Buddha1 is Wrong about Sexuality.

[Buddha1]

buddha i lived on a farm when i was growing up
and i never seen homosexuality in animals

the bantering as you call it is to get dominance for the female

If you don't seek, you will not find.

When we are closed to something psychologically, we fail to notice it.

When the scientists so often fail to notice how will you? So many times have they confused two males or two females having sex with inter-sex (to use the words of cross), i.e. male-female sex.

And yes, that is just a poor attempt at dismissing same-sex phenomenon, even though it has been given credence to by the powerful Darwinists. But might cannot be always right. and the mighty too will become weak if his strength is based on lies.

So the Darwinians can no longer get away with their stupid, far fetched explanations.

Male-male or male-female sex is not for bantering or anything. But male-female sex is only for procreation. It does not have much bonding value for males. At least it is clear from the evidences from the wild.

 

[Giambattista]

He and his ideas (an obsession, actually) are completely groundless and the biggest majority of us simply ignore him. His stuff isn't even worth reading as entertainment.

You could hardly be more wrong. If ANYTHING, they have entertainment value.

 

[Giambattista]

Well, I did tell you that a relationship which is made possible by condoms is an unnatural one, didn't I?

Funny!

 

[Lil Light Foot]

Just for future reference Bhudda, I'm a SHE, but that does of course put me in the "vested interest group".

 

[Buddha1]

Oh sorry! and sorry for swearing.....I thought you were a man!

But yes, that does put you in the vested interest group.

 

[Buddha1]

and straight has nothing to do with male or female

I'm talking about straighthodd in males. Straight hood in females just does not have the same value or repercussions for females.