Same-sex sexual behavior nearly universal phenomenon

[Tieno]

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.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090616122106.htm

[Fresh Prince]

Not on evilbore apparently

[castle007]

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?"

 :|

[Veidt]

[Robo]

My eyes are rolling so hard it's making me dizzy.

[castle007]

You laugh now, but you won't be laughing when the Mcturdy burger comes out!
 

[Madrun Badrun]

you forgot the  castle.

[brawndolicious]

Homosexuality in other species is pretty complicated though.  For example, whiptail lizards are all female but they alternate between male and female "roles" based on their hormone levels:


The top graph shows ovary size and bottom one shows the progesterone "male" hormone in blue and the "female" estradiol hormone in red.  As the levels of those hormones fluctuate, the lizard's "role" changes.

castle, scientists are saying that there is a hormonal or genetic basis for human homosexuality.  Maybe it's not necessary today with us being sentient and everything.

The fact is that animal sexuality is so "unconventional" that if there is a widespread sexual trend like homosexuality, most likely there is a genetic basis for it.  It makes no sense to think that the main reason for homosexuality is because of a genetic defect or because their mothers hugged them too much or something.

[Barry Egan]

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.

[castle007]

^^^^^ am nintenho
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.

[OptimoPeach]

 ­

[brawndolicious]

^^^^^ am nintenho
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.

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.

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..

[castle007]

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.

[OptimoPeach]

[Barry Egan]

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.

a filthy gay dick inside a hungry puckered asshole. 
a filthy gay dick inside a hungry puckered asshole. 
a filthy gay dick inside a hungry puckered asshole. 
a filthy gay dick inside a hungry puckered asshole. 
a filthy gay dick inside a hungry puckered asshole. 
a filthy gay dick inside a hungry puckered asshole. 
a filthy gay dick inside a hungry puckered asshole. 
a filthy gay dick inside a hungry puckered asshole. 
a filthy gay dick inside a hungry puckered asshole. 
a filthy gay dick inside a hungry puckered asshole. 
a filthy gay dick inside a hungry puckered asshole. 
a filthy gay dick inside a hungry puckered asshole. 
a filthy gay dick inside a hungry puckered asshole. 
a filthy gay dick inside a hungry puckered asshole. 
a filthy gay dick inside a hungry puckered asshole. 
a filthy gay dick inside a hungry puckered asshole. 
a filthy gay dick inside a hungry puckered asshole. 
a filthy gay dick inside a hungry puckered asshole. 
a filthy gay dick inside a hungry puckered asshole. 
a filthy gay dick inside a hungry puckered asshole. 
a filthy gay dick inside a hungry puckered asshole. 

[castle007]

^^^^^ am nintenho
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.

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.

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?

[CurseoftheGods]

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.

[brawndolicious]

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.
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?

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?

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.

[Tieno]

^^^^^ am nintenho
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.

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.

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?

It benefits society in that homosexuals often take on a caring, supportive role.
Or more concrete homosexuals (at least the gays) like adopting children. They're also great with make-up, hairdressing and designing clothes.

They obviously have some use due to natural selection.

[Kestastrophe]

Second, homosexuality doesn't hurt ANYBODY. 

What about AIDs and Perez Hilton

[castle007]

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.

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 let them have kids.
 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  , 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.

[OptimoPeach]

Best thread in weeks.

[Tieno]

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  , 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.

Ah now it becomes clear.

[Mandark]

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.

[castle007]

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.

Gay people can have relationships and get married all they want, I don't care, but I don't support them having kids.

[Kestastrophe]

There is a reason why God forbade homosexual relations, because it is not possible for them to reproduce naturally!!

logic + religion =

[Tieno]

There is a reason why God forbade homosexual relations, because it is not possible for them to reproduce naturally!!

logic + religion =

Right and wrong = reproduction ?

[OptimoPeach]

I am talking about forcing people to accept the benefits of being in a relationship.

wat

[demi]

i am dying at that quote so much

[brawndolicious]

If you maroon two people on an island, the last goal they would should have is popping out babies.

In the western, industrialized world there is no reason to oppose homosexual behavior (that I can imagine).

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.

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.

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.

[castle007]

I am talking about forcing people to accept the benefits of being in a relationship.

wat

benefit=that they should have kids      It depends on how you see it. Some see it as a curse 
let me take it out.

[Tieno]

I am talking about forcing people to accept the benefits of being in a relationship.

wat

that they should have kids

Let them rot and starve in shelters!!!!!!! That's what Jesus would do!

[OptimoPeach]

We don't need any more kids. fegs or overpopulation, dude, something has to give.

[demi]

"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!!"

But following to "God" is much more convienient

oooomg this thread is so funny

[Mandark]

Wait, who is being forced to accept kids?

We're talking about allowing gay couples to have kids, not foisting a baby on to them after the honeymoon.

Unless you mean forcing Bible-thumpers to accept the fact that homos are raising children.  In which case I'd like to reiterate "suck it up bitches".

[demi]

I thought castle007 supports beating wives, what does he care about heterosexual relationships

[Flannel Boy]

I just woke up. Forgive me.

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.

Who's forcing you to accept anything?

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.

I can only assume you mean society as a whole. Society doesn't have to bless a gay marriage, but it shouldn't deny people the right to that marriage.

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!!

Many lesbian couples have children through sperm donors and many other homosexuals adopt. I don't know why this doesn't make sense to you. Why can't two women, for example, be attracted to each other while wanting children? And why can't they provide a nurturing, loving home?

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!!

There are nearly seven billion people; I don't think the human race has anything to worry about.

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  , I am talking about the physical aspect).

If all but two humans are left, the human race is doomed. A species can't survive that kind of genetic bottle neck.

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.

This is a non-sequitur. In the actual real world--not in some hypothetical island involving two isolated individuals--the human race is not on the brink of extinction. And in the real world, there are sperm banks and there are many children that need to be adopted. You need to provide reasons why homosexual couples are unfit to raise children.

[OptimoPeach]

^Victory to the atheist scientists

[Mandark]

I thought castle007 supports beating wives, what does he care about heterosexual relationships

For 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?

[Kestastrophe]

smh at the picking and choosing of convenient Jesus teachings to adhere to. Examples:

http://isv.scripturetext.com/matthew/19.htm

I tell you that whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.

divorce

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.

being rich

SMH

[brawndolicious]

I thought castle007 supports beating wives, what does he care about heterosexual relationships

For 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?

So that's why gays always go to the gym..

[Mandark]

There's a completely apocryphal story that there was an "Eye of the Needle" gate in Jerusalem which was slightly narrower than the other entrance to the city, so an overburdened donkey would need to be relieved of a couple items.

Basically it was a way to ignore that part of the Bible and tell people "he really meant a rich person should give a bit to charity, rather than being completely greedy."  I think it was/is widely taught in British boarding schools.

[Flannel Boy]

Kestastrophe, Castle is Muslim.

As a kid I never understood why "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." Let's say a researcher became rich by finding a cure for a major disease and subsequently donated 90% of his wealth to various charities. But he's still rich. Does that mean even though he alleviated human suffering, he won't go to heaven because he also became wealthy?

[Kestastrophe]

Castle is Muslim.

woops

I had him pegged as a Christian fundamentalist.

anyways, I don't think the Bible makes much sense if taken literally.

[Tieno]

Castle is Muslim.

woops

I had him pegged as a Christian fundamentalist.

Fundamentalists look alike.

[Mandark]

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.

[Flannel Boy]

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.

So you're saying Jesus' teachings are limited to a particular time and place. 

I'd still imagine--outside of the slave traders, rich landowners, etc--some people were making money through semi-ethical means. Yet they were banished from the Kingdom of Heaven! 

[Herr Mafflard]

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. 

I guess we had some pretty big needles back then. Or maybe some really small camels.

[Tieno]

Or it was absurdly easy back then and Jesus was a sarcastic capitalist?

[castle007]

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. 

I guess we had some pretty big needles back then. Or maybe some really small camels.

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.

the writers of the bible were probably poor and pissed off at rich people (probably the ruling class)

[castle007]

I thought castle007 supports beating wives, what does he care about heterosexual relationships

no I don't 

[Flannel Boy]

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.

[Herr Mafflard]

are you sure Jesus said that?? Is it a quote from the bible?

Dunno' - I wasn't there at the time it was said. Could be a misquote.

I heard journalism standards back then were really wanting. Something about articles not having sufficient evidence to support the theories they put forward.

[castle007]

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?? ......

[Kestastrophe]

so castle, why don't you poke your head in the "Skin Flute" thread

http://www.evilbore.com/forum/index.php?topic=30687.0

[castle007]

so castle, why don't you poke your head in the "Skin Flute" thread

http://www.evilbore.com/forum/index.php?topic=30687.0

 

I am so confused!! Are they talking about flutes or dicks?   

[Oblivion]

You know, I hear wife-beating is also pretty common occurring phenomenon in the animal kingdom.


edit: goddamn it, demi

[Tieno]

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 god

[Mandark]

What an amazing coincidence that castle's rigorous historiographical vetting just happens to confirm the validity of an ancient historical text which he was raised to believe in!

Miracles really do happen!

[Flannel Boy]

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?