NationStates Jolt Archive

uh...of course?

No; I believe all humans were made to be asexual.

No; I believe all humans were made to be asexual.



Right, we're not meant to have overwhelming urges to reproduce. Very good! We're meant to die off in a few millenia from lack of mating!

I believe you are insane!


What is with these stupid polls lately?

actually, based on what we know of primate social structure, sexual make up, and physiology, exclusive heterosexuality isn't natural. bisexuality is actually the most natural state of affairs for great apes and humans, with exclusive heterosexuality or homosexuality being far less common and reproductively sound.

I believe you are insane!I was answering this poll in the spirit in which I believe it was asked: Very sarcastically.

actually, based on what we know of primate social structure, sexual make up, and physiology, exclusive heterosexuality isn't natural. bisexuality is actually the most natural state of affairs for great apes and humans, with exclusive heterosexuality or homosexuality being far less common and reproductively sound.


Well are we better than apes?

Apes also eat insects off each other. Are you going to do that?

actually, based on what we know of primate social structure, sexual make up, and physiology, exclusive heterosexuality isn't natural. bisexuality is actually the most natural state of affairs for great apes and humans, with exclusive heterosexuality or homosexuality being far less common and reproductively sound.
Are you referring to the 1-6 scale? If you are, be aware that indicating you are not repulsed by nudity is a sign of homosexuality.

Are you referring to the 1-6 scale? If you are, be aware that indicating you are not repulsed by nudity is a sign of homosexuality.
Heh, not being repulsed by nudity of the opposite sex sure seems like a sign of heterosexuality to me. Where the heck are you getting this?

Well are we better than apes?

Apes also eat insects off each other. Are you going to do that?

we are evolved from a common ancestor with apes. if you call that "better" then that is your business; i prefer to say we are different. apes are better adapted to their environment than humans, and we to ours better than they.

i don't believe i ever said we should do what apes do, rather that humans (along with the primate cousins who share 98% of our DNA) have a certain psycho-social design and a physiological nature that makes us best oriented to be bisexual. primates are the closest to humans in terms of reproductive patterns, and because of our genetic similarities we can make some inferences and discover clues about the origins of our own behaviors.

Are you referring to the 1-6 scale? If you are, be aware that indicating you are not repulsed by nudity is a sign of homosexuality.
no, i don't even know what that is.

Heh, not being repulsed by nudity of the opposite sex sure seems like a sign of heterosexuality to me. Where the heck are you getting this?
No, of the same sex. If you don't mind Michaelangelo's David, you're gay.

actually, based on what we know of primate social structure, sexual make up, and physiology, exclusive heterosexuality isn't natural. bisexuality is actually the most natural state of affairs for great apes and humans, with exclusive heterosexuality or homosexuality being far less common and reproductively sound.

Exclusive heterosexuality is very reproductively sound. I don't see why someone as anti-human as you would claim their sexuality is most reproductively sound.

no, i don't even know what that is.
It's the most common cited defense of the dual sexuality theory. And the most discredited.

Heterosexuality is an abomination in the eyes of my god.

Heterosexuality is an abomination in the eyes of my god.
Your god is an abomination in my eyes.......
...sorry.

Don't see anything wrong with being gay, although I'm a woman and I don't care for Michalangelo's David. :p

Your god is an abomination in my eyes.......
...sorry.

Don't see anything wrong with being gay, although I'm a woman and I don't care for Michalangelo's David. :p
Must mean you're a lesbian then. It's really quite stupid, regardless of what people think people are thinking, the vast majority of the population is either exclusively gay or exclusively straight. Kidding about the lesbian part.

I dunno. On one hand, I'm a guy, and I like girls. On the other hand, if I were a girl, I'd be such a lesbian.


And, when you think about it, wouldn't it be more sexually arousing to be with someone who fully understands your body-since they have roughly the same?


Of course, in further argument, if I were gay, there would be no butt sex. I'm sorry, but that's my LAST instinct for a hole filled with crap.

:rolleyes: you idiots... (sorry i had to say that) ALL orientations are natural because they all occur in nature, so quit asking already!

Must mean you're a lesbian then. It's really quite stupid, regardless of what people think people are thinking, the vast majority of the population is either exclusively gay or exclusively straight. Kidding about the lesbian part.Hee, I don't think I'm lesbian, although all my boyfriends have certainly been crappy. I wouldn't have any problems with it if I thought I were lesbian though...

:rolleyes: you idiots... (sorry i had to say that) ALL orientations are natural because they all occur in nature, so quit asking already!
Everything that exists occurs in nature, so everything in the universe is natural.

Must mean you're a lesbian then. It's really quite stupid, regardless of what people think people are thinking, the vast majority of the population is either exclusively gay or exclusively straight. Kidding about the lesbian part.I don't really agree with that. I think people have more of a sliding scale of sexuality then you admit. I mean, hell, just for thinking a piece of art doesn't mean you're homosexual. But you can walk down the street and see another person of the same sex and think 'wow, they're quite attractive' but still be a heterosexual.

If I'm correct, the scale goes from 0 to 6, with 0 being exlusively gay and 6 being exclusively straight, or vice versa. And then as it goes up, like 1 and 5 being gay or straight, but minor interest in the opposite sex or same sex, respectively. 2 and 4 would be bi sexual, but having tendencies towards one side of the scale. And then 3 being a completely, honest bisexual. Most people fall into 1 and 5.

If this is what you've been referring to, you're exaggerating majorly.

The question is completely meaningless, as 'natural' can mean almost anything.
Do you mean 'natural' as opposed to supernatural? If so, yes, homosexuality is natural because it occurs in the physical world.
Do you mean 'natural' as in what genetics 'intends'? If so, then I believe that the current evidence is yes, but not being a geneticist I couldn't say for sure. Given that every gene is a mutation, it's a strange question.

Do you mean 'natural' as being a genetic survival strategy?
Then it's probably not - but might be. I have no homosexual inclinations at all - which actually makes girlchasing harder as I don't know what will make me look good! A slight tendecy would probably have helped me.
Similarly, I believe that it has been claimed homosexuality is more common in regions where the population is very high (city states, or modern world etc) - if this is true then homosexuality might be a form of population control.

However - why do you care?
*Smallpox* is natural. The Black Death was natural. Dying in a gutter at a young age is natural.
"Natural" is the Enemy.
Long live our artificial societies, with their artificially high lifespans and qualities of life!

I don't really agree with that. I think people have more of a sliding scale of sexuality then you admit. I mean, hell, just for thinking a piece of art doesn't mean you're homosexual. But you can walk down the street and see another person of the same sex and think 'wow, they're quite attractive' but still be a heterosexual.

If I'm correct, the scale goes from 0 to 6, with 0 being exlusively gay and 6 being exclusively straight, or vice versa. And then as it goes up, like 1 and 5 being gay or straight, but minor interest in the opposite sex or same sex, respectively. 2 and 4 would be bi sexual, but having tendencies towards one side of the scale. And then 3 being a completely, honest bisexual. Most people fall into 1 and 5.

If this is what you've been referring to, you're exaggerating majorly.
That's exactly what I mean, and no, I'm not exaggerating. I took the test and was a 5. One of the questions was about nudity in art repulsing me.

If I'm correct, the scale goes from 0 to 6, with 0 being exlusively gay and 6 being exclusively straight, or vice versa. And then as it goes up, like 1 and 5 being gay or straight, but minor interest in the opposite sex or same sex, respectively. 2 and 4 would be bi sexual, but having tendencies towards one side of the scale. And then 3 being a completely, honest bisexual. Most people fall into 1 and 5.
It's the most common cited defense of the dual sexuality theory. And the most discredited.
How's it been discredited? And where's this alleged test thing?

sigh...

everytime I start a non-serious thread it gets taken seriously and gets lots of attention and my serious threads get little attention...

That's exactly what I mean, and no, I'm not exaggerating. I took the test and was a 5. One of the questions was about nudity in art repulsing me.Ok, was this an online test? And secondly, just because you answered something on the test, and it told you you were a 5 doesn't mean that question related directly to your result.

Either way, I didn't say I agreed with how they determined it, I just said the idea was sound. And if you got a 5, what are you complaining about? The fact that you can respect someone of the same sex as being attractive is perfectly natural. Being a 0 or 6 is what would be weird.

However - why do you care?
*Smallpox* is natural. The Black Death was natural. Dying in a gutter at a young age is natural.
"Natural" is the Enemy.
Long live our artificial societies, with their artificially high lifespans and qualities of life!
A very, very good post and an excellent point there. One anyone claiming homosexuality is unnatural and therefore ought to be banned would do well to think of.

However - why do you care?
*Smallpox* is natural. The Black Death was natural. Dying in a gutter at a young age is natural.
"Natural" is the Enemy.
Long live our artificial societies, with their artificially high lifespans and qualities of life!

War is artificial. Taxes are artificial. Poverty is artificial. Slavery is artificial. Nuclear weapons are artificial. Pollution is artificial. Telemarketing is artificial.
"Artificial" certainly has improved things.
Long live the Mega-Machine Leviathan and let's continue to submit to coersive authority and dehumanizing technology!

sigh...

everytime I start a non-serious thread it gets taken seriously and gets lots of attention and my serious threads get little attention...It's just another outlet for this debate to rage more. But you have a good point. Whether something is natural or not is ridiculous. :P

And people do tend to ignore good threads because they require lots of thinking. ::laughs:: Well, that's probably not the reason, but.. I don't know.

Ok, was this an online test? And secondly, just because you answered something on the test, and it told you you were a 5 doesn't mean that question related directly to your result.

Either way, I didn't say I agreed with how they determined it, I just said the idea was sound. And if you got a 5, what are you complaining about? The fact that you can respect someone of the same sex as being attractive is perfectly natural. Being a 0 or 6 is what would be weird.
We took it in our social psychology class during the "accept gay marriage" lecture. It has nothing to do with respecting someone as attractive, a five means you're heterosexual with slight homosexual tendencies.

sigh...

everytime I start a non-serious thread it gets taken seriously and gets lots of attention and my serious threads get little attention...
Well it's a serious topic... I got the joke... but again, don't start threads if you don't want people responding to them.

How's it been discredited? And where's this alleged test thing?I don't know how it's been discredited, and I don't know where this test is either. I don't even know how you could taken a written test to determine stuff. It would probably ask stupidly generic questions and then make some overly generic stereotypes. Bleh. The idea is sound, the way of determining it might not be.

Everything that exists occurs in nature, so everything in the universe is natural.

So insane serial killers are natural?

So insane serial killers are natural?
They exist don't they? They're found in nature. Technically, lions are serial killers.

We took it in our social psychology class during the "accept gay marriage" lecture. It has nothing to do with respecting someone as attractive, a five means you're heterosexual with slight homosexual tendencies.And you don't think respecting the fact that someone is slightly attractive of the same sex doesn't necessarily lend itself to minor homosexual tendencies? And even if it did, would it offend you that much? In order to respect someone as attractive, you have to find their build and appearance pleasing to you. That's what it's going on.

They exist don't they? They're found in nature. Technically, lions are serial killers.

technically I'm a serial killer

And you don't think respecting the fact that someone is slightly attractive of the same sex doesn't necessarily lend itself to minor homosexual tendencies? And even if it did, would it offend you that much? In order to respect someone as attractive, you have to find their build and appearance pleasing to you. That's what it's going on.
It wasn't "do you find art depicting naked members of the same sex attractive" it was "does art depicting naked members of the same sex repulsive." There's no way any one could get a 0 or a 6. So of course the researchers erroneoulsy conclude that everyone is bisexual.

And you don't think respecting the fact that someone is slightly attractive of the same sex doesn't necessarily lend itself to minor homosexual tendencies? And even if it did, would it offend you that much? In order to respect someone as attractive, you have to find their build and appearance pleasing to you. That's what it's going on.

I think all guys are ugly, including me.

It wasn't "do you find art depicting naked members of the same sex attractive" it was "does art depicting naked members of the same sex repulsive." There's no way any one could get a 0 or a 6. So of course the researchers erroneoulsy conclude that everyone is bisexual.
Did you put that art depicting members of the same sex naked repulsed you? And that one question alone earned you a five?

Since God is a homosexual and originally wanted to create only a man, homosexuality is not only natural but morally correct.

The Christian bible has four or five verses on the evils of homosexuality, but hundreds of verses on condemning heterosexuality.

That is why the priesthood must be closed to women, so that priests can have sex with each other and little boys.

Don't you people watch South Park ?!?!?

Did you put that art depicting members of the same sex naked repulsed you? And that one question alone earned you a five?
No, I put it didn't. I can appreciate art without feeling sexually attracted to guys. I've never been attracted to any guy, yet I'm bisexual.

ooooo-kay.... this is a wierd thread. if you think that Heterosexuality is natural, than are gays tainted at birth? or are they born in tubes with government peoples working on them around the clock. is the queer eye for the straight guy "squad" secret weapons of mass destruction, genetically manufactured humans that bush creates so that he can ban gay marridge to make the bible readers love him!!?

No, I put it didn't. I can appreciate art without feeling sexually attracted to guys. I've never been attracted to any guy, yet I'm bisexual.
I do not at all appreciate art of naked women, even if it's classical art of Aphrodite that is supposed to be "high" art. Yet I have no problems with homosexuality.

No, I put it didn't. I can appreciate art without feeling sexually attracted to guys. I've never been attracted to any guy, yet I'm bisexual.Ooookay, you're a little insecure with the whole idea of homosexuality in general... Getting a '5' does not make you a bisexual. You're still a heterosexual, but you have a MINOR homosexual tendency. Whether you choose to accept that, or freak out about it and claim that the whole system is wrong and that you're obviously not gay is your choice.

I didn't say I agreed with taking written tests to prove it, either, but the system in itself is still probably mostly right.

Well are we better than apes?

Apes also eat insects off each other. Are you going to do that?
We are different from apes, whether we are better or not is subjective. But we are still animals in nature.

Heterosexuality is the normal in animals that cannot fertilize themselves. It is natural in the fact that it is the extension of one creature's gene line to future generations. Homosexuality is a genetic mutation that is equally as natural, but simply because it doesn't occur because of manipulation.

I do not at all appreciate art of naked women, even if it's classical art of Aphrodite that is supposed to be "high" art. Yet I have no problems with homosexuality.
Further proof the test is stupid. For anyone who says almost all people are bisexual, what's their proof?

Of course heterosexuality is natural. The purpose of each species is its survival, so male are naturally attracted by female because it's the only way to make children... But beware, this doesn't mean that homosexuality is unnatural...

Further proof the test is stupid. For anyone who says almost all people are bisexual, what's their proof?Having a minor tendency that is opposite of your own intended orientation does not make you bisexual.

Heterosexuality is the normal in animals that cannot fertilize themselves. It is natural in the fact that it is the extension of one creature's gene line to future generations. Homosexuality is a genetic mutation that is equally as natural, but simply because it doesn't occur because of manipulation.Back up a minute there. How exactly do you prove that homosexuality is a genetic mutation?

Back up a minute there. How exactly do you prove that homosexuality is a genetic mutation?


Why not? Sexual reproduction is.

We are different from apes, whether we are better or not is subjective. But we are still animals in nature.

Heterosexuality is the normal in animals that cannot fertilize themselves. It is natural in the fact that it is the extension of one creature's gene line to future generations. Homosexuality is a genetic mutation that is equally as natural, but simply because it doesn't occur because of manipulation.

that doesnt make sense when we were born we were given freewill it is through our life and how we react to it of our own free will that determins our sexual preference not some chemical imbalence or genetic mutation

Felkarth, it is a possibility, one I like to accept, not sure if it has been proven or not, thought I heard it somewhere. Perhaps I am wrong, but I believe it.

Kyonto, some homosexuals were born that way, others chose to become homosexual of their own will.

Felkarth, it is a possibility, one I like to accept, not sure if it has been proven or not, thought I heard it somewhere. Perhaps I am wrong, but I believe it.

Kyonto, some homosexuals were born that way, others chose to become homosexual of their own will.

altho this is true and some were born that way its certinly not a genetic mutation