ScienceDaily (June 17, 2009) — Same-sex behavior is a nearly universal phenomenon in the animal kingdom, common across species, from worms to frogs to birds, concludes a new review of existing research.
"It's clear that same-sex sexual behavior extends far beyond the well-known examples that dominate both the scientific and popular literature: for example, bonobos, dolphins, penguins and fruit flies," said Nathan Bailey, the first author of the review paper and a postdoctoral researcher in the Department of Biology at UC Riverside.
There is a caveat, however. The review also reports that same-sex behaviors are not the same across species, and that researchers may be calling qualitatively different phenomena by the same name.
"For example, male fruit flies may court other males because they are lacking a gene that enables them to discriminate between the sexes," Bailey said. "But that is very different from male bottlenose dolphins, who engage in same-sex interactions to facilitate group bonding, or female Laysan Albatross that can remain pair-bonded for life and cooperatively rear young."
Published June 16 in the journal Trends in Ecology & Evolution, the review by Bailey and Marlene Zuk, a professor of biology at UCR, also finds that although many studies are performed in the context of understanding the evolutionary origins of same-sex sexual behavior, almost none have considered its evolutionary consequences.
"Same-sex behaviors—courtship, mounting or parenting—are traits that may have been shaped by natural selection, a basic mechanism of evolution that occurs over successive generations," Bailey said. "But our review of studies also suggests that these same-sex behaviors might act as selective forces in and of themselves."
A selective force, which is a sudden or gradual stress placed on a population, affects the reproductive success of individuals in the population.
"When we think of selective forces, we tend to think of things like weather, temperature, or geographic features, but we can think of the social circumstances in a population of animals as a selective force, too," Bailey said. "Same-sex behavior radically changes those social circumstances, for example, by removing some individuals from the pool of animals available for mating."
Bailey, who works in Zuk's lab, noted that researchers in the field have made significant strides in the past two and a half decades studying the genetic and neural mechanisms that produce same-sex behaviors in individuals, and the ultimate reasons for their existence in populations.
"But like any other behavior that doesn't lead directly to reproduction—such as aggression or altruism—same-sex behavior can have evolutionary consequences that are just now beginning to be considered," he said. "For example, male-male copulations in locusts can be costly for the mounted male, and this cost may in turn increase selection pressure for males' tendency to release a chemical called panacetylnitrile, which dissuades other males from mounting them."
The review paper:
Examines work done to test hypotheses about the origins of same-sex behavior in animals.
Provides a framework for categorizing same-sex behavior, for example, is it adaptive, not adaptive, occurs often, infrequently?
Discusses what has been discovered about the genetics of same-sex behavior, especially in the model organism, the fruit fly Drosophila, and in human beings.
Examines connections between human sexual orientation research, and research on non-human animals, and highlights promising avenues of research in non-human systems.
The reviewers expected the research papers they read for their article would give them a better understanding of the degree to which same-sex behaviors are heritable in animals.
"How important are genes to the expression of these behaviors, compared to environmental factors?" Bailey said. "This is still unknown. Knowing this information would help us better understand how the behaviors evolve, and how they affect the evolution of other traits. It could also help us understand whether they are something that all individuals of a species are capable of, but only some actually express."
Bailey recommends that fellow evolutionary biologists studying same-sex behavior in animals adopt some of the research approaches that have been successful in human studies.
"We have estimates, for example, of the heritability of sexual orientation in humans, but none that I know of in other animals," he said. "Scientists have also targeted locations on the human genome that may contribute to sexual orientation, but aside from the fruit fly, we have no such detailed knowledge of the genetic architecture of same-sex behavior in other animals."
Next in their research, Bailey and Zuk plan to begin experimentally addressing some of the many issues raised in their review.
Said Bailey, "We want to get at this question: what are the evolutionary consequences of these behaviors? Are they important in the evolution of mating behavior, or do they just add extra 'background noise'? We are pursuing work on the Laysan Albatross, in which females form same-sex pairs and rear young together. Same-sex behavior in this species may not be aberrant, but instead can arise as an alternative reproductive strategy."
The UCR Academic Senate funded the one-year study.
:lol
So?? Cannibalism is a widespread phenomenon in the animal kingdom
, does that mean I should go around and eat people's faces?? Or maybe it is ok to eat shit?? I find it kind of sad that people are looking at animal behavior to justify their own actions.
"well a couple of gay monkeys were doing it the other day, so why shouldn't I?"
:|
^^^^^ am nintenhoWell obviously the "gay gene" is in everybody, but there is some other gene or hormone that activates it and that's what makes it very complicated to find. If homosexual behavior wasn't beneficial for the species, obviously evolution wouldn't favor keeping those genes. You have to accept that there is a biological basis to it, even if it doesn't do ANYTHING for humans today now that we have fleshlights and internet porn.
I keep hearing that line over and over again. Scientists can talk all day long about the gay gene, but they haven't proved it yet.
Even if there was a genetic basis for homosexuality, does that mean it ok for people act on their urges?? For example, scientists are saying that there is a strong possibility that some people are predisposed to alcoholism and violence through certain genes. Yet, society frowns upon alcoholics and violent people and they tell them to seek help.
That should spark a good debate in a philosophy class.
So?? Cannibalism is a widespread phenomenon in the animal kingdom
, does that mean I should go around and eat people's faces?? Or maybe it is ok to eat shit?? I find it kind of sad that people are looking at animal behavior to justify their own actions.
"well a couple of gay monkeys were doing it the other day, so why shouldn't I?"
:|
OKAY.
The significance of this is in relation to another stupid claim by homophobes that having gay sex is "unnatural" because the point of sex is to preserve and reproduce the species. The article points out that it is in fact abundant in nature.
I think most of the time when they claim it is unnatural, they are talking about how it is not normally accepted behavior, not because it is not found in nature. Just like eating poop or something like that. I can say it is unnatural, but I don't mean I can't find it in nature (because I can) but because I find it abnormal behavior. But I am sure some people use the term unnatural in the way you describe it.
Aslo, your point about how homosexuality is abundant in nature doesn't mean much. All species are different than each other (duh!!) each one has its own way of surviving, reproducing, and preserving themselves. It is quite possible that some species require some form of homosexuality to continue, but who knows for certain.
That still doesn't mean that the same rules for animals also apply for humans. I can't find a reason how having homosexual relations would benefit the human race. Humans depend on reproduction in order to survive, human homosexuals by default can't reproduce (I am not talking about adoption and other methods).
And some of the examples they use in the article doesn't really qualify as homosexual behavior, and it can be compared to some frats and sororities.
^^^^^ am nintenhoWell obviously the "gay gene" is in everybody, but there is some other gene or hormone that activates it and that's what makes it very complicated to find. If homosexual behavior wasn't beneficial for the species, obviously evolution wouldn't favor keeping those genes. You have to accept that there is a biological basis to it, even if it doesn't do ANYTHING for humans today now that we have fleshlights and internet porn.
I keep hearing that line over and over again. Scientists can talk all day long about the gay gene, but they haven't proved it yet.
Even if there was a genetic basis for homosexuality, does that mean it ok for people act on their urges?? For example, scientists are saying that there is a strong possibility that some people are predisposed to alcoholism and violence through certain genes. Yet, society frowns upon alcoholics and violent people and they tell them to seek help.
That should spark a good debate in a philosophy class.
Second, homosexuality doesn't hurt ANYBODY. Alcohol abuse and violence obviously do. Even if you don't like to see homosexuals kissing or anything, it would make more sense to "frown" on heterosexuals that have too many children because they acted on their urges.
yes, I am a straight guy with a double-standard against straight people..
Even if there was a genetic basis for homosexuality, does that mean it ok for people act on their urges??
Of course not, humans do a lot of UNNATURAL AND USELESS things though. We over-populate the world, we eat too much food, we watch too much TV. We act on our urges. If homosexuality doesn't hurt ANYBODY, why do you care? I can understand if you're weirded out everytime your eyes flash across a gay porn thumbnail on spankwire while your junk is hard, but how else could homosexuality EVER affect you even slightly?Well obviously the "gay gene" is in everybody, but there is some other gene or hormone that activates it and that's what makes it very complicated to find. If homosexual behavior wasn't beneficial for the species, obviously evolution wouldn't favor keeping those genes. You have to accept that there is a biological basis to it, even if it doesn't do ANYTHING for humans today now that we have fleshlights and internet porn.Ok, let's say that it doesn't hurt anybody (I don't think that is true), by default, does it benefit society?
Second, homosexuality doesn't hurt ANYBODY. Alcohol abuse and violence obviously do. Even if you don't like to see homosexuals kissing or anything, it would make more sense to "frown" on heterosexuals that have too many children because they acted on their urges.
yes, I am a straight guy with a double-standard against straight people..
It benefits society in that homosexuals often take on a caring, supportive role.^^^^^ am nintenhoWell obviously the "gay gene" is in everybody, but there is some other gene or hormone that activates it and that's what makes it very complicated to find. If homosexual behavior wasn't beneficial for the species, obviously evolution wouldn't favor keeping those genes. You have to accept that there is a biological basis to it, even if it doesn't do ANYTHING for humans today now that we have fleshlights and internet porn.
I keep hearing that line over and over again. Scientists can talk all day long about the gay gene, but they haven't proved it yet.
Even if there was a genetic basis for homosexuality, does that mean it ok for people act on their urges?? For example, scientists are saying that there is a strong possibility that some people are predisposed to alcoholism and violence through certain genes. Yet, society frowns upon alcoholics and violent people and they tell them to seek help.
That should spark a good debate in a philosophy class.
Second, homosexuality doesn't hurt ANYBODY. Alcohol abuse and violence obviously do. Even if you don't like to see homosexuals kissing or anything, it would make more sense to "frown" on heterosexuals that have too many children because they acted on their urges.
yes, I am a straight guy with a double-standard against straight people..
Ok, let's say that it doesn't hurt anybody (I don't think that is true), by default, does it benefit society?
Second, homosexuality doesn't hurt ANYBODY.What about AIDs and Perez Hilton :smug
Even if there was a genetic basis for homosexuality, does that mean it ok for people act on their urges??
What's wrong with sex between two consenting adults in their bedroom? No one is getting harmed in the process.
Ah now it becomes clear.Even if there was a genetic basis for homosexuality, does that mean it ok for people act on their urges??
What's wrong with sex between two consenting adults in their bedroom? No one is getting harmed in the process.
aahh!! I got carried away! I should have explained it more! While I don't agree with homosexuality, what you do in your house is your business as long as you don't try to force people to accept these practices.
People can have gay sex in their houses 24/7 for all I care, but I don't think they should try to tell people to accept their relationships.
You naturally can't conceive kids in a homosexual relationship, unless you get a sperm donor or adopt a kid, but doing that wouldn't make any sense!!
There is a reason why God forbade homosexual relations, because it is not possible for them to reproduce naturally!! If you take two men (or two women) and isolate them from the rest of society they will die and leave behind them nothing!! It is simply physically not possible for them to continue the human race!!
But if you take a man and a woman (fertile) and leave them on an island they will continue the human race by having kids and their kids will have kids, etc.. (It doesn't matter if the whole thing involves incest :lol, I am talking about the physical aspect).
So, why should I let two homosexual couple have kids when I know that naturally their relationship leads to nowhere in continuing the human race.
P.S. I know some of you might bring up the arguement that there are sterile men and women, but I will say that under ideal condition they could have kids, but it is not their fault that they can't. That is why I support adoption in their case.
What's up with all this bitching about being forced to "accept" gay relationships?
Can people honestly not think of a heterosexual marriage they disapprove of? I almost gave a toast at a wedding I thoroughly opposed, but I wasn't going to challenge its legal status on that basis.
Suck it up, bitches.
There is a reason why God forbade homosexual relations, because it is not possible for them to reproduce naturally!!
Right and wrong = reproduction ?There is a reason why God forbade homosexual relations, because it is not possible for them to reproduce naturally!!
logic + religion = ???
I am talking about forcing people to accept the benefits of being in a relationship.wat
Being a spouse and being a parent are totally different things. It's convenient not to be a single parent and people often live with their spouses. That's why it makes sense to allow the homosexual couples to adopt children and to share custody in the event of a divorce.What's up with all this bitching about being forced to "accept" gay relationships?I am talking about forcing people to accept the benefits of being in a relationship. Gay people can have relationships and get married all they want, I don't care, but I don't support them having kids.
Can people honestly not think of a heterosexual marriage they disapprove of? I almost gave a toast at a wedding I thoroughly opposed, but I wasn't going to challenge its legal status on that basis.
Suck it up, bitches.
I am talking about forcing people to accept the benefits of being in a relationship.wat
Let them rot and starve in shelters!!!!!!! That's what Jesus would do!I am talking about forcing people to accept the benefits of being in a relationship.wat
that they should have kids
While I don't agree with homosexuality, what you do in your house is your business as long as you don't try to force people to accept these practices.
People can have gay sex in their houses 24/7 for all I care, but I don't think they should try to tell people to accept their relationships.
You naturally can't conceive kids in a homosexual relationship, unless you get a sperm donor or adopt a kid, but doing that wouldn't make any sense!!
There is a reason why God forbade homosexual relations, because it is not possible for them to reproduce naturally!! If you take two men (or two women) and isolate them from the rest of society they will die and leave behind them nothing!! It is simply physically not possible for them to continue the human race!!
But if you take a man and a woman (fertile) and leave them on an island they will continue the human race by having kids and their kids will have kids, etc.. (It doesn't matter if the whole thing involves incest :lol, I am talking about the physical aspect).
So, why should I let two homosexual couple have kids when I know that naturally their relationship leads to nowhere in continuing the human race.
I thought castle007 supports beating wives, what does he care about heterosexual relationships
I tell you that whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.
It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of Heaven.
So that's why gays always go to the gym..I thought castle007 supports beating wives, what does he care about heterosexual relationshipsFor hetero couples, the roles are easily defined.
If it's two dudes of roughly the same size, how can you tell who should does the beating and who gets beat?
Castle is Muslim.woops :teehee
Fundamentalists look alike.Castle is Muslim.woops :teehee
I had him pegged as a Christian fundamentalist.
Malek: Well, nobody was getting rich through curing diseases back when the book was written. The economy was a Malthusian zero-sum game and pretty much all the wealthy people got that way through the conquest and subjugation of their fellow man.
well he didn't say it was impossible for wealthy man to get into heaven.
he just said it's about as hard as a camel going through the eye of a needle. :smug
I guess we had some pretty big needles back then. Or maybe some really small camels.
I thought castle007 supports beating wives, what does he care about heterosexual relationships
to be honest, many of the things written in the bible reflect the ideals of the writers of the book and not necessarily Jesus.
the writers of the bible were probably poor and pissed off at rich people (probably the ruling class)
are you sure Jesus said that?? Is it a quote from the bible?
to be honest, many of the things written in the bible reflect the ideals of the writers of the book and not necessarily Jesus.
Are you similarly suspicious of the Koran's authenticity?the writers of the bible were probably poor and pissed off at rich people (probably the ruling class)
You sound like Nietzsche now, but you're definitely correct.
so castle, why don't you poke your head in the "Skin Flute" thread :teehee
http://www.evilbore.com/forum/index.php?topic=30687.0 (http://www.evilbore.com/forum/index.php?topic=30687.0)
Not godto be honest, many of the things written in the bible reflect the ideals of the writers of the book and not necessarily Jesus.
Are you similarly suspicious of the Koran's authenticity?the writers of the bible were probably poor and pissed off at rich people (probably the ruling class)
You sound like Nietzsche now, but you're definitely correct.
no
1) Mohammad couldn't read or write. It is a fact. He definitely didn't just make it up in his mind and then told people to write it because his way of speech is completely different than that of the quran and it is simply not possible. The literary aspects of the Quran make it impossible for Mohammad to have made it up.
2) It is not possible that someone wrote the book for him because if that was the case then his enemies would have found out. They were trying their best to sabotage him and they would use every bit of information they have. they never found out how Mohammad was able to get the suras from the Quran and they even marveled at them.
3) So who wrote it?? ......
to be honest, many of the things written in the bible reflect the ideals of the writers of the book and not necessarily Jesus.
Are you similarly suspicious of the Koran's authenticity?the writers of the bible were probably poor and pissed off at rich people (probably the ruling class)
You sound like Nietzsche now, but you're definitely correct.
no
1) Mohammad couldn't read or write. It is a fact. He definitely didn't just make it up in his mind and then told people to write it because his way of speech is completely different than that of the quran and it is simply not possible. The literary aspects of the Quran make it impossible for Mohammad to have made it up.
2) It is not possible that someone wrote the book for him because if that was the case then his enemies would have found out. They were trying their best to sabotage him and they would use every bit of information they have. they never found out how Mohammad was able to get the suras from the Quran and they even marveled at them.
3) So who wrote it?? ......
Not godto be honest, many of the things written in the bible reflect the ideals of the writers of the book and not necessarily Jesus.
Are you similarly suspicious of the Koran's authenticity?the writers of the bible were probably poor and pissed off at rich people (probably the ruling class)
You sound like Nietzsche now, but you're definitely correct.
no
1) Mohammad couldn't read or write. It is a fact. He definitely didn't just make it up in his mind and then told people to write it because his way of speech is completely different than that of the quran and it is simply not possible. The literary aspects of the Quran make it impossible for Mohammad to have made it up.
2) It is not possible that someone wrote the book for him because if that was the case then his enemies would have found out. They were trying their best to sabotage him and they would use every bit of information they have. they never found out how Mohammad was able to get the suras from the Quran and they even marveled at them.
3) So who wrote it?? ......
Of course not, humans do a lot of UNNATURAL AND USELESS things though. We over-populate the world, we eat too much food, we watch too much TV. We act on our urges. If homosexuality doesn't hurt ANYBODY, why do you care? I can understand if you're weirded out everytime your eyes flash across a gay porn thumbnail on spankwire while your junk is hard, but how else could homosexuality EVER affect you even slightly?Well obviously the "gay gene" is in everybody, but there is some other gene or hormone that activates it and that's what makes it very complicated to find. If homosexual behavior wasn't beneficial for the species, obviously evolution wouldn't favor keeping those genes. You have to accept that there is a biological basis to it, even if it doesn't do ANYTHING for humans today now that we have fleshlights and internet porn.Ok, let's say that it doesn't hurt anybody (I don't think that is true), by default, does it benefit society?
Second, homosexuality doesn't hurt ANYBODY. Alcohol abuse and violence obviously do. Even if you don't like to see homosexuals kissing or anything, it would make more sense to "frown" on heterosexuals that have too many children because they acted on their urges.
yes, I am a straight guy with a double-standard against straight people..
I mean, it's pretty clear as far as I can see that the human homosexual behavior is natural and harmless, but obviously it's a very strong urge and not something I would ever expect anybody to totally suppress.
wat
Prophet Mohammad's life has been very well documented, and when the quran was revealed it was so far ahead of anything out there and all poetry and literature paled in comaprison and no one has been able to match it to this day!!!
Did someone get a time machine from the year 3000 and went back in time?r u a prophet? :o
to be honest, many of the things written in the bible reflect the ideals of the writers of the book and not necessarily Jesus.
Are you similarly suspicious of the Koran's authenticity?the writers of the bible were probably poor and pissed off at rich people (probably the ruling class)
You sound like Nietzsche now, but you're definitely correct.
no
1) Mohammad couldn't read or write. It is a fact. He definitely didn't just make it up in his mind and then told people to write it because his way of speech is completely different than that of the quran and it is simply not possible. The literary aspects of the Quran make it impossible for Mohammad to have made it up.
2) It is not possible that someone wrote the book for him because if that was the case then his enemies would have found out. They were trying their best to sabotage him and they would use every bit of information they have. they never found out how Mohammad was able to get the suras from the Quran and they even marveled at them.
3) So who wrote it?? ......
And how do you know for a fact that Muhammad was illiterate? He worked as a merchant at a time when numbers were written out fully in words. He couldn't have been illiterate while working in a profession that required literacy.
Which is easier to believe: he lied about being illiterate or there was an error in the Koran or he actually spoke with an all-powerful supernatural being?
wat
Prophet Mohammad's life has been very well documented, and when the quran was revealed it was so far ahead of anything out there and all poetry and literature paled in comaprison and no one has been able to match it to this day!!!
:piss Shakespeare
:piss other lesser known poets and literariesQuote from: castleDid someone get a time machine from the year 3000 and went back in time?r u a prophet? :o
to be honest, many of the things written in the bible reflect the ideals of the writers of the book and not necessarily Jesus.
Are you similarly suspicious of the Koran's authenticity?the writers of the bible were probably poor and pissed off at rich people (probably the ruling class)
You sound like Nietzsche now, but you're definitely correct.
no
1) Mohammad couldn't read or write. It is a fact. He definitely didn't just make it up in his mind and then told people to write it because his way of speech is completely different than that of the quran and it is simply not possible. The literary aspects of the Quran make it impossible for Mohammad to have made it up.
2) It is not possible that someone wrote the book for him because if that was the case then his enemies would have found out. They were trying their best to sabotage him and they would use every bit of information they have. they never found out how Mohammad was able to get the suras from the Quran and they even marveled at them.
3) So who wrote it?? ......
And how do you know for a fact that Muhammad was illiterate? He worked as a merchant at a time when numbers were written out fully in words. He couldn't have been illiterate while working in a profession that required literacy.
Which is easier to believe: he lied about being illiterate or there was an error in the Koran or he actually spoke with an all-powerful supernatural being?
Even western scholars agree that Mohammad was sincere in his message and never deceived and lied to his people. Even the non muslims back them attest to his honesty and that he was illiterate!! If he was literate then people would have found out early in his life when he was a merchant. But no one questioned that fact.
So what if he was illliterate and a merchant?? It is possible to be successfull like that.
Heck, isn't one of the NHL coaches illiterate? How did he manage to run his team for so many years?
My dog is always trying to rape me, I'm taking him to church as soon as I can.
Notice how God always sends prophets to people who excel in a certain area, and then He helps the prophets in bringing miracles that amaze these people?
Examples:
Moses: He lived at a time when people excelled in magic and tricks. Miracle: changing rope to snakes, parting of the sea. He challenged the best magicians and they fell short.
Jesus: He lived at a time when people excelled in medicine. Miracle: He cured leprosy, healed the blind and raised the dead
Mohammad: He lived at a time when people excelled in potery. Miracle: The Quran. He challaneged people to come up with something like it and they failed.
PICKTHAL: Read: And thy Lord is the Most Bounteous,
SHAKIR: Read and your Lord is Most Honorable,
096.004
YUSUFALI: He Who taught (the use of) the pen,-
PICKTHAL: Who teacheth by the pen,
SHAKIR: Who taught (to write) with the pen
It's very odd that a man who encouraged his followers to learn to read and write never learned how to read and write himself.
It's very odd that a man who encouraged his followers to learn to read and write never learned how to read and write himself.
That is one incredible aspect about Prophet Mohammad! It is fitting that he never did. If he did then people could have easily said that he made up the Quran. He accomplished so much and taught islam despite the fact that he was illiterate!! If that is a miracle then I don't know what is!!
When Gabriel visited Mohammad for the first time, do you know what the first thing God told him through the angel??
He ordered him to read!! And Mohammad kept saying that he couldn't!
It is fitting that he never did. If he did then people could have easily said that he made up the Quran.
When Gabriel visited Mohammad for the first time, do you know what the first thing God told him through the angel??Again with the circular reasoning. We are arguing whether the Quran's account of Muhammad's illiteracy is correct. You are basically saying the Quran is correct because it is correct.
He ordered him to read!! And Mohammad kept saying that he couldn't!
When you have tried everything you can to try to tell her to stop her rebellious behaviour. (talk to her, let others talk to her, refuse to sleep with her, etc..) and she still hasn't stopped her bahviour, then this "hitting" should be used.
If the hitting isn't supposed to hurt her and it isn't supposed to bruise her, then it isn't really the hitting that people picture. It is supposed to be something very very very light.
I don't see the problem.
If you follow all these steps in order, then most of the time you shouldn't even resort to hitting. Most of these disputes are solved with the couples talking and that is the very FIRST step.
It makes sense.
When you have tried everything you can to try to tell her to stop her rebellious behaviour. (talk to her, let others talk to her, refuse to sleep with her, etc..) and she still hasn't stopped her bahviour, then this "hitting" should be used.
If the hitting isn't supposed to hurt her and it isn't supposed to bruise her, then it isn't really the hitting that people picture. It is supposed to be something very very very light.
I don't see the problem.
If you follow all these steps in order, then most of the time you shouldn't even resort to hitting. Most of these disputes are solved with the couples talking and that is the very FIRST step.
It makes sense.
When you have tried everything you can to try to tell her to stop her rebellious behaviour. (talk to her, let others talk to her, refuse to sleep with her, etc..) and she still hasn't stopped her bahviour, then this "hitting" should be used.
If the hitting isn't supposed to hurt her and it isn't supposed to bruise her, then it isn't really the hitting that people picture. It is supposed to be something very very very light.
I don't see the problem.
If you follow all these steps in order, then most of the time you shouldn't even resort to hitting. Most of these disputes are solved with the couples talking and that is the very FIRST step.
It makes sense.
When you have tried everything you can to try to tell her to stop her rebellious behaviour. (talk to her, let others talk to her, refuse to sleep with her, etc..) and she still hasn't stopped her bahviour, then this "hitting" should be used.
If the hitting isn't supposed to hurt her and it isn't supposed to bruise her, then it isn't really the hitting that people picture. It is supposed to be something very very very light.
I don't see the problem.
If you follow all these steps in order, then most of the time you shouldn't even resort to hitting. Most of these disputes are solved with the couples talking and that is the very FIRST step.
It makes sense.
When you have tried everything you can to try to tell her to stop her rebellious behaviour. (talk to her, let others talk to her, refuse to sleep with her, etc..) and she still hasn't stopped her bahviour, then this "hitting" should be used.
If the hitting isn't supposed to hurt her and it isn't supposed to bruise her, then it isn't really the hitting that people picture. It is supposed to be something very very very light.
I don't see the problem.
If you follow all these steps in order, then most of the time you shouldn't even resort to hitting. Most of these disputes are solved with the couples talking and that is the very FIRST step.
It makes sense.
When you have tried everything you can to try to tell her to stop her rebellious behaviour. (talk to her, let others talk to her, refuse to sleep with her, etc..) and she still hasn't stopped her bahviour, then this "hitting" should be used.
If the hitting isn't supposed to hurt her and it isn't supposed to bruise her, then it isn't really the hitting that people picture. It is supposed to be something very very very light.
I don't see the problem.
If you follow all these steps in order, then most of the time you shouldn't even resort to hitting. Most of these disputes are solved with the couples talking and that is the very FIRST step.
It makes sense.
then it isn't really the hitting that people picture. It is supposed to be something very very very light.
then it isn't really the hitting that people picture. It is supposed to be something very very very light.
a light shove will do the trick!!
a light shove will do the trick!!
She fell down the stairs!
"I fell down the stairs!"
If he was literate then people would have found out early in his life when he was a merchant. But no one questioned that fact.
So what if he was illliterate and a merchant?? It is possible to be successfull like that.
Heck, isn't one of the NHL coaches illiterate? How did he manage to run his team for so many years?
:lol that quote
i love castle007. best poster on here
you guys are assholes :'(
We moved too far off-topic.
Castle, why can't a gay couple raise children? Don't use convoluted hypotheticals!
yeah, but we pointed out all the problems with that and you still didn't change your opinion.We moved too far off-topic.I already explained that on the last page
Castle, why can't a gay couple raise children? Don't use convoluted hypotheticals!
We moved too far off-topic.
Castle, why can't a gay couple raise children? Don't use convoluted hypotheticals!
I already explained that on the last page
yeah, but we pointed out all the problems with that and you still didn't change your opinion.We moved too far off-topic.I already explained that on the last page
Castle, why can't a gay couple raise children? Don't use convoluted hypotheticals!
Changing opinion is for inferior women and infidels.
Changing opinion is for inferior women and infidels.
I hate these sort of threads, but let me just correct one thing:
"Infidel" was used by the crusaders against the Muslims/Jews [ and evidently against Non-European Christians]. There's no such word for non-believers in Islam.
"Kuf'r" means :
To Reject/Deny
So please people, for the love of GOD, stop attaching that word to Islam.
You can all go back to your partisan politics now.
yeah, but we pointed out all the problems with that and you still didn't change your opinion.We moved too far off-topic.I already explained that on the last page
Castle, why can't a gay couple raise children? Don't use convoluted hypotheticals!
lol what? You are hoping that I change my opinion? Sorry dude, not going to happen 8)
yeah, but we pointed out all the problems with that and you still didn't change your opinion.
Let me be more explicit: In you hypotheticals, reproductive technology is not available. But in the real world, it is! Why can't gay people--in the real world--use this technology to have children of their own?
In your hyptheticals there are no children without homes. But in the real world, there are! Why can't gay people--in the real world--adopt these children?
Changing opinion is for inferior women and infidels.
I hate these sort of threads, but let me just correct one thing:
"Infidel" was used by the crusaders against the Muslims/Jews [ and evidently against Non-European Christians]. There's no such word for non-believers in Islam.
"Kuf'r" means :
To Reject/Deny
So please people, for the love of GOD, stop attaching that word to Islam.
You can all go back to your partisan politics now.
They will grow up with parents who don't complete each other.:lol
So because we have the technology we should allow them??
And as for adopting, you can't solve a problem by creating another problem. If you allow gay people to adopt kids, these kids will grow up in environments less ideal than that of a good heterosexual couple!!
These kids will be ridiculed all the time and they will face so much rejection and suffer psychological damage.
They will grow up with parents who don't complete each other. A kid needs both masculine and feminine nurturing. While a gay couple can try to provide that environment it will never be enough because they will simply retain the masculine/feminine part of their personality, whether it is the physical appearance, the voice, the interaction, etc... It would just confuse the hell out of the kid.
They will grow up with parents who don't complete each other.:lol
I know this sounds lame, but look at a magnet. Opposites attract, same sides create friction and can never settle.i always wondered
They will grow up with parents who don't complete each other.:lol
I don't mean that in the corny "you complete me" way!! There needs to be a balance in the household that will create equality and you need opposites to do that. You need the masculine side and you need the feminie side, these sides complete each other when they raise a child, because each part helps in raising the child.
I know this sounds lame, but look at a magnet. Opposites attract, same sides create friction and can never settle.
So because we have the technology we should allow them??
And as for adopting, you can't solve a problem by creating another problem. If you allow gay people to adopt kids, these kids will grow up in environments less ideal than that of a good heterosexual couple!!
These kids will be ridiculed all the time and they will face so much rejection and suffer psychological damage.
Instead of saying "Oh no, there are so many orphans!! We should give them to gay couples" we should concentrate on the reason why these kids became orphans in the first place. We need to educate people about the dangers of unsafe sex (especially teenagers), tell them to wait until they are a little more older and wiser. We should educate couples about the beauties of the having kids and raising them. It is sad that some people now prefer having dogs over kids!! We need to solve these problems, and we need to make the adoption process easier for people!! A lot of people are just overwhelmed by the whole process!!
Since I believe that being in a gay relationship leads to nowhere, why should we allow them to adopt children instead of fixing the problems that lead these kids being orphans??
You can't fix a problem by adding more problems
So you're saying that gay people can't be happy with each other, and your example is the interaction between lumps of magnetized iron.
castle makes sense. opposites attract. you obviously cant put a penis in a penis
Yeah, they'd be ridiculed for being seen as "strange." If it's accepted as normal, then suddenly there's much less ridicule.
What the hell are you talking about?
Excuse me, Jahannam.
This is the problem with many societies, they can't even solve their own problems so they take the easier way and make everything acceptable.
And about the second part, if a gay parent wants to provide feminine nurturing, he will always retain a part of his masculinity (voice, appearance, etc..) and it wouldn't be enough. It would never equal the amount of love that a caring mother would give.
They will grow up with parents who don't complete each other. A kid needs both masculine and feminine nurturing. While a gay couple can try to provide that environment it will never be enough because they will simply retain the masculine/feminine part of their personality, whether it is the physical appearance, the voice, the interaction, etc... It would just confuse the hell out of the kid.
This is the problem with many societies, they can't even solve their own problems so they take the easier way and make everything acceptable.:american
It would never equal the amount of love that a caring mother would give.::)
This is the problem with many societies, they can't even solve their own problems so they take the easier way and make everything acceptable.
Seriously, we can't even solve our problems of black people and homosexuals, so we make them acceptable and don't stone and enslave them. Why can't we learn.And about the second part, if a gay parent wants to provide feminine nurturing, he will always retain a part of his masculinity (voice, appearance, etc..) and it wouldn't be enough. It would never equal the amount of love that a caring mother would give.
I'm sure plenty of single fathers would agree with you!
what will the child think when he sees daddy beating up mommy?
what will the child think when he sees daddy beating up mommy?
Changing opinion is for inferior women and infidels.
I hate these sort of threads, but let me just correct one thing:
"Infidel" was used by the crusaders against the Muslims/Jews [ and evidently against Non-European Christians]. There's no such word for non-believers in Islam.
"Kuf'r" means :
To Reject/Deny
So please people, for the love of GOD, stop attaching that word to Islam.
You can all go back to your partisan politics now.
Infidel is obviously an English word, but it means roughly the the same thing as kuf'r. Posters on a forum populated by English speakers are not going to use the Arabic word, but instead its English equivalent. Don't get your panties in a knot.
don't ever compare blacks to gays!! It is degrading to the struggle of blacks
don't ever compare blacks to gays!! It is degrading to the struggle of blacks
forgot this part
They will grow up with parents who don't complete each other. A kid needs both masculine and feminine nurturing. While a gay couple can try to provide that environment it will never be enough because they will simply retain the masculine/feminine part of their personality, whether it is the physical appearance, the voice, the interaction, etc... It would just confuse the hell out of the kid.
There's no psychological evidence for your assertions. Plenty of boys are raised in single-family homes by their mothers. These boys aren't any more "feminine" on average than boys raised in two parent homes.
And children can find role models in other places, through teachers, aunts and uncles, siblings, etc.
To be consistent, you would make single family homes illegal?
no, it is obviously possible for children to grow up normally with one parent. But it can have consequences in the long run! If the kid is raised by a mother and he doesn't have any masculine influence around him there would be a chance that he will turn out to be gay, especially if that remains to be the case during his teenage years.
If the kid is raised by a mother and he doesn't have any masculine influence around him there would be a chance that he will turn out to be gay, especially if that remains to be the case during his teenage years.
If the kid is raised by a mother and he doesn't have any masculine influence around him there would be a chance that he will turn out to be gay, especially if that remains to be the case during his teenage years.
I was being sarcastic..yeah, but we pointed out all the problems with that and you still didn't change your opinion.Opinions heavily founded in dogma will never be changed by simple logic. I'm a little surprised you'd think that.
I don't mean that in the corny "you complete me" way!! There needs to be a balance in the household that will create equality and you need opposites to do that. You need the masculine side and you need the feminie side, these sides complete each other when they raise a child, because each part helps in raising the child in their own way.Most parents despise taking gender roles. :lol
I know this sounds lame, but look at a magnet. Opposites attract, same sides create friction and can never settle.
If the kid is raised by a mother and he doesn't have any masculine influence around him there would be a chance that he will turn out to be gayWhy didn't science think of that? :smug
no, it is obviously possible for children to grow up normally with one parent. But it can have consequences in the long run! If the kid is raised by a mother and he doesn't have any masculine influence around him there would be a chance that he will turn out to be gay, especially if that remains to be the case during his teenage years.
OH NO!!!! WHAT WILL WE DO!?!
don't ever compare blacks to gays!! It is degrading to the struggle of blacks
You're right. Blacks only got enslaved and sold in the Muslim world. Gays got stoned.
I know this gay guy and I always wondered what factors contributed to him being gay. It turns out that he was raised by his mom and his sisters....
don't ever compare blacks to gays!! It is degrading to the struggle of blacks
You're right. Blacks only got enslaved and sold in the Muslim world. Gays got stoned.
Muhammad's adopted son was East African. ARAB world does not equal Islam.
I know this gay guy and I always wondered what factors contributed to him being gay. It turns out that he was raised by his mom and his sisters....
the casual empiricist says: TRUE
You will all see!! The 2020 Noble Price for Science will go to me!! BWAHAHAHAHAH
veidt: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=infidel
(in Muslim use) a person who does not accept the Islamic faith; kaffir.
Veidt, are you a muslim?? If so, why aren't you saying anything about the issue we are talking about? Are you not comfortable discussing it?
I'm a Muslim...
I love seeing you getting gang-raped like this.
He's apparently gay.
don't ever compare blacks to gays!! It is degrading to the struggle of blacks
You're right. Blacks only got enslaved and sold in the Muslim world. Gays got stoned.
Muhammad's adopted son was East African. ARAB world does not equal Islam.
Veidt, are you a muslim?? If so, why aren't you saying anything about the issue we are talking about? Are you not comfortable discussing it?
He's apparently gay.
Veidt, are you a muslim?? If so, why aren't you saying anything about the issue we are talking about? Are you not comfortable discussing it?
I'm a Muslim...
and?
I love seeing you getting gang-raped like this.He's apparently gay.
That's impossible. IMPOSSIBLE.
What the fuck? I pray 5 times a day and go to Mecca twice a year... IT'S IMPOSSIBLE.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_Islam
Homosexuality and Islam
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For age-structured homosexuality, see Pederasty in the Middle East.
The seeming co-relation of pederasty with the rise of Islam has been commented on by modern historians, who see a link between the love of boys and the protective attitude of Islam towards women, leading to their removal from public life, together with the tendency of Sharia law to accommodate within the domain of "private behavior" inevitable activities, as long as they do not interfere with public order.[1]
yeah, and I think I caught that from other threads! But never made the connection lol
Veidt, what is your take on the issue? you are still avoiding it :PThe truth has been uncovered! I'm reporting you! You infidel!!!
What the fuck? I pray 5 times a day and go to Mecca twice a year... IT'S IMPOSSIBLE.
yeah, and I think I caught that from other threads! But never made the connection lol
Veidt, what is your take on the issue? you are still avoiding it :PThe truth has been uncovered! I'm reporting you! You infidel!!!
What the fuck? I pray 5 times a day and go to Mecca twice a year... IT'S IMPOSSIBLE.
I was being sarcastic..
What if a man has four wives? Wouldn't that be like four times the feminine influence? Those families must be popping out gay babies left and right.King Solomon had about 700 wives and 300 concubines. Maybe all gays are his descendants?
Now I'm thinking of this in "feminine influence point multipliers," like it's an RPG.
What if a man has four wives? Wouldn't that be like four times the feminine influence? Those families must be popping out gay babies left and right.King Solomon had about 700 wives and 300 concubines. Maybe all gays are his descendants?
Now I'm thinking of this in "feminine influence point multipliers," like it's an RPG.
Veidt, check your pm ;)
What if a man has four wives? Wouldn't that be like four times the feminine influence? Those families must be popping out gay babies left and right.King Solomon had about 700 wives and 300 concubines. Maybe all gays are his descendants?
Now I'm thinking of this in "feminine influence point multipliers," like it's an RPG.
Nah, Soloman had the masculinity of 1000 men. In Islamic tradition, he could summon armies of eagles to fight Djinn and shit. Dude was badass.
Nah, Soloman had the masculinity of 1000 men. In Islamic tradition, he could summon armies of eagles to fight Djinn and shit. Dude was badass.Well the name of his heir Rehoboam translates to "he who enlarges the people". It sounds like his polarities might have been mixed up a little.
Veidt, check your pm ;)
uh oh... It's over guys.
But you're not hearing what I'm trying to say. Everyday, I raise my hands to god, pleading, and beseeching, for him to guide me to the right right path.
Veidt, check your pm ;)
But you're not hearing what I'm trying to say. Everyday, I raise my hands to god, pleading, and beseeching, for him to guide me to the right right path.
veidt: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=infidel
(in Muslim use) a person who does not accept the Islamic faith; kaffir.
Yes, I am quite aware of the word's association with infidelity in the dictionary. However, my first post clearly, clearly, outlined the error in this instance. But really, if the word is equal to just "rejection" be it, from a European perspective, why doesn't the Pope use this good, clean word?
But you're not hearing what I'm trying to say. Everyday, I raise my hands to god, pleading, and beseeching, for him to guide me to the right right path.
get on your knees and gaze upon my gleaming minaret
OH MY GOD! WHY WOULD I BE SO ATTRACTED TO YOUR MAGNET POLE?!
GOD? DON'T FORSAKEN ME!
Poles are not chick magnets. :(
Now I'm thinking of this in "feminine influence point multipliers," like it's an RPG.
Notice how God always sends prophets to people who excel in a certain area, and then He helps the prophets in bringing miracles that amaze these people?
Examples:
Moses: He lived at a time when people excelled in magic and tricks. Miracle: changing rope to snakes, parting of the sea. He challenged the best magicians and they fell short.
Jesus: He lived at a time when people excelled in medicine. Miracle: He cured leprosy, healed the blind and raised the dead
Mohammad: He lived at a time when people excelled in potery. Miracle: The Quran. He challaneged people to come up with something like it and they failed.
Jinfash, I order thee to grow a most magnificent beard, so that thou may ticklest the members of your comrades when pleasing them.
Proles are not chick magnets. :(
Dear God, Castle.
Poles are not chick magnets. :(
Go to a girl and say "your fly is open." and see if that gets more of a response out of her than you obsessing over her on the internet via e-diaries like a distinguished effete fellow.
Now I'm thinking of this in "feminine influence point multipliers," like it's an RPG.
So regarding this post:Notice how God always sends prophets to people who excel in a certain area, and then He helps the prophets in bringing miracles that amaze these people?
Examples:
Moses: He lived at a time when people excelled in magic and tricks. Miracle: changing rope to snakes, parting of the sea. He challenged the best magicians and they fell short.
Jesus: He lived at a time when people excelled in medicine. Miracle: He cured leprosy, healed the blind and raised the dead
Mohammad: He lived at a time when people excelled in potery. Miracle: The Quran. He challaneged people to come up with something like it and they failed.
Moses would probably be a mage.
Jesus would be a woman of some sort (at least for the healing part).
What would Muhammed be?
Poles are not chick magnets. :(
Go to a girl and say "your fly is open." and see if that gets more of a response out of her than you obsessing over her on the internet via e-diaries like a distinguished effete fellow.
Annihilated!
Poles are not chick magnets. :(
Go to a girl and say "your fly is open." and see if that gets more of a response out of her than you obsessing over her on the internet via e-diaries like a distinguished effete fellow.
Annihilated!
Polish the Dome of the Rock so that Little Muhammad can rise to Heaven.
What do you think about jinfash's relationship with me, castle? I've sucked him off. How do you feel about that?
What do you think about jinfash's relationship with me, castle? I've sucked him off. How do you feel about that?
seriously?? Didn't you just recently convert to islam??
Are you saying that muslims can't puff a peter?only when they're raised by women
Relax, Castle. Why don't you come over to my place? We can watch Family Guy and suck each other's dicks, bro.
This thread is confusing :lol
Repent. Seek forgiveness. Chase the confusion away.
Relax, Castle. Why don't you come over to my place? We can watch Family Guy and suck each other's dicks, bro.
Gross! Family Guy?
Himu's in a prime location too. Guys passing through that park every day, giving him a wealth of choices.
(http://j.photos.cx/yaranaika-656.jpg)
Relax, Castle. Why don't you come over to my place? We can watch Family Guy and suck each other's dicks, bro.
Castle, would you say I'm gay if I like a dude suck and lick my penis but I don't like to? After all, I'm not the one with my mouth all over a dude's cock, so I'm definitely not gay!
Hey guys. I'm leaving EB. See you in a few weeks. This thread hurts my head. :(
Castle, would you say I'm gay if I like a dude suck and lick my penis but I don't like to? After all, I'm not the one with my mouth all over a dude's cock, so I'm definitely not gay!
Castle, would you say I'm gay if I like a dude suck and lick my penis but I don't like to? After all, I'm not the one with my mouth all over a dude's cock, so I'm definitely not gay!
What do you think about jinfash's relationship with me, castle? I've sucked him off. How do you feel about that?
He feels that this wouldn't have happened if you were raised by men!
What do you think about jinfash's relationship with me, castle? I've sucked him off. How do you feel about that?
He feels that this wouldn't have happened if you were raised by men!
but himu is regularly raised by men
Quotethen it isn't really the hitting that people picture. It is supposed to be something very very very light.Quotethen it isn't really the hitting that people picture. It is supposed to be something very very very light.
a light shove will do the trick!!
When you are mad at the person you love and you want her to snap out of it many people do thisSnap out of what? And, again, if the "light shove" doesn't alter her behavior, then what?
I'm bored and waiting for pizza.Quotethen it isn't really the hitting that people picture. It is supposed to be something very very very light.Quotethen it isn't really the hitting that people picture. It is supposed to be something very very very light.
a light shove will do the trick!!
But what if it doesn't?When you are mad at the person you love and you want her to snap out of it many people do thisSnap out of what? And, again, if the "light shove" doesn't alter her behavior, then what?
I'm bored and waiting for pizza.Quotethen it isn't really the hitting that people picture. It is supposed to be something very very very light.Quotethen it isn't really the hitting that people picture. It is supposed to be something very very very light.
a light shove will do the trick!!
But what if it doesn't?When you are mad at the person you love and you want her to snap out of it many people do thisSnap out of what? And, again, if the "light shove" doesn't alter her behavior, then what?
well if they can't solve their problems after all these steps, then maybe they should just call it quits. :lol
why do male-dominated warrior cultures have such high rates of male homosexual activity
if i knew a practicing viking, spartan, or muslim, i'd ask them
why do male-dominated warrior cultures have such high rates of male homosexual activity
if i knew a practicing viking, spartan, or muslim, i'd ask them
Don't forget the 19th century British Navy. Rum, buggery, and the lash!
Mohammad: He lived at a time when people excelled in potery. Miracle: The Quran. He challaneged people to come up with something like it and they failed.
Mohammad: He lived at a time when people excelled in potery. Miracle: The Quran. He challaneged people to come up with something like it and they failed.
The Koran is a lot more impressive when you realize he inscribed it onto a vase.
Mohammad: He lived at a time when people excelled in potery. Miracle: The Quran. He challaneged people to come up with something like it and they failed.
The Koran is a lot more impressive when you realize he inscribed it onto a vase.
Mohammed inscribed the Quran onto a vase? Really? I didn't know that.
Forgive me if I am missing an obvious joke. NyQuil is kicking in.
Mohammad: He lived at a time when people excelled in potery. Miracle: The Quran. He challaneged people to come up with something like it and they failed.
The Koran is a lot more impressive when you realize he inscribed it onto a vase.
edit: Also, the second sentence makes it sound like he beat everyone at a giant rap-battle.
Veidt, check your pm ;)
terror cell being formed itt.