What is the purpose of 'homosexuality' ?

The animals have been observed to engage in same-sex activities and humans too engage in such activities. Here the activities refer to "sexual" encounters.
This thread must address the phenomena with respect to Buddha1 ( ex-member) observation.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

According to Buddha1, the primary 'attraction' of animals is for same-sex animals and the secondary is for evolutionary purpose ~ procreation.
The 'attraction's purpose is to be defined in this thread.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Some males are born with female auras, plus some females are born with male auras.

Everything is energy, and sometimes people are born with too much, and sometimes born with too little.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes it is very easy to define metaphysically but this is science section so scientific answers with respect to the earth apply here.
Have you gone through Buddha1's threads : http://www.sciforums.com/threads/heterosexuality-is-unnatural.50083/

 

Important thing is to consider genders. The species is same but it has two groups : one with womb and the other which ejaculate sperms. I did not use male and female as they have some traditional meanings.

 

Must homosexuality have a purpose?

A purpose in terms of what? Evolution? An individual's motivation for engaging in it?

 

I do not think you can answer a question of homosexuality without being metaphysical. I believe its a spiritual part of a human, ie there sexuality, and there aura plays a part in this.

Like i said, everyone is born with a certain amount of energy. If your male and born with too much you have a female aura, and this will mean you do not connect with females. Thus also if your female and not born with enough energy normally for a female you have a shortened aura, and this in turn leads you to not connect with males, but females. ie which makes you feel comfortable.

Thats my view anyway. Everything is energy, and we are all born with a unique amount of energy in our auras.

If your male born with too much, you will be too sensitive, and too feminine to connect with females. I am not saying all females, as i believe even if you a homo male, there could be some females that could connect with you. This is where males whom are homo pretend. This is why males can pretend with some females even if they are gay.

 

Can you convince other with this ?
Moreover I am not a person who is homo/hetro-sexual. Have you read Buddha1 views in the links ?

 

In term of Evolution.

 

No i have not, as i only come here occasionally.

 

You must read them.

 

I have started this thread to inquire the necesity of same-sex relationships( NOT homosexuality as it is one sided) in nature as well in human.
Buddha1 has claimed that the 'Masculine' men in traditional societies form lasting, deep bonds with other men such that relationships with women are limited only to raising children.
I come from the same traditional society, and yes majority men who consider themselves 'masculine' hesitate to form deep bonds with women.
According to him 'real males' abilities to form bonds with women are less to almost non-existent in animal kingdom. With his further research he concludes that men and women are unfit to live with each other due to lack of deep bonding as it is observed in animals.

 

^^
Interesting, but we would need a big experiment with animals to find out if that was true.

 

Important things to inquire is 'Masculinity' as proposed by him(Buddha1).Since I and him are from same country I share some of his insights.
Masculinity is defined as set of behaviors, roles associated with men and boys. The counterpart is femininnity
The ' masculinity' I and Buddha1 observed is same. He looks it through different prospect, maybe a more political one.
As I have observed in the scientific terms that this sort of 'masculinity' as proposed by Buddha1 is of extreme minority( can be Non-existent).
The men form bonds and depend on each other such that they negate the term masculinity as defined by traditional society ( Traditional masculine norms, as described in Dr. Ronald F. Levant's Masculinity Reconstructed are: "avoidance of femininity; restricted emotions; sex disconnected from intimacy; pursuit of achievement and status; self-reliance; strength; and aggression; and homophobia.)
Thus Buddha1 'masculinity' described by Buddha1 is not the same.

 

I'm not convinced that homosexuality has an evolutionary purpose. (Is it correct to think of evolution teleologically, in terms of it fulfilling purposes?)

If we are going to speculate, it's conceivable that there might be some selective advantage in preserving some of the male population from being coupled up into breeding pairs. Males with families to provide for and protect seem to be more risk-averse and have less time for creative pursuits than males that don't have those kind of responsibilities. It's easy to imagine how risky, exploratory and/or creative behaviors might benefit the reproductive fitness of the population as a whole, especially in an anatomically 'general-purpose' species whose ecological niche seems to be not having a niche, but rather its endless adaptability to new situations and ways of life.

 

In my country the true independent (currently I don't have appropriate label so i may write some wrong label) male is Lord Shiva. He does not depend upon any one, he is shown mediating alone, avoiding(NOT HATING) anyone's company (sexual relations) before his marriage with his divine consort Shakti, though Lord Shiva had followers like Nandi the bull but Lord Shiva was self satisfied and sustained. Indian wome worship Lord Shiva to have a husband like him as after his marriage with Shakti he considered her equal.
This may be called as feminizing of Lord Shiva but Lord Shiva would show no sign of change only exception being Shakti.
Buddha1 has presented Greek warriors as representation of 'Masculine' men but the Greek warriors fail to fit description as they were emotionally and sexually dependent on other men such that young men remained in the company of elder males.
Buddha1 one has tried to present that men who form bonds with women are sort of lesser men and men who form bond with men are 'real' men. It is fact that bonds are formed for some purpose.
Buddha1 claims that men who bond with women have 'feminized' brains(attracted to women) and cannot combat the 'real' men.
As I have experienced that such 'real' men are extremely dependant on other 'real' men who too,in turn are dependant on the same 'real' men. Therefore these 'real' men in true sense exhibit variable form of femininity in the specific conditions.

 

Yes, I too think it has no evolutionary purpose as the prime genitalia function is procreation. But the bonds were formed for survival of the individual unit(animal) of the species in the past, which in the modern society has no need for. Since the population can be easily controlled. Buddha1 claimed that all men in western society are 'feminized'/enslaved to serve women, this does not convince me and later i read that the embryo is affected by certain hormone secretions that determine the TENDENCY of sexual preferenece. Yes i wrote tendency intentionally to make understood that animals too want to ensure their survival (NOT THE SURVIVAL OF THE WHOLE SPECIES but a single unit) and have the instinct to stick with the other similar(same-sex) animal.

 

Actually most people have some sort of same-attractions, I too have not sexual though but of dependence, this dependence can later lead to sex, yes sex for needs. I am not sexually attracted to anyone as I have reached a bit 'maturity' over sex instinct. I can make choice.

 

The same purpose as heterosexuality, minus fertilization.

That is incomplete. Gay behavior and ideation may encompass other modalities such as transgender identification.

The necessity for sex is instinctual. Whether or not the physical and emotional gender of person are the same, and whether or not the object of a person's sex drive is toward one gender, another or both, is obviously not hardwired to match physical and emotional identities of each individual according to a heterosexual template.

What is that supposed to mean?

There is no point in looking for human emotional states in other animals. You might as well search for animals which prefer their tea with one two lumps instead of one.

What is the point of all of this? Given the eons of homophobia leading to Gay Rights, isn't this search for a cause just teetering on the brink of bigotry? Who cares? Let all people enjoy equality regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, gender preference, whether they have a beard, whether they wear a tutu, whether they wear a beard and a tutu, or whether they take two lumps instead of one. Who cares? Not me. None of that impacts me one iota. The only thing that impacts me is inequality, since, for every person cheated out of self determination I become one step closer to being cheated myself. Therefore, the appeal to selfishness is equal to the appeal to empathy. Only supreme stupidity and meanness would obstruct that--the syndromes of psychopathy.

So who cares? People are different in countless ways from other animals. Sex is not a big deal--esp. the sex lives of other free people. In fact voyeurism seems to be the underlying theme here.

Is this or is this not a religious question? Sexual taboos, their purpose, origin and evolution should perhaps be the theme here. Since it's nobody's business what consenting adults do behind closed doors -- out of love, affection, or just because they feel like it -- then shouldn't we be focusing on why some people are brooding over this . . . after all, isn't that the only perversion here which is worthy of public scorn?[/QUOTE]

 

i can write wrong sometimes as english is my third language

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.
" In term of Evolution." I mean in terms of evolution you should probe its funnction, the presence/absence of the function is inquired here.