...

[Guest]

...

[Guest]

...

[_Fence Sitter]

Ill add edit this particular phrase to the OP ... would that be satisfactory?

Its your thread.

I doubt anyone cares if you change the title on a two page thread if you explain why (as you have already done.) Maybe put another note in the body of the OP to say the same thing.

[_just me]

We're to fabulous to shut up.

Deal with it.

Yeah, we ain't gonna shut up. Gay boys rock! And lulu's avatar is so hot. Yum! Yum, yum lulu-boy.

I love it when gay boys kiss. It's so hot.

Paul O

Truth! *drools*

[_zeezrom]

What if the human body was designed to reproduce using many other human bodies of the opposite sex?

But it wasn't

Hmmm. I suppose I will have to research this a little. I thought this was found to be the case. Stand by...

[Guest]

...

[_zeezrom]

that's just my thoughts of speculation , but I have no Idea if there is scientific proof to even suggest this.

I have read stuff like this:

One of the most socially contentious ideas about the impact of evolution on our sexual behaviour is the idea that polygyny — where some males dominate reproduction by fathering children with several women — has been the norm throughout human history and prehistory.

Last year, US researchers reported genetic evidence supporting this idea. They gathered DNA from people in the Central African Republic, Senegal, Namibia, France, China and Papua New Guinea, and compared regions that don't include known genes in the X chromosome, and some of the other 22 chromosomes.

If an equal number of males and females had been reproducing effectively through human evolution, then genetic variation in the two kinds of chromosomes should be roughly equal, the researchers explained. Instead, they found that there was much more variation on the X chromosomes, suggesting polygyny was the likely cause.

In other words, women have been more successful on average in passing their genes on to the next generation.

"This is because a few males have fathered children with multiple females, which occurs at the expense of other less successful males", says lead researcher Dr Michael Hammer, from the University of Arizona.

There are plausible evolutionary reasons to explain why this pattern might offer benefits in terms of evolutionary 'fitness', explains David Barasch.

"In broad strokes, males derive fitness benefits from having multiple partners because doing so increases the chances that they will father additional children as a result."

For females, the situation is more complex, especially since they are unlikely to produce additional children as a consequence of having more than one partner.

"The payoffs to women of multiple sexual partners largely involve some combination of accruing better genes to combine with their own — better than those on offer from their designated partner — obtaining additional resources, and/or prospecting for a better relationship," he says.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/ ... 489757.htm

[_keithb]

Oy ~ Veh ... someone was drinking to much when they posted this subject , but also brought a thread subject from another site. Hmmm what the heck was I thinking ?

Sorry for the insensitive post title , but I guess the point was , why the heck should I have to wonder about being insensitive. And the reason is angry liberals that want to indoctrinate.
So the title should have read "Can Angry Liberals just shut the hell up about the Gay Marriage issue"

I also was touching on 2 different subjects in my view ... Gay marriage and social acceptance of being gay ... although they are rather entwined ... and to the detriment of each other in my opinion .

The concessions granted by the government to married couples should probably be redefined , in that benefits granted should come from a demonstration of an emotional contract between lovers being upheld for a period of time. Increments of 5 years for increased benefits. The problem is I know , that benefits are most needed in the early years of a relationship. And by the way , the goverment grants benefits with reguard to children irrespective of marital status , so no need to mix the definition with child rearing.

But that brings up my other point on social acceptance of gays being equal. And by mere design , Be it god or evolution , we were designed for sexual relationships to be heterosexual. So there is always going to be the feeling of being at odds with that if you choose a homosexual relationship. Its a feeling that will never evolve out of us just by the mere impossibility of reproducing that way.
And what I feel is the Left,liberal pushed by hollywood and angry people trying to set a social stigma that is suppose to be equivalent to humanity evolving .......... Is wrong , and they should just shut up. Because switching the subject of indoctrination is not humanity evolving , just the pendalum swinging. Which is probably all were capable of ... and now I should just shut the hell up.

CFR

Maybe that's why the gods made the prostate gland sensitive to sexual stimulation ... because the gods approve of homosexual sex. Ever thought of that?

Also, I would say that I have met many, many women who are bisexual. Again, if the gods didn't want women to enjoy sex with other women, why make the clitoris sensitive to oral stimulation?

[Guest]

...

[_Darth J]

My problem with the thread title is that it's not fair to single out gay people. I think everyone should just shut up.