[cgomes]

The Journal Of The Gay And Lesbian Medical Association published a provocative theory in 2000 stating the following: homosexuality is natural in humans, hetersexuality is not! Main conclusions of the theory are:
1. Humans do not possess a sexual instinct to engage in heterosexual intercourse.
2. It was the rise in intelligence during evolution that made us lose our sexual instinct.
3. Among other advantages the loss of sexual instinct made monogamy possible in a community setting.
4. Lacking a sexual instinct, neither heterosexuality nor homosexuality is genetic in human beings.
5. There are universal childhood sexual exploration behaviors that – if not checked by society/parents – have the potential to strongly bias the formation of a homosexual orientation development, over a heterosexual one, or a bisexual one.
6. Heterosexuals vastly outnumber homosexuals in the world only because societies, needing to maintain their populations, strongly discourage homosexuality while encouraging heterosexuality!
I welcome your personal comments and feedback.
Yours sincerely,
Christopher Gomes

[Reichstraten]

Great, so we're al deluded by society.

[QatzelOk]

Welcome to the forum, dgomes.

I have always maintained that homosexuality was more natural than heterosexuality. It seems that heterosexuality is only a strategy for producing soldiers.

But it's a vicious circle because, the more soldiers everyone produces, the more strain on resources, and the more wars there are.

[Cheesecake_Marmalade]

If homosexuality was "natural", then there would be more homosexuals. That's just a fact.

[Ter]

I weep for the "lost" spermatozoids".

They are looking in vain,
for the egg to attain,
to produce a little cute baby,
provided they let it come to term.

Ter

[Cookie Monster]

The problem is that this thread is elusive on the distinction between biologically natural and socially natural.

[DanDaMan]

Lovely. More validation of behaviors that lead to more death and disease.

[The Sabbaticus]

Well I had a good laugh.

"hypnotic smegma"

[QatzelOk]

If homosexuality was "natural", then there would be more homosexuals. That's just a fact.

Nudity is more natural than wearing clothes.

Of course, one could argue that we're all naked under these clothes.

Closet cases all.

[Cheesecake_Marmalade]

How is nudity more natural than wearing clothes? Surviving is natural, correct? In hot climates, we would get burns all over our skin if we didn't wear clothes. Either that or we'd stink like sunscreen all day and have to apply and reapply it over and over again. In cold weather, you'd get sick and possibly die if you didn't wear the proper clothing.

Like I said, "natural" is basically just what most people do since humans are so driven by society rather than instinct. Natural =/= correct.

[QatzelOk]

Surviving is natural, correct? In hot climates, we would get burns all over our skin if we didn't wear clothes. Either that or we'd stink like sunscreen all day and have to apply and reapply it over and over again.

When you're naked all the time and outside working/hunting/making love, your skin can adjust to intense sun in a short time. It's only because we bought into clothing technology that we got to live in shitty places with inclement weather like Montreal. Otherwise, we'd all still be living naked on beaches and in Meditteranean climates. Naked. And eating amazing organic food all the time.

Heterosexuality has spawned the same type of buyer's remorse as clothing technology has. And they were both sold to us as "survival." Hard to see how 7 billion people later, we're closer to any kind of high quality survival because of this flawed ideology.

[Reichstraten]

Nudity is more natural than wearing clothes.

Of course, one could argue that we're all naked under these clothes.

Closet cases all.

What would you expect? Wearing clothes is a form of cultivation.

[QatzelOk]

Wearing clothes is a form of cultivation.

This is a tautology.

What does "cultivation" mean? To wear clothes?

[Reichstraten]

This is a tautology.

What does "cultivation" mean? To wear clothes?

Are you trying to play a word-game with me? Cultivation means making clothes to cover the body and protect it from climate and the forces of nature, yes.

[Average Voter]

#5 says there is childhood behavior which has the potential to cause somebody to become homosexual, which is is not an informative, let alone scientific, observation. Yet it does not even say that; it says it has the potential to bias a formation of homosexual orientation.

Also I do not like the use of "natural" since it is so ambiguous that we do not even know what the title of this thread stands for. When does something cease to be natural? #6 seems to say that societal, or possible external, influence somehow makes a behavior unnatural.

[Quantum]

The Journal Of The Gay And Lesbian Medical Association

Why should I believe anything that comes from this organisation? It's blatantly biased and they're advancing their own agenda rather than being scientific. Their information is as reliable as the Bible when it comes to geology or biology.

[Lensky1917]

I believe this thread should be in "Conspiracy Theories".

[Stormsmith]

Wearing clothes is a form of cultivation.

This is a tautology.

no its not. If the subject and the predicate are exactly equal, with one not adding more information to the other, then you have a tautology.
* all bodies have mass
* a batchelor is an unmarried male.

if it was a tautology, the only meaning of cultivation would be to wear clothes. Bugger sowing seed etc. The statement is always exactly correct, by definition.

[Zyx]

In hot climates, we would get burns all over our skin if we didn't wear clothes.

Wherever the Europeans went around the world, for the most part, they insisted that the indigenous populations wore clothing. The European wear of today is less to with the climate and more to do with biblically-induced modesty.

4. Lacking a sexual instinct, neither heterosexuality nor homosexuality is genetic in human beings.

This is the truest statement. Putting homosexuality above heterosexuality advances nothing. They are both equal.

[emoshunless]

The Journal Of The Gay And Lesbian Medical Association published a provocative theory in 2000 stating the following: homosexuality is natural in humans, heterosexuality is not!

Besides the obviously ridiculousness of a gender based biological lifeforms way of reproduction not being natural... I'll try to take there list of reason seriously and address them...

1. Humans do not possess a sexual instinct to engage in heterosexual intercourse.

Just as all gender based species, the male seeks and the female attracts in order to bring two of the species together.

The male seeks to impregnate in order to spread his to (as many as possible) females due to the basic attraction. (rarely seeking for other reasons (job, money etc)

The female also looking to spread her seed, and being the attractor with many males pursuing her, it is left to her to assure a quality seed. (biggest baddest best apt for survival) Which is why you see in society Girls attraction to strength, abilities and now a days money.

Best exampled in the hot 20 year female married to the old millionaire inches away from death and fully looks the part..

Also being beneficial to a child's survival to be raised with both the male and female is a quality that would better assure the seeds survival.
This explains women seek faithful men and men are less likely to stick to the faithfulness.

2. It was the rise in intelligence during evolution that made us lose our sexual instinct.

No, its still very much there exampled all over human perception makes people blind..
Intelligence gave us the ability to choose when and where we breed.

Men don't choose to be gay, a straight man couldn't all of a sudden decide he wanted to be attracted to men and do it.

Survival being much easier out of the wild it is less important there for females seek "love" which can lead them to choose a gay life style. Because Love is the emotion evolved to keep 2 separate being together for purposes of raising the child, not being nature to females to seek physical attractions in way of beauty a female could opt for the gay relationship... unless the baby craze hits them.

3. Among other advantages the loss of sexual instinct made monogamy possible in a community setting.

False the emotion of love does this, and is an example of our sexual instincts still very much functional..

4. Lacking a sexual instinct, neither heterosexuality nor homosexuality is genetic in human beings.

Its not lacking, as shown before. and is very much genetic.

There are universal childhood sexual exploration behaviors that – if not checked by society/parents – have the potential to strongly bias the formation of a homosexual orientation development, over a heterosexual one, or a bisexual one.

Traumatic Sexual molestation is well known to be the causing factory in childhood effecting the child's sexual orientation. "exploration" between children is not.
its the trauma that effects the brain during development.

6. Heterosexuals vastly outnumber homosexuals in the world only because societies, needing to maintain their populations, strongly discourage homosexuality while encouraging heterosexuality!

False I'll correct the statement;

"Heterosexuals vastly outnumber homosexuals in the world because people and all of biological life are programed to grow their populations. Humans Find homosexuality to be un agreeable or distasteful because it goes against said programing but should be fully accepting and love the homosexuals in their life and mind their own business of others life"

This does more harm then good to the gay agenda. Unfortunately it makes gays look dumb and ignorant and reaching for anything to support their cause... and it only does harm.....

I am sure most homosexuals I know and every where, would find this ridiculous.