Heterosexuality is unnatural

[devils_reject]

So you think you got here because a peter fucked a paul? LOL. If there is evidence of a "male sex" and a "female sex", that is all the evidence we need. Get it?

 

[Buddha1]

Your poijt sare fine but if you look carefully they can also be used against your points as well- as to why people turn gay. Religious monasteries for example requires the residence of all men only, which is a fine prerequisite to being gay, may a mention the recent catholic priests? I would be gay to if I counldn't marry either sex and had to put up with a lot of cememonies wearing queerish outfits day in day out.

This post has really enraged me, and initially I wanted to write a harsh response. But I really controlled myself, thinking you are a well-meaning but ignorant westerner.

Nowhere have I advocated so-called 'gays' or the concept of 'homosexuality'. I oppose 'homosexuality'. And that does not mean that I oppose a feminine male's sexual need for other men. Just the ideology of homosexuality which is an integral part of the heterosexual ideology.

And yes, masculine male's (my definition of straight but not based on my whims but on a rational basis, for more info click here ) desire for another man is not 'gay' or 'homosexuality'.

And this world is not divided between homosexuals and heterosexuals --- or even bisexuals for that matter. This world is divided between masculine gendered men and feminine gendered men --- gender orientation is biological, sexual orientation is man-made.

 

[Buddha1]

So you think you got here because a peter fucked a paul? LOL. If there is evidence of a "male sex" and a "female sex", that is all the evidence we need. Get it?

I think you need to get over your overconfidence. It is no use wasting this threadspace for discussing something which has already been discussed in more than 12 pages, and in case you have a new point to add, it's still open. The above line has been well proved to be false. So please read the thread.

 

[devils_reject]

To me it just seems you are too interested and somewhat naive about this topic. But thats good, good ideas. But remember that if nature did not invent rules they will not be broken.And if there are no broken rules there is no rule, and no rules means threatened survival of the specie and habitat. Thats all I was trying to point out, no offence. So how can heterosexuality or sexual reproduction not be evident in nature?

 

[Buddha1]

To me it just seems you are too interested and somewhat naive about this topic. But thats good, good ideas. But remember that if nature did not invent rules they will not be broken.And if there are no broken rules there is no rule, and no rules means threatened survival of the specie and habitat. Thats all I was trying to point out, no offence. So how can heterosexuality not be evident in nature?

I think you're being condescending!

I hope you find out your answer in the relevant thread. Perhaps you have something new and interesting to add there too. Or to prove me otherwise, in which case I'll eat my words.

 

[Buddha1]

Bhudda1 - Is your diatribe not putting pressure on heterosexual men to feel that they are indeed 'queer' for being heterosexual. How is what you are doing any more paletable than say the pressure you believe society put on males to be heterosexual?

Aren't you just trying to create a balance using an opposing but equally ridiculous set of pressures?

Really, I'm glad to here it's putting pressure, so you can have a taste of it. But I am disappointed that it has not given you an insight in to what men go through. You are still concerned only about yourself and who you think are heterosexuals.

I mean here you are, with a partner, wife, social respect, job everything you can ask for --- and you find it disconcerting when someone calls heterosexuality queer. Can you imagine what a masculine gendered teenager would go through who has a strong need for men, and he realises that if others come to know of his attraction he would not be 'straight' anymore, that he will have to be 'gay'. And when he sees on the telly how a transgendered or a fem guy is shown to be the representative of gays and how macho guys date women, and when he reads about scientific theories that explain how gay men are born that way and have brains similar to women --- that they are indeed 'queers', or if he reads a thread discussing whether 'homosexuals are born or made'. Can you imagine what he would go through? What effect will it have on his personality, his self-esteem, his choices in life. He would feel utterly disgusted about his sexual need for men, deny ever having it and go on a resolve to fight his instinct with his last breath. That is how the need to be masculine is in masculine men.

Perhaps, you should stop being so selfish, and recognise that there is a problem, and that we need to redress it. I have asserted that already that I'm against heterosexuality and not against male-female sex/ love. But it should be aligned with the right gender, if we are going to divide men into different groups. Otherwise, just let all men be one, whatever their gender is, whatever their sexual preference is --- but for that you'll need to remove the intermixing of sexes -- the mixed gender society.

 

[devils_reject]

Alright, I think people like Buddha1 are making the issue of masculinity and feminism too extreme, with many ideas borrowed from the circular ideas of the sexes. Fundamentally function follows form; you just can't get by that no matter how much you try. Regardless of all the societal views and demands, modernism, metrosexuality, homosexual, and bisexuality bullshit; once your body responds that way there is nothing you can do about it, maybe only suppressed it for a while. The function follows form relationship is where nature does its festival dance and has its way on our specie, sometime it gets it wrong sometimes it may not, but looking at the current population of the Homo sapiens it's done a credible job so far. The second function of our sex is the societal jargon, a relatively superficial influence. However the society is still part of nature, just the part that gives us the little taste of the wine called freedom. We are free to discuss and have sex how ever we wish but that is just the thinking and gift of the "individual", because as far as the population is concerned there are rules and usually the survival and progression of the population is more important than the individual.

 

[Buddha1]

Alright. I think people like Buddha1 are making the issue of masculinity and feminity too extreme, with many ideas borowed from the circular ideas of the sexes. Fundamentaly function follows form, you just can't get by that no matter how much you try. Regardless of all the societal views and demands, modernism ,metrosexuality, himosexual, and bisexuality bullshit; Once your body responds that way there is nothing you can do about it, maybe only surpress it for a while. The function follows form relationship is where nature does its festival dance and has its way on our specie, sometime it gets it wrong sometimes it may not, but lookin at the current population of the Homo sapiens it's done a credible job so far. The second function of our sex is the societal jargon, a relatively superficial influence. However the society is still part of nature, just the part that gives us the little taste of the wine called freedom. We are free to discuss and have sex how ever we wish but that is just the thinking and gift of the "individual", because as far as the population is concerned there are rules and usualy the survival and progression of the population is more important than the individual.

??????

 

[devils_reject]

it's been edited. read it again if you wish. alternatively read about sociology and biology. I will be happy to furnish a book or two I have read myself.

 

[Buddha1]

Alright, I think people like Buddha1 are making the issue of masculinity and feminism too extreme, with many ideas borrowed from the circular ideas of the sexes. Fundamentally function follows form; you just can't get by that no matter how much you try. Regardless of all the societal views and demands, modernism, metrosexuality, homosexual, and bisexuality bullshit; once your body responds that way there is nothing you can do about it, maybe only suppressed it for a while. The function follows form relationship is where nature does its festival dance and has its way on our specie, sometime it gets it wrong sometimes it may not, but looking at the current population of the Homo sapiens it's done a credible job so far. The second function of our sex is the societal jargon, a relatively superficial influence. However the society is still part of nature, just the part that gives us the little taste of the wine called freedom. We are free to discuss and have sex how ever we wish but that is just the thinking and gift of the "individual", because as far as the population is concerned there are rules and usually the survival and progression of the population is more important than the individual.

You didn't even take a minute to post your response before I guided you here because you insisting on discussing the naturalness of heterosexuality on another board. You are pathetcally opionated. You did not even care to go through what we have discussed.

Before you make further fool of yourself, I suggest you go through the thread. Even a cursory but well meaning glance would give you the gist of this discussion. You are not the only one with those views. They are the standard, accepted views in the society. People have discussed them threadbare -- and they could not hold water. This thread is meant to logically debunk myths such as that circulated by you!

 

[Buddha1]

Heterosexuals cannot even contest your words without being 'liars' or 'repressed homosexuals'.

See, even after all the discussions you have not ceased to talk about male-male sexual desire as 'homosexuality'. People have to be shaken out of their status quo, otherwise they don't listen. So you have to use extreme or harsh sounding measures.

I don't recall calling someone a liar on this thread (not that I don't reserve to right to do that when someone does a terrible lie!). But when you know the general trend and how the male pressures work on men, it is better not to get into a discussion about their personal life because chances are they will not tell the truth --- if that is what you mean by 'being called a liar'.

I'm not the only one who has said that. I have read articles by so-called heterosexuals who have talked about the pressures on men (not talking about sexuality though!) and how what men are from inside is often different from how they portray themselves, such is the irony of being a man.

 

[devils_reject]

I think I have proved that there is evidence of heterosexuality in nature by large. Or is that not what you demanded in your opening post here? Don't waste my time man! LIKE I SAID I WILL FURNISH A PAPER OR TWO

 

[devils_reject]

Listen when you see a host of ants filling up towards your garbage do you say "oh look at that particular ant he is prancing around feeling the awesome smile of the summer" or do you say "these miserable ants". And how do ants ensure their survival? by staying and working in groups. We are very much like ants.

 

[Buddha1]

The function follows form relationship is where nature does its festival dance and has its way on our specie, sometime it gets it wrong sometimes it may not, but looking at the current population of the Homo sapiens it's done a credible job so far.

Thanks to the society's manipulation of natural human sexuality, homo sapiens have done a terrible terrible job so far. They have overpopulated the earth which has become suicidal not only for themselves and reduced the quality of life, but also has harmed other creatures with whom we share this earth.

Dinosaurs lived for millions of years with nature and died a natural death. Humans have been around for such a short time, and it seems when they will go (which will be their own undoing -- what with their superior brains) they will not leave much of our mother earth behind.

 

[Buddha1]

The function follows form relationship is where nature does its festival dance and has its way on our specie, sometime it gets it wrong sometimes it may not, but looking at the current population of the Homo sapiens it's done a credible job so far.

This thread is meant to discuss whether heterosexual is natural in the animals.
If you want to discuss whether heterosexuality is beneficial to humans or not there is another thread going for that.

I will respond to your post in the appropriate thread titled (just follow the link)
heterosexuality is unethical, immoral and harmful.

 

[Avatar]

The Earth is hardly overpopulated. There's plenty of uninhabited and suited for habitation land,
besides the birth rates in Europe and Russia have very decreased (Russia is dying out actually).
You overestimate the power of humans and underestimate that of nature and life as such.

 

[Buddha1]

I think I have proved that there is evidence of heterosexuality in nature by large. Or is that not what you demanded in your opening post here? Don't waste my time man! LIKE I SAID I WILL FURNISH A PAPER OR TWO

It only goes to show that you are not sincere. You don't want to waste your time reading what other people have said, foolishly assuming you know the best. There is not much use discussing with you then. You can continue to hold whatever beliefs you want to hold. But you should quit dropping in with irritating, ill concieved and biased posts. These are important issues and we are discussing them with all sincerety. I suggest you should respond only when you want to constructively add to an ongoing discussion. It is frustrating to discuss with someone who couldn't careless but for his own opinions.

 

[Buddha1]

I think I have proved that there is evidence of heterosexuality in nature by large. Or is that not what you demanded in your opening post here? Don't waste my time man! LIKE I SAID I WILL FURNISH A PAPER OR TWO

Have you really? Oh, I must have missed it!

 

[Buddha1]

Listen when you see a host of ants filling up towards your garbage do you say "oh look at that particular ant he is prancing around feeling the awesome smile of the summer" or do you say "these miserable ants". And how do ants ensure their survival? by staying and working in groups. We are very much like ants.

??????

Is this what you call your proof?

 

[Buddha1]

The Earth is hardly overpopulated. There's plenty of uninhabited and suited for habitation land,
besides the birth rates in Europe and Russia have very decreased (Russia is dying out actually).
You overestimate the power of humans and underestimate that of nature and life as such.

Avatar another insincere comment. I hope you realise how dangerously misinformed you are!