Homosexual Gene?

[Buddha]

buddah: what is your definition of 'gay'?

 

In my analysis, there is no such thing as 'gay' if it refers to sexual orientation. The whole concept of sexual orientation is flawed and is supposed to manipulate the society (especially men) in a particular way --- in order to bring about a heterosexual society.

 

Since, it's an identity that you identify with, why don't you tell me your definition of 'gay'? And we can take this discussion from there.

 

In my society, 'gay', 'homosexual' identities are considered the modern westernised versions of the traditional 'third gender' identities. And third gender refers to males who are females from inside.

 

Even in the west, if you look at the origin of the word 'gay' you would understand.

 

In the beginning the word 'gay' was used for a group of limp wristed, swinging queens who liked men. It was used to refer to their 'chirpiness' (I don't know what is the right word) and their "loose character" regarding sex. Gay was also used for female prostitutes earlier. These 'queens' were earlier also referred to as "Mollies". So there!

[Dak]

very briefly, as i dont want to drag this thread off topic (all quotes from buddah):

 

a. (i) I do not know on what basis you say that animals are superior to plants. At least how does sexual reproduction make animals more 'adapting' to their environment.

 

(ii) Plants are much more useful to nature than animals. Why would nature prefer animals over plants.

plants sexually reproduce too

 

b. Surely, nature does not need heterosexual partners to reproduce. There are species where females alone can reproduce. Other species are hermaphrodites and can perform both the functions that in humans are divided between males and females.

females alone reprodusing:less genetic diversity and thus less ability to adapt.

 

hermaphroites: the fact that we have two sexes is called 'sexual dimorphism', and allows a specialisation of the sexes, so that each may be desighned for different tasks (in a nut shel, women desighned for babies, men big)

 

e. If nature indeed evolved to make men heterosexual, why did it not complete that evolution by removing the enormous differences between males and females, that makes it almost impossible for the two to live together.

ditto

f. How does sexual reproduction preclude using sex for other purposes than procreaton, where the 'other' purpose may become more important for the individual than reproduction.

yes, sex is hijacked and pressed into more roles than mere reproduction.

 

the others: how do you define 'heterosexual' and 'homosexual'? i suspect that your not using the standard definitions of 'has sex exclusively with members of the same sex' and 'has sex exclusively with members of the opposite sex'

[Buddha]

plants sexually reproduce too

Not sex as we know it. furthermore' date=' there is no heterosexuality or homosexuality involved. Point: Nature is not dependant on 'heterosexuality' to reproduce.

 

 

females alone reprodusing:less genetic diversity and thus less ability to adapt.

Simplicity may not necessarily be a disadvantage. More complex beings are not necessarily better off. Adaptation or no adaptation, 'simple' beings have survived much longer than the ones than that are complex (diverse) and have this ability to adapt. And survived better.

 

In any case, a heterosexual society has no respect or use for all that diversity that it claims the credit for.

 

a specialisation of the sexes' date=' so that each may be desighned for different tasks

[/quote']

a. Surely, if sexual dimorphism was the best thing in all circumstances then the species mentioned above would have achieved that too. They seem to be doing well as they are!

 

b. Western science is heavily 'heterosexually' biased (Charles Darwin and his theory of Sexual evolution). Reproduction is of paramount importance only to 'civilised' human societies. To the rest, reproduction is just a part of life, and there are other important things too. Overemphasis on reproduction may actually be harmful.

 

Nature knows what it wants, and human beings tend to ruin things by interfering with nature's priorities. Quantity is not always important. Quality is important for the nature too. Quantity cannot be increased without compromising on quality.

 

The theory that everything that nature does is geared towards making reproduction successful (success as defined by the heterosexual mindset) is obviously flawed and though this 'Darwinism' has suppressed saner views for long, scientists are themselves now challenging that view. There are simply too many exceptions.

 

Others already knew for long that the scientists were on the wrong track, but the scientists have this attitude of being the best judge.

[Buddha]

sex is hijacked and pressed into more roles than mere reproduction.

 

That is a 'heterosexual' view. Modern science is an institution of the heterosexual society and so it is bound to reach at such conclusions.

What is the scientific proof that reproduction is the basic purpose of sexual desire and that it has not been hijacked to help in reproduction.

 

What I want to say is --- is it possible that sexual desire would be there even if this 'sexual dimorphism' had not taken place. The earlier example of the fish and hermaphrodite beings surely point to this possibility. In other words sexual desire seems to precede 'sexual dimorphism'.

 

In any case, one 'thing' can have several purposes. Like mouth is used to eat and to speak. To say that mouth was meant only to eat and has been hijacked to speak, is a bit .....bigoted.

 

If sexual desire was only meant for reproduction, nature had all the means to restrict such desire to reproduction. Evolution can surely take care of that. Allegedly it does not believe in 'wasteful' endeavours. Even if we ignore sexual desire between men, why does sexual desire happen when reproduction has occurred. Why is there sexual pleasure in body areas other than the vagina and penis?

 

Everything in the nature has purpose. If scientists cannot figure something out, it does not cease to exist. Scientists should try to understand nature rather than to 'determine' it. Scientists can understand nature only if they go with an open mind, with humility and with a respect for nature.

[Buddha]

the others: how do you define 'heterosexual' and 'homosexual'? i suspect that your not using the standard definitions of 'has sex exclusively with members of the same sex' and 'has sex exclusively with members of the opposite sex'

 

1. What I'm saying is that the standard definitions have flaws, which the western society has not questioned.

 

To prove my point, may I ask you to further define what you understand by "same-sex".

 

2. Men have sex for reasons other than their sexual desire. I hope you know that. Men have sex under pressure of social 'masculinity' roles and for social power that comes from having sex with women. Men also forego forbidden sex when deep down they want to have it. They abstain under pressures of social masculinity roles and for the disempowerment that can follow.

 

What is important for your definition: sexual behaviour or sexual desire. For they are not the same thing.

[akcapr]

i was actually thinking : what is up with the weird way gay guys talk. not all of them do, but the ones who do are almost all gay. what makes that happen? delayed geneetics or sometin... ?

[Buddha]

i was actually thinking : what is up with the weird way gay guys talk. not all of them do, but the ones who do are almost all gay. what makes that happen? delayed geneetics or sometin... ?

 

I do not want to get involved in another discussion, but I think I have the answer.

 

Gay guys have a lot of femininity inside them. That's natural and positive. It's by no way limited to males who desire men. Queers can as often be heterosexual and bisexual as well.

 

The society has cruelly suppressed femininity in males for thousands of years. When the society does that stuff to natural things, these qualities then take an extremely negative shape and come out in 'abnormal' ways. What we see in 'gay' guys is a mutilated and diseased form of male femininity that was meant to be beautiful and powerful.

[admiral_ju00]

But are you saying that evolution is not genetic.

 

No I am not. Evolution is both Genetic and Environmental. Environment does play a big part on the organism, gene expression, mutations, etc.

 

You have to pin point a plausible evolution process (that makes men heterosexual) and the biological components of that evolution.

 

I do? Well, I suppose that the Y chromosome and Testasterone are a good start.

 

For that you first have to define what is 'heterosexuality'. And also very very clearly define who is a 'heterosexual'.

 

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/101526014/PDFSTART

 

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/102531068/PDFSTART

 

If you are saying that 'heterosexuality' is just there --- as the 'normal' thing and so-called 'homosexuality' is an anomaly, then what is the basis for that assumption. You also have to define 'homosexuality' for that matter. And a 'homosexual'.

 

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/107629367/PDFSTART

 

a. (i) I do not know on what basis you say that animals are superior to plants. At least how does sexual reproduction make animals more 'adapting' to their environment.

 

As has already been mentioned, plants reproduce sexually as well as asexualy, depending on the plant and environment. Sexual reproduction allows a much greather genetic diversity because of the DNA Recombination. As opposed to say bacteria where they simply split in half and the genome of the daughter cell is identical with the parent cell.

 

b. Surely, nature does not need heterosexual partners to reproduce. There are species where females alone can reproduce. Other species are hermaphrodites and can perform both the functions that in humans are divided between males and females.

 

Sexual dimorphism and Intraspecies variation exist and will continue to do so as long as the gemome shuffles and reshuffles it's self as when happens with sexual reproduction.

 

c. Even if what you are saying is correct, how does it prove that 'heterosexual' people -- as defined by the western society -- are needed to procreate sexually.

 

Now that would be a mostly homan thing, wouldn't it? More or less of a psychological state, desire. Very few animals out there(exceptions are Bonobo apes, who engage is that kind of an activity to relieve stress, and play.) Most animals have mating seasons, but only humans(and bonobos) took it a step furter to use it in a procreational matter.

 

 

d. If animals (including humans) were nreally heterosexual, and your evolution theory was also correct

Not exactly "My evolution" since Charles Darwin beat me by theorising it 1st.

 

it will follow naturally that evolution will also make sure that males live with females and raise children and not live in male only and female only groups. Which is not the case.

 

You're talking about evolution as it has some very strict rules, "do this and you'll be happy, but deviate and I'll punish you", not exactly how things work. Once again, Diversity within a population is what usually changes how things work, look.

 

In some tribal groups, the femals will band together and leave their camp(and all the males in it) while they are having their montly periods. That as well as the example you've provided above are more sociocultural in context than anything else.

 

Amongst humans it takes a lot of social maneuvering to bring about a mixed gender heterosexual society and a cumbersome marriage institution to bring man and woman together in the rest of the societies. The whole unnatural process creates a lot of waste products in terms of generalised human stress and unhappiness as well as in terms of human beings who are rendered useless --- those who completely fall out of this system.

 

Gay bashing aside for a moment, and a pause to think about it. Homosexual, be it male or female are not rendered useless just because they engage in same sex. If forced, surely they will perform just as well as what you call 'Normal' heterosexuals. Adolf Hitler for one, thought that Homosexual males were lost hence they got the camps, while the lesbians were forced into marriage and into heterosexual life style, at least for a while. Also, keeping in mind, the homosexual circles and communities are not as large and as open as they are today. But they existed as long as the heterosexuals.

 

Is it possible that sexual interest for the same-sex is the basic sexual desire of human beings, -- being a part of human evolution that everyone is born with,

If there is, I haven't seen or heard of any such research papers.

 

and there is a gene which causes 'heterosexuality' (perhaps it makes men secrete a feminising hormone)

The same can be said of a mutation, but once again, I myself have no awareness of the 'heterosexuality gene.

 

Much of the rest had a tinge of wild imagination and a tad of insanity in them.

[Dak]

To prove my point, may I ask you to further define what you understand by "same-sex".

a male and a male, or a female and a female. male being a human with a penis, female being a human with a vagina. im aware that theres more to it than this, but that is the simple definition of male and female.

[Buddha]

a male and a male, or a female and a female. male being a human with a penis, female being a human with a vagina. im aware that theres more to it than this, but that is the simple definition of male and female.

 

Well, you have already hinted at the point I was making.

 

The western society is a superficial one. It validates only that which can be seen from the outside. Therefore for it, one's biological sex is determined only by one's outer-sex organs.

 

There is a lot in biology which can not be seen directly, but may be more important to an individual's sex identity than his or her outer sex. And this is 'inner-sex' or gender, which the western society does not acknowledge as biological. It insists that it is all social -- it is learned.

 

The rest of the world has long known and acknowledged the inner-sex.

 

A person's basic gender/ sex identity is made up of both outer sex and inner sex (gender).

 

Thus a person may be a male from the outside but may strongly consider him a female from the inside (the degrees vary). Then his outer sex becomes irrelevant to him. In effect, it gives that person a unique gender-identity different from both male and female.

 

Gender or inner-sex is extremely important. If a male does not think of himself as a male, relates to others as a female --- while others too relate to him as a female, it would be absurd to keep calling him a man, because he was born with a penis. This western social obstinacy has driven many a transgendered males to start hating their male sex organs.

 

What use is science if it does not understand human beings, but works on its own set biases. How do you reckon it will have any competency to understand wild animals.

 

Now coming back to the definition of sexual orienatation. For the time being, assuming that sexual orientation is a valid concept, it still has to account for at least three (but actually many more) basic identities. And thus the following basic combinations of sexual orientation would emerge.

 

man to man

man to woman

man to third gender

man to man and woman

man to man and third gender

man to man, woman and third gender

 

third gender to woman

third gender to man*

third gender to third gender*

third gender to woman and man

third gender to woman, man and third gender

 

(And I'm not even going to elaborate on the various combinations of female sexual orientation.)

 

* these are the combinations that essentially make up today's 'gay' identity. Even if it's jurisdiction is expanded to include man-to-man combination, as the society does not want that in the mainstream.

 

The western society will not fancy giving names to all these combinations. It would much rather club them together for its much coveted goal of 'standardisation'.

 

But still, there is hardly any justification --- apart from social biases --- for clubbing male-to-male with male-to-third gender and the groups marked with *. Male attraction to third gender is more akin to male attraction to women.

 

This has been acknowledged all through the history. Men, especially in traditional societies, when they go to the third gender, they don't think they are having sex with men. For them this attraction is just an extension of theie sexual attraction for women.

 

Similarly, the third gender males when they have sex with men do not think of themselves as 'men' having sex with men. They think of themselves as a woman having sex with men. And the man in this combination is not thought of as homosexual, but as 'heterosexual'. Science cannot afford to brush aside how people feel naturally.

 

There are other important questions, as to how a person's identity can be defined not on the basis of who he is, but on the basis of what he likes. Who he is 'naturally' is going to be stable, but what he likes is subject to change. Fluidity apart, there are so many important parts of what a person likes sexually other than the sex-identity of that partner. Sex-identity of partner is made important only because it's persecuted.

 

The importance of human sexuality as a part of his overall existence, in any case has been blown out of proportion in the west.

 

How can you break a man from other men and put him together with the third gender because it is assumed that their sexual liking are the same (when it is not true!).

 

If the man-who-likes-men is clubbed with third-gender-who-like-men , then it is only reasonable that women-who-like-men should also be clubbed in the same group. So there will be basically three groups:

All people who like men

All people who like women

All people who like the third gender

 

apart from people who like combinatiions.

 

Sexuality is not so simple. Human beings are not products you can standardise. Human beings have feelings.

[Buddha]

iv always wondered about that. iv heard of studies that reveal that many women experiment with homosexuality' date=' but iv never heard the same about men. iv heard it claimed, but not by a reliable study.

 

hmm... i feel a pole coming on.[/quote']

 

That's because the society does not want to create an impression that straight men can have anything to do with men. That's not part of a heterosexual agenda. Females with females is not threatening, in fact it furthers the agenda.

 

That also explains all the proud assertions of liking female-with-femal on this board.

 

Sexual health Counsellors, even in the west are flooded with teen age enquiries like, I have dreams of having sex with a boy, but I'm straight.

 

The scientists try to belittle the feelings by calling them the adolescent 'homosexual' phase that will pass.

[Buddha]

can you back up your claim that every man has that quality.

QUOTE]

 

Yes, I can but give me sometime.

 

It's interesting how in India, I have interacted with so many straight men during my work, including in group workshops, and they relate so easily when I mention something like this. (Of course I am cautious not to use categories like 'gay' or 'homosexual' but to talk about male eroticism as a common male experience).

 

The sure way to make them guarded about their male eroticism experiences is to talk about sexual identities, and ask them if they have had 'homosexual' experiences or thoughts. Men are so scared of the words. Their first reaction is to immediately take up a 'heterosexual' identity and assert and guard it vehemently.

 

This is what the western heterosexual society does. Give a label to not only the act but to the desire as well, that too the 'third gender' label that straight men are already afraid of. This is what I mean by the heterosexual agenda. This labelling business helps in the isolation process.

 

People don't want to be marked with a label that has social disadvantages. Especially when they have options to avoid it (which the society cleverly gives them -- after all they can do it with girls too). And when the label is not representative of them -- even when it claims to, they would avoid it like hell.

 

But not surprisingly, gay men (that is those who are truly gay) have always had trouble understanding the phenomena that all straight men have sexual need for other men.

 

I need to put in some effort to put together all my observations and experiences into a text which is understandable to western minds accustomed to see world in a different way. I can't do that before the 21st, because I have to complete a project by then.

[Buddha]

I do?

 

Those two words say it all.

 

They have all the haughtiness of a 'group' in power' date=' which can manipulate things as it likes, where no one has the authority to question. And when someone does question, they are taken aback.

 

The 'gay' friendly scientists who would support male-male bonds as long as they are safely trapped within the gay fold but scoff at the idea of straight men being involved.

 

Yet, how can the heterosexual science attempt to figure out what causes (so-called) homosexuality, when it can't for the life of it figure out what causes heterosexuality (sic) which is what most of the scientists claim to be.

 

If you can't understand yourselves how can you understand so-called 'others'. And why do you want to understand those 'others' when you have no clue as to your own 'cause'.

 

Those two words also expose the motives of the heterosexual agenda, in whose hands science --- the modern religion --- is an important tool.

 

I suppose that the Y chromosome and Testasterone are a good start.

Well, you can get away with anything you say --- after all it's a heterosexual society. But you know damn well that is not true. Does your science have a 'proof' of it?

 

If masculinity (as hinted by alleged Y chromosome and testosterone) determined sexual attraction towards women, surely the majority of transgendered and intersexed men would not have been heterosexual.

 

If Y Chromosome determined sexual attraction for women, women had no chance in hell to be attracted to other women.

 

And traditional masculine/ warrior customs would not have expected their macho males to keep away from women in order to preserve their masculinity.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------

 

As for the links provided without answering the point directly, it again points to a 'haughy' attitude --- that you are relying on the power of the entire heterosexual society, having no need to explain it yourself.

 

I read the link briefly (only one was accessible). There is no mention of the word heteroseuxality. The gene theory in regard to homosexuality (sic) is talked about but then it also says that the gene theory could not be verfied in subsequent experiments. The rest is of course speculation.

 

The male-female sex in the wild is talked about, but we all know it happens. Of course it was exaggerated and given singular importance --- citing (darwin's theory of sexual) evolution with a complete disregard to other side of animal sexuality --- but then what is new? and How does it lead to 'heterosexuality' among animals --- the exclusive, continuous and intimate bonding need with women.

 

It makes no claim to heterosexuality being determined by y chromosome or testosterone.

 

As has already been mentioned, plants reproduce sexually as well as asexualy, depending on the plant and environment. Sexual reproduction allows a much greather genetic diversity because of the DNA

 

As I have already mentioned this has nothing to do with heterosexuality --- the male-female mating and bonding. In fact plants are proof that male-female can mate without any sexual attraction whatsoever --- without even knowing each other.

 

This further points to the possibility that nature just chose to ride piggy back on sexual desire to accomplish procreation --- which is an important function of nature --- but not the single most important function --- and only in conjunction with other aspects of life.

 

Now that (male-male sexual behaviour) would be a mostly homan thing, wouldn't it? More or less of a psychological state, desire. Very few animals out there(exceptions are Bonobo apes, who engage is that kind of an activity to relieve stress, and play.) Most animals have mating seasons, but only humans(and bonobos) took it a step furter to use it in a procreational matter.

 

I hope you are not a scientist, because you would make a very poor scientist. Someone who is completely distanced from reality.

 

Leave alone what is common knowledge you are not even in touch with latest scientific developments.

 

But you are rather just preferring to ignore the rest of the information. As if by avoiding it will cease to exist. That's the old 'heterosexual' trick.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

 

CONCLUSION:

It is absurd to study human sexuality in abstracts. Science cannot get anywhere unless it acknowledges that sexuality has many aspects and then look at the complete picture -- without biases.

 

Just studying, in isolation and with improper motives, a few aspects of socio-sexual behaviour based on socio-sexual identities, taking the identities for their face value, without any knowledge whatsoever of how social forces mould and change natural sexual desires into sexual identities and behaviour ----- is not going to throw up much answers.

 

Moral of the story

Regarding what causes 'homosexuality' (sic)"

If you can't seem to find the right answers to your questions no matter how much you try, then you should examine your question, for more likely it is your question which is wrong.

[Buddha]

Not exactly "My evolution" since Charles Darwin beat me by theorising it 1st.

 

Well' date=' Charles needs vested interests to further his theory.

 

If there is, I haven't seen or heard of any such research papers.

 

Well, as long as the heterosexual society is in power, you will not see such things being researched. Even if they come out in research the society will find a way to ignore it, belittle it.

 

After all, there is documented proof of Jesus being involved with men. Has it changed any of the views regarding Jesus or about sex between men in general.

 

All that Bagemihl's highly scientific research was good for was one programme on T.V., and the heterosexual society was back with it's 'heterosexual'-is-natural majority, 'homosexuality'-is-anomaly business.

 

All those researches proving that all warrior societies eulogised love between males has not made the society stop its propaganda of sexual-desire-for-another-man = 'gay' = feminine.

 

Of course, even if a vague scientist brings out a research paper claiming that h/she has found that 'homosexuals' (sic) has brains of women, that is entirely a different matter. This gels in well with the heterosexual agenda. Every small and big paper -- considereing it's eternal duty -- will cover it prominently, and every one will seem to be in agreement (even if someone were to challenge who would highlight it!), even if the thing is not conclusively proved and it is just speculation.

[Skye]

*sits back in Evil Heterosexual Headquarters with a tumbler of straight single malt*

 

 

 

...how about not dismissing anything that you don't like as either being part of a vast conspiricy or clouded by irreconcilable cultural differnces?

[admiral_ju00]

I hope you are not a scientist' date=' because you would make a very poor scientist. Someone who is completely distanced from reality.[/quote']

 

I'm not here to prove to the likes of you my academic status and interests. I'm also not here to force anything on you, so take it as you like it.

 

Someone who is completely distanced from reality.

Leave alone what is common knowledge you are not even in touch with latest scientific developments.

 

"Someone who is completely distanced from reality"........

Hmm, are you talking about yourself there?

To me, you sound like you're on the edge of being officially diagnosed as a Schitzophrenic should you see a psychologist.

 

 

But you are rather just preferring to ignore the rest of the information. As if by avoiding it will cease to exist. That's the old 'heterosexual' trick.

 

You've obviosly put in much thought into this and the world as you see it. So I am done with this discussion.

 

And by the way, I ignored the other portions of that post because they were nothing more than a delusional, circular argument garbage where no matter what is said, you will hold your ground, and ignore what everyone else has to say.

[Dak]

buddah: im sorry, but penis=male vagina=female is pretty much the standard definition, although ofcourse there are other aspects commonly associated with male and female, and of course someone with a penis doesnt always have all the other 'male' trates, and the same goes for women.

 

what is this 'third gender'?

[Mokele]

A long time ago, Buddha (the *real* one) said "If you meet Buddha on the road, kill him."

 

I suggest we follow the sage's advice...

[Buddha]

 

How about not running away from real discussion by defeating me through a logical discussion.

 

If you are so convinced about your position why not answer someone who challenges that position. I have put my main points quite clearly with logical reasoning: That's what a discussion board is for.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

I'll put my main contention in brief for everyone again:

 

1. Sexual orientation is an invalid modern/western/heterosexual phenomenon devised to isolate sexual bonds between men.

 

2. That all men have a sexual desire for other men (barring a few).

 

3. A man's sexual desire for men is always masculine not 'feminine' as your society tries to prove. A third gender's or woman's sexual desire for men is mostly feminine.

 

If you still try to beat about the bush, then you have already lost.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

See, you people have fooled others for decades. You have suppressed all opposition like what you guys are doing now.

 

But this is the age of the internet. You can't stop knowledge now. And if knowledge once flows out, it will gather momentum and change things if not today than one day in the future.

[Buddha]

You've obviosly put in much thought into this and the world as you see it. So I am done with this discussion.

 

And by the way' date=' I ignored the other portions of that post because they were nothing more than a delusional, circular argument garbage where no matter what is said, you will hold your ground, and ignore what everyone else has to say.[/quote']

 

That's a clever way to avoid discussion. You have not even TRIED to even TOUCH on of my basic contentions, preferring to argue over some side statements that I made.

 

How do you assume I will not accept your point of view if I am convinced? Surely, there are more than one ways to look at things, and even if I don't agree you would have made your point? If there is value in it and I'm open minded I'll see it tomorrow if not today.

 

The point is I'm here not just to vent my opinion. I'm here in complete sincerety to discuss and share something that I have worked upon for several years --- and I'm talking from empirical evidence.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

You people are welcome to run your society the way you want, but when you enter other people's worlds and ruin their way of life, then they too will get back to you and have the right to question your ways.

[Buddha]

A long time ago' date=' Buddha (the *real* one) said "If you meet Buddha on the road, kill him."

 

I suggest we follow the sage's advice...[/quote']

 

Buddha didn't say it. Lin Chi, the zen master said it.

 

Christianity would love to view it in your way. Of course it has been killing the world over in order to spread its way of life. Otherwise 'heterosexuality' would never have been in power in the first place.

 

hete's a quote I took from the net explaining this statement:

 

"The Buddha taught that you were supposed to free yourself from the shackles of what you have been led to believe is true and accept that which you understand from empirical knowledge. Buddhism is built upon observation and the rebuttal of faith in tradition. The Judeo-Christian sects are built upon blind faith in the face of observed events."

[Buddha]

buddah: im sorry' date=' but penis=male vagina=female [i']is[/i] pretty much the standard definition, although ofcourse there are other aspects commonly associated with male and female, and of course someone with a penis doesnt always have all the other 'male' trates, and the same goes for women.

 

what is this 'third gender'?

 

Well, 'standard' doesn't always mean right. And standard for whom: the west?

 

When we go out to seek truth we may have to look beyond accepted standards, if there is empirical evidence. I think even on a 'scientific' board.

 

The point is whether you accept the other definition of male and female. If not, on what basis do you reject the inner-sex?

 

You should know, in any case, that the traditional world does not think that way. It's a typical western definition of sex/ gender identity, but one which leads to a lot of confusion.

 

Let me try another angle:

 

It is not just enough to say sexual attraction of a male for another male. A man who likes straight (masculine) men will never even think of a third gender male as a 'man'.

 

Similarly, transgendered males will never think of themselves as 'men' even if the society's standards insist that he is so.

 

What will then happen is that transgendered males will start seeing themselves as diseased, because they do not fit into the 'standards'.

 

What good are standards that make such a large group of people redundant.

 

In our society, e.g., the third gender (transgendered) are referred to as 'she' and not 'he'. Even in the west transgendered and gay men prefer to use 'she' for themselves, even though the society insist on calling them 'men' and 'he'.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

In all societies other than modern western societies, there are at least three genders:

 

man, woman and the third gender, i.e. those who are both male and female.

 

Outer sex Inner sex Sexual preference

man male male does not matter

woman female female* does not matter

Third Gender male/ female/ ambiguous

ambiguous

 

In some societies women's gender is not given importance and women who consider themselves males are also seen as 'women'.

 

third gender does includes transgendered and intersexed persons who cannot be conveniently put in one of the two basic genders groups.

[Skye]

How about not running away from real discussion by defeating me through a logical discussion.

 

If you are so convinced about your position why not answer someone who challenges that position. I have put my main points quite clearly with logical reasoning: That's what a discussion board is for.

I never stated a position' date=' I have nothing to defend nor run away from. I don't necessarily dissagree with you, but rather with you methods of arguing. It's fine to say 'this is a product of western culture', but that doesn't prove it wrong.

I'll put my main contention in brief for everyone again:

 

1. Sexual orientation is an invalid modern/western/heterosexual phenomenon devised to isolate sexual bonds between men.

You haven't invalidated it yet.

2. That all men have a sexual desire for other men (barring a few).

Still waiting for the evidence.

3. A man's sexual desire for men is always masculine not 'feminine' as your society tries to prove. A third gender's or woman's sexual desire for men is mostly feminine.

Another statement with no evidence backing it, as far as I can see.

[Dak]

In our society, e.g., the third gender (transgendered) are referred to as 'she' and not 'he'. Even in the west transgendered and gay men prefer to use 'she' for themselves, even though the society insist on calling them 'men' and 'he'.

Whoopdy-****ing-doo for them. they could call themselves teapots for all i care, it wouldnt change the fact that they are NOT teapots, anymore than they are female.

 

and unless you have any evidence to back it up, quit claiming that all men are inherantly attracted to one another.

[Mokele]

This thread makes me so very glad I started using my Ignore list.

 

Mokele