is this natural

However, there are things that are truly acts against nature. Unfortunately, science is a human institution that is being used big time as a tool against the nature. By exploiting and killing mother earth for our short term (ab)use and for luxury. This can truly be called unnatural.
Similarly to force men to desist from forming intimate bonds with other men also tantamounts to working against natural forces and thus can be called 'unnatural'. All in all, I might say that we are living in a very unnatural world.
And yes, Christianity is truly unnatural too, because often it seems to boss around with nature and taking it upon itself to define and abuse it.
 
Everything we do is natural. Being a part of nature, how can we do anything that is contrary to our nature? How can you live contrary to life? We are the way we are naturally, we got to this state through evolution.
 
"how can we do anything that is contrary to our nature? "

Unfortnuately, we can. But when we do that we have to pay its price.
If a man dislikes sex with a particular woman but still has sex with her for the fear that he may be considered impotent or gay, he is acting against his nature.
Man has become so powerful, that he has created his own artificial environment (although by manipulating natural laws) where he can do things that otherwise will be impossible. And religion is that force that is used to force people live against their nature. Men usually suppress their strong sexual feelings for other men, so that they are isolated through the repressive 'gay' label.
But then he has to bear its consequences, which may mean a very stressful life.
If it weren't for society's artifically created norms, beliefs and laws, men would behave according to their nature, which they do not do. I don't see why we cannot call this unnatural.
Maybe you'd like to use another word instead of 'unnatural' because it has several moral implications and is not purely a scientific word.
How about 'anti-natural'.
 
"Men usually suppress their strong sexual feelings for other men, so that they are isolated through the repressive 'gay' label."

That should have been,
Men usually suppress their strong sexual feelings for other men so that they are not isolated through the repressive 'gay' label.
 
"we got to this state through evolution"

There are two kinds of evolution. Natural evolution and social evolution. And then somethings are forced, whichi are not part of any evolution.
Religion is not a part of natural evolution. And least not Christiantiy and Islam. Religion is not even a part of normal social evolution. It was forced down people's throat through blood shed and violence..
If you manipulate dinosaurs's DNAs and rebuild dinasaurs you cannot claim it to be 'evolution'.
You could perhaps say, for instance, that Islam is a virus that nature built to destroy humankind, as part of an intricate destruction mechanism when a species becomes too powerful and destructive for the nature itself.
 
go to the roots of un-natural. say you have the polar-related extremes, or oppo-sites, life and death, and some one comes and says 'no, they REALLY are NOT related, but are separate, and you can only have one if you do abc--like say Christianity says

or say the same for amy polar related oppoistes. well the splitting of them is un-natrual isn't it?

you may argue that the very action Os splitting them must be 'natrual' cause it was done, but is it? what do you think?
 
We cannot break nature's laws but we can:
1. understand its laws (through science and use it for our good or bad)
2. destroy nature.
although, I guess, finally its the nature that will win.
 
Buddha1 said:
It is this destroying nature part that I'm referring to as unnatural or anti-nature.
Click to expand...

So am I. if ANYTHING is UN-NATURe-al it is DESTROYING Nature

but i am not agreewith with relying on is science and its 'laws' of Nature. As i dont think ANY movement has caused so much
distress for Nature than mechanistic science

also i'd like to say soemthing bout the homosexual theme
i am Queer. the same as i first sad apples to the patriarchal split between the polar related CONTINUUM of male and female. patriarchy denigrates the latter and deifies the former....so any manifestation OF their continuuousness...as revealed in Queerness, trnasexuality, effeminacy....and all the gender-bending diversities, and sensitivity in a male etc is seen as unnatural by the male or female who clings to one extreme over another, and thus fears the other
 
Nebula said:
I've come to a conclusion: NOTHING is "unatural". Homosexuality can't be called unatural because it happens, therefore it is natural. Does anyone see what I'm getting at? Does anyone dare oppose me? :D
Click to expand...

Define natural?

Jan Ardena.
 
Your post has made me do some serious thinking. I must say I was moved for a while. While I had strong feelings about the modern society's interference with the continuum of human 'sexuality' which the west has distorted into two opposites of black and white, I had not given serious thought to the continuum of gender. Though I am aware that gender is also a continuum, your post gave me an insight into the pain that is brought about by 'scientifically' breaking gender into two opposite poles and trying to do away with the vast grey area --- the middle section. I guess, the one's really at the receiving end are those who are at the feminine end.
I did some reading on the net. It's interesting how ancient cultures did not think that female in male was undesirable in any way. In most societies it was not even a separate third gender. In fact all human beings had two spirits. And what the west terms as 'hermaphrodite' were actually seen as the physical manifestation of this two spirits. Cross-dressing was no big deal, and men did that for various rituals. It was not supposed to signal a different gender. But it seems they still accounted for people who felt the other sex than their outer genitals, and held them in high esteem. They wereften believed to have healing powers and sometimes they were priests. Some societies believed that there is a small vagina on the top of every penis (the urethral opening) and a small penis in every vagina (the clitoris)..
Other societies, considered only feminine in males and masculline in females to be two spirits, but nevertheless, thought very highly of them.
This is perhaps an ideal situation. These earlier societies were either converted by the Christians or otherwise influenced them with their anti male-male sex and anti feminine gendered doctrines.
You can see that in todays society the gender differences in females do not mean much and they are not really divided on the basis of gender. This is because in our modern society, masculinity in men has been overvalued, and femininity in men unnecessarily hated, with the modern sophisticated society using its full force (including science) to keep femininity out of the mainstream.
In today's world, gender and sexuality have been so much tampered with and made confusing, that before we talk about that ideal state its important to first sort out the confusion that the west has created arouund the various identities that it has created. And then talk about a state such as that exists amongst women, actually better, where you can just be what your instincts at the moment tell you to do (as regards gender and sexuality) without being bound by labels or stereotypes. This is why I still insist on dividing men into straight and let's say 'two-spirited' gender.. Gender identities actually may not be so unreal as sexual identities.
However, the two spirited identity should not exclude people forming relationships with women. In fact they should not differentiate people on the basis of who they have sex with, because like all people, most 'two-spirited' people also have a sexual need for all the three -- men, women and other two spirtied people.
And straight men should also do likewiise. We don't need sexual identities.
 
Some more on 'Science':
I believe that science came into being as man became 'heterosexual', with the advent of Christiantiy. As man suppressed his nature, in order to be 'heterosexual' he also lost respect for nature outside of him. It is as a result that he invented science.
Science is a human institution that tries to study nature by isolating its various parts. However, nature is not only what we can see, and its various parts are nothing separate from the whole. Earlier human ventures to study nature were complete institutions which considered all the aspects of nature -- the physical, emotional and spiritual. They considered it as a whole, and they tried to understand their relationship with each other, rather than try to study them as distinct, independant variables.
I guess, isolating natural components artificially, gave science the tool to exploit nature for its short term needs (actually he did not really need the power that he got from exploiting nature). Something the heterosexual man was not wary of, since he had no respect for nature. Exploiting nature for power you don't really need to survive is 'unnatural'. It is like making a hole in the plate that you eat in (a Hindi proverb).
In fact the heterosexual man was weak and hollow from inside, unlike the naturally masculine men of the ancient world. In order to beat them the heterosexual man used his mind in an extremely negative way to exploit nature and use its powers to make up for his own deficiency. The modern heterosexual brand of masculinity is superficial 'machoness', and includes meaness, selfishness, disdain of the feminine, bragging and fake social power. In contrast, the ancient masculine man was macho from within, strong, courageous, polite, fair, considerate and respectful of others and venerated the nature. The ancient man used his brains to progress with nature, not against it.
 
Science and human sexuality:
Isolating the variuos parts of physical things and studying them is one thing (though still wrong), but to study human emotions, needs and desires in complete isolation from the whole, by artificially and clinically disecting them into parts is horrendous. Science is a totally superficial institution that can only work with things that you can see. It does not work with what you can only feel and not see. Psychology and psychiatry as a science is a complete hoax.
Since this hoax has state acceptance, it is unabashedly used as an instrument to spread lies and myths about human emotiions, including what the west refers to as 'sexuality'. Only because Christianity does not like it.
This scientific method was used to make men heterosexual, when the power of religion started to fade. The idea was to break the wholesome composite human sexuality into two distinct parts, so that they can suppress the part they don't want and hoping that one day through science they can find a final solution. That explains the western science's preoccupation with trying to find out the reasons for what they term 'homosexuality'. Isolation (like you isolate a virus) is the very first step. The unnatural and artificial concept of 'sexual orientation' is the social manifestation of this scientific plot.
 
The society and science are hand in hand about seeking to eliminate so-called 'homosexuality' from the society (if not the humankind in the near future).
With the gift of the 'sexual orientation' concept which had the approval of the ultimate authority --- the science, the society has pulled all plugs in its attempt to manipulate and marginalise sexual relationships between memn.They have basically tried to portray that:
(a). All relationships and desires that involve sex between two people who both have male sexual organs are the same in character and can be clubbed under the term 'homosexuality'.
(b). 'Homosexuality' is feminine/ third gender in character. Therefore, all male sexual desire for another male is essentially feminine in character.
(c). That Homosexuals are a separate third gender species, distinct from heterosexuals.
(d). That this species is a minority, more of a deviancy/ abnormallity, something that the nature never intended, and something that has no place in the nature's scheme of things.
(d) That heterosexuality, the opposite of homosexuality is bascially masculine in character.
(f). that men are essentially heterosexual.
Of course the third gender, which had been oppressed for so long, snapped at the opportunity to claim this homosexual space. It was good to have a space of their own, when earlier you were so oppressed that you did not have a place in the society at all. At least the third gender had power in this small 'gay' space. And they were only too happy to claim 'sexual desire for other men' as their domain. At the cost of the majority of third gender guys who have a strong sexual need for women.
The society has given unimaginably enormous powers to men when they court women. And it throws men to unimaginable depths if he accepts his desire for other men. Then he is not considered straight anymore.
All this had the effect on straight men that they started shunning relationships with men like hell. They would die before they accept a sexual attraction for another male. The society has managed to create such a scare amongst straight men that they are even scared to hold each other's hands in public.
This is how man has been made heterosexual by the society, with the help of science.
 
MUCH of what you are saying is petry for my ears. you reveal yourself to be openminded and exploratative....

Can i recommend you read this book...The Manufacture of Madness: A Comparative Study of the Inquisition and the Mental Health movement, by Thomas Szasz
He shows the history of psychiatry and how they make up 'disorders' for social control. A biggie was 'homosexuality'....! it is a great book, read it

and checkout this fascinating story at
PCNL Library - Wolgang Pauli: Resurrection
of Spirit in he World www.paricenter.com/library/papers/peat20.php
"Pauli had realized that the key element in our modern world is the lack of soul in the scientific conception of the world..........[T]he missing element was Eros; only love could bridge the gap between physics, spirit, and psychology....."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top