makes sense being that they're only a small percentage of the human population.

Another thing liberals overlook is that no historical empire ever sanctioned same-sex marriages.Not Babylon,Greece,not Rome,etc eventhough there have always been bisexuality,homosexuals,etc.It was never allowed by any government or honored by any government.Marriage had always been honored by governments as between a man and a woman.This was the first time in history when it was forced onto the US against its will by the Obama adminstration.It is a first but was to be expected because Jesus said in the last days it would be as in the days of Lot when he returned and so it is just one of many fulfilled bible prophecies that have been fulfilled.It is evidence that we are living in the last days.Jesus even said they will be given in marriage and that people will be going on living their life out as usual so that it will be unexpected when he returns.So it was to be expected.

[edwardmurphy]

I don't know if the thing about historical empires is true or not. Even if it is, I don't see what difference that makes.

Also, Obama didn't force gay marriage on anyone, and 60% of Americans approved of marriage equality at the time of the Obergefell ruling. Your reality differs from actual reality.

No comment on the rest of your rant.

[abelcainsbrother]

I don't know if the thing about historical empires is true or not. Even if it is, I don't see what difference that makes.

Also, Obama didn't force gay marriage on anyone, and 60% of Americans approved of marriage equality at the time of the Obergefell ruling. Your reality differs from actual reality.

No comment on the rest of your rant.

Thank them liberal judges that legislated from the bench and forced it onto America against its will.If you were right Obama would have ran on allowing same-sex marriages and would have had legislation passed through Congress for him to sign into law,but it did not happen this way. Instead,he ran claiming he believed marriage was between a man and a woman ,lying and tricking people.Same-sex marriages was voted against in every state that put it to a vote even the most liberal of states too.

[PaulSacramento]

Who said it didn't work in Sparta?

History.

[PaulSacramento]

IF 60% of Americans approve of Gay marriage it is because 60% of Americans want gays to go through the pleasure of divorce !