95% of men have a sexual need for other men

I refute that claim that there is a discussion in this thread. There are people who wanted to discuss the matter at hand and then there is you who sees this forum as a means of publication of your own agenda.

Your position has been refuted several times over on the very first pages of this thread and still you go on. Clearly your position that there is a dicussion at hand here is a false one.

I present you a case of 100% heterosexuality. The fruitfly. That is until you mutate a certain gene. And then the fruitfly turns into a 100% homosexual.

http://www.skeptictank.org/gaygene.htm

Clearly you couldn't have missed this evidence that suggest that heterosexuality is normal and homosexuality is an abomination of nature?

Now what about humans?

Cearly you cannot deny that you have urges that you cannot explain away. You try to explain them away by telling yourself that they are normal. In fact, it seems you are merely part of human diversity in which a small subset of the population is affected by genetic gayness.

It's not your fault of course, but is it really fruitful for the fruitfly population to have a 95% gay community? No, they would perish. Is it really fruitful for 95% of the human population to be gay? No, the population would perish.

It seems like you dismiss all the evidence that kills your personal theory and clamp on to straws that make your world seem sensible.

So far you have:
1. not been able to present any factual evidence that 95% of the men have a sexual need for other men.
2. not been able to have a discussion on the matter.

hence this is a fruitless thread.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Is that your argument? You call a survey deceptive? If someone says he is not attracted to men he is somehow attracted to men in a sexual way?

Wishful thinking.

No buddha1. You know all your claims have been refuted but still you push on with your agenda. Why do you need the male world to be gay? Why haven't you discussed homosexuality amongst women?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

In fact Gay men have become so powerful through the mechanism of sexual orientation that they refuse to let go of masculine gendered men who openly prefer men to form their own social space.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What's that? Are you talking to yourself?

 

More evidence on the prevalence of heterosexuality in nature.

0% of plant species are homosexual. There are some a-sexual ones and 'auto'-sexual ones (self fertilization) and lots of bisexuals, but no homosexual plants.

I dare Buddha1 to disprove this fact.

 

More evidence of the prevalence of heterosexuality in nature.

0% of male patella vulgata shows any sign of sexual desire for other male patella vulgata.

 

You are a troll and you have a clear cut agenda to stop 'young people from being influenced by what I'm saying'. As you have yourself accepted.

There is no reason why I or any other sensible person should listen to your crap.

Yes by people like you repeating yourself by saying I don't agree, I don't agree, I don't agree a thousand times over.......and forwarding the dubious poll which has been debunked quite clealy with evidences ----- over and over again.

Another reason why you shouldn't be taken seriously.

While this could be interesting to read.......I don't see how this is relevant to our discussion here. I have clearly been talking only about mammals.

Humans are clearly not fruitflies or part of any insect species. So it doesn't really matter if a species of fruitfly display 100% heterosexual behaviour.

Bruce Bagemihl clearly points out that true heteroseuxality (i.e male-female bond beyond reproduction) exists only in about 5% members of any mammalian species.

We have talked about scientific studies to find the 'cause' of homosexuality quite in detail. Although you have been busy trolling there too.

All of these scientifc studies have been shown to be misleading. It is clear that the researchers were motivated and with an agenda and did not follow the scientific procedure thoroughly.

All the gene theories have been refuted and in fact proven to be wrong in subsequent studies by other scientists. But dubious scientists have gone on to find new 'causes' (e.g. the brain ones) by their dubious sampling methods (a fact that has been amply proved), and interpreting their results in misleading ways even when no concrete results came out. The media however splashed those results because they need to portray that 'gays' are different than 'straights'. This is part of their heterosexualisation drive.

Clearly, the vested interest group is desparate to try to use science to prove that 'gays' are different from 'straights' on the basis of their sexuality. And even when they are not successful, they pretend that they are.

Whatever difference they do see is owing to the gender of the gay population chosen and not because of their so called sexual oreintation.

Clearly you have a mischievous motive in bringing up the same topic again and again to complicate the matters and thus sabotage the discussion. Reason that you should not be taken seriously.

Like I said, clearly you are an insincere discussor and a certified troll. Your only motive to come to my thread is to sabotage it because you want to prevent young people from getting influenced. As you yourself claimed.

In fact your worry that young people can be influenced, and that just because of my saying so they will start having relations with other men, shows that 95% of men indeed have a sexual need for other men.

Yes I have. Over and over again. You are a troll and have a clear agenda in denying them. Your integrity is dubious.

Surprisingly inspite of your and your ilks several attempts to sabotage, I have been able to carry on a discussion.

 

Again you claim I sabotage your discussion. That can only be because you don't want any disenting voices in your blog that will blow the bubble of your conspiracy theory.

All facts show that you are wrong and once again your only argument is that I am a troll.

I have presented facts and you have ignored them.

 

Now I am confused. I thought you said it was now a fruitfly thread.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Troll! Why don't you stick to the issue!

 

You're mistaken.

I only want discussion with people who are willing to bring in evidences for their statements.

You are a troll. I don't have to say this. It is obvious.

Just by getting anything on any matter and then claiming you have proved it.......you are trying to divert my attention from the topic......and to take up unneccessary thread space.

 

Once again your only course of action is accusing me of being a troll, while I have presented objective evidence. Evidence that buddha1 cannot refute and hence has to lower himself to the common ad hominem attack of calling someone else a troll.

Are you claiming that you have encountered a homosexual patella vulgata?

I present more evidence. Science has never reported the existence of homosexual Dermaptera.

 

You are indeed a troll.

But you are also proving your own foolishness! And how rare heterosexuality is in nature.

That you should bring into discussion such obscure creatures as your patella vulgata (whatever it means) shows clearly that the existence of heterosexuality is extremely rare.

However, we are only talking about mammals here and I made it clear. Of course it is the same with most other species, but I'm concentrating on mammals.

However, I don't believe that the species you mentioned are 100% heterosexual but I will not contend that. I don't care.

Most probably they don't have sexual relations beyond procreation with anyone. Perhaps they are lonesome creatures. But again who cares. It doesn't prove or disprove what I've already proved.

But the most ridiculous of things to do as a troller is to bring in plants. Plants are not sexual at all. They reproduce asexually. To bring in plants is again to attempt to sabotage the discussion.

 

Buddha1 once again shows that he has no knowledge in the biological area whatsoever. He can only say I am a troll. And then he dismisses the lack of homosexuality in plants by saying plants are not sexual at all. They reproduce asexually. That is the extent of his knowledge and this questions all his knowledge.

Sexually reproduction in plants is covered in all schools in the western world as a basic topic.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebi...dinheritance/1reproductionandgenderrev4.shtml
Above is an example.

 

Most plants reproduce sexually.

 

Drat. You beat me.

 

Did you see the little animation in the link I gave. It made me laugh for some reason. You never see something similar if they are talking about human reproduction on an educational site

 

From the opening post:

Nothing has been "proven".

Your data suggests only that if we see homosexuality in other mammals we might see it wild humans as well.

 

This topic appears to have wound down. Can anyone suggest a reason why it should remain open?

 

buddha will never stop crying if the evil mods stifled his freedom of speech