First post

[kosakariyu]

I hope this community can be a good source of discussion as to why heterosexuality is the only sexuality that benefits society. All humans are made to be heterosexual, but unfortunately numerous deviations have rose up over the years. I wonder why...it makes me sad.

Comments

[krikkert]

If you are a Darwinist, then yes. You're absolutely correct.

Fortunately, I'm not a Darwinist because I think that that way of thinking has brought along more suffering than any other ideology. Now that that's been declared...

"All humans are made to be heterosexual" -- in body, of course. In mind, not so. Examples have been made above.

"Unfortunately, numerous deviations have risen up over the years" -- I'm not going to tell you to read a history book. I'm going to tell you that people didn't care to write down so much about it as we do now (with the high percentage of literacy and easily available access to internet fora).

The reason these deviations from "Darwinist behaviour" (defined here as "the behaviour which causes a race to continue itself") appear is simple: Nature. Humans have no dangerous enemies anymore. We're very far from the brink of extinction that we started out as. I consider these deviations you speak of as nature's own safeguards against overpopulation.

All in all, yes -- humans are made in body to be heterosexual. But in mind, not so.

~Christer (pointed here by way of the asexuality community)

[charlycrash]

If you are a Darwinist, then yes. You're absolutely correct.

Nope.

Let's suppose that homosexuality is entirely genetic, something i'm willing to believe. Let's also presuppose it's a recessive trait, as it wouldn't last terribly long as a dominant trait. Finally, let's suppose that a primeval human social group is formed of two parents, both bearing the recessive gene for homosexuality (i.e., their children have a one in four chance of being gay).

These parents have four children, three of whom are straight (i.e., produce offspring of their own) and the fourth is gay. Three of the children breed. Going strictly by Darwinian behaviour via Dawkins, all of the original four children will seek to help and protect the three straight children's own offspring. The gay child has no offspring of its own, therefore the straight children will receive extra protection and assistance from the gay child than they would have done if the gay child was straight. The recessive gene therefore has more chance of being passed on to yet another generation.

With the greatest of respect, I suspect that the only reason so many people are so anti-Darwinism is because they don't actually understand it.

[kosakariyu]

When I said "over the years" I mostly meant bisexuality, pansexuality, and asexuality. That sort of thing was unheard of before the modern age (Unlike homosexuality which has been around for millenia. AIDS couldn't have come too early)

[krikkert]

Bisexuality has been around for thousands of years, if not more. Celibacy, aka asexuality, has also been around for millennia.

[charlycrash]

Bisexuality has been around for thousands of years, if not more. Celibacy, aka asexuality, has also been around for millennia.

[charlycrash]

According to Wiki, 2-3% of rams in a certain study group showed no interest in mating with either sex. I'd like to see someone's societal explanation for that one.

Really, any sexual practice you can name that isn't dependent on some kind of technology was being done before the Pyramids were erected. The idea that nobody was bisexual or asexual before about 1950 is beyond laughable.

[krikkert]

Dude, learn that some people speak English in this world, instead of American.

[krikkert]

Oh my. I feel so compelled to do as you say because of the overwhelming wisdom in your argumentation and the reason in your words.

[krikkert]

No thank you, I'm going studying about an hour north of the American border. Though I shall be sure to visit your glorious country to abuse its wonderful healthcare benefits.