Darwin's Is Wrong About Sexuality

[BSFilter]

Why is this guy so hellbent on proving everyone is gay.

 

[Ophiolite]

The consensus view is that he is gay and is having a tough time coming to terms with it. By adopting the position he is promoting he can satisfy himself that his urges and desires are completely natural and shared by the majority of the male population.

Take a look at his views on women, if you have the time. They are scattered through his posts. He is like something out of a Victorian novel: women are whores; mentally subnormal; really less than human. Only men (real men, mark you) are proper people.

Its amusing online, but I feel sorry for the guy. I wouldn't wish his issues on my worst enemy.

 

[Buddha1]

The consensus view is that he is gay and is having a tough time coming to terms with it. By adopting the position he is promoting he can satisfy himself that his urges and desires are completely natural and shared by the majority of the male population.

Take a look at his views on women, if you have the time. They are scattered through his posts. He is like something out of a Victorian novel: women are whores; mentally subnormal; really less than human. Only men (real men, mark you) are proper people.

Its amusing online, but I feel sorry for the guy. I wouldn't wish his issues on my worst enemy.

Ophiolite your frivolous behaivour does not suit your social credentials or the 'high' words you sometimes use.

 

[draqon]

when will this thread die off? May there be a virus sent from heavens destroying this thread! have some pity upon our souls, o microsoft!

 

[Ophiolite]

Ophiolite your frivolous behaivour does not suit your social credentials or the 'high' words you sometimes use.

I assure you Bhudda1 that the post you characterise as frivolous is perhaps the most serious one I have made in this thread. You may not like what it signifies, but that is an honest opinion based upon the wealth of observational material you have provided us with. I am certain your views are wrong. I do not know why you hold them, but unresolved homosexual leanings seem the most plausible.

 

[Gordon]

There are enough evidences now to prove that Darwin's theory around animal sexuality was completely wrong. Particularly, the following claims of Darwin can be proved wrong and biased:

What Darwin has contended:

- The basic purpose of sex: According to Darwin Sex happens amongst animals only so they can reproduce. It has no other purpose. If there is pleasure in sex its only so that animals are driven to the opposite sex in order to procreate. If sexual desire leads to bonding it's only so that the male and female can rear their children.

This line of thinking was completley in tandem with the classical Christian stand of sex and its purpose. I'm going to show how Darwin was biased in its favour --- so much so that he chose to ignore the facts and mislead humankind.

This stand has been vehememntly and forcibly pursued by the scientific community till today.

- The theory of sexual selection: As per this theory, every conscious or unconscious action of the male is geared towards making him more competitive to be able to mate with the female, with the ultimate aim of procreation. The entire biological make-up, each and every cell of the male is designed to help in this mating process with the female (and vice versa). Even his social activities are designed to help him mate with the female. In short, if a male breathes it is in order to be able to mate with the female.

In the light of the above, male-female sex and sexual desires assumes enormous (even exclusive) and all encompassing biolgical importance and heterosexuality gets scientific validity.

When Darwin encountered any animal trait that led away from this male-female mating, he quickly sidelined this as an 'anomaly' or 'abnormality' that should not have been there. Therefore, the only logical conclusion for this was that such deviation must have an abnormal cause --- as in something going wrong. The scientific community has blindly followed this heterosexual agenda till date.

This is the same Christian bias of Darwin (though he may have opposed christianity he was heavily affected by its sexual mores!) mentioned earlier.

- The basic purpose of life: According to Darwin, the basic purpose of life is survival and the continuance of the species. Living beings just live so that they can live on, and when they die to be able to pass on their genes. That is all there is to it.

I'm going to prove how the heterosexual society, has cunningly glorified Darwin because he suits its agenda. This society is dangerously obsessed with 'quantity' of life, and has completeley discarded its 'quality'.

My contention is

- Purpose of sex: The basic purpose of sex is not procreation. The basic purpose is bonding --- that too particularly between the same sex. Reproduction is the secondary purpose of sex -- in that it just used sex to procreate because sex was the most effective avialable method.

- The sexual selection theory: It is absolutely crap, and the importance given to male-female sex or sexual desire is extremely out of context, and to prove that I have to prove the statement below:

- The purpose of life: What I'm going to prove is that the basic purpose of life is not survival but "meaningful survival". This means that the quality of life is just as important (or perhaps more important than) the quantity of life.

In this respect, while sex between male-female represents 'quantity' (which the heterosexual society and its science is obsessed with); sexual bonds between male and male (or female and female) and the mother-child bond represents 'quality' (The heterosexual society has completely destroyed the quality of life --- and that is the biggest problem with it).

Interesting thoughts about Darwin but your analysis of the Christian view of the relationship between man and woman is quite wrong.

Some christians over history may have considered sex only suitable for producing children but that is not scriptural at all.

Genesis Chapter 2 (right at the beginning of the Bible) explains what the relationship between men and women is about. Jesus in the New Testament

From the 'Message' traslation:

18GOD said, "It's not good for the Man to be alone; I'll make him a helper, a companion." 19So GOD formed from the dirt of the ground all the animals of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the Man to see what he would name them. Whatever the Man called each living creature, that was its name. 20The Man named the cattle, named the birds of the air, named the wild animals; but he didn't find a suitable companion.

21GOD put the Man into a deep sleep. As he slept he removed one of his ribs and replaced it with flesh. 22GOD then used the rib that he had taken from the Man to make Woman and presented her to the Man.



23The Man said,

"Finally! Bone of my bone,

flesh of my flesh!

Name her Woman

for she was made from Man."

24Therefore a man leaves his father and mother and embraces his wife. They become one flesh.


Note that the woman is to be a helper and a companion first and that 'becoming one flesh' is an act of unification signifying their relationship as two people joined as one partnership. This is in sharp contrast to the description of the animals which are simply made male and female 'from the dust of the ground'.

It is true that man and woman are told to be fruitful and multiply but it does not anywhere indicate that that is the only purpose of sex. I fear some latter day unscriptural dogma (particularly espoused by Roman Catholicism) has been wrongly assumed to be what the Christians (and Judaic) God is actually recorded as saying in the Bible.

Jesus reiterates this and expands on it in Matthew Chapter 19:

'One day the Pharisees were badgering him: "Is it legal for a man to divorce his wife for any reason?"

4He answered, "Haven't you read in your Bible that the Creator originally made man and woman for each other, male and female? 5And because of this, a man leaves father and mother and is firmly bonded to his wife, becoming one flesh--no longer two bodies but one. 6Because God created this organic union of the two sexes, no one should desecrate his art by cutting them apart."

7They shot back in rebuttal, "If that's so, why did Moses give instructions for divorce papers and divorce procedures?"

8Jesus said, "Moses provided for divorce as a concession to your hardheartedness, but it is not part of God's original plan. 9I'm holding you to the original plan, and holding you liable for adultery if you divorce your faithful wife and then marry someone else. I make an exception in cases where the spouse has committed adultery."

10Jesus' disciples objected, "If those are the terms of marriage, we're stuck. Why get married?"

11But Jesus said, "Not everyone is mature enough to live a married life. It requires a certain aptitude and grace. Marriage isn't for everyone. 12Some, from birth seemingly, never give marriage a thought. Others never get asked--or accepted. And some decide not to get married for kingdom reasons. But if you're capable of growing into the largeness of marriage, do it."'

Whether you agree with what is said here or not, note that it is all to do with relationships. The procreation of children and continuance of the human race is not even mentioned.

Kind regards to all,


Gordon.

 

[GeoffP]

Thus the other guy was powerless to say what was really on his mind. We all are. We cannot say anything that goes against 'heterosexuality'. If we say it, we will promptly be labelled 'gay' and isolated out of the mainstream.

That's so gay.

Geoff

 

[GeoffP]

I don't want to write this. I don't.

Don't - want - to - make - fun - of - other - people's - psychoses - must - stop - typing can't - stop - TYPING -

********************************************************************************************************

Let me take an example. Last year on a bus, there were these two young guys in front of my seats. I couldn't help overhearing them. In fact, I like to observe male social behaviour.

In fact, sometimes I observe it so closely that they say: "Dude! Quit droolin' on me, willya?"

One of them was obviously more masculine than the other. But the other seemed to have an upper hand. Because he kept talking about women incessantly. We passed from a co-educational school and this other guy says, "Hey let's change over our school to this one after high school. We'll have all these girls".

A big, strong upper hand.

He enjoyed saying this, and he knew it made him feel superior. The other guy just kept quite. It was clear that he didn't quite fancy the idea. But he can't say it --- what kind of a man would not want to study with girls?

Seriously - what kind? Can you write me? Glossy pics best.

The only time they show you males on wild life films on TV is when they are killing each other to mate with the female. And the commentators put in such big words --- like 'being in love', 'looking for love' etc., words that belie what we are seeing in the film.

I mean, why can't there be more honest, hairy monkey love on Animal Planet? And why can't some of that hairy monkey love be between two guy monkeys; you know, maybe one a little shy, and the other one offers to give him a backrub. Or maybe one's delivering a pizza.

Hey, you and me baby, we ain't nothing but mammals.
Why can't they show mo' monkey crack on the Discovery Channel?

********************************************************************************************************

Bhudda, I'm sure you're a nice person, though a little fixated, and I'm sorry I wrote that. I am. I'm sorry. I just haven't slagged anything out all week and I was about to crack.

Speaking of crack, I wonder what's on Discovery?

Geoff

 

[Maast]

Why do you let him get under your skin?

I'm a fairly new poster on this forum, but I've seen Buddha's type before on many other forums: post something outrageous just to get a rise out of the other posters and defend that view to the death to generate more argument its the argument he (or she) enjoys.

He is not looking for rational discussion to learn, his goal is argument to enjoy.

Personally I cant fathom it, my nerves couldnt take it, but different strokes for different folks. The best way to deal with Buddha's personality type when identified is to just ignore them and do not respond to what they say, thus not generating any argument, thus not giving him any enjoyment, and thus they eventually go away and leave the rest of us alone to pick each others brains on varied subjects.

 

[Ophiolite]

Such wisdom in one so young. (Well young in terms of this forum.)

You are, of course, correct Maast. But some of us continue to fall into the trap because: we also enjoy a good argument; we can't let nonsense go unchallenged; we hope to 'convert' the troll to sense and sanity; we want to ensure lurkers are not misled by the nonsense; did I mention about enjoying a good argument?

The thing is you don't need to let it get under your skin. Some can feign a fairly robust anger, or disillusionment, or disgust, while remaining quite detached.

And threads like this provide a fascinating insight into a micr-world of human relationships.

 

[Hercules Rockefeller]

The best way to deal with Buddha's personality type when identified is to just ignore them and do not respond to what they say....

That is good sensible advice, but I have never seen it work on any forum, ever. The reason is that it generally only takes one or two responses to generate another trolling session or keep existing trolling sessions ongoing. Even if most people refrain from replying to his bullshit, if there is a large pool of people using the forum then there will always be at least a few people who cannot resist. Sensible pleas such as yours will never work.

The only way to deal with established filthy trolls like Buddha1 and Happeh is permanent moderation. It works. Happeh left (touch wood!) after only temporary moderation! There is hope if the appropriate action is taken by the moderators, so we should be lobbying them for more stringent action against Buddha1. I have but to no avail. If more posters did so they might actually listen.

One other potential solution to the likes of buddha1 is this.

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

You know what! I think Buddha is JAYBEE, note how condescending he ALWAYS is towards women posters. Interesting:

And if Buddha is not Jaybee then I suspect that the motivation behind all this male/male stuff is becuase it's not so much that he likes men but more about the fact he detests women ........hmmmmmmmm

Why do you have such a low opinion of women Buddha, so low that you want to prove that the only valid relationships are bewteen men and men. I note you never make reference to women/women couplings.

 

[GeoffP]

I like women/women couplings.

Geoff

 

[Maast]

Young... heh...

Arguing with the willfully ignorant (i.e. dont confuse me with the facts), untreatably stupid, or blind fanatics is always an exercise in futility because they will never accept anything you say as valid no matter how obvious it is because with anything more than a statement like "the sky is blue" it will either go right past them without processing or they'll say something stupid like "well thats how YOU interpret it" and then you waste time trying to prove your bolstering arguments which they'll still won't get.

You cant win with idiots like that, the best you can do is state "well if thinking that makes you happy" and walk away before whatever stupidity disease they've got rubs off on you.

I know I've got better things to do with my time, like go floss or something...

I might sound a little harsh but unrecoverable idiots (and you can very quickly identify them) are best left alone until they wander in front of a truck or something.

If they start becoming a physical danger to more than just themselves then maybe we can put them on an island somewhere and airdrop a case of military MREs once a week, they can go ahead and argue amongst themselves all they want then and we don't have to listen to them.

 

[Buddha1]

Young... heh...

Arguing with the willfully ignorant (i.e. dont confuse me with the facts), untreatably stupid, or blind fanatics is always an exercise in futility because they will never accept anything you say as valid no matter how obvious it is because with anything more than a statement like "the sky is blue" it will either go right past them without processing or they'll say something stupid like "well thats how YOU interpret it" and then you waste time trying to prove your bolstering arguments which they'll still won't get.

You cant win with idiots like that, the best you can do is state "well if thinking that makes you happy" and walk away before whatever stupidity disease they've got rubs off on you.

I know I've got better things to do with my time, like go floss or something...

I might sound a little harsh but unrecoverable idiots (and you can very quickly identify them) are best left alone until they wander in front of a truck or something.

If they start becoming a physical danger to more than just themselves then maybe we can put them on an island somewhere and airdrop a case of military MREs once a week, they can go ahead and argue amongst themselves all they want then and we don't have to listen to them.

You realise, this equally applies to you and your ilk.

 

[Buddha1]

when will this thread die off? May there be a virus sent from heavens destroying this thread! have some pity upon our souls, o microsoft!

An example of the kind of logical arguments endlessly provided by Ophiolite, Geoff, Maast, spuriousmonkey and the like that I am endlessly supposed to ignore.

How can I be so thick head as to go on with my assertions even in spite of such logical arguments presented against my thesis, from time to time.

 

[Buddha1]

Such wisdom in one so young. (Well young in terms of this forum.)

Such wisdom indeed. Exactly the kind of fool that you yourself are!

You are, of course, correct Maast. But some of us continue to fall into the trap because: we also enjoy a good argument; we can't let nonsense go unchallenged; we hope to 'convert' the troll to sense and sanity; we want to ensure lurkers are not misled by the nonsense; did I mention about enjoying a good argument?

That explains everything.

So you oppose me, even when you have no evidences or support for what you say, just so that young people do not start believing me .....and ..... start to indulge in sexual bonds with other men.

So you agree that it is possible to recruit straight men into relationships with men if they were to see that as acceptable.

I know you guys know that, but accepting that will weaken your own case.

However, one from your ilk, Spuriousmonkey has already accepted it.


Thread closed by request.