Go Back   Team-BHP > Around the Corner > Shifting gears


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 5th July 2009, 10:20   #166
Senior - BHPian
 
deepclutch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Muvattupuzha
Posts: 1,119
Thanked: 108 Times
Default

the wrong thing is ,when you start to measure your society's "development" comparing each and everything with "West" as a scale.West is where family ideology was destroyed.West is where Marriages are apart and "partners" are the common norm.West is where gays are destroying the culture by mockery of Marriage and slaps any sane laws as "anti-gay".

I feel it is not possible to pass this law in Indian Soil(Hopefully!).It is not a "free" country.
deepclutch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th July 2009, 10:27   #167
BHPian
 
hkanitkar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: pune
Posts: 641
Thanked: 18 Times
Default

whoa.. what a discussion this thread has turned into !
Anyways, though this is said at least a 100 times in this thread, I say it again.

Its a welcome move by SC to amend the sec.377, and it just shows that we as a nation, are pro-active on this and almost ready to accept homosexuality for what it is.

But..
I would see this as just a small step towards 'accepting' homosexuality.
People on both sides of the rope need to chill down a bit.

On LSBT - i say it is natural. And lets leave it at that !
If anyone's making a choice of his/her sexuality, its a personal matter and shouldn't be discussed/ cursed at/ laughed at or even gossiped publically.

This is like playing with fire - you either get the warmth or you get burnt ! Its upon us to decide how responsibly we act on this further.

@sam - respect !
@greenie, hell rider - you guys are crazy - your writing styles have kept this thread from going into a bashing mode and keeping it lively despite the seriousness of the topic.

Last edited by hkanitkar : 5th July 2009 at 10:37.
hkanitkar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th July 2009, 11:59   #168
Senior - BHPian
 
vivekiny2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: cincinnati, jabalpur,chennai
Posts: 1,241
Thanked: 163 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by deepclutch View Post
the wrong thing is ,when you start to measure your society's "development" comparing each and everything with "West" as a scale.West is where family ideology was destroyed.West is where Marriages are apart and "partners" are the common norm.West is where gays are destroying the culture by mockery of Marriage and slaps any sane laws as "anti-gay".
when, where did we do that?

I think most of us have maintained that both East and West have their pros and cons. nobody advocates aping west.

and I would like to know why you think west is not a more developed version of east, if you think so. Everything that happens in east is a couple of years behind west. I think "partners" and relationships are slowly becoming a norm in India too. do you think a man staying a celibate till he attains 25+ is practical (when he gets married)? when it's proven that men achieve highest levels of testosterone at around 18.

Quote:
I feel it is not possible to pass this law in Indian Soil(Hopefully!).It is not a "free" country.
which law?

Last edited by vivekiny2k : 5th July 2009 at 12:04.
vivekiny2k is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th July 2009, 12:43   #169
BHPian
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chennai
Posts: 399
Thanked: 3 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Kapasi View Post
The Internet, pornography, 31 flavours of Ice Cream, beggar children, religious wars, protistution, pollution, world wars, rape, murder for amusement, Himmesh Reshammiya, Nazism, secularism, Satya Sai Baba, massage chairs, Antibiotics, steroids, literarure, religion, caste, botox, silicon, margeritas, kleptomania, Rakhi ka swayavar, submarines and by your own declaration, condoms too. All is this is natural.
Is this some sequel to "We didn't start the fire" ? :P
ballkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th July 2009, 13:16   #170
Senior - BHPian
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: mumbai
Posts: 1,945
Thanked: 1,879 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by deepclutch View Post
the wrong thing is ,when you start to measure your society's "development" comparing each and everything with "West" as a scale.West is where family ideology was destroyed.West is where Marriages are apart and "partners" are the common norm.West is where gays are destroying the culture by mockery of Marriage and slaps any sane laws as "anti-gay".

I feel it is not possible to pass this law in Indian Soil(Hopefully!).It is not a "free" country.
Classic Indian response: Blame everything on the West. Did the west etch those homosexual poses in Khajuraho? Or did the West write Kamasutra where in homo/lesbian acts are described in great detail? What about the god Kartikeya's origin? What about Lord Vishnu as Mohini? Did all this come from the west?

Our culture is so great because it has absorbed and asimilated flavours from other cultures over time. Trying to keep Indian culture pure is Talibanization.

There are evils and good in every culture including ours. Consider Sati for example
apachelongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th July 2009, 13:43   #171
BHPian
 
profold's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Kolkata
Posts: 44
Thanked: 0 Times
Default

Just finished reading all the 165 posts!
Mods, please don't kill this thread just because it does not contribute to our collective love for automotives and bikes.
From the media, we get to hear only the voices of vocal people or what the media thinks would attract average readers/viewers. In TBHP we get the opinion of cross section of educated, rational and honest people.
From the posts we find strong beliefs and emotions temporarily clouding rationality but soon, tolerance, temperance and rationality rules.
Mods, rest assured, we would soon get educated enough and the flood of posts would subside.
profold is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th July 2009, 15:15   #172
BHPian
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Mumbai
Posts: 538
Thanked: 59 Times
Default

All right !!!

good morning everyone.

Astleviz, lets pick up where we left off:

I have been been going through the crux of our disagreements on the subject. At this point, I would like to consolidate on the main points of our disagreement, and re-iterate certain points that may have been lost in last night's fiery but entertaining discussion.

1.The use of the word “unnatural”.
First off, some clarifications here:
(a)My use of the word “unnatural” is not restricted to homosexual activity. It includes non-vaginal sex between heterosexuals and birth control measures adopted by heterosexuals.
(b)I do not employ the word “unnatural” with unpleasant connotations or with derogatory intent.

Now, my premise being that sexual activity was primarily intended by nature as a means of propogation of the species I.e. reproduction.

My understanding of “unnatural” is that which is done to avoid or circumvent that which would have manifested itself as a matter of course, as a result of an action, if we did not employ ways and means to prevent the said naturally manifested result – viz; if we did not use birth control, a pregnancy would result as a natural and expected result of having sex. By adopting birth control, we are preventing what would happen naturally, hence “unnatural”, as in deliberately defeating nature's mechanisms.

I am hoping my use of the term “unnatural” in the above explanation should be acceptable.

This is why I asked you if had a problem with the word “unnatural” per se, and not entirely with what I was trying to say.

2.Reproduction is the primary objective of sex as nature intended it.
You disagree very strongly with this. I believe it to be true. Maybe a few million years down the road, humans and other species may evolve enough to make it untrue. And maybe humans are already well on their way to that evolutionary goal. But as of now, IMO, it still holds true.

Following is my basis to continue to believe that reproduction is the primary purpose of sex. It is basically a repeat of what I posted yesterday, but i'll just bullet the points.
(a)Every organ and biological process of the body has an evolutionary reason and purpose behind it.

(b)I can't think of any organ of any species in this planet, where an organ has evolved only for pleasure or entertainment. The fact that certain species have found alternative uses for those organs or processes cannot take away from the original purpose for which they where intended.

(c)To clarify the point, i'll repeat my argument of yesterday; viz – there is a reason why our sexual organs are where they are in our body and why we use specific organs for sex. If nature intended sex only for pleasure, the human body could have very well looked quite different – for e.g. we could have our testicles hanging at our throats and could ejaculate through our mouth or nostrils into females when we wanted a child, and leave the penis free for pleasure duty. But thats not the way our bodies evolved.

Another very relevant point has been made yesterday by fellow member dockap, which has been overlooked. You will be willing to agree that the instinct to propagate one's own genes, is stronger in some species than others. For e.g. in lions or chimps, where the males kill offspring of females where they are not the father. Compared to that, we humans have nowhere as strong an instinct to propagate our own genes. We do not go around killing the young ones of the prospective female partners. This is because basic survival is still a major issue in the animal kingdom, but not so much in our human world today.

So then can we argue that nature has intended it for sex to be more pleasurable for us humans (and other animals capable of indulging in sex for pleasure) to offer an incentive to indulge in sex with the larger aim of propagation of the species ?? To compensate for the lack of so strong an instinct of propagation in us humans, our sexual organs have evolved to provide us pleasurable sensations as well to induce us to mate.

3. Prevalence of homosexuality in the animal kingdom:
I have taken the effort to go through the wikipedia links you posted with respect to homosexuality in the animal kingdom.

Like I mentioned yesterday, I never denied the fact that homosexuality exists in the animal kingdom.

I admit, I mentioned that only humans and probably very few species indulged in sex for pleasure. Most of the others indulged in it for reproducing only.

Now, on the basis of the links you posted, I concede that if adequate research is being done, we'll probably find homosexuality to be practiced in most of the species in differing ways and frequencies. I'm also willing to stipulate that in many of these cases we are liable to find sex performed without the intent of reproducing.

But then you also need to agree (again based on the wikipedia articles) that while sex is not being performed for reproduction, it is also not being performed for pleasure only in many cases. In many cases like the bonobo monkeys, sex is used to diffuse tension, and in yet others it is used to build bonds and establish hierarchy within the groups for e.g.

The evidence of homosexuality in the animal kingdom can well be considered as proof that homosexuality occurs naturally. But then you also need to be open to the idea, that while it happens naturally, by the very tying of the reproductive process to heterosexual sex, the animals that indulge in homosexuality only, and do not indulge in heterosexual acts at all, are doomed to be weeded out of the gene pool. In case of the gay penguins, the genes of the males are never going to propagate because nature hasn't provided a way for them to. And if there is indeed a gene for homosexuality, nature has made sure it will never be passed on by those penguins. So though the homosexuality of the penguins can be argued as naturally occurring, you need to accept that nature has also ensured that their line of genes dies with those penguins and is not carried forward. Again, with the sole intention of ensuring the propagation of the species.

The above rationale is not entirely applicable to humans however, at least not to wealthy humans in more open and scientifically developed societies. For e.g. in western societies, a gay couple can use a surrogate partner, where at least half the baby is one of the partner's. In case of male gay couples, one of the male's sperm is used with a donor female's egg. In case of lesbian couples, one of the female's egg is used with a donor sperm. But it can still be argued, that nature will not allow a combination of the gay couple themselves. A genetic combination of a gay couple can never happen, whether naturally or if helped by science. Just two sperms or just two eggs can never come together to create life. A sperm from the male and an egg from the female is mandatory for life creation. This is the law of nature. (this excludes certain organisms who have evolved to have sexual capabilities of both sexes, like some lizards.)

This for me is the biggest endorsement that nature has a very clear idea of how life must exist and be created.

On the basis of the above, what I take away from the “homosexuality in the animal world” argument is this:
At the very least, nature has ensured that while animals may naturally engage in homosexual activities, at the very minimum, the animal must be bisexual I.e. capable of heterosexual sex, or it has no chance of propagating itself. Nature's way of saying “Get with the program or perish”.


4.Natural. Is it the same as normal ?? Can it be natural and yet an aberration / abnormal ??
This actually refers to what you quoted in your last post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by astleviz
If a person is born with 12 fingers or with a hole in his heart, it is not unnatural. It is an aberration, but certainly not unnatural. Just because we call it unnatural does not mean that nature has changed it's course. All it means that we are witnessing a natural phenomenon that we don't see too often.
I don't know if we both are agreeing on this here, or if we are drawing different conclusions from the above statement. This is kind of what I was driving at when I mentioned genetic disorders and diseases which can be tied to specific genes. These diseases and disorders too occur naturally. But we do not consider them normal. We look to find cures for these diseases and treat them. So, even though these disorders and illnessess occur naturally, can we agree that these illnesses and disorders are aberrations of nature ???

if yes, then why can't we consider homosexuality as natural occurring but yet an aberration of nature ?? This holds especially true when it comes to humans. In the animal kingdom examples you provided, you will note that the giraffes, lions etc, may occasionally indulge in homosexual activities, but are quite capable of heterosexual activity also and are thus able to reproduce. But in case of homosexuality in some humans, where you say they are “born homosexual”, the males are physically unable to mate with a female. Their sexual apparatus does not respond to the stimulus of a willing female, and they are incapable of heterosexual sex, unlike the animals.

So then based on your own points of examples in the animal kingdom and the above quoted point you made, are you willing to accept that in cases of homosexual males who are “born homosexual” , the homosexuality is natural but an aberration of nature nonetheless ??

because I am willing to accept that homosexuality can occur naturally, but that when it does, it is in fact an aberration of nature, just as genetic disorders are, because homosexuality impairs the functioning of certain organs in the way they are supposed to function, as they function in other people.

I'll address some of the other relevant points you have made, if its okay with you:

Quote:
Originally Posted by astleviz
Nature has no morality, it is only human beings who tend to look at things from moral perspective. So it's immoral to kill or cripple a child as far as humans are concerned. But when there is an earthquake or a tsunami, nature does not make a distinction between a child and an adult, between a saint and a sinner. It destroys everyone and everything with equal disdain.
precisely my point. Nature is only concerned with survival, propagation and evolution. But I need to make it clear that my entire debating of this point is not based on the morality of homosexuality. I don't think I am qualified to speak on the morality of anything and anyone here. That would be presumptuous of me. I am merely arguing the case for nature and the way its seen fit for things to work.

Quote:
Originally Posted by astleviz
Human beings can only try to know or understand the natural order of things. But we really don't know. We are still learning, discovering new things. Any claims otherwise are purely pretentious.
Based on what we know so far on the very primitive and primal basics of life creation (sperm egg combo required to create life), I am disinclined to accept anything contrary to accepted beliefs, unless verifiable and conclusive evidence to the contrary is offered. I'll be the first to retract my posts when that is done. Until then, the existing knowledge, theories and conclusions will hold good for me.

You need to appreciate that just questioning an existing belief system or current scientifically accepted truth just for the sake of it makes no sense, unless one has an alternative explanation for a given phenomenon. If that were so, we'd have to amend Newton's laws every week, because someone questioned it. Scientific knowledge and advancement is not always the result of new discoveries or the result of overthrowing existing accepted laws. Often scientific advancement is achieved by building on what is already known, and this advancement does not invalidate the accuracy of the earlier established beliefs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by astleviz
If something happens, it is because nature allows that to happen and therefore perfectly natural. Whether we perceive that event to be natural or unnatural is merely our perception.
perfectly natural yes, but not necessarily normal. My last point above.

Quote:
Originally Posted by astleviz
You have mentoned "because nature as a rule will never cause a certain organism to evolve in a certain way merely for "pleasure". every act of nature always has a practical evolutionary reason behind it, be it survival or propagation of the species." What is the basis for this assumption? How can you claim to understand what nature wants or doesn't want. I have posted several links with facts and figures (from credible resources) to support my statement. I suggest that we go through all those wikipedia links unless we want to simply ignore academic research and findings and just want to argue about whose opinion is superior.
none of the links you posted, and none of the links I additionally went through during googling prove otherwise. Provide me an example of an evolutionary process that is primarily for pleasure. I stick to what I say. Every organ of every species of every living organism on this planet is for a specific purpose and pleasure is not one of them. However, like in the case of humans as pointed out above, nature has acted in a way such as to provide pleasure as an incentive to induce the life form to indulge in certain acts, the higher purpose of which is not pleasure itself.


To sum up, what I am saying is,
Over time certain practices, on account of their widespread use in society start to be considered “natural”. But we need to understand that the use of the word “natural” in these cases is merely referring to society's acceptance of the process, and does not necessarily mean that it was in fact the way nature intended it to be.

Quote:
Originally Posted by astleviz
This is my last post on this topic since I'm off to Delhi shortly from where I'm driving down to Leh-laddakh.
ahhh...wonderful trip. I made that trip last year. Over three weeks of driving in ladakh. A trip that opened my eyes to the power and wonder of nature.

I do hope you will pick up this discussion when you get back.

Enjoy the trip.
Cheers.

Last edited by Rehaan : 6th July 2009 at 02:56.
hell_rider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th July 2009, 15:25   #173
BHPian
 
splitsecond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: calicut
Posts: 83
Thanked: 10 Times
Default

wow very long thread!!

Its a good judgment,one cannot be jailed for being homosexual

I have read most of the replies there are many misconception that i like to point out

1. Someone said there is gene for homosexuality == Wrong!! there is no genes causing homosexuality(or not found till date)

2. Homosexuality is unnatural == wrong, Its natural

3. Homosexuality cannot be compared to incest == wrong, incest,rape,pedophile are all natural as Homosexuality(but some are crimes)

The reason for homosexuality have not been found yet, is it genes?,is it disorder?,hormonal imbalance?,or a combination of all, there may be many factors.

So the question is
Does homosexual should be accepted in our society?
Answer to this is another Question, How far are you ready to go??

I would like to ask the guys who thinks Homosexuality should be accepted in our society, do you guys accept incest? why not its not crime after all,its natural. Accept incest and increase Indian morality even more
splitsecond is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th July 2009, 15:41   #174
BHPian
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Mumbai
Posts: 538
Thanked: 59 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by splitsecond View Post
So the question is
Does homosexual should be accepted in our society?
Answer to this is another Question, How far are you ready to go??

I would like to ask the guys who thinks Homosexuality should be accepted in our society, do you guys accept incest? why not its not crime after all,its natural. Accept incest and increase Indian morality even more
incest is a different ball game altogether. incest also has very different results when practiced in the animal kingdom as opposed to when we humans might practice it.

in many species, it does not really affect the offspring, though the gene pool gets restricted. but in humans, offspring who are a result of incest, often suffer from genetic disorders.

so yes, i think its safe to say that at least in humans, incest is unnatural. mind you i am speaking purely from an evolutionary point of view.

when you factor in mythological, cultural, social factors as well as birth control available today, it becomes an extremely convoluted issue.

there are countries where legislation has made incest legal, where the parties are consenting adults.
hell_rider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th July 2009, 15:53   #175
BHPian
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Delhi/Cuttack
Posts: 372
Thanked: 176 Times
Default

where is the East-West context coming about this issue?

Why should a hijra (an indian term for transgenders which had nothing to do with the west) have to be an illegal entity and not do things which come naturally to him/her?

I had a roommate in college who came out of the closet after the first year; I continued rooming with him for the next four years. As long as he does not bother me in my private affairs, I have no business in bothering with his private affairs.
manolin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th July 2009, 16:07   #176
BHPian
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Mumbai
Posts: 538
Thanked: 59 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by manolin View Post
I had a roommate in college who came out of the closet after the first year; I continued rooming with him for the next four years. As long as he does not bother me in my private affairs, I have no business in bothering with his private affairs.
hopefully, the amendment of this law will encourage more of this attitude and will eliminate the need for closets in the first place.
hell_rider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th July 2009, 16:23   #177
Distinguished - BHPian
 
condor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Speed-brkr City
Posts: 10,316
Thanked: 3,657 Times
Default

Quote:
hell_rider : 2.Reproduction is the primary objective of sex as nature intended it.
You disagree very strongly with this. I believe it to be true. Maybe a few million years down the road, humans and other species may evolve enough to make it untrue. And maybe humans are already well on their way to that evolutionary goal. But as of now, IMO, it still holds true.
We are already way ahead, when you compare with other species. So much that humans have already converted sex into a fine-art. being able to AND having sex at any time, including during the infertile / non-fertilizable times of the menstrual cycle. Compare this with the rest of the animal kingdom : the female will not be having sex at other times than when she's ready to get fertilised. The males may be ready, but the female will reject it.

Quote:
hell_rider :(a)Every organ and biological process of the body has an evolutionary reason and purpose behind it.

(b)I can't think of any organ of any species in this planet, where an organ has evolved only for pleasure or entertainment. The fact that certain species have found alternative uses for those organs or processes cannot take away from the original purpose for which they where intended.
In our case, the body itself seems to have evolved for this !

& Case in point : is the human tongue meant to be used for tasting food, or for use during sex ? Doesnt the human being derieve pleasure with the tongue - both giving & taking the pleasure, with an organ like the tongue- when the organ was never intended for that ?

Quote:
hell_rider : (c)To clarify the point, i'll repeat my argument of yesterday; viz – there is a reason why our sexual organs are where they are in our body and why we use specific organs for sex. If nature intended sex only for pleasure, the human body could have very well looked quite different – for e.g. we could have our testicles hanging at our throats and could ejaculate through our mouth or nostrils into females when we wanted a child, and leave the penis free for pleasure duty. But thats not the way our bodies evolved.
So inspite of being the most evolved species on the planet, why is it that the teat of the human female is so un-suitable for feeding a baby ?

The homo-sapien female's teat is the odd one in the entire mammalian kingdom. AFAIK, only in the case of humans can a baby be suffocated during feeding. And that too at the hands of it's own mother. And when this happens, it is not intentional.

Just in case you have not heard about the suffocation part, it is because of the precautions the mother is taught to take. Else we too would have far more infant deaths than we have today.

Do you know why that nipple you get in the medical store for use with the baby's feeding bottle is elongated, as against the much shorter teat that the mother has ? Or the bottle is long - and not round like human female the breast is ? Well, that bottle & that nipple are better suited to feeding the baby than the mother's breast. And for that matter, go and check the structure in any other mammal - the baby will so freely be able to feed from it's mother.

And have you ever noticed that the human breast resembles the human buttock so much ? Even though an ape or similar animal has its breasts in the same place, it's breasts dont resemble it's buttocks as much as it happens in case of the human ?


Quote:
hell_rider : To compensate for the lack of so strong an instinct of propagation in us humans, our sexual organs have evolved to provide us pleasurable sensations as well to induce us to mate.
Well, if nature were to use just propagation of the species as the criteria for this, then we did not need the pleasurability factor to induce us to have sex to have more babies to propoagate our species. We have already enough and more numbers that we are killing each other.



Quote:
hell_rider : A genetic combination of a gay couple can never happen, whether naturally or if helped by science.
Well, the gay / lesbian couple are not having sex to have a baby ! They dont need it. When & if they want one, they have the means to have a baby with their own genes.

And if you are following recent studies, it is said that in course of time, a human female can fertilize her own egg without the need for a male partner & his sperms.


Quote:
hell_rider : ..., at the very minimum, the animal must be bisexual I.e. capable of heterosexual sex, or it has no chance of propagating itself.
And so is the human gay / lesbian person. He/she is perfectly capable of having heterosexual sex. But it is his / her choice not to.



Quote:
hell_rider : These diseases and disorders too occur naturally. But we do not consider them normal.
Why are they not normal ? With the number of genes that we have, and the permutations we have, the incidence of such diseases we see is normal : with larger permutations possible, the probability of the genetic diseases reduces, and the incidence is normal w.r.t the probability.

So,using your argument, the genetic disease is natural AND normal.


Quote:
hell_rider : In the animal kingdom examples you provided, you will note that the giraffes, lions etc, may occasionally indulge in homosexual activities, but are quite capable of heterosexual activity also and are thus able to reproduce.

But in case of homosexuality in some humans, where you say they are “born homosexual”, the males are physically unable to mate with a female. Their sexual apparatus does not respond to the stimulus of a willing female, and they are incapable of heterosexual sex, unlike the animals.
So that is not being physically unable to mate with a female. If a man is not physically able to mate with a female, then he has either a totally un-functional organ, or a severly Dysfunctional organ that will not work even in case of having sex with a male.

When you talk of stimuli, it is about preferences. What stimulates that person. Just like what stimulates you does not have to stimulate another person, your partner included.



Quote:
hell_rider : Based on what we know so far on the very primitive and primal basics of life creation (sperm egg combo required to create life), I am disinclined to accept anything contrary to accepted beliefs, unless verifiable and conclusive evidence to the contrary is offered. I'll be the first to retract my posts when that is done. Until then, the existing knowledge, theories and conclusions will hold good for me.
So what do you say about the species where the female, in the absence of a male, can fertilize it's own eggs ? This is the reason why such species are still around, else they would have gotten extinct long long ago.


Quote:
hell_rider : Scientific knowledge and advancement is not always the result of new discoveries or the result of overthrowing existing accepted laws. Often scientific advancement is achieved by building on what is already known, and this advancement does not invalidate the accuracy of the earlier established beliefs.
And this is why a female of a species - since the female is the one which will bear the young - can possibly start fertilizing itself. Or did you want a new way of fertilization to come into practice ?

(wonder what would that be ?! )


Quote:
hell_rider : To sum up, what I am saying is,
Over time certain practices, on account of their widespread use in society start to be considered “natural”. But we need to understand that the use of the word “natural” in these cases is merely referring to society's acceptance of the process, and does not necessarily mean that it was in fact the way nature intended it to be.
Coming back to the point about using one's tongue : how many species use their tongue during sex ? And to the extent we humans do ?

If I were to apply to this, the points & arguments you have used, then using the tongue during sex is neither normal, nor natural.

Quote:
hell_rider : In many cases like the bonobo monkeys, sex is used to diffuse tension, and in yet others it is used to build bonds and establish hierarchy within the groups for e.g.
So, my friend, when you have sex, is to have a baby each time, or just for the pleasure of it, to reduce your tensions, and to have a better bonding with your partner ?

Why shouldnt the gay person not have sex for the pleasure of it & other reasons that the rest of the society does ?
condor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th July 2009, 17:05   #178
BHPian
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Mumbai
Posts: 538
Thanked: 59 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by condor
We are already way ahead, when you compare with other species. So much that humans have already converted sex into a fine-art. being able to AND having sex at any time, including during the infertile / non-fertilizable times of the menstrual cycle. Compare this with the rest of the animal kingdom : the female will not be having sex at other times than when she's ready to get fertilised. The males may be ready, but the female will reject it.
i already said what we humans are probably well on our way to that evolutionary goal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by condor
In our case, the body itself seems to have evolved for this !

& Case in point : is the human tongue meant to be used for tasting food, or for use during sex ? Doesnt the human being derieve pleasure with the tongue - both giving & taking the pleasure, with an organ like the tongue- when the organ was never intended for that ?
so you are assuming that that the tongue was not intended for sexual pleasure too ? throw in the nose as well. what about the smells of your partner that turn you on ??

why do we have pubic hair and hair under the armpits ?? its so that the smell of our pheromones get concerntrated and trapped in the hair and thereby attract and arouse the opposite sex. however, since we all generally wear clothes these days, it might not be as relevant. but in the days when we were still in caves and running around bare bottomed, i'm sure it was significant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by condor
So inspite of being the most evolved species on the planet, why is it that the teat of the human female is so un-suitable for feeding a baby ?

The homo-sapien female's teat is the odd one in the entire mammalian kingdom. AFAIK, only in the case of humans can a baby be suffocated during feeding. And that too at the hands of it's own mother. And when this happens, it is not intentional.

Just in case you have not heard about the suffocation part, it is because of the precautions the mother is taught to take. Else we too would have far more infant deaths than we have today.

Do you know why that nipple you get in the medical store for use with the baby's feeding bottle is elongated, as against the much shorter teat that the mother has ? Or the bottle is long - and not round like human female the breast is ? Well, that bottle & that nipple are better suited to feeding the baby than the mother's breast. And for that matter, go and check the structure in any other mammal - the baby will so freely be able to feed from it's mother.

And have you ever noticed that the human breast resembles the human buttock so much ? Even though an ape or similar animal has its breasts in the same place, it's breasts dont resemble it's buttocks as much as it happens in case of the human ?
i really can't speak intelligibly on the teat issue. i do know that the nipple elongates considerably during feeding. but i won't argue this point for the sake of arguing.

but i still would appreciate the exact point you were trying to convey. i'm sorry if i haven't been able to get it.



Quote:
Originally Posted by condor
Well, if nature were to use just propagation of the species as the criteria for this, then we did not need the pleasurability factor to induce us to have sex to have more babies to propoagate our species. We have already enough and more numbers that we are killing each other.
i didn't get this point. i agree that we are already exploding in terms of population. but when nature conceived of our reproductory mechanisms and patterns, the human life expectancy wasn't as high as it is today. Our progress and advancement in science has undeniably altered the balance of nature and the natural world. you can't deny that. the human race is the most destructive species in all of god's world.


Quote:
Originally Posted by condor
Well, the gay / lesbian couple are not having sex to have a baby ! They dont need it. When & if they want one, they have the means to have a baby with their own genes.
incorrect. gay couples too want babies. ie. gay couples who are in committed relationships. your statement actually kind of propagates the idea that gay couples are in it only for sex and not meaningful relationships, which is not true.

in western societies you have established laws which govern all aspects of same sex parenting as well.

and no, a gay couple can't have a baby with just their own two sets of genes. one set of their genes (either one of them) with a donor egg or sperm from somebody else.

Quote:
Originally Posted by condor
And if you are following recent studies, it is said that in course of time, a human female can fertilize her own egg without the need for a male partner & his sperms.
yes... i am aware of that study. but that is still not the same as two gays creating a life form. in the animal kingdom already examples exist where an organism of its own can fulfil the responsibilities of both the sexes when it comes to life creation. but still two sperms or two eggs cannot combine to create life.

Quote:
Originally Posted by condor
And so is the human gay / lesbian person. He/she is perfectly capable of having heterosexual sex. But it is his / her choice not to.
no...in fact that is one of the most vocal arguments of gay people to defend their orientation, that they are born different and cannot relate to sex with the opposite sex. your statement goes against the very pillar of their beliefs.

but i agree with you that there are a large number of people who are not born gay but indulge in a gay liestyle. it is a life style that they have adopted. this may be due to a number of social / psychological experiences / factors. there are also a number of people who do it to fit it and because its a fad or an accepted thing in the circles they live, for e.g. certain professions. but then it can be argued if they are really gay in the strict sense of the term.

Quote:
Originally Posted by condor
Why are they not normal ? With the number of genes that we have, and the permutations we have, the incidence of such diseases we see is normal : with larger permutations possible, the probability of the genetic diseases reduces, and the incidence is normal w.r.t the probability.

So,using your argument, the genetic disease is natural AND normal.
i am sorry but i cannot agree with that. a child that is born with a genetic blood disorder that requires transfusions every fortnight is not normal. its natural, yes, not normal. its an unfortunate aberration of nature.


Quote:
Originally Posted by condor
So that is not being physically unable to mate with a female. If a man is not physically able to mate with a female, then he has either a totally un-functional organ, or a severly Dysfunctional organ that will not work even in case of having sex with a male.
that is incorrect. the ones who are said to be born homosexuals are incapable of mating with women, as they are unable to get erect. however, they are able to get erect when having sex with a male.

the point you are making seems to be with respect to erectile dysfunction. whole different ball game altogether.

Quote:
Originally Posted by condor
When you talk of stimuli, it is about preferences. What stimulates that person. Just like what stimulates you does not have to stimulate another person, your partner included.
basically a continuation of above point. a gay male is unable to get stimulated by a female. but he is with another male.



Quote:
Originally Posted by condor
So what do you say about the species where the female, in the absence of a male, can fertilize it's own eggs ? This is the reason why such species are still around, else they would have gotten extinct long long ago.

And this is why a female of a species - since the female is the one which will bear the young - can possibly start fertilizing itself. Or did you want a new way of fertilization to come into practice ?

(wonder what would that be ?! )
there IS NOTHING to say. thats the way that species has evolved. you cannot make a one-to-one comparison across species, like between humans and some species like the one you have mentioned. it doesn't work that way. reproductive mechanisms in species has evolved based on various factors with respect to its living environment, predatory factors, and lots more.

humans have not evolved like that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by condor
Coming back to the point about using one's tongue : how many species use their tongue during sex ? And to the extent we humans do ?

If I were to apply to this, the points & arguments you have used, then using the tongue during sex is neither normal, nor natural.
man you are big on tongue action

like i said above, how come you assumed that the tongue was not supposed to be a sexual tool as well ?? dual purpose. like the penis which we use for urination as well as ejaculation.

i really am not very well informed on the use of the tongues by different species during the sex act, and therefore cannot offer an intelligent response.


Quote:
Originally Posted by condor
So, my friend, when you have sex, is to have a baby each time, or just for the pleasure of it, to reduce your tensions, and to have a better bonding with your partner ?

Why shouldnt the gay person not have sex for the pleasure of it & other reasons that the rest of the society does ?
i have already explained this in my post above.

Last edited by hell_rider : 5th July 2009 at 17:10.
hell_rider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th July 2009, 17:18   #179
BHPian
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Mumbai
Posts: 538
Thanked: 59 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by condor View Post
We are already way ahead, when you compare with other species. So much that humans have already converted sex into a fine-art. being able to AND having sex at any time, including during the infertile / non-fertilizable times of the menstrual cycle. Compare this with the rest of the animal kingdom : the female will not be having sex at other times than when she's ready to get fertilised. The males may be ready, but the female will reject it.


In our case, the body itself seems to have evolved for this !
when you say the body itself seems to evolved for this, i couldn;t agree more in fact.

are you aware that studies have established that women feel more sexual and attractive, dress better and more carefully, and lubricate better during sex during their fertile period ??? also hormonal peaks and surges are also the highest during their fertile period.

so bascially they are more receptive to sex and are less likely to say they have a headache

and all this happens subconsciously without them actually realising it.

just an interesting aspect to what you yourself said, except it kind of corroborates the other viewpoint.
hell_rider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th July 2009, 17:30   #180
Distinguished - BHPian
 
condor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Speed-brkr City
Posts: 10,316
Thanked: 3,657 Times
Default

Quote:
hell_rider : just an interesting aspect to what you yourself said, except it kind of corroborates the other viewpoint.
Actually, such reasons & excuses the human can give only adds to the point that we use sex for pleasure - when we want it, and when we dont want it, we deny sex (to the other person). Use to our desire. If we were to have sex only for having off-spring, then we would not be using those excuses !
condor is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pathetic service experience at Landmark Honda, Ahmedabad rockporiom Indian Car Dealerships 4 16th June 2015 00:58
Hyderabad-Salem:Diversion Landmark? ranjitp1 Route / Travel Queries 32 21st June 2012 16:02
Game Changers - Landmark events in the Indian Automotive Scene amit_2025 The Indian Car Scene 71 12th February 2012 06:38
Panel for landmark changes in Motor Vehicle Act vbraju Street Experiences 2 2nd January 2011 13:04
A Landmark Shift in Bajaj's Advertising??? vasudeva Motorbikes 12 31st July 2009 07:05


All times are GMT +5.5. The time now is 07:41.

Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Team-BHP.com
Proudly powered by E2E Networks