According to some, sex is for procreation and that's why it feels good.
WTF? Whose prostate gets stimulated during striaght sex?
BTW, I've had sex before and am aware of the mechanisms, but thanks for the 'explanation'
sex results offspring. having sex pleasurable is generally more rewarding in the cause of reproduction than having sex painful. for at least one member in the pair, it has to feel good.
also, yes, i'm pretty sure the prostate, along with other glands, etc. in that region get stimulated during intercourse, in addition to the penis whether your taking it or giving it. they can be stimulated through the rectum or they can be stimulated by the penis doing its penetrating. the penis starts within the body, close to the same machinery that gets stimulated through the rectum. but that is just one chunk of the pleasure senses. why do people ejaculate without even having any physical stimulation? the mind is also heavily involved as well as other senses such as visual, auditory and even taste and smell. there are people who can think themselves to orgasm.
there's nothing extra special about a gay man's anatomy that a straight man doesn't have.
also, what i forgot to mention is that males and females share alot of characteristics in regards to pleasure and sexual anatomy. nipples on men are not essential and neither the remnant of a prostate gland in women and a clitoris which is nothing more than a non developed penis. but hey, those things are there and because they're wired a certain way, they usually feel good when you play with them.
Why has the gay gene survived? Shouldn't it have become scarce due to lack of procreation among homosexuals? Explain that one, science.
just a stab at it but have no gay men ever married women and had offspring with them? (and vice versa) how many gay men are pressured by societal factors into adopting a heterosexual lifestyle? ted haggard anyone?
what if the gay gene exists in all of us but is switched on or off by some factor during gestation?
Because no one has ever provided evidence for life as being the result of an unnatural process (such as an extra-universal force originating from a deity or deities).
I'll leave my mind open on such a topic, but so far, the people arguing for deity-driven origins have had a really rough time agreeing on the specific qualities of the (these) deities - never mind actually providing evidence for them. For that reason, I characterize myself as a pragmatic agnostic. No one has offered proof for the existence of a deity, but I'm not about to brush off a claim of someone having some kind of measurable or testable data. But it has to be testable and not "miracle-based."
That being said, there is considerable evidence showing the evolution of life.
gristle, i wasn't arguing for a creator, i was making another point. read that post more carefully.
there's no evidence for a god (that's why they call it faith) so in addition to being agnostic, you can be atheist too since you don't have to have proof of non existence (which is impossible) in order to disbelieve in something.
don't be afraid to say that you're an atheist. it doesn't require proof of non existence unless you're a gnostic atheist. also, you can still be an atheist and be open to change your position should god(s) be proven.