Giambattista said:
As for the word natural, I don't think that applies to humans. Humans are way beyond anything that can be described as natural. There is very little comparison between humans and other animals. Obviously some species are much closer than others, but none of them are composing symphonies, building computers, making drugs and medicines, or whatever else modern humans do, like large scale wars.
Arguing that heterosexuality is normal (or NOT normal) for HUMANS by examining nature is a pretty weak argument. Arguing what constitutes a natural sexual behavior in humans, period, is difficult at best, just because humans and the way their brains work are so hard to categorize and predict.
Like I said, some animal (and insect species, as well) have fairly complex social orders, but nothing compares to what humans are capable of. Therefore, I don't think anyone can say what natural constitutes for HUMAN nature.
I don't agree with you Giambatista, that human beings are any different from animals. Not as far as our animal instincts and needs are concerned. Sure we have a larger brain than the others and with that we have been able to manipulate nature to drive unusual comforts and luxuries for ourselves. But beyond that we are just like animals. A great man had once said (I don't know who) that what an average animal does during its life is to eat, sleep and have sex. That's what an average human being does, although the difference is that he eats cooked food, with spoons, sleeps on beds and has sex within rooms. These manmade 'accesories' are quite inessential for surviving or even living a happy and healthy life.
Sexuality is a basic need. Humans can, through their brain find various ways of expressing their sexual needs, can bind them into marriage, can hide their reproductive organs under clothes, can bind their sexual needs into social identities, can make you feel terribly ashamed for having sexual desires outside the norm, Can force you to lie about or hate your sexual needs and do a lot of those artifical things. But humans can't change the basic animal nature of these needs. That will remain the same however 'advanced' we become.
To put it in aone line, humans can destroy or control their sexual needs but they cannot create something where none exists.
The assumption that human beings are different than animals and are superior to them comes basically from Christianity. Before Christianity human beings believed themselves to be part of the whole nature --- one of the animals. All old mythologies rever and worship animals and see them in human forms having human tendencies. Similarly humans are also seen to be sharing animal tendencies. Animals and humans, in the ancient mythologies frequently interact and change from one to another. Christianity just cut off humans from the rest of the world, giving them this stupid feeling of being superior.
In my country, we don't have this feeling of being different from animals. We still relate with the animals and consider us a part of nature.
But in any case, as far as my contention that 95% of men have a sexual need for other men is concerned, I have not even gotten down to seriously prove it yet (I'll do it in a different thread) and I will certainly not base my argument only on nature. Though I do believe that nature/ animals by themselves are proof enough, but then westerners are too cut off from nature to realise this.
Ironically, just a decade ago, 'heterosexuals' widely criticised so-called 'homosexuality' as unnatural, because "it is not found amongst animals". Then it was alright to draw direct conclusions from the animals, but now it is not.
Heterosexuals really want to have their cake and eat it too!
