Darwin's Is Wrong About Sexuality

You've posted 2 copies of this thread, the other one is here
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=50435&page=1&pp=20

That's pretty lame dude.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You've posted 2 copies of this thread, the other one is here
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=50460&page=1&pp=20

That's pretty lame Buddha1.

Can a moderator merge them please? Actually, I think all (10 or more) of Buddha1's posts about this issue should be merged into one.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Stop me if im wrong but according to darwin we kinda evolved to what we are now.
so figuritivly speaking we are all homosexual but we have sex with the oposite sex to procreate children. Well then darwin must have been off because we would evolve to procreate with the same sex. If it is our preference right? Since we evolve and we are homosexual why would there have been a need for the oposite sex? Why couldnt we have evolved to have children without the opsite sex? That seems odd because im not as sexually attracted to men as i am women. I do not think about men when thinking about the process of making kids. Plus i would rather bond with women over men. So this theory has no basis because it contradicts itself. According to darwin we would have never needed the oposite sex correct? Now i have only heard so much about darwinism so i could be completely wrong on this but if we did evolve the way darwin says that does seem fair to say we would have no need for the oposite sex. But we have the oposite sex, why would we if we are are supposed to be homosexuals, bhudda? Is it because we are mammal's? If so why like you stated mammals and birds having homosexual relations too. If that where true we would have accepted homosexuality in society since the dawn of man kind when we didnt have society making it "gay" The romans accepted homosexuality, but mostly because soldiers where away from women for long periods of time, like during war (kinda like prisoners, and i think we all knows about that) So most men only have gay sex when there is no women to bond with or have sex with. So wouldn't women be the first choice in both bonding and in sex? Making the theory stating most humans are homosexual wrong? now stop me if im wrong. Also another thing homosexuality could have been accepted in earlier times because of homo sexual rulers saying its ok (you see how its kinda a reverse on todays standards) like we have straight leaders they could have had gay leaders. So your going to need more proof because society could have made it wrong to not be homosexual back then. As a matter a fact i can name one homosexual ruler off the top of my head, alexander the great. As a matter a fact there where alot of roman rulers who where gay. So whos to say society accepted homosexuality because of being away from women for so long they started bonding with men?

 

Also where di you come up with these numbers 95% of men are homosexual. Plus can you really prove with hard physical evidence of this like how you got those numbers. How this came up. How you know what mens sexual preferance was, evidence proving we are homosexual. Because Seeing as how most relationships are based off of sexual appeal i hardley see how your theory works. When almost every guy dates a grl because she is sexually atractive. If we where gay why would we care what the women looked like?

 

I was planning to leave, but your posts are the amongst the few sincere ones, and give me a chance to have a real discussion. So I guess I'll keep coming back to answer them.

 

I wish James R. would read this. He would then realise the folly of trying to discuss everything related with male sexuality under one thread.

 

Sorry, this is not the place to discuss those issues.

 

Why not?

 

I guess then it is better not to use the misleading term homosexuality and heterosexuality, but to use exact terms like male-male sex/bonds/sexual need etc.

Because how we label things affects our perception of them --- and also distorts the reality. Things are not so well divided into heterosexuality and homosexuality as we would like to believe.

By natural selection I only mean the 'sexual selection' part that I find objectionable. That I believe has been disproved by a vast number of evidences.

I think basic problem between our standpoints is that you think reproduction is the primary goal of life

That same-sex bonds/ sexual need are near universal amongst males is not debatable anymore --- it's been amply brought out by Bruce Bagemihl's work. Now unless you disprove them......

You are again assuming reproduction to be the only or even the primary function of sex, and trying to guage same-sex bonds in the light of their reproductive value --- which is hardly material here. Same-sex bonds have other important value, not a reproductive value (may be in a minor number of cases).

That reproduction is not the primary of only purpose of sex is amply proven by the facts that:
- Before sexual dimorphism took place sex was asexual.
- But sex was widely practised for bonding and pleasure purposes.

I'm not making that assumption. There is nothing like a 'homosexual' or a 'heterosexual' individual in nature. It only happens in the modern west. That too is more a show than practise.

There is nothing like a homosexual species. There is nothing like homosexuality in nature. Why are you talking about nature as if you were discussing modern western humans? Things in nature are not either this or that --- but they include everythings in different degrees, as per the need/ evolution.

Masculinity and femininity are not compatible for long term bonding. Like they say, if men are from mars, women are from venus. An emotional bonding becomes difficult between people who are so different. A short term infatuation with the other is possible which soon vanishes due to difference between lifestyles, perceptions and aspirations. The same works on other species.

Bonding requires as less differences between individuals as possible. If nature indeed wanted male and female to stick together in bonds, it would not make them so different from inside --- that sticking together would become impossible. There is no evidence from the wild of male-female widespread bonding (apart from birds). It happens rarely amongst species other than the birds. And in birds the difference between the male and female is greatly reduced. In fact the males are feminine while the females are masculine. There social roles are also turned upside down in many bird species. In fact while the males carry the XX chromosome, female birds carry the XY chromosomes. Clearly, nature intended opposite sex birds to bond together -- sometimes for life. Homosexuality --- as marginalised same-sex behaviour does occur in birds species. But not in others.

I didn't quite mean that! Sexual dimorphism did not happen as a result of sexual selection between individuals. Sexual need between members of the same sex, for intense bonding purposes is the primary human sexual drive which was already present at the time of sexual dimorphism and was carried forward after the species was bifurcated. Sexual organs grew to facilitate reproduction between male and female, but without excluding sex between males (not necessarily anal-sex)/ or between females . Sex for reproduction is not mutually exclusive with sex for bonding purposes.

What I meant when I say that I disagree with the 'sexual selection' theory is that there are important changes in 'higher animals' to facilitate male-female sex for reproduction, but these developments are limited to their reproductory organs. Same-sex bonds/need just adapted themselves to these new changes triggered by opposite-sex reproduction.

It is wrong and misleading to assume that everything regarding the male is geared (and that includes his emotional and social behaviour) in order to make male and female mating a success --- or the primary drive/ purpose of the male is to mate with the female. As is often deduced from Darwin's work on animal sexuality.

When confusion arises, that's the time to have a relook at our theories.

What is reproductive 'asexual sex'?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

How can sex be asexual? When reproduction was asexual, it was not related with sex at all. There is no question of it coming earlier or later --- it just did not exist. There can be no reproductive function to 'non-reproductive' sex, when sex is completely apart from reproduction.

If you're asking what I'm claiming as the biological purpose of same-sex bonds, I'm not making any such claims (at least not now --- later!). My point is instead of blindly assuming that same-sex need or bonds have no biological meaning because they don't reproduce, without first proving beyond doubt that reproduction is the only purpose of life or animal biology -- is not correct or logical.

Science should stop being so stubborn and arrogant that it goes to the extent of rubbishing what clearly exists so strongly in nature because it contradicts what those in power have determined to be the acceptable 'theory' about the purpose of life.

If something exists so powerfully, and contradicts our theory we should relook at our theory not try to distort nature to fit into our theories. This is something those controlling science have stubbornly refused to do.

Any theory or notion becomes problematic when it is not supported by evidences --- especially when lives of people are associated with those notions.

When we have evidences, there is no point in speculating or making suppositions.

Well, in a I way condemn homosexuality because it is not found in nature, apart from in birds. But I guess we are looking at the term differently.

Anyone who supports heterosexuality as natural should also consider fridges and water treatment plants to be natural (they probably already do!)

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

I don't see how the fact that it supported opposite-sex reproductive sex makes it unsupportive of same-sex sexual bonding and pleasure, especially when it predates sexual reproduction. Once again things in nature are not divided into either this or that like we tend to do in human societies.

For reproduction. But that does not exclude same-sex need or bonds as being the primary function of sex. At least it does not make reproduction the only important function of sex. And it does not still support the theory that the entire existence of male is there only so he can procreate --- or that procreation is a must to be a male or even a defining quality.

Definitely not! How can I reject what is there? I'm asking you not to see things in extreme as either this or that. Secual dimorphism happened for reproduction which is important to carry on species. But it is not the primary purpose of existence or of the species or of the individuals. It is more important for the species than for the individuals, but the species does not need to overly design individuals for that. It can very well use existing mechanisms by making minor changes (like sexual need for same-sex) in order to obtain what is needed.

Because bonding is only required between the same-sex. Because it is not natural for the two sexes to mix. There is no biological need for that.

Better reproduction was perhaps the only major reason for sexual dimorphism, but it could not afford to do away with the basic purpose of sex (i.e. same-sex bonds --- whose nature was redefined after sexual dimorphism). It just added to it.

I'm on this forum only because of you!

 

I've edited the above several times so one should reread it.

 

Because then we will digress from the main point. There is (was) a different forum to discuss that. Human beings have a number of social issues that affects their behaviour, and to go into them will mean going away from the point of debate.There is no limit to how far we can go away from what we are discussing.

 

Funny, how those who brag about their being 'scientists' conduct themselves so unscientifically when you have discussions with them, and those who say they are not scientists can be so precise, professional and scientific in their approach! :bugeye:

 

By the way I can't seem to log off, can someone tell me why and how?

 

How do you know what unscientific conduct is?

 

So why not just stae that alst all men have homosexual tendenacy's? That is fairly known to alot of people and it isn't so shuned. Other then stating it like we are full blown gay but still have sex with women because we have to. I know you never did say that but with a title of the thread like "Darwin's Is Wrong About Sexuality" with the comments you said that some 95% of men are homosexual. Now that isnt exactly how it was worded but i do not not have enough time at the moment to do the quoting. Wh not say 95% of men have homosexual tendancys? Which is just about what you are saying. So if you are saying his then i beleive that there is pretty good evidence of that.

 

Scientists are selected by the environment to be good at investigating the world, not to tolerate fools or foolishness.

 

Don't worry, I find you one of the few scientifically oriented guys and a pleasure to discuss with, inspite of our opposition.

Examples of unscientific debate:
ACCUSING -- you're a fool, idiot, gay, wrong, biased (full stop, no further arguments!) or TROLLING -- filling up thread space to demand that one reveals one's personal identity

There are several other examples I'll discuss soon.

 

Ricky, I have never once used the word 'homosexual' nor have I claimed that this 95% is an exclusive sexual desire for men. (But at the same time it also means that the majority of men do not have an exclusive sexual desire for women!)

What I had claimed was that 95% of men have a sexual need for other men.

And it is not the only reason that I'm contending Darwin's theory on sexuality.

Don't you think that no theories should be considered as 'holy cows' and 'words of god' that you can't question them. At least look at my arguments and then decide if I have a point or not. If I don't have a case, then I would expect someone to prove my points or analysis wrong.