A question for homosexuals

Havard Referencing, perhaps?

 

I'm not sure how they came to that conclusion.

 

huh?

 

I used the quote;

which is not my words. I came across it in another thread and it made me wonder how homosexuals deal with the urge to procreate.


You then wrote;

and I wrote;

because I don't know why anyone would think that we wouldn't have sex drives if it weren't for the urge for vaginal penetration. Obviously homosexuals have sex drives and they don't have the urge to have vaginal sex. Therefore I only used the quote to support my question in the op.


You awake yet man?

 

Yes. A Havard Reference is such that whenever you quote another source, you are supposed to demonstrate it is someone else's work by correct citation. Depending on where you found the information the citation may be different, but usually you should include a persons name, the publication, date of quote etc. I was only kidding, anyways.

uhh, lunar... you there bro??

 

Ah...see over here we use MLA citation. If you had said that I would have understood. I chose not to include the posters username in case they didn't want to be quoted for that line.

I also didn't want anyone thinking those were my words because it's sort of a ridiculous statement.

 

i know, i forgot to remove your username. it's deleted now.

i would argue differently on that, but that was not the essential point i was making. i was arguing against the notion of procreation being the source for the sex drive. and for that purpose i mentioned that to an animal the birth of offsprings and an act of sex are two unconnected events. she is incapable of drawing any connection between the two, much less a causal one. i used this to illustrate that the sex drive exists without the knowledge of what it entails. of course, all of this follows from our own behavior as human beings. but some people are not that capable of separating cause and effect, it seems.

 

Many animals mate around the same time each year. Or look at fish who travel hundreds of miles to lay their eggs at the same spot each year. That tells me that the drive to produce offspring is stronger than the drive to simply have sex. There are animals who apparently only have sex when it is for the purpose of producing offspring.

I think, as Boguskyle said, that our wants and desires have out grown our instincts of what is right for our kind (reproducing) as there is now more than enough people. And as consciousness increases and the need for procreation becomes less and less, I think our own personal desires become more important.

 

this is an interesting read...from snopes...

source:http://www.snopes.com/critters/wild/pleasure.asp

 

A couple interesting reads:

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2010/04/05/required-reading-new-york-times-magazine-on-whether-animalsbesides-humanscan-be-gay

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/04/magazine/04animals-t.html?_r=1&pagewanted=1&ref=magazine

My instinct has never "told" me to have kids, I've never had the urge or the need (which doesn't mean I won't feel it at some point, who knows). The "logical" me tells me to avoid having kids (I don't have to try very hard anyway).

 

Yes, the OP also missed a crucial point. There are some heterosexuals who just dont want kids. There's nothing physically stopping them from producing offspring, unlike gay people, they just dont want children. I think for many people, there is a natural instinct to want children, but that is by no means universal or an absolute.

 

Of course. I was referring to those who do, have, or may want children.

 

What about the survival of all humankind into the future.

I need not remind you of the global environmental devastation we humans execute on a daily basis.

IMO It's not 'a lack of a natural instinct' to refrain from reproducing, but actually adherence to a greater one.

yarapario did a good thing. Plenty of children already in the world who need families =)

 

that just doesnt seem right to me..

 

there is nothing natural about procreation. the purpose of sex isnt to make babies, the purpose of sex is too get off. the end.

 

there is nothing natural about procreation??

 

finally, someone who gets it.

 

Ok, I don't think gays "deny" their desires anymore than anyone else might...regard having a child since we have entered the day where same sex couples are able to adopt, arrange for surrogacy, etc.
I guess I'm getting to the fact that I don't think it is necessarily natural to want to procreate. It varies from person to person. Just like not all animals will make a good mother. Some may eat their young, some ignore them, I've seen a dog bury one of her healthy pups...there are all types of things animals will do. And sadly enough, I don't have to point out how screwed up many mothers are (fathers) too...the abuse, even killing of their own young.

 

I think the pleasure of sex is has always been an incentive to reproduce = /

In the same sense as the development of taste buds.

Yea I agree.
think it would be much more morally responsible to adopt a child rather than go to these extraordinarily obscure and expensive means to...'make' one.