What is the purpose of 'homosexuality' ?

That's impossible. No such country exists. You mean:

"In my opinion the true independent (currently I don't have appropriate label so i may write some wrong label) male is Lord Shiva."​

Unless you can relate this to Human Science, this appears to be suited to the Religion threads.

The first part sounds like it belongs in the other thread from whence it came. That last part sounds closer to human science, but you should research it and bring us whatever empirical evidence you can find.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

[/QUOTE]
This is not some political drama, i inquire the scientific facts. Religion too must have some cause to condemn same-sex attractions or may have hijacked society with the condemenation.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I have observed the 'masculine' males described by Buddha1 in his thread but these 'real' men fail to qualify masculinity or independence or sovereignity.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

one important thing, please go through his threads to see my point.
He has claimed that animals live primarily for same-sex bonds and secondarily for procreation, That is bonds with females are impossible for males. That males form bonds with females as society has 'enslaved' males.

 

One thing may also be concluded that animals forms same-sex bond (specially in case of males) to ensure their own survival as a single unit(single animal only), but this has no needs for modern man as he understands meaning of sovereinity, independece, family e.t.c. As men have attained methods of sexual "compatibility" with women though animals always had it but seems male animals don't go out and do with females animals.
THe whole thing is stuck at these two options :
1. Same-sex attraction being primary and procreation secondary ( or better to be said that procreation is instinctual therefore needs no special conditions to happen)
2. Procreation is the primary phenomena and all other facts such as relationships between same-sex and opposite-sex unnecessary.

 

Societally a male is one that is strong, confident, does not depend on other male.
I have seen how 'real' male Buddha1 one is. I have seen his behavior and I conclude that it does not fit the masculine arch type and his 'real' men too.
Biologically the term male has no meaning if it does not focuses on genitalia, therefore all are males are same( in terms of genitalia ) whether they have or have not preference for females.

 

3. None of the above. Sex drive is one modality which is hardwired, and gender preference -- in humans -- is an independent modality, which is obviously not hardwired.

 

if the 3rd option is true then it means what Buddha1 claims is wrong as their is not much logic to be be be in other males (biological) company, since human can control their instinct and be with any sex.
This can be refuted by the people who claim they are 'born this way'.
Take me into consideration i can form sexual bond with any sex (REMEMBER I AM NOT BISEXUAL, I HAVE BECOME JUST LOVING PERSON ). But what does a man gains from sexual bonds with a another man, sexual pleasure is not the answer as the genitalia is not formed to feel strong sensations through frottage or anal sex but dependence can be the answer. The 'real' men proposed by Buddha1, i have observed, gain lots of benefits in the bond, therefore depend on the other 'real' men who in turn too are ready to form bond. This makes the phenomena parasitic.
This parasitic phenomena does not apply to Homosexual individuals who have full atracttion towards same sex, Since Buddha1 proposed that 'real' men form bonds with women too, but for really short durations.
On the other hand, the bond between man and woman makes sense as women being instinctualy calm and mothering can teach lot to man, make his aggressive behavior clam . Buddha1 has also claimed that 'real' male animals don't mate while few of them do it with females therefore i consider there behavior not so apt as there formed 'real' behavior is affected by the female on heat.

 

Buddha1 has blamed the bond of man and woman for destruction of environment, claiming that the destructive technology is result of such bonds and considered the tribal society as ideal and eco-friendly.
he claims relations between man and woman are unnatural.
The question comes to what is natural. I say condoms are natural as they just arrangement of some molecules moreover the necessity is natural, a being which does not identify itself with needs soon finishes of.
Beaver birds make nest and something like nest, under so called his natural conditions, i have not yet found anywhere. He uses a thing called computer which is not found growing on any tree and uses this computer to spread his message of natural and unnatural. This is plain political.
One thing he clearly doesn't understands is that women are not ancient animals who forget after every sex period and pregnancy who is father of child, and women have difficulty raising children therefore help is needed.
He himself has noted that 'real masculine' animals can get angry on females even during mating. therefore at least in case of woman protection must be provided to ensure their survival.
A tactic can be used that such to claim mass scale births would disrupt food chain/web but this can be controlled as is in case of China, which has regulated birthrate.
Another tactic can be used is that all women become lesbians and collectively care the children but this will create further problems as women have this thing called periods were they go to extremes mood swings, moreover the child shall lack important presence of male figure and also to be considered is what if the man who fathered the child wants to care the child. surely the persons had intentionally intercourse with the woman not by some instinct.
If this point of collective raising of children by women is considered, It is not simple to assume that all women would care for all children, the bond will be strong between mother and child and weaker between other her and other children. Female animals too kill other babies, as female animals give birth in isolated areas, therefore mistrust of other or in words danger from the presence of other animal.
Though human females won't kill the other baby surely more attention will be paid to own baby.

 

No, it refutes some of your posts.

Sex drive should never be confused with logic.

No, gender preference is different than sex drive.

They are responding to homophobic attacks otherwise they wouldn't feel the need to say this.

You are either straight, gay or bi. In addition you can also be transgender. But the rest sounds like bizarre denial.

All you need now is to decide WHO you want to be loving, and you are one step out of the closet.

The same thing as another man "gains" from a woman: a union. This is getting pretty absurd.

WTF? Now you are arguing that same sex partners are an impossibility, due to anatomical and biological reasons. Why are you even posting such nonsense?

The conclusion does not follow from what you said. You seem to have no interest in intelligent discussion at all.

You seem to be only pretending to be able to exercise critical thinking skills.

Except of course for all the women who can't? This is really getting bizarre.

Since healthy women are able to be sexually receptive just about any time , none of that seems either realistic or sincere.

 

One single important thing is in future machines will supervise the birth and death, therefore the bonds will have generally political meaning, then their won't exist any 'real male' bonds,transgender male etc
as sexual satisfaction by the majority will be driven from machines, therefore these create homosexual state, hetrosexual state, ban opposite sex bonds have no meaning.

 

here i mean, that males who disdain comapany of females are dangerous and not capable of further evolution. You can read his 55 pages experience and then few of mine things will make sense to you.
The thing is he has projected wrong view of men, that men are incapable of boding with female. And i don't know how would a male should send his sperm in female as according to him hormones have no action,
I suppose he means to send sperms by teleportation

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

Thanks for helping me , I am not so good in English, I didn't right them in any general order.
I don't have any thing against anyone in life but he made me angry when he said that bond between man and woman is result of dysfunctionality.

 

Aqueous Id you are a skeptic.
I must ask you when you fully know the meaning behind such attraction won't yo try to bring it to next level as you want even better . Everything according to you has some reason therefore same-sex attraction too have, this is what i tried to explain for human using a little bit of my own fuzzy pyscho-analysis.

 

okay understood,
you like it.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Good night people,
as night is about to over,
i must sleep.

 

You didn't even listen to it or you wouldn't say that.

 

I was dizzy so simply wrote.
Sorry.

 

IMO, homosexuallity proves the infinite variety which evolution produces. It is a testament to evolution of organisms, and if an organism is found to be able to survive (and even procreate if desired), it will escape the sword of natural selection.

The fact that homosexuals exist in large numbers testifies to the specific advantages homosexuality provides, in spite of concerted efforts to disadvantage homosexuals.

As to the question of purpose, what is anyone's purpose? A homosexual's purpose in life is no more or less than anyone of any race, creed, or religion. They are simply humans trying to live a meaningful (to them) life.