Heterosexuality is unnatural

[jayleew]

If you want to say that heterosexuality is natural in nature, then to be honest you must admit that homosexuality is natural in nature.

Oh yes, I have seen a dog attempt to have it with another male dog, but I've also seen a dog try to make it with anyone's shoe. The homosexuality phenomenon we see in nature is a result of instinct and a horny animal.

However, we don't see the females doing this. So, if we look for homosexuality (as far as relationships), there is none such behavior in nature. You will not see two male or female foxes rearing a den, or any other homosexualt relationship. But there are heterosexual relationships. So, on one hand we have at least one instance of heterosexuality in nature and the other hand we have no instances of homosexuality (relationships not sex) in nature. Which case is the more likely to be true concerning nature.

Even if there was a handful of cases of homosexuality (relationships not sex), there is a vast number of cases of heterosexuality.

 

[MetaKron]

The facts of homosexual pair bonding and sex in nature have been established in the scientific literature well beyond any reasonable doubt, and for quite a long time. Giraffes are a good example.

Oh yes, I have seen a dog attempt to have it with another male dog, but I've also seen a dog try to make it with anyone's shoe. The homosexuality phenomenon we see in nature is a result of instinct and a horny animal.

However, we don't see the females doing this. So, if we look for homosexuality (as far as relationships), there is none such behavior in nature. You will not see two male or female foxes rearing a den, or any other homosexualt relationship. But there are heterosexual relationships. So, on one hand we have at least one instance of heterosexuality in nature and the other hand we have no instances of homosexuality (relationships not sex) in nature. Which case is the more likely to be true concerning nature.

Even if there was a handful of cases of homosexuality (relationships not sex), there is a vast number of cases of heterosexuality.

 

[VossistArts]

The facts of homosexual pair bonding and sex in nature have been established in the scientific literature well beyond any reasonable doubt, and for quite a long time. Giraffes are a good example.

So youre saying that in these cases of same sex pairing, that the animals involved have not and will not engage in heterosexual mating at some point in time? That they are distinctly unmoved in any way to engage the opposite sex? or that they can and will resist the opposite sex when its mating season? I doubt that.

It seems to me once again, that in nature, animals are not shy to form relationships sexual or otherwise with either sex in the species. I dont think you can call the way animals behave heterosexual or homosexual anyways. Those are definately human concepts. As far as sex in the animal world go its like someone above said, its dictated by instinct and procreative drive, not by choice.

In humans, Heterosexuality and homosexuality are essentially the same. Both are attracted to only one sex whether it be the same sex or the opposite sex, and both are adverse to any pairing besides their hetero or homo orientations. It doesnt make sense to argue one against the other, in either case both are content to reside with their own particular orientation, or as I like to think of it, dysfunction. To argue in favor of heterosexuality over homosexuality by virtue of procreative potential is hardly a reasonable point in this day and age considering overpopulation is probably the topmost problem with the world today. Realistically if youre going to argue procreative potential or lack of, I think Id draw in favor of homosexuallity right now. The more homosexuality the better. Means less people being brought into a word that has far too many people already. But ultimately, Its no one business but the two or more people involved in any given relationship. We can love who we want to love and no one can or should be able to prevent that.
You cant say that homosexuality is wrong because of their sexual practices. Sexual practice is entirely assumed. You cant say homosexuality is wrong because it says in some book sodomy is a sin, because you dont know and its no ones business how a same sex couple expresses affection. I mean, people love their dogs. I know people who have a relationship with their dog and they could give a shit about people. Should that be considered a sin? or an issue? Do we assume that someone who loves their dog is necessarily fucking their dog? no.
So if this thread was intended to argue for or against any kind of relationship, it would seems its pointless and moot. Same sex, opposite sex, and both sex relationships have, do and will continue to exist in this world. The only thing there is to do about any of it is to get a grip,get used to it.. and learn to get along.

 

[MetaKron]

No, that wasn't in what I said. I said homosexual pair bonding and sex. I didn't say that the couples involved were limited to exclusively homosexual activities.

There are a lot of people who will deny that this takes place no matter what the science books say. Some of the same people also advocate bans on the teaching of evolution, burning of books on science and sexology, and sexual abstinence as a cure for all of our social ills. This being the year it is, anyone who denies that homosexuality occurs in nature is willfully blind or uninformed. The word has been out for at least forty years.

 

[VossistArts]

I guess Im not understanding this then. How is it that there can be homosexuality where the opposite sex is sometimes involved? Isnt that more like bisexuality? explain?

 

[MetaKron]

The term homosexual describes activities or bonding between two creatures of the same sex. Homosexuality is when the same sex is involved. Heterosexuality is when the other sex is involved. Once in a while there is homosexual and heterosexual going on at the same time.

 

[VossistArts]

heh ok. Its just that where Im from... Its called bisexuality heh Peace

 

[Buddha1]

What if there's no more food? I would say that 99,9% of the animals would eat their babies or eat the last ressources instead of dying. So, when 99,9% of the humans would die before doing that... is it a disorder too? No : it's a different behaviour.

And pray tell, what is the urgency to impose heterosexuality on men?

We are the most evolved species in the world......That's evolution... our instinct has evolved.

Does evolution mean acting against our basic instincts? And towards what ends? Overpopulation? Destruction of earth? Abortions and environmentally degrading condoms? That's foolishness not evolution.

Does evolution mean creating so much human misery for pampering a miniscule minority? Does evolution mean creating so much human waste?

I don't think so!

Evolution happens from within individuals. It is not imposed by an elaborate social/ religious order. This is no evolution. This is oppression!

We are able to see that fucking a guy is pointless while doing it with a girl can increase love between us and help to find a wife and have babies.

This has been beautifully responded to by another poster.

About disorder : what about love then? what about living with the same girl for the rest of your life? It must be a disorder too, no?

Living with a girl --- same or not --- for the rest of your life --- willingly ----- is certainly a disorder for a straight (meaning masculine, not heterosexual) man. Which man in his right mind would submit to marriage willingly. Men's discomfort with marriage is as old as the institution of marriage itself. Men resist it as long as they can. This is no secret. There are innumerable marriage jokes that are just a reflection of the discomfort men feel. The western society has removed the pressure to marry but replaced it with a much unpleasant pressure, and one from which escape is pretty difficult --- the pressure to keep a girlfriend, which is 1000 times more taxing for a real man.
Living with a woman is impossible --- man and woman are just too different. There's no compatibility --- n ot even sexual. Sex with women once in a while is O.K. But love and intimacy is something that only a sufficiently feminised male brain can accomplish or relish.

 

[Buddha1]

Good grief, you seem to be completely incapable of paying attention long enough to focus on a single point!

Look, your claim is that there is no evidence of heterosexuality in nature. I am presenting myself as evidence. Rather than deal with it, you make comments (some very long-winded) on all these issues that have nothing whatsoever to do with your claim. This quote from you here is just the last in a series of them.

Patience, my friend.

It's easy to throw one liners when you are discussing from a socially accepted point of view. When your aim is to expose, you need to do some explanation. Besides, talking about human sexuality is not so simple as talking about animal sexuality. The former has been made utterly complicated by social manipulations --- and one needs to remove several cobwebs in order to get at the truth.

Are you interested in being scientific, or in pushing an agenda?

I want to get at the truth, and if science protects lies I would not hesitate to expose science. Otherwise I do intend to be scientific.
Part of seeking the truth is to dismantle the heterosexual agenda, without which you cannot know the real human sexuality.

And this whole exercise about proving heterosexuality unnatural is not an isolated exercise, nor is it in vain. It is meant to expose and render powerless the powerful 'heterosexuual' oppression.

So be prepared to be grilled on the same criteria which has been used on male-male sexuality. Science should not change for different situations. Otherwise there would be no comparison.

Yeah. Unfortunately you haven't returned the favor with the points I have raised.

Your drawback is that you are looking for readymade, quick-fix answers. And sometimes you fail to see your answer even when it is stuck in your face.

Here's my answer again......

If you are a heterosexual its either a rare occurrence/ disability or a social disorder.

Explanation: I have already said in my first post that an extreme minority of males (1 in 50?) may be naturally inclined to bond intimately with women in a sexual relationship, accompanied by a distaste for males. However, such males are not the typical males, and in fact represent a different gender altogether. These males are more likely to be transgendered or meterosexuals than straight (meaning masculine not heterosexual). But even this is not heterosexuality.

The modern concept of heterosexuality (note that there was no such concept before the 20th century; there is still no such concept outside modern west) has the following important components:
- a mixed gender society
- desire to bond with women (as friends and as lovers)
- desire to have sex with women.
- An inability to bond with men (as friends and as lovers)
- An inability to have sex with men.

In addition there are two extremely important aspects of the heterosexual identity:
(i) that it is supposed to be a majority/ universal phenomenon.
(ii) that it is supposed to be a superior/ alpha-male/ masculine trait.

Unless all of the above criteria are met, the activity cannot be said to be heterosexual.

If the human male is straight and is still truly heterosexual (i.e., not just as an identity), which is a rare happening, then it points to a social disorder, where the person's ability to bond sexually with men has been lost or mutilated.

It could be a reversible disorder or a deep rooted one. E.g., It's been shown that if a natural trait is suppressed for long in a population, or it is forced to rely on a particular trait for long enough, at least some of the population will start showing biological changes. And at least some people will undergo important internal changes. E.g., some male elephants in a particular African population stopped growing teeth within a century when they were poached relentlessly for their teeth. This is supposed to be a biological defensive mechanism. Although this is a natural response to an unnatural hostility, it does make the outcome unnatural --- because it tampers with the natural order of things, it depletes and harms the nature making it less capable.

And I may add, that in my work experience of 10 years and even greater life-experience, I have met some guys (about 1 in 30) who vehemently claim that they have no sexual attraction for men. But I have not met any man who inspite of making that claim, doesn't melt at the first chance to have sex with an attractive man. The fun part is that those who are most vocal in their denial of such feelings turn out to be more desperate and straightforward for such sexual contacts.

 

[Buddha1]

HAHAHA! How old are you? Did you make this thread just to have something to argue about?

Enter, a Christian Fanatic. This is going to be fun!

That is rediculous, where do you live?

Far from the western world. And the evil influences of Christianity. Fortunately.

Haven't you ever watched NOVA? HAHAHA!

Fortunately, not.

Consider each species of life and you will see their nature among the males to battle each other for dominance over the females in the pack/herd.

The males that fight for mating are not 'heterosexuals' in the least. They have only as much sex as they need for procreation, and then don't look back at the female. Most males mate only a couple of times in their life. Observe two males fighting for a chance to mate. There will only be one or two pairs fighting. The rest will be merrily chewing on the grass. They fight for the chance to forward their genes. And the sexual desire for female if present is extremely transient. And guess where these masculine fighting males go to after they have forwarded their genes --- back to their male companions with who they share intimate sexual relationships for a lifetime.

All the examples of 'heterosexual' males in the wild show that they are kind of 'lesser males' or different gendered males, who do not prefer to fight for their female. They would rather bond with a dominating female and live with her away from the pack, year after year Or alternately, live with the females in the female pack --- thinking of themselves as females (refer to research by Joann Roughgarden).

Case closed! LOL!.

Not so fast. You guys have closed the truth for so long. We've just opened the pandora's box. And even though you hate this, the case will now not be closed for a long time to come. Hopefully, now there will be some real action.

Male fish meets female fish, male chases female fish, male busts a nut. I'd call that sexual activity. More speficially heterosexual activity.

Now I'm getting tired of explaining again and again. Every new foolhardy that enters this thread wants to make the same point without referring to the answers that I've already provided (I think twice!). Read my other responses on this query and if you have questions or comments about them --- you're welcome.

Male fish meets female fish, male chases female fish, male busts a nut. I'd call that sexual activity. More speficially heterosexual activity.

By your criteria, if a man goes to a sperm bank, donates his sperm which is then injected in an egg derived from a woman, the man has performed a heterosexual activity.

You don't because dating is not necessary to breed. We are not animals, so we do silly things like dating.

As per Christian and heterosexual zealots the entire human/ animal existence is geared to the goal of breeding. Anything that does not lead to or is unnecessary for procreation (including so-called homosexuality) is useless. So why does the heterosexual society invest in such useless/ silly endeavours as dating. And puts extreme force on its members to indulge in it.

Foxes for one.

At the outset, Foxes look a bit unusual for mammals. But if you look closely, their heterosexuality is a myth. You find all kinds of living arrangements in foxes. They mostly live in female only/ male only communities, though some males live in the female communities and help in raising children. They raise their children in groups like other mammals, but there are also incidences of what looks like nuclear families. However, a closer look will reveal that there is no heterosexuality involved.

The male parent partner only stays with the vixen when she's not in a group, because she's totally unable to hunt for herself and her kits. It's only a practical arrangement, and the male runs off as soon as the kits grow older (takes some weeks time). This arrangment is very-very temporary and short-lived. There is no evidence of any romantic involvement or sexual activity beyond the first few mating attempts, which is quite short. The driving force here is again procreation not sexual desire.

And there is more to this story. The female mates with many males but chooses only one partner, if at all, to help in raising her kits. Surely, not many males show interest in so partnering up with the female in child-rearing. The aggressive males who fight for having sex are in all probability not the males that the females choose as their partner in raising kits. And in all likelihood the kits do not belong to the male parent tending them.

There is evidence to suggest that such males are a different gender ----- with feminised biological traits ------ who show no interest in fighting for mating and are clearly quite compatible with females.

He is a meek kind of a guy (like the human wimpy), who likes to be dominated by the females he lives with. He doesn't fight even to protect his kits. He prefers to run and lead dogs/ cats etc. away from the kits instead.

You will find examples of this species in all mammals. Only, foxes seem to have more of them. Sometime during evolution their males (at least some of them) became more feminised than is usual.

At least in the case of the fox, such a male compensates for his lack of masculinity with his cunningness. A difference which is striking between the modern heterosexual brand of masculinity and the traditional masculinity.

The closest thing is a pack/herd. But the alpha male wants all the females to himself.

Mammals live in male only and female only packs. Some males (often in pairs that maybe more than just friends), for a short time in their late youth or middle age, may join a female pack where they control the females and the pre-pubescent males. The arrangement is temporary and may be geared to help in forwarding their genes, and the so-called alpha males have sex with both the females and males in the group. Their relationship with the females is that of 'controlling' and not one of bonding or love. They chase other males from females not because of any sexual jealousy but because they want the females to give birth to only their offsprings. This is not what is meant by a mixed gender, heterosexual society.

However, this alpha-male who controls the female group is no match for the real alpha male who controls the adult male group --- and may or may not mate with females, ever.

The male closest to heterosexuality will however not be interested in controlling any group. He'd much rather choose a dominating female and bond with her in a submissive relationship for a lifetime.

 

[Buddha1]

So, just because we are not like animals and see value in relationships, we have to be like animals and just mate for procreation? Are you insane?

A concept introduced by Christians. Christianity shares the major blame for distancing man from the nature outside of him (in addition to his own inner nature!). No wonder today's humans have no respect for nature. In fact Christianity sought to define nature on its own terms. It came to such a pass because the immense power it had accumulated went to its head.

The age old human wisdom as reflected in all earlier tribalistic as well as civilised societies was to respect and relate with animals. In fact they used to worship them as gods. Christianity was extremely hostile to this practise and disdainfully called it 'animalism'. It has done a great disservice to human kind by breaking man's connection with the animals.

The biases of religion are today inherited by science.

Your ideas are just plain stupid. This forum is a waste of my time. I will read it once more to counter your rebuttal of the evidence I provided to you, which I'm positive you are going to make. Somone with your ideas couldn't possibly succumb to reason.

I've enough experience of such discussions by now (though this is my first time with a Christian fanatic! This species is not too well known for their power to reason logically and they rely on rhetorics and their Bible instead). In all probability, you'll only throw a few tantrums, over confident of scaring me off (rather than proving me wrong, which you cannot!) and when you realise your folly, you'll quietly sneak away!

 

[Buddha1]

Have you ever heard of Pheremones? Have you ever heard of chemical reaction in the brain in response to stimulation? There's your pressure.

If Pheromones drove one to women, the society did not need an elaborate and oppressive mechanism to force men to bond with women. And offer such intoxicating social powers to those who submitted to this pressure (by cunningly associating sex with women with manhood).

This reward and punishment mechanism to control (straight) male sexual behaviour is only too obvious.

And inspite of the immense persecution of sexual desire for males --- it has still survived, albeit in suppressed, superficial, negative or homosexual forms. If this much has survived after all this persecution, what would be the original strength of male sexual desire for men.

It seems the pheromones drive men more towards the other side than what you guys have propagated for centuries, empowered by an unjust religion.

If you don't believe nature planned it that way, look at the scent glands of deer.

???

 

[Buddha1]

If heterosexuality were natural there would be no perceived need for force to make people stay heterosexual.

Exactly. Afterall, you don't pressurise people to eat, do you! Neither do you give them rewards for doing that.

If heterosexuality was a majority trait, in fact it would not have been so much valued by the society and glorified. Something that is common is not valued by people. It's always the rare traits that are valued and are sought after.

 

[Buddha1]

If pilfering was natural there would be no perceived need for force to make people stay non-pilferous.

Wrong comparison.

For this comparison to be correct it should have read:

"If pilferage was natural there would be no perceived need for force to make people stay pilferous".

Which is an absurd statement. And so is your comparison. Typical of Christian fanatics.

Heterosexuality is natural in nature. Stealing food is natural in nature. Would you like to live in a society such as the one you describe?

Surely, what the society glorifies and what it condemns cannot be arbitrary. So what do you think should be the criteria to decide which natural trait to be kept and which to guard against?

 

[MetaKron]

The species of Christian fanatic (faux Latin: fanaticus christianus is noted for the voluntary practice of clinging to pieces of traditions that are from 2,000 to 6,000 years old, and the rejection of any modern science that contradicts those "ideals." This practice is arranged in such a way that it is possible to do anything and blame it on someone who lived at least 2,000 years ago. There is nothing new under the sun as far as ways to get over on people. One decade it's homosexuality. Another it's people who live out in the country and raise their own food. Another decade it's Jews. The last thing such a subspecies wants is for individuals to take personal responsibility for what they know and what they do. If one of their leaders wants us to invade Iraq for no good reason, we should ask for the details while we're in the air.

They want us to obey their version of biological law, revised to force it into accordance with today's version of Biblical law. They want us to accept the revisions as up to date science. They want all science to conform to the Bible even if some observations must be discarded.

They want to tell us that all we have to do to be free is to follow every order they give. Only then will we be free from having our homes and lives broken into, our animals and our possessions burned, our spirits and bodies imprisoned and torn apart. Just obey, and we will be free.

Then the will of God undergoes another tectonic shift. They are attacking our lives from another angle. They have spotted some other form of disobedience to God's will. Those of us who earned freedom by obedience have to start all over again.

And so it goes.

 

[Buddha1]

That's evolution... our instinct has evolved.

You can keep that evolution to yourself. And let human beings live as per their nature.

 

[SG-N]

Doh!

OK, you're right : there is no evidence for heterosexuality in nature... as there's no evidence for homosexuality in nature. So just live as you want...

 

[SG-N]

Living with a woman is impossible --- man and woman are just too different. There's no compatibility --- n ot even sexual. Sex with women once in a while is O.K. But love and intimacy is something that only a sufficiently feminised male brain can accomplish or relish.

Bad love experience? You should talk about it...

 

[jayleew]

So youre saying that in these cases of same sex pairing, that the animals involved have not and will not engage in heterosexual mating at some point in time? That they are distinctly unmoved in any way to engage the opposite sex? or that they can and will resist the opposite sex when its mating season? I doubt that.

It seems to me once again, that in nature, animals are not shy to form relationships sexual or otherwise with either sex in the species. I dont think you can call the way animals behave heterosexual or homosexual anyways. Those are definately human concepts. As far as sex in the animal world go its like someone above said, its dictated by instinct and procreative drive, not by choice.

In humans, Heterosexuality and homosexuality are essentially the same. Both are attracted to only one sex whether it be the same sex or the opposite sex, and both are adverse to any pairing besides their hetero or homo orientations. It doesnt make sense to argue one against the other, in either case both are content to reside with their own particular orientation, or as I like to think of it, dysfunction. To argue in favor of heterosexuality over homosexuality by virtue of procreative potential is hardly a reasonable point in this day and age considering overpopulation is probably the topmost problem with the world today. Realistically if youre going to argue procreative potential or lack of, I think Id draw in favor of homosexuallity right now. The more homosexuality the better. Means less people being brought into a word that has far too many people already. But ultimately, Its no one business but the two or more people involved in any given relationship. We can love who we want to love and no one can or should be able to prevent that.
You cant say that homosexuality is wrong because of their sexual practices. Sexual practice is entirely assumed. You cant say homosexuality is wrong because it says in some book sodomy is a sin, because you dont know and its no ones business how a same sex couple expresses affection. I mean, people love their dogs. I know people who have a relationship with their dog and they could give a shit about people. Should that be considered a sin? or an issue? Do we assume that someone who loves their dog is necessarily fucking their dog? no.
So if this thread was intended to argue for or against any kind of relationship, it would seems its pointless and moot. Same sex, opposite sex, and both sex relationships have, do and will continue to exist in this world. The only thing there is to do about any of it is to get a grip,get used to it.. and learn to get along.

This is not a subject for this thread. Check out the ethics of homosexuality thread under "Ethics, Morality,..."

The subject is as the title states, "There is no evidence for heterosexuality in nature." Which, you have stated what nonsense it is.

 

[jayleew]

Enter, a Christian Fanatic. This is going to be fun!

Far from the western world. And the evil influences of Christianity. Fortunately.

You crack me up!
I am a Christian and I stand for what I believe in the face of tyranny with confidence that is given me.

However, I am trying to as objective as I can.

Alright bub, I have been out of the loop for some time. I didn't know that recently zoologists are beginning to lose their fear and start reporting homosexual behavior. Due to the lack of homosexual evidence, heterosexuality was assumed. I would have never thought that we would need to look at animals to determine how humans should act. But, that is not the topic, so we just need to find one instance of heterosexuality in nature to make your hypothesis untrue.

Well, as far as marriage goes, three percent of mammals are monogomous. Those that are live in social pairs, but have a little hanky panky on the side.
http://www.wonderquest.com/animal-mate-for-life.htm

This is a suggestive point, but still not evidence of heterosexuality.

There was a good point that came up in this forum. That it cannot be proven at this time that nature is either heterosexual or homosexual. I didn't believe it until I looked at the evidence that both sides have, which is non-conclusive because we can't get into the mind of the animal. We can only observe behavior. The research on bonobos was particularly interesting (indicating that the bonobos "got horny" for many reasons). The source is biased, so just scroll down to the observations on bonobos entitled, "Explaining Seemingly "Homosexual" Animal Behavior" His observations are compelling, but inconclusive to the topic.

There are some interesting speculation that animals are seeking the self-gratification from sex (which is ingrained in the instinct of animals), which if so, would support that nature is bisexual if anything. Here's a good objective source that explores both sides. Some suggest that the behavior of homosexuality is a developmental stage, and some animals do not make it out of because of social issues and/or personal circumstances.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal_2.html

Since there is no conclusive evidence that I can find either supporting this topic or against, I am drawn to a conclusion based on the evidence given by both sides, that animals are driven by sexual impulses. The circumstances in which the animal is in can influence its sexual desire, which can lead to sex, regardless of gender. This would explalin why a dog, when excited in some way, will want to have sex (even with humans). This article explains that the stimulation of the dog from the scent of a female, or social stimulation will trigger unusual sexual behavior (even with cats).
http://www.petfinder.com/journalindex.cgi?path=/public/animalbehavior/dogs/1.2.36.txt

It would seem that there is more evidence that the animal kingdom is bisexual and sexually driven by instinct and evolution than any claim for heterosexuality or homosexuality.

Still, you are stretching the argument to go so far as to say there is no evidence of heterosexuality, because heterosexuality is the predominant observational evidence that we have encountered. Even those that argue pro-homosexuality, acknowledge that homosexualilty is a phenomenon and not the normal behavior. There has yet much to be explained away that is perceived to be heterosexual behavior. For now, it is assumed.

I see your point in making this thread and telling people to turn from what they thought was true because studies are showing that it might not be the case, so like everything else, man knows very little about what we think we know a lot about. Science, in its search for the unexplainable, is chaotic and causes strife and division in its own current beliefs and this is another example of it. I am against changing too fast, our beliefs, before they are tried and true. If we lived our lives by the whim of evidence, we would think the world is flat one day and round another. Science fanatics look to change to world in one day because they think they find conclusive evidence, which later studies prove otherwise.

I love the quote from Jurassic Park, where the Chaos Theory Mathematician says we spend so much time wondering if we can do something, instead of thinking if we should?

In the name of science, the world changes its view. But, is it too fast? I suppose that is discussion for another thread.