A question for homosexuals

Yes, but that fact renders the line you quoted as obsolete. Unless all heterosexuals have a natural desire to have kids (which they dont) then the line you quoted in your original post has no bearing on anything. Even most of the heteros who do desire kids, probably have sex on many occasions were procreation is not the desired outcome.

 

I only used the line to ponder the dichotomy of man's innate desires and to ask the question;

"Do homosexuals suppress the innate instinct to procreate?"

One of man's innate desires is to procreate. Thus vagina sex is for the most part wholly necessary. However some homosexuals would like children as well.

The person who wrote that line assumed that sex drive was tied to the desire for vaginal sex because vaginal sex is what produces children.

They didn't however consider man's desire to have sex, regardless of whether fertilization is an option or the desired outcome.

So, I asked the question and used the line to leave open the option of discussing both instincts of man. The desire for children, and the desire for sex.

 

The line suggested that man has an "innate desire to procreate". The fact that some heterosexuals do not have that desire means it is not innate. For sure, there must be homosexuals who desire children, but it is not an innate desire. Either in heterosexuals, or homosexuals.

The only difference obviously is, that homosexuals who do have that desire face issues that heterosexuals dont. Though a homosexual in that situation is really no different from a heterosexual who suffers from infertility. I am infertile, and it is something that I do struggle with. I would imagine for gays who want kids, they go through similar feelings.

As for the 2 desires, I think they are for the most part, seperate. As I said, even many heteros who do want kids have sex on many ocassions were procreation is not the primary reason for the desire of sex. Only when sex is done for the main reason of procreation, are the two desires connected. And I think far more sexual encounters between heteros are led by desire for pleasure, rather than for procreation.

 

I agree with all of that.

Except the part about procreation being an innate instinct. If it weren't, mankind wouldn't have gotten as far as we have. If it weren't we'd simply bare children and leave them at the hospital afterwards.

Instead we desire to have children and to see that they grow up properly and safe.

Of course not everyone, gay or straight, wants to be a parent. But that doesn't mean the instinct isn't there. Some choose to live for themselves and their own desires, and they put those ahead of the desire to procreate.

Boguskyle brought up a very good point in that we as a species have developed a wide palette of morality because of our consciousness that has developed over the past however many years we've been around. We now have the ability to choose what we want, what we desire, and how we live.

I'm willing to bet that one million years ago there was probably less homosexuals than there is today because our species was still very small and wasn't as "stable" as it is today. I don't think that back then people chose to be parents. I think that it was probably something that happened as the result of sex, which was probably driven more by the innate desire to procreate. More so than it is today.

 

I don't think our desire to have children is what makes humans good parents, I think it's an innate trait to protect children. All though history people have to take care of children that weren't their own, something about a child in danger that gets to people.

*edit*
Also one million years ago the human being in terms of homo sapien did not exist. The "homo" genus(wooo, pun) is believed to have split off and started evolving around 1.5-2 million years ago. However the bonobo is our closet genetic relative in the chimp family and they're gay, gay as hell. In fact if you're not bisexual you'd be an outcast in a bonobo society.

 

i also agree that procreation is not an innate instinct. and it's good to see that at least some people on these forums have logic still intact.

 

I don't see how it's illogical to think that it is. If the idea of this offends you, that's your problem, no need to hand out poorly disguised insults.

Take a look at the world around you. You really think that every species fucks for pleasure and then when offspring accidently comes along they just deal with it? Come on. That's highly illogical.

It's the same concept as diseases that affect living organisms. Look at bacteria. Nature's way of controlling the population.

The instinct to procreate is nature's way of ensuring a future population.

 

the idea doesn't offend me, but i do hold an opinion that to think that there exists an innate instinct to procreate is a logical error. i agree that it is a natural human need, but not an instinct. ppl often confuse the two. i also never said that every species fucks for pleasure. i quoted that with humans and included other mammals, since at least some of them exhibit similar behavior. you went out of your way to ovethrow that with that example of fish that i didn't even bother to counter, seeing as most fish are oviparous animals in the first place.

what you're doing is attributing human qualities to animals. you are making extraordinary claims that animals are purposefully trying to procreate in contrast to just acting out on a natural instinct of sex. i'd like to see your case studies on animal intelligence that prove your viewpoint. fish maybe? or maybe it's that dog that is humping human leg--is he trying to beget an offspring with it?

we humans feel closely connected to our offspring, and i see how it is possible for some ppl to attribute those intenser emotions to animals as well. the fact remains that that is not what we witness in animal kingdom at large. examples have already been quoted in this thread. i won't start posting things twice.

 

I think it's safe to say a lot of animals do hold strong bonds to their kids, especially in the mammal kingdom. Not just specifically mother and father though, animals that are communal, aside from apes, various dog and cat species being the next most obvious, you fuck with any young animal of the group and you'll get the entire group attack focused on you. I think there's an instinct to protect the young regardless of their your own in a lot of species.

 

I didn't go out of my way, it was the first thing that came to mind. I think you might be giving my "debating skills" more credit than they're worth.

I'm simply trying to prove my own point.

Good point with the dog humping a leg. However, perhaps dogs have a heightened sense of consciousness from being around humans for the past few thousand years. That might explain why they hump for pleasure.

"Meanwhile, there are insects such as the beetle mites that only deposit their sperms on the ground unmindful of the presence of females during the act. Females present would eventually just get some of these sperm and put them in their reproductive organ."

No pay off for the males.

"The scorpion does a similar act but first gets a female before ejaculating his sperm on the ground. And the difference here is that the stronger male really makes sure that the female’s reproductive organ gets in contact with his sperm by pulling her forward. Following this tactic is the blind garden centipede. The female, however, does an unusual act by putting the sperms taken from the ground into her mouth and stores them in pouch inside its cheek."

Again, no pleasure.

"Emperor penguins mate only once each year and for a very short two to three minutes only. The male mounts on the female while her face is down on the ice. Of course, perfect balance won’t always be achieved so the male falls every now and then but recovers quickly."

If they had intercourse for pleasure wouldn't they do so more than once a year?

Again, just introducing ideas to support my own point. Not every species has sexual intercourse for pleasure, nor for reproductive purposes. But that doesn't mean the desire to procreate is a decision. Nature shows us that it's a "duty" for lack of a better term.

 

only three species has sexual intercourse outside of the need to mate to produce offspring.

 

No pleasure? How do you know that, ever been a scorpion?

Every male mammal gets a rush of endorphins when they blow. Every male of a species gets some kind of reward. Just cos a Scorpion doesnt stick it inside her doesnt mean he doesnt get off

Maybe Emperor Penguins only get horny once a year, more likely to be about environment, too fuckin cold most of the year, for the plumbing to work, maybe his nads only pop out one month in Summer and thats why he only gets horny once a year


Luna, I think the original question is based on a false premise: that there even exists a innate instinct to procreate, there are urges to get off, instincts in rearing children

But nothing I've seen with straight male sexuality leads me to believe there is an instinct to procreate. I never hear one of them say "Phroar, man look at the hips on that chick, man, she could pop out a dozen kids with those hips, thats so fucking hot"

Of course the question you are really asking is:

Why dont gay guys have urges to fuck girls? The confusion lies with that little word 'gay' its an umbrella term. Some do fuck chicks, Some Have urges to fuck chicks but have stronger urges with guys,

and lastly there are those that dont even understand the question - Why dont I want to fuck girls? Errrr cos they are girls

And they dont understand the question just as you dont understand the answer



All this crap about evolution and people being born gay, there is one evolutionary advantage of the homosexual, its been there since the dawn of time, its right in front of your face the whole time. And you wont get it till you are focused on your own daughter and she hits the onset of puberty, at that time you will rely solely on instinct, what guys say out loud will be irrelevant, you pretty much wont let any other guy near her, except........us

 

No, unfortunately I can't say that I have been.

You could be right

I've thought it before. I've known guys who have said something along those lines as well.

I was hoping something like this wouldn't come up but I had a hunch it would. I understand it might be a sensitive issue for some, but I'd like to be able to have an objective conversation about the topic without it coming to a falsly perceived question about the nature of one's sexual preference.

I would hope that you would at least know me better than to think I would;

1) Ask such a stupid question

2) Question one's sexual preference


I don't question why some men are sexually attracted to other men. I don't question why women are attracted to men or other women, and I don't question why I'm attracted to women. The human body is beautiful in all forms, male and female, and sex is simply a physical manifestation of one's attraction to any particular form. It doesn't interest me why people are attracted to whatever it is they're attracted to. I'm more interested in how people choose to deal with the things that make up the human experience, which is why I asked my initial question;

Do homosexuals suppress the innate instinct to procreate?

That is, if as a homosexual you sometimes feel the desire to have children, how is it you deal with the fact that, aside from the option another poster stated which is quite expensive, you are not able to. It's simply my opinion that all species have an inborn desire to procreate, I could be wrong and I welcome disagreement. However I'd like it if words were not put into my mouth.

I don't see how that is relevant or even an advantage. But I'm not here to squabble about the benefits or lack thereof of being homosexual. I was simply hoping to learn something.

 

But if it was an innate instinct, then it would be an absolute. If its not an absolute, then it cannot be innate. Even removing homosexuals out of the equation, many heterosexuals dont want kids. Thats "don't want" as opposed to "can't have". With that being the case, the desire to procreate cannot be called an innate instinct.

I think the only reason there appears to be more homosexuals around now, than many years ago, is because there's far less persecution against gays than there used to be. Also, our population is expanding all the time, so it just makes logical sense. More people = more homosexuals.

 

Would you say that to live is an innate instinct of any species? We breathe so that we will live. We fight for our lives if we have to.

Yet some choose to commit suicide.

This shows that human reason can outway human instinct. Death is against every human instinct, and yet if one wanted to they could kill themselves.

Everyone has the instinct to have children. Some don't want to and choose not to. Everyone has the instinct to live, yet some choose to kill themselves.

Of course. I agree.

 

No, I would not. Again, suicide is something that has probably been around as long as mankind has. The world has always had a wicked underbelly, so there's always been potential reasons around for someone to want to kill themselves. Just because most people choose to live rather than die, doesn't mean that the will to live is an innate instinct. I would more say that we have an instinct to desire happiness, than to desire life, per se.

I would also disagree with death being against every human instinct. Its one of the only concrete, irrefutable facts of life.

 

Fair enough, though I think suicide is against our human instinct.

If to live is not an innate instinct then why do we "instinctually" fight for our lives when we're in a situation where we have to?

 

My arguement is simply that if it were an innate instinct, nobody would be committing suicide. Like I said, I think we more have an innate instinct to pursue contentment and happiness within life. Some people feel they'd find more contentment in death than in life, so they kill themselves.

That's my whole point. Some of us dont fight for our lives when put in harsh situations. Some people feel their lives are worth fighting for, and some don't. It really is as brutally simple as that. What you are describing is certainly instinct. But to call it "innate" to the whole of mankind, I think is pushing it. The problem with the word "innate" is it is an absolute term. There can be no exceptions. If there are natural deviations from a certain instinct, then it cannot be called innate.

 

I disagree, to me innate simply means inborn, I don't consider it to mean absolute. I suppose we just think differently here.

Also, not everyone pursues happiness, some choose to pursue pain and misery as a way to externalize what they feel on the inside.

You and I simply disagree on the definition of innate. You consider it to be something that it absolute and unbreakable whereas I consider it to be a thing that can be overriden by reason. Just because it is inborn doesn't mean that it has to be so.

Think of it like the human appendix. We're born with it, but it doesn't necessarily serve any purpose. It used to, but we no longer need it. But we're still born with it because we're still human beings.

The instinct for all of us to bare children is no longer necessary, so some don't.

Some people have their appendix burst, some don't.

 

We are not disagreeing at all. When I say in my opinion "innate" is an absolute term, as regards to this arguement, I mean in the context of it being inborn to every single person on this planet. Unlike you, I do not believe these instincts are inborn, at least not to everyone. So therefore, I do not see them as innate. We are both coming at this from the angle of these instincts being inborn. So, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Just because someone persues pain and misery, doesn't mean they aren't searching for happiness. As twisted and warped as it is, some people do get a degree of happiness and contentment out of those things. So my point is still valid. Just because to most rational thinking people those things dont equate to happiness, it doesn't stop the fact that some people do get satisfaction from those things.

There maybe, just maybe, might be a case for saying it was innate back when man was a very primitive being, who didnt have much intelligence. But even in that instance, it is questionable. I mean, even today, there are definitely people who have kids for no other reason than societal burdens and pressures. Some people are pressured by family to have kids, and the impression that it's just the "done thing". And many years ago, that pressure would have been more intense than it is these days. It is undeniable, that even some people who are having kids, are doing so more for external reasons, rather than it being what they truly want. It can still be hard in this day and age, to go against what society expects. So just imagine what it was like hundreds/thousands of years ago.