No Name

[Extensa5420]

REMOVED

This thread was intentionally created as a joke to mock the other thread, not forming a real debate about it! HONEST!

[Rawra]

Humans are born bisexuals. Based on the education, or simply on their beliefs, they develop a form of sexuality.

[Phoeberg]

I would say the heterosexuality is definitely influenced by one's environment/culture/society to an extent. I know that personally I've never really considered whether I am heterosexual or not because on the whole most people consider it the norm and so I've always assumed I am. Most books, TV shows and magazines feature predominantly straight couples. As a child, you tend to copy what you see older people doing. By that I mean that when I was a child I would play things like "weddings" and "families" and would "marry" boys, because I never thought about there being any other way, even though as a 7 year old I obviously wasn't aware of my sexuality and whether I actually would like boys or girls when I was older.

[Rawra]

humans are born asexual.

That's what I meant.

[Robodl95]

Well the goal of most species is to reproduce (pretty much only excluding humans) and homosexual couples can't have natural children. There's a reason why there aren't homosexual couples in the wild. Humans were once wild animals and therefor it was natural to reproduce (requiring a man and a woman). Even up to today in undeveloped nations (or say 100 years ago in developed ones) you needed to children to help on the farm, work in the factories and then help support you when you were old, having no children would be impractical. I think that it's partly genetic but also the billenium old stigma that a couple must be a man and a woman which is why heterosexual is the "dominant" couple.

[Phoeberg]

Well the goal of most species is to reproduce (pretty much only excluding humans) and homosexual couples can't have natural children. There's a reason why there aren't homosexual couples in the wild.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mammals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

And a story I recall seeing in newspapers over the years:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1509605/Gay-flamingos-are-both-family-men.html

[Oaktree]

1. Caused by both genetic and environmental factors, though I believe the environment in the womb to play the largest role. The amount of hormones pumped into the growing fetus has a great impact on many areas of development and certain levels of hormonal activity have been shown to have a correlation with homosexuality, so I believe that hormonal activity is also important in the determination of heterosexuality.

2. They just realize sooner or later that they are attracted to the other sex. It probably happens around puberty, though earlier for some and later for others. The same can be said for homosexuality.

3. There is no one heterosexual lifestyle, just as there is no one homosexual lifestyle. Humans vary on far more points than sexuality and some of those points of variation have nothing to do with sexuality.

4. Some are, some aren't. Many heterosexuals sworn to chastity are uncomfortable with having to remain chaste when they have sexual desires. There is also the occasional heterosexual who, for some reason or another, wishes he/she were homosexual, bisexual, or asexual. Most are perfectly comfortable with their sexuality.

5. The chances are high that the other will be heterosexual, as both have similar genetics and womb environment - though this last one actually varies in some cases; sometimes one twin will get more nutrition than the other, causing there to be a greater variation between the characteristics of the twins. Studies also show that twins tend to be very similar to one another, so if one has a particular trait, it is likely that the other has that trait, as well.

@Robodl95: There is a societal good in individuals that don't have children. If an individual is working and contributing to society, that individual is making society richer without taking the resources out that a child would require. This tends to have a lesser impact in our modern, developed world, but the impact isn't negligible. Consider this: If everyone just started popping out babies left and right, the world population would grow exponentially and we would eventually run out of resources, including space. To have people that don't reproduce means that we are less likely to come to that. If those people are happy not reproducing, they shouldn't be forced to.

[Robodl95]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mammals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

And a story I recall seeing in newspapers over the years:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1509605/Gay-flamingos-are-both-family-men.html

That's interesting!

@Robodl95: There is a societal good in individuals that don't have children. If an individual is working and contributing to society, that individual is making society richer without taking the resources out that a child would require. This tends to have a lesser impact in our modern, developed world, but the impact isn't negligible. Consider this: If everyone just started popping out babies left and right, the world population would grow exponentially and we would eventually run out of resources, including space. To have people that don't reproduce means that we are less likely to come to that. If those people are happy not reproducing, they shouldn't be forced to.

I was speaking in the past tense when we weren't worried about declining resources, and we depended on children to care for us in old age as well as the need for them to take over the family profession and help on farms. Today it's perfectly acceptable to not have any children and it will help our population in the long run.

[SuicidiaParasidia]

you forgot: is heterosexuality a choice?

[Oaktree]

I was speaking in the past tense when we weren't worried about declining resources, and we depended on children to care for us in old age as well as the need for them to take over the family profession and help on farms. Today it's perfectly acceptable to not have any children and it will help our population in the long run.

Even in the past there is still the matter of securing enough resources for everyone. In the days of the hunter-gatherers, they still had to actually go out and get the food that was available. Having a member of the social unit that didn't have children meant one or more fewer mouths to feed.

[whiterider]

I know I'm going back a bit here, but there are actually pretty compelling reasons to refuse heterosexuals a religious marriage. Many churches refuse to marry gay couples, because they believe that gay people's mothers' wombs are sinful- erm, I mean that being gay is sinful. Similarly, many churches refuse to marry divorcees, or pregnant women, because they believe that such a marriage is immoral.

However, these couples can still get "married" by the state, in a secular fashion. Shouldn't such a partnership be referred to as a civil union, to promote them to the same secular standing afforded to gay couples?

[Robodl95]

One of the things in history that always seemed strange to me is that the poor people would have like 12 children (given that maybe 7 would survive to adult hood), you would think that being so poor and having hardly any food would keep them from having such huge families but yet they did which just meant more mouths to feed. It never really made sense to me.

[lauratje86]

One of the things in history that always seemed strange to me is that the poor people would have like 12 children (given that maybe 7 would survive to adult hood), you would think that being so poor and having hardly any food would keep them from having such huge families but yet they did which just meant more mouths to feed. It never really made sense to me.

Before reliable contraception was available, or nowadays still where reliable contraception isn't widely available, how would they stop themselves from having children? Only have sex when they wanted a baby, when the woman was pregnant or when she'd gone through the menopause!? Not very likely, or very practical!

Also, they often depended/depend on their children to look after them when they are too old to work, as well as to help earn money (or gather food) from an early age. As you said, lots of their children would/do die young, so they'd need to have a fair few to make sure some survive to adulthood.

In some cases (many cases?) it could also be due to their religious beliefs - that children are a blessing from God and a couple with many children is "extra blessed" and not to be pitied/worried about because they can't afford enough food, as God has in fact favoured them by giving them such a large family.

[Robodl95]

Before reliable contraception was available, or nowadays still where reliable contraception isn't widely available, how would they stop themselves from having children? Only have sex when they wanted a baby, when the woman was pregnant or when she'd gone through the menopause!? Not very likely, or very practical!

Also, they often depended/depend on their children to look after them when they are too old to work, as well as to help earn money (or gather food) from an early age. As you said, lots of their children would/do die young, so they'd need to have a fair few to make sure some survive to adulthood.

In some cases (many cases?) it could also be due to their religious beliefs - that children are a blessing from God and a couple with many children is "extra blessed" and not to be pitied/worried about because they can't afford enough food, as God has in fact favoured them by giving them such a large family.

So true :)

[alliemarie2323]

To reproduce, plain and simple.

[vhanster]

Before reliable contraception was available, or nowadays still where reliable contraception isn't widely available, how would they stop themselves from having children? Only have sex when they wanted a baby, when the woman was pregnant or when she'd gone through the menopause!? Not very likely, or very practical!

Also, they often depended/depend on their children to look after them when they are too old to work, as well as to help earn money (or gather food) from an early age. As you said, lots of their children would/do die young, so they'd need to have a fair few to make sure some survive to adulthood.

In some cases (many cases?) it could also be due to their religious beliefs - that children are a blessing from God and a couple with many children is "extra blessed" and not to be pitied/worried about because they can't afford enough food, as God has in fact favoured them by giving them such a large family.

Really, now? I always thought that people in history had so much children because they don't know how how to control childbirth

[iCad]

I would say that the #1 "cause" is that, if it didn't happen, the species would be doomed. :lol:

Basically, I tend to think that humans are a strange melange of instinct and reasoning. Much of what we do and think and, I believe, what we consider to be taboo and such is instinctive. Much of it is also the result of reasoning overcoming instinct. Some of it is a result of culture and accumulated life experience. Sexuality, I think, is a mix of all of those things, too. Obviously, in order for the species to continue, people of opposite sexes need to get together and contribute some gametes, and we still have an instinctive drive to continue the species which kicks in at puberty and blah blah. On the other hand, we went and invented or developed or were given or whatever the concept of romantic/sexual love, which can at times override the instinctive reproductive drive. Plus, we are amongst a very small number of species who will engage in sex purely for pleasure, not specifically for reproductive reasons. So I think that sexual preference is, in general, the result of a combination of instinct, reasoning, life experience, and what gives one the most pleasure. How one "turns out" is a result of all of those things. The "causes" of heterosexuality are no different than the "causes" of homosexuality, IMO. The former, I think, has social acceptance on its side primarily, I think, because it is the means by which the species naturally continues, thus prompting people to think of it as "natural."

[suzetter]

Throughout time and philosphies we see the pairing of the masculine and the feminine to form a whole. Like yin and yang for example.

[missy harries]

One of the things in history that always seemed strange to me is that the poor people would have like 12 children (given that maybe 7 would survive to adult hood), you would think that being so poor and having hardly any food would keep them from having such huge families but yet they did which just meant more mouths to feed. It never really made sense to me.

It's still like that today (at least where I come from).
If your poor how can you afford contraception? Under education and lack of awareness also plays a BIG factor which again is more common in poor families for the same reson.

As for causes of hetrosexuallity I have no idea, only that its the natural way to go for obvious reproductive reasons and social acceptence.
I couldn't tell you why I'm a hetrosexual because I don't consider myself as one but I'm not gay either, I'm more bisexual and all I know is that whatever your sexual prefrence you can't explain WHY your like that because it just feels natural to you and while there are so many theories out there I think it's just one of those things that we will never fully understand and I'm happy to accept that.

but there is actually a breed of monkey (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3305514/Lesbian-Japanese-monkeys-challenge-Darwins-assumptions.html) that swings both ways which brings up an intresting consideration and I'm more inclined to agree with The Creeper.

[missy harries]

Really, now? I always thought that people in history had so much children because they don't know how how to control childbirth

Romans used to use fish skins........
Gives a whole new meaning to smell's fishy.......

Edit: Now that I think about it thats probally how that phrase came about!

[Rafe Weisz]

Just for answering your question about the causes (not for discussing anything):
There are perfectly rational causes for it. People want children the easy way. And for free too. There is no fee for just going to the bedroom and woohoo. Besides, if the two parents marry, they get economic advantages: One house for all of them, one car, etc. That means they share the expenses, making life cheaper overall. If they belong to a religion, they get more acceptance than if they stayed single.
When you look and all that and add the things I forgot to add because my dog did not let me sleep last night, it makes the best choice ever, putting homosexuality, bisexuality and all other "choices" below it. It is even better than staying single (wich is far better than homosexuality, bisexuality and modern options, because you do not get any illness)

-I'm not discussing my point of view, I'm just showing it to all of you (like it was behind a glass). You can look at it, but you can't touch it or change it.-

[pinketamine]

Just for answering your question about the causes (not for discussing anything):
There are perfectly rational causes for it. People want children the easy way. And for free too. There is no fee for just going to the bedroom and woohoo. Besides, if the two parents marry, they get economic advantages: One house for all of them, one car, etc. That means they share the expenses, making life cheaper overall. If they belong to a religion, they get more acceptance than if they stayed single.
When you look and all that and add the things I forgot to add because my dog did not let me sleep last night, it makes the best choice ever, putting homosexuality, bisexuality and all other "choices" below it. It is even better than staying single (wich is far better than homosexuality, bisexuality and modern options, because you do not get any illness)

-I'm not discussing my point of view, I'm just showing it to all of you (like it was behind a glass). You can look at it, but you can't touch it or change it.-

Why do you share your opinion, if you are not open to discussion?
You say that people are heterosexual because they want to have kids for free... interesting. It is not that they feel attraction towards members of the opposite sex, it is just that they don't want to spend money on having kids.
Also, what makes you think that being homosexual/bi/"modern options" means illnesses?
And... what the hell are "modern options"?

[el_flel]

Why enter a debate forum if you don't wish to discuss your 'opinion'? Btw when you talk about 'illness' if you're referring to HIV and AIDS then I think it will interest you to know that heterosexual sex is actually the most common form of transmission.

[Tempscire]

To reproduce, plain and simple.
What about asexual reproduction? If something as complicated as a lizard can reproduce parthenogenetically (http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/parthenogenetically) why not other animals?

Throughout time and philosphies we see the pairing of the masculine and the feminine to form a whole. Like yin and yang for example.
That seems more descriptive than proscriptive.

[unalisaa]

And... what the hell are "modern options"?
It's probably those filthy polyamorous people.

[Tempscire]

Romans used to use fish skins........
Just adding on... Humans have been using various forms of birth control for millenia. The ancient Greeks drove a particularly effective plant to extinction. Myriad other herbal or physical (barrier) contraceptives have been used.

There are perfectly rational causes for it. People want children the easy way. And for free too. There is no fee for just going to the bedroom and woohoo. Besides, if the two parents marry, they get economic advantages: One house for all of them, one car, etc. That means they share the expenses, making life cheaper overall. If they belong to a religion, they get more acceptance than if they stayed single.
These aren't actually "causes," except inasmuch as they might help someone bisexual opt to only act on their heterosexual attractions (not to mention all the general hatred to be avoided from society). Rather, those are constructs that benefit the hetero majority, constructed by selfsame majority. When you're 12 and developing your first real crush, you aren't thinking about whether you'll be able to file a joint income tax return with that person. The economic advantages you name that result from marriage are simply benefits to getting married (and an argument in its favor) rather than causes of heterosexuality (marriage being an expression of one's pre-existing relationship). For procreation, people could opt to have procreative sex with the opposite sex and then rear the offspring with a same-sex partner (or maybe go all Amazonian and women raise the girls while men raise the boys, or something).

The point being: those are more symptoms, not causes.

Why enter a debate forum if you don't wish to discuss your 'opinion'? Btw when you talk about 'illness' if you're referring to HIV and AIDS then I think it will interest you to know that heterosexual sex is actually the most common form of transmission.
Within the U.S., at least, male-to-male transmission is well in the lead over heterosexual contact (which is a not insignificant mode of transmission, either).

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/basic.htm#exposure
http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/FastFacts-MSM-FINAL508COMP.pdf (Sept 2010 fact sheet on male-to-male transmission)
http://www.avert.org/usa-transmission-gender.htm

Haven't been able to find a statistical summary of modes of transmission globally, unfortunately, but I suspect certain African countries might be skewing the heterosexual numbers.

[el_flel]

I think your last sentence is a good explanation because I have heard, and seen, from a few different sources that heterosexual sex had [slightly] overtaken homosexual sex as the primary way people are infected.

[emilymarie0201]

One of the things in history that always seemed strange to me is that the poor people would have like 12 children (given that maybe 7 would survive to adult hood), you would think that being so poor and having hardly any food would keep them from having such huge families but yet they did which just meant more mouths to feed. It never really made sense to me.

I completely agree with this. Referring to a movie, it's just like "The History if Idiocracy", not to say anything completely offensive, but in the movie there was a Redneck couple who had a tiny shack with at least 9 or 10 children, and they kept on reproducing! Where as you'd see this well put together couple, and they put off having children because they were too busy with work or too busy with other things, and then her husband died. Although this was just a movie, it proves a valid point. WHY on earth would you bring a child into a world when you can't even afford to take care of yourself? I understand that accidents happen, but 5,6,7,8,9, 10 times? I don't think so, that's just being careless.

[acid_fairy]

People had so many kids because there was nothing else to do! No jobs, no food, no entertainment other than each other. Sex can keep people entertained for hours, plus it's a great way to keep warm and forget about those hunger pangs ;)

Nowadays... accidents happen. I receive free birth control in the UK but that's not 100%; if you have a bad tummy within so many hours of taking it, then that pill no longer works. Condoms break or can be forgotten in the heat of the moment, and although there are other forms of contraception available, they don't suit everyone. Hormones are tricky things and messing with them can mess a person up, hormonally. The first pill I went on gave me terrible depression to the point where I was crying on my 21st birthday because I just felt so awful.

[Miko09]

People had so many kids because there was nothing else to do! No jobs, no food, no entertainment other than each other. Sex can keep people entertained for hours, plus it's a great way to keep warm and forget about those hunger pangs ;)


lol I thought people had so many children because it was free labor. There were almost no child labor laws back then so people "did the dew" and when they were old enough, sent them off to the shoe factory. More money for the family. Even when people lived on farms and such, children were put to work by the age 6. Now we cant work children to the bone anymore so people basically stop seeing the need to have so many. Plus having kids started getting expensive :(

[simbalena]

People also had so many kids because children often died so you would have as many kids as possible in the hope that some of them would survive, then when the parents got old they would have someone to look after them.

[Clashfan]

I don't think humans start out as asexual, that would be extremely convenient if we did and feeds into the argument that one can choose ones sexuality. I think your environment has an effect on how you deal/learn/experience your sexuality but I don't think it determines it.

I'm female and I was born a hetrosexual, however when I was a small child I actively wanted to be male, really my ultimate goal was to be a boy scout, and would dress and play accordingly. However this was not because I wanted to have a penis (since I didn't know what one was) nor was I attracted to girls, it had much more to do with wanting to spend all my time with males. If being allowed to dress, play and in general act male as a child was going to effect ones sexuality than I would be either a lesbian or at the very least transgender. I'm neither because I was born a hetrosexual pretty much nothing I've done in my 40+ years has changed that. No amount of exposure or acceptance of alternate lifestyles has changed my own personal desires. I certainly find women attractive in the sense of saying "wow, she's really pretty" this does not make me have a sexual desire for the individual. There is a difference in acknowledging an individual's attractiveness and feeling desire for same said individual.

[A.G.Doren]

Seeing as how heterosexuality is a necessity for the continuation of the species I'd say heterosexuality is a result of that necessity rather than being caused.

[simbalena]

Seeing as how heterosexuality is a necessity for the continuation of the species I'd say heterosexuality is a result of that necessity rather than being caused.

So that necessity is the cause.

[Volvenom]

I agree. In a working natural world those individuals not reproducing would go extinct. So since sexual orientation either homosexual or hetersexual is nothing new, it can't be hiraditary either. (wrong spelling, feel free to correct me on the spelling).

[Mistermook]

Lungs are necessary for our species and nothing new, but I assure you that we get them from our parents genetics.

[A.G.Doren]

So that necessity is the cause.

According to Space Commander Linx our "Ineffiecent reproduction system involving a primary and secondary unit" would be the cause for heterosexuality. :P

Cookie to anyone that knows who Commander Linx is. :giggler: