Gay Marriage

[Wizard_Mon1]

Originally posted by Busyman+23 February 2004 - 19:56--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Busyman @ 23 February 2004 - 19:56)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Wizard_Mon1@23 February 2004 - 15:09

In terms of reason from being gay, it makes no sense biologically (some benefits socially as already pointed out) to not pass on your genes. So if it is the case why has this &#39;malfuction of neural development&#39; been selected for?

Then why do gay women AND men biologically still have children? [/b][/quote]
Because humans are biologically hardwired to procreate, not just to fuck, as you so eloquently put it. If your opinion were correct females would have sex with any male, but as they are looking for someone who will look after and provide for there child, they are more picky. Males want to pass there seed on to as many women as possible, this is not because they just want to fuck, but because the more children they produce the more likely there genetic line is to be passed on. Further more if they just want to fuck, would anyone look after children?

[Busyman]

Originally posted by Wizard_Mon1+23 February 2004 - 16:14--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Wizard_Mon1 @ 23 February 2004 - 16:14)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by Busyman@23 February 2004 - 19:56
<!--QuoteBegin-Wizard_Mon1

@23 February 2004 - 15:09

In terms of reason from being gay, it makes no sense biologically (some benefits socially as already pointed out) to not pass on your genes. So if it is the case why has this &#39;malfuction of neural development&#39; been selected for?

Then why do gay women AND men biologically still have children?

Because humans are biologically hardwired to procreate, not just to fuck, as you so eloquently put it. If your opinion were correct females would have sex with any male, but as they are looking for someone who will look after and provide for there child, they are more picky. Males want to pass there seed on to as many women as possible, this is not because they just want to fuck, but because the more children they produce the more likely there genetic line is to be passed on. Further more if they just want to fuck, would anyone look after children? [/b][/quote]
I still don&#39;t think there is this "driving force" for humans to procreate.

I think it&#39;s more social or cultural.

I could be sterile and I&#39;ll still want to fuck.

Homosexual females will sometimes have kids through a "donor" (1 finds some guy to fuck). What about the other woman? She really isn&#39;t procreating.

Homosexual females in general actually DO NOT use donors, they adopt if they want kids. Sometimes they&#39;ll say, "We are having a baby". "We" aren&#39;t doing anything, your girlfriend is.

Homosexual males in general don&#39;t use surrogate mothers, they adopt.

Where is this driving force when let&#39;s say having a baby gets in the way of your career. You say, "I&#39;ll have one when I land this major contract".

As for looking after children again your delving into a social issue. Some people have dogs. Are you saying there&#39;s a driving force to......look after pets?

A driving force kicks you in the ass.

It&#39;s not your ass kicking the driving force.

[Wizard_Mon1]

So female urges to have children are just a social phenomena?

[Busyman]

Originally posted by Wizard_Mon1@23 February 2004 - 18:36
So female urges to have children are just a social phenomena?

In part, yes.

I sounds good to say, "Men want to spread their seed in as many women as possible." It&#39;s sounds really "scientific" but think....do you have sex in an effort to make a baby all the time?
Does a woman have sex to do the same all the time?

When it&#39;s really, "Men really want to orgasm inside this warm place as much as possible. If the warm place is in women then a baby may or may not be created."

[Wizard_Mon1]

Originally posted by Busyman+23 February 2004 - 23:28--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Busyman &#064; 23 February 2004 - 23:28)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Wizard_Mon1@23 February 2004 - 18:36
So female urges to have children are just a social phenomena?

In part, yes. [/b][/quote]
Care to explain?

If you look all over the animal kingdom you will see many instances of sex for furthering your genetic line, e.g. a type of monkey that has extra bit on his member for scooping out a competitors sperm, or male spiders that shed there load then get eaten.
Humans have a much more complex social existence but or biological want to further our line still exists.

Edit - you explained after i quoted.

We don&#39;t always have sex to procreate but it is an inherant part of our nature to create offspring. Even if sex was not enjoyable we would still go through it because we are designed to.

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by Busyman@23 February 2004 - 23:28


When it&#39;s really, "Men really want to orgasm inside this warm place as much as possible. If the warm place is in women then a baby may or may not be created."

Men&#33;

Bastards&#33;

Remind me to not get drunk with any of them again....

[Agrajag]

With regard to the procreation thing, I would suggest that any female who had gone through childbirth once would not chose to go through it again. Particularly as there are many ways to ensure no more childbirth can occur.

Why then do people have more than one child. The love making can be organised with absolutely no chance of a child being made. There must be an urge, at least in some women, to procreate. This must also outweigh the desire not to go through the process of giving birth.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by Wizard_Mon1+23 February 2004 - 19:42--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Wizard_Mon1 @ 23 February 2004 - 19:42)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by Busyman@23 February 2004 - 23:28
<!--QuoteBegin-Wizard_Mon1

@23 February 2004 - 18:36
So female urges to have children are just a social phenomena?

In part, yes.

Even if sex was not enjoyable we would still go through it because we are designed to. [/b][/quote]
I totally disagree.

We have sex because it is enjoyable (want to have an orgasm).

Our bodies ARE "designed" to procreate yes.

Penis goes in vagina, drops load, blahblahblah...

.....but without the clitoris, G-spot, and penis, most of us wouldn&#39;t be here.

Sorry but our enjoyment is what separates us from extinction.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by Agrajag@23 February 2004 - 19:58
With regard to the procreation thing, I would suggest that any female who had gone through childbirth once would not chose to go through it again. Particularly as there are many ways to ensure no more childbirth can occur.

Why then do people have more than one child. The love making can be organised with absolutely no chance of a child being made. There must be an urge, at least in some women, to procreate. This must also outweigh the desire not to go through the process of giving birth.

There is the urge to raise kids. They are cute.
Furthermore it is fascinating seeing a little you.
The kid has your eyes and nose. Sometimes it&#39;s a spitting image of you.

There are some people that adopt rather than go through childbirth, some of them homosexual I might add.

[Wizard_Mon1]

You are saying that if sex wasn&#39;t enjoyable then the human race not procreate anmd therefore die out. Look at examples in the animla kingdom.... we are just complex animals. At some point in our long evolution sex was not enjoyable but we didn&#39;t stop creating offspring.

Some women can&#39;t orgasm will they never have kids?