Have You Noticed That Radical Muslims...

Have You Noticed That Radical Muslims and Gays Are Both Controlled By Their Sex Drives?

There are 253 comments on the Free Republic story from Jul 21, 2013, titled Have You Noticed That Radical Muslims and Gays Are Both Controlled By Their Sex Drives?. In it, Free Republic reports that:

The human sex drive is the third most powerful force that exists in human beings, after thirst and hunger.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Free Republic.

“Luke laughs at hypocrites!”

Since: Sep 10

Palm Springs, California

#184 Aug 2, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Or the fact that marriage was not even possible until we had a stable social structure for our species. For thousands of years humans didn't even know who was who's father .... or mother.
Adam and Eve weren't even married, which makes the entire human race a bunch of BASTARDS.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#185 Aug 2, 2013
Broseph wrote:
<quoted text>
Your article didn't even mention homosexuality. Not once, despite your claim that it had proof of how homosexuality is a "defect". You lied to me. Now, all of the sudden, I'm expected to "lay a foundation" that asserts your worldview, despite how there is no evidence within this article, pointing to a definitive answer? You're clearly abusing the literature to push your agenda. Either come to me with real proof, or admit you're wrong. Also, I'm not gay, but hey, this isn't the first time you have asserted something without evidence. Surprise, surprise.
You either have a severe comprehension problem, are extremely dense or both.

I made no such claim about what the article would say. It is an article about evolutionary mating behavior and the implications for marriage. That has been the first thing I've encouraged you to educate yourself with.

You have offered only your immature opinion as valid evidence. You could simply post valid sources that debunk what I say. You don't, because you can't.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#186 Aug 2, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Silly child. You think it's intelligent to desecrate things you don't understand. I don't argue faith with faithless people.
Here is the bottom line; Why would you want to debate something you don't believe in and ignore the facts you pretend to depend on?
Curteese wrote:
<quoted text>I think marriage is just fine, for EVERYONE, however, YOU and your hetero pals think so little of it that they just pack up and leaven FIFTY percent of the time, IGNORING your VOWS made to GOD, many times in a CHURCH. Nice role models you present out there in hetero land.
Is that all you know to say?

How does that apply to anything I've said?

Moreover, your response is idiotic and childish. By your reasoning, if all hetero marriages are invalidated because some break their vows, then all gays should be arrested because some molest little boys.

I could commit suicide by jumping from you ego to your IQ level!

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#187 Aug 2, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Or the fact that marriage was not even possible until we had a stable social structure for our species. For thousands of years humans didn't even know who was who's father .... or mother.
From the reference you gave;

"Anthropology

Monogamy, the predecessor of formal marriage, may have evolved as recently as 20,000 years ago.[15][16] There are estimates, based on sexual dimorphism, that place monogamy four million years ago."

One idiot commending another idiot for their mutual stupidity.

Priceless!

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#188 Aug 2, 2013
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>Like Darwin it's a theory. I suggest he test it on a long walk off a short pier.
But why does he view his own Mom as nothing but a brood cow?
And why does he and Brian G feel OK with minsters and others being jailed in Indiana for practicing their faith?
You actually think homosexuality is defendable.

It is one of the few behaviors that violates BOTH mainstream religion and nature's function of our genitals for the purpose of human reproduction.

Homosexuality IS found in nature. But this doesn't challenge the behavior as justifiable as animals have been found to do many abnormal & destructive behaviors. Just as many animals have inherited genetic defects, so too has the reflex of these defects been observable within their behaviors. Homosexuality is certainly one such behavior.

From an evolutionary perspective, as Richard Dawkins puts it, genes are 'selfish'. Genes in a sense are desperate to survive, and so healthy animal psychology will be permeated with thoughts of heterosexuality in order to promote continuance of the species.

In fact, males and females have inherited (in general) antipodal characteristics to MINIMIZE homosexual attraction. In addition to enhancing the proverbial hunting and gathering, everything from the added bass in male voice, masculine body chemistry producing male scents, larger more powerful body, to substantially thicker body and facial hair, all serve as 'ornamentation' to create gender differentiation and consequentially it's reciprocal attractions.

Thus in example, many women will be irrationally turned on by facial hair on a guy, but men will generally be disgusted by facial hair on a woman.

Homosexuality is a disgrace to the will of natural selection. It's a 'bottle cap' preventing otherwise potentially intelligent productive people from passing the legacy of their genes to the next generation.

If religious, mainstream religion amplifies this message branding it an ABOMINATION.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#189 Aug 2, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You actually think homosexuality is defendable.
.....
LOL. Really?

Who needs to (or can) "defend" a harmless and natural trait? It's like complaining that tall people should defend being tall, or that lefties must defend using their left hands.

At least TRY logic. It's always a good place to start.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#190 Aug 2, 2013
KiMare wrote:
... I don't argue faith with faithless people.
Here is the bottom line; Why would you want to debate something you don't believe in and ignore the facts you pretend to depend on?
...
What is your faith? We know you are not Christian.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#191 Aug 2, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
From the reference you gave;
"Anthropology
Monogamy, the predecessor of formal marriage, may have evolved as recently as 20,000 years ago.[15][16] There are estimates, based on sexual dimorphism, that place monogamy four million years ago."
One idiot commending another idiot for their mutual stupidity.
Priceless!
The human species has been around longer than 20,000 years, but not for four million years. Our predecessors existed for a very long time though, back to the single celled animals. You can't be this uneducated.

Here, let's try being more specific, though I'm wagering we will lose your tiny brain after the first few words:

The human lineage of species existed a very long time before marriage was invented. Monogamy exists in many species, but has shown little to no impact on the fitness of the species and is thus inconsequential. One thing we do know is that the breeding based on dichotomous gender roles is highly inefficient and not much better for genetic diversity than the asexual reproduction methods. This is likely why plant life has proven to be the most successful, they breed in what is best described as a massive orgy.
Broseph

New Castle, DE

#192 Aug 2, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You either have a severe comprehension problem, are extremely dense or both.
I made no such claim about what the article would say. It is an article about evolutionary mating behavior and the implications for marriage. That has been the first thing I've encouraged you to educate yourself with.
You have offered only your immature opinion as valid evidence. You could simply post valid sources that debunk what I say. You don't, because you can't.
My opinion? There is no evidence that homosexuality is what you claimed it is. You made that claimed, were called out for it, and came up with nothing. That's a fact. You're just being a troll now. Also, nobody gets married based upon their amateur interpretations of evolutionary mating theories, so your point is garbage.

“Luke laughs at hypocrites!”

Since: Sep 10

Palm Springs, California

#193 Aug 2, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Silly child. You think it's intelligent to desecrate things you don't understand. I don't argue faith with faithless people.
Here is the bottom line; Why would you want to debate something you don't believe in and ignore the facts you pretend to depend on?
<quoted text>
Is that all you know to say?
How does that apply to anything I've said?
Moreover, your response is idiotic and childish. By your reasoning, if all hetero marriages are invalidated because some break their vows, then all gays should be arrested because some molest little boys.
I could commit suicide by jumping from you ego to your IQ level!
Who said all hetero marriages are invalidated? I only said that FIFTY percent fail. Your comparing that to child molesting is strange. When all else fails, I note, you guys run to that old stereotype.

I just wonder why you ignore the dismal failure of so many hetero marriages, yet think you own the lofty holy privilege, but choose to disallow those who are desperate for the pleasure. That makes no sense and is just mean.

“Luke laughs at hypocrites!”

Since: Sep 10

Palm Springs, California

#194 Aug 2, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
The human species has been around longer than 20,000 years, but not for four million years. Our predecessors existed for a very long time though, back to the single celled animals. You can't be this uneducated.
Here, let's try being more specific, though I'm wagering we will lose your tiny brain after the first few words:
The human lineage of species existed a very long time before marriage was invented. Monogamy exists in many species, but has shown little to no impact on the fitness of the species and is thus inconsequential. One thing we do know is that the breeding based on dichotomous gender roles is highly inefficient and not much better for genetic diversity than the asexual reproduction methods. This is likely why plant life has proven to be the most successful, they breed in what is best described as a massive orgy.
I recently read that monogamy evolved for survival. In many animal species, the new dad who comes along, kills the offspring of the earlier dad. Humans most probably did this in earlier days, so knocked it off when they began to think.

Also, the reason so many marriages fail is that in those long ago days, it took about 4 years for the kid to be able to walk and keep up and sort of not be a constant burden to the parents. So, after 4 years, the dad could take off. That's why humans tire of their spouses now. It was their cave man ancestors' behavior.

the clergy have been fighting hard wired innate behavior for centuries. Good luck on changing that there.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#195 Aug 2, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
The human species has been around longer than 20,000 years, but not for four million years. Our predecessors existed for a very long time though, back to the single celled animals. You can't be this uneducated.
Here, let's try being more specific, though I'm wagering we will lose your tiny brain after the first few words:
The human lineage of species existed a very long time before marriage was invented. Monogamy exists in many species, but has shown little to no impact on the fitness of the species and is thus inconsequential. One thing we do know is that the breeding based on dichotomous gender roles is highly inefficient and not much better for genetic diversity than the asexual reproduction methods. This is likely why plant life has proven to be the most successful, they breed in what is best described as a massive orgy.
First you discounted the time frame of marriage, and I exposed your stupidity.

Now you shift to discounting monogamy, the very basis of the constraint of marriage, and promote orgies!

Silly stupid.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#196 Aug 2, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL. Really?
Who needs to (or can) "defend" a harmless and natural trait? It's like complaining that tall people should defend being tall, or that lefties must defend using their left hands.
At least TRY logic. It's always a good place to start.
Interesting you bring that up;

http://thesexualevolutionofhumans.blogspot.co...
2010/04/whats-height-got-to-do -with-it.html

Like I said, two idiots 'reasoning' together.

Since: Mar 11

Location hidden

#197 Aug 2, 2013
fr KiMare:

>You actually think homosexuality is defendable....<

Why not? Your weekend homework assignment is this:

Look up and write at least five pages, single-spaced on the following people: Walt Whitman, Gertrude Stein, Queen Christina, Alexander the Great, Peter the Great, Sir John Gielgud, Bayard Rustin, Leonard Bernstein, Raymond Burr, King James I (yes, the one who ordered the King James Bible), and President James Buchanan.

Guess what? They were all GAY. Get a clue, get educated, and grow UP. You seriously need counselling.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#198 Aug 2, 2013
Pattysboi wrote:
fr KiMare:
>You actually think homosexuality is defendable....<
Why not? Your weekend homework assignment is this:
Look up and write at least five pages, single-spaced on the following people: Walt Whitman, Gertrude Stein, Queen Christina, Alexander the Great, Peter the Great, Sir John Gielgud, Bayard Rustin, Leonard Bernstein, Raymond Burr, King James I (yes, the one who ordered the King James Bible), and President James Buchanan.
Guess what? They were all GAY. Get a clue, get educated, and grow UP. You seriously need counselling.
Awe honey, I threw you for a loop!

Silly girl, there are a lot more famous gays than that.

But the question isn't can homosexuals be good or bad, it is whether or not homosexuality is a sexual defect.

Why does the issue always go to self acceptance. Any challenge is always personal. It betrays an inner fear. When you have the courage to fearlessly address that, you can deal with reality.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#199 Aug 2, 2013
Curteese wrote:
<quoted text>I recently read that monogamy evolved for survival. In many animal species, the new dad who comes along, kills the offspring of the earlier dad. Humans most probably did this in earlier days, so knocked it off when they began to think.
Also, the reason so many marriages fail is that in those long ago days, it took about 4 years for the kid to be able to walk and keep up and sort of not be a constant burden to the parents. So, after 4 years, the dad could take off. That's why humans tire of their spouses now. It was their cave man ancestors' behavior.
the clergy have been fighting hard wired innate behavior for centuries. Good luck on changing that there.
Your monogamy notion is possible, however it still does not demonstrate any benefit to the species, as I said, it's inconsequential, the possible benefits and flaws neutralize each other. Our genes are still centered around communal breeding, ironically, the most successful species with dichotomous gender systems have the traits supporting such a habit of "mixing it up." The felines are some of the best examples of this.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#200 Aug 2, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
First you discounted the time frame of marriage, and I exposed your stupidity.
Now you shift to discounting monogamy, the very basis of the constraint of marriage, and promote orgies!
Silly stupid.
Marriage is relatively new for the species, it's a contract, a legal one dealing with property and inheritance ... and for it's entire existence it has been just that.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#201 Aug 2, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Awe honey, I threw you for a loop!
Silly girl, there are a lot more famous gays than that.
But the question isn't can homosexuals be good or bad, it is whether or not homosexuality is a sexual defect.
Why does the issue always go to self acceptance. Any challenge is always personal. It betrays an inner fear. When you have the courage to fearlessly address that, you can deal with reality.
All sexuality restricted to dichotomous gender systems is defective, straight or gay, does not matter, the fact that homosexuals cannot reproduce is a flaw in the reproductive system, not in the homosexuals, in everyone.
Broseph

New Castle, DE

#202 Aug 2, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Awe honey, I threw you for a loop!
......Seriously?

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#203 Aug 3, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You either have a severe comprehension problem, are extremely dense or both.
I made no such claim about what the article would say. It is an article about evolutionary mating behavior and the implications for marriage. That has been the first thing I've encouraged you to educate yourself with.
You have offered only your immature opinion as valid evidence. You could simply post valid sources that debunk what I say. You don't, because you can't.
Broseph wrote:
<quoted text>
My opinion? There is no evidence that homosexuality is what you claimed it is. You made that claimed, were called out for it, and came up with nothing. That's a fact. You're just being a troll now. Also, nobody gets married based upon their amateur interpretations of evolutionary mating theories, so your point is garbage.
You ignore the evidence I posted while denying you are giving just your opinion. How? By giving your opinion.

If my description of anything is false, post evidence of it.

I back up what I'm saying. You have yet to do so.

The reference I gave addressed marriage and evolutionary mating behavior. Do you have a reference that counters that?

Put up, or shut up.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Education Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Obama administration withdraws rules regarding ... 42 min Maltamon 3
Does Your School Still Have A Mandated Shower R... (Apr '14) 46 min CanonFriarNirvana... 207
Did You Swim Nude In High School? (Dec '12) 48 min CanonFriarNirvana... 2,634
La Pilule Anglaise (Mar '13) 51 min Salford Salesian ... 145
Phil snared by police in Manchester 58 min Cover For Nervy M... 6
Brandon Leonard leotards Phil 1 hr Cover For Nervy M... 5
nudity in co-ed contexts (May '14) 1 hr Cover For Nervy M... 62
More from around the web