Darwin's Is Wrong About Sexuality

Status
Not open for further replies.
spuriousmonkey said:
No, that is why we (biologists) specialize in animals. What is valid for the mouse isn't necessarily valid for the elephant, or for humans.
Click to expand...
You are misconstruing my statement.

It's not that she found heterosexuality in mammals and then she planted it on the humans!

In fact she didn't find heterosexuality in mammals, but assumed that the heterosexuality in humans is 'natural'. What I'm saying is that since she is not a social scientist who has worked in the area of human gender and sexuality her remarks about this should be taken only as her personal opinion.

When you find something which is so common and universal in other animals, then if you're saying it is not so in humans, the onus of proving it goes on you --- especially when it can be proven that other societies at different places and times were very close to that 'something' found commonly among animals.
 
proof of heterosexuality:

killi-003.jpg
 
spuriousmonkey said:
Proof of heterosexuality:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Baby.jpg
Click to expand...
If this is the proof that you're using to classify the 55oo or so mammalian species as 'heterosexual' then I've already proven you wrong.

If you contend my definition of 'heterosexualty' you should be able to debate it.

We have shown that the society, including the scientific institution plays around with the word 'heterosexuality', 'homosexualtiy', etc. to spread its mispropaganda and to promote some behaviours and denigrate others. There is no reason why we should take the dictionary definiton at its face value, when we know there are varied actual usages including in the scientific community.

And that cultures other than the west do not recognise 'sexual orientation'.
 
As far as the photographs are concerned, there is no proof that the male animals depicted don't have sex with other males or that they form emotional bonds with the females --- both of which are essential, integral and indispensable ingredients of heterosexuality.
 
Last edited:
spuriousmonkey said:
Can someone move this to pseudoscience. Clearly Buddha1 isn't interested in a scientific discussion.
Click to expand...
Oh yeah!

instead of making a counter accusation and giving you an excuse to walk out of this discussion again (you do that everytime you start losing!) may I ask you what is so unscientific that I have said?

-- that you have chosen not to reply to the point I have raised (about the definition of heterosexuality)?
 
Nobody is denying the fact that homosexuality exists in humans or nature. What is bullshit is that homosexuality is the norm. I'm quite sure it is the norm for you, but we aren't really interested in what you think the ideal world for you should be like. That's pseudoscience. We are interested in what the world really is like.
 
spuriousmonkey said:
Nobody is denying the fact that homosexuality exists in humans or nature. What is bullshit is that homosexuality is the norm. I'm quite sure it is the norm for you, but we aren't really interested in what you think the ideal world for you should be like. That's pseudoscience. We are interested in what the world really is like.
Click to expand...
I'm presenting evidences......and you're posting pictures of male-female procreative sex to pass off as 'heterosexuality'. Then you don't want to discuss the definition of heterosexuality.

Why are you so scared to discuss the definition of heterosexuality. If you can defend your definition I'll change mine!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top