This video is 16 years old, and in some parts of the world I feel that the discourse has moved on, and this is an artefact of its time; but in all too many places it's still relevant.
I remember when I found all these videos about 4 years ago. I've come a long way since then and accepted myself, and I'd like to thank you for being part of that for me.
"I have said that the cultures have encouraged opposite-sex marriage relationships for sustaining reproduction and family. " Opposite gender relationships don't have to be encouraged. It's the natural condition of the properly functioning mind. Our species does so naturally. What has to be socially conditioned is monogamy.
@gravigera A dedicated, legally recognized heterosexual relationship is the only acceptable type of sexual relationship. Nobody said that childhood sexual activity is moral either. The word for that is peer-on-peer child abuse. Homosexuality is another name for consensual adult peer-on-peer sexual abuse. Bringing life into the world deserves a great deal of reverence by society. That's why it's regulated and protected via anti-sodomy, age-of-concent, and marriage laws. Wisdom has value.
I have said that the cultures have encouraged opposite-sex marriage relationships for sustaining reproduction and family. This does not mean that they see men and women as heterosexuals who are exclusively attracted only to opposite genders.Outward social control of behaviors in the direction of opposite-sex marriage is not the same as seeing individuals as heterosexuals.
In traditional non-west, men had stringent laws and religions to persecute them if they had man-man relations openly. The liberal west had no such defence mechanism to make men reign in their sexuality for men. So, it used a clever device (science) to isolate men who dared to be open to sex with other men as queer (LGBT).This social mechanism ensures that straight men are forced to repress and hide or reign in their sexuality for men and be 100% heterosexual even in a sexual free culture.
Most species have male-female sex for reproduction but no heterosexual lifestyle. Male fish frantically pursues the female The female drops several eggs,the male fertilises them.But he never even once touches her.As soon as this process is over they both lose interest,go their own way, never meet again. Where in the mammal world do you see anything equivalent of dating? Where in the mammal world do you see nuclear families? Where in the mammal world do you see mixed gender societies?
"on the basis of stupid gender roles " Uh.. Yeah. Because your physical defines if you're MALE or not, which is a prerequisite for being a MAN. And I know women that can kick your ass in any sport. What makes you a MAN is how you treat your wife, provide for your family, and benefit your community. Sorry if you can't live up to the gender role ASSIGNED to you from birth, and have convinced yourself you actually had a choice.
I don't like musicals. I don't care for Cher, Striesand or Lady Ga Ga, I hate shopping, I can't do a floral arrangement, or plan a wedding.I don't wear dresses or make-up. I don't refer to my friends as she or her or you go girl.I have a deep voice and am not flamboyant. i like football, basketball and other sports. i don't even refer to myself as a gay man. But because i am sexually attracted to men and not women I consider myself as a man who is gay. Gay is just a part of me.
It's already happened in The Netherlands. Marriage stopped being the beginning of the traditional "family," and now 60% of births are out of wedlock. You can't expect heterosexuals to be inspired to engage in behavior if it's no better than being gay. It's the people wielding that awesome power of reproduction policy needs to focus on. Not a minority group who just want to make a statement. Look up stats on how those netherlands kids are going to grow up. Especially crime rates. It's a disaster.
Just because there has not been any biological evidence of sexual orientation, does not mean we are making a choice and committing a sin. We don't choose who we can be attracted to, it is just an attraction. It is just as it is. You only tell me- do you as a man ever make a choice when you lust for a woman? Do you ever feel a sensual desire on seeing a beautiful woman just because others tell you this is who you should be? Likewise, I never chose my attraction to the male form.
Being straight is also a choice so it doesn't matter. Hiding your sexuality in the closet or choosing to live authentically are choices. Anytime you have options you have the power of choice. If you want to stick with your victim propaganda that is your choice also. Frankly I respect ppl who made choices that represent their integrity despite social taboo and who have paved the way for the weak to do the same.
What exists in the Wild is love and pair bonding between males (and to a much much lesser extent between females), apart from reproductive sex between some of the males, and most of the females. This is not "homoosexuality". This is what being a male is all about.
I have never said they formally tolerate it. I have just shown how much unusually common these things become in informal male only spaces where men have more leeway to be themselves.In west,even in informal male-only spaces they don't have this leeway, as they would become 'gay'. Where man-man desire is not seen effeminized but simply morally condemned formally, these things are very common in private.
Gender is neither separate from physical sex nor equal to it. It is a combination of outer and the inner sex. Feminine males are of a different gender from masculine males regardless of sexual preferences.Masculine females are of a different gender from feminine females,again, regardless of sexual preferences.
"I have never denied the importance of reproduction and family in human society." But gay marriage does. Whether that's your intent or not. One generation learns from the last by EXAMPLE. How can they learn reproductive responsibility is a priority when it's not even a factor in which relationships we hold up as the ideal, with a special title like "Marriage?" That's what marriage is for. It intices breeders to control themselves, the way no lecture possibly could.
I've said repeatedly Gays should be allowed to adopt kids. My problem is with Hetero's The statistical truth is that lower the percentage of people in any generation raised in a traditional family, the more crime, drug abuse, and teen pregnancy you're going to get. We need to get hetero's priorities back in line and you do that by holding up monogamous devoted couples as an example to follow, above everybody else. That's the whole reason we even have a marriage tradition.
Men are perfectly free here in the west to do as they please. The rest of the world doesn't do this, and it has nothing to do with oppressing any inherent feelings straight males have towards other males. Your culture just has an attitude towards sex that applies it to friendship and male bonding, because you see that as superior to male/female matrimony. Where as we keep it to family and love. It's not that you're all really bisexual.
It is third-gender that forms a valid social division. Gender is a trait that naturally gives in to social identities, sexual needs do not. To help your thick half male/ half female brain understand this, let me put it this way. Men doing sex with men doesn't naturally translate into a separate identity,so to force it is wrong, esp as its universal. Feminine gender in males naturally lends itself into a separate social identity of a male, regardless of hir sex needs-pointing it out isnt wrong.
Making son is one thing, loving women romantically that too exclusively is another thing. Having sex for reproduction is one thing, heterosexuality is another thing.
And at the same time if I was to marry a woman who could have kids, and after a few years leave her for a younger woman. I understand that the rule of thumb for men like Trump and Gingrich, but to real men like me no. We fall in love. Not to animal-like intentions.
Polygamists pay taxes too. Doesn't mean we redefine our traditions and societal norms just to be all inclusive. The purpose of the marriage tradition is not society giving your relationship legitimacy or celebrating your love for one another. It's social engineering. A title meant to entice other people to follow suit. Specifically, people whose sex lives have a tendency to create other human beings, who if raised outside of the traditional family are more likely to become a societal burden.
A truly hetero male will never have sex with males or "drinking bros" even if for fun. Isn't that so? Afterall, this is what "bisexual" or "bi-curious" males do, not hetero males. That by itself shatters your myth that 97% of males are 100% heteros. Now, we are just left with debating about who has exclusive sex with whom. That is a different matter to be sorted out.
Probably at this time, men who had sex with men never were discriminated against as it is today. The religious groups have really made it worse for us, but that does not mean we were really wanting to go against mother nature this way.
"Heterosexuality is a total exclusive bonding with opposite sex to the exclusion of same-sex bonding"... No.. it's just that male bonding doesn't have to be sexual. There's no reason for it. And yes the bond between male and female reproductive partner should be stronger than between you and your "bro's" since you're now PARENTS. Which is a more important role than you and your male friends can ever have. All ATTRACTION is meant for reproduction, even if misguided.
@PlayitBough I honestly don't think there are more gay people in France that anywhere else, but if you say so... One thing is sure, the amount of homophobia is not any smaller ! So why is it that I *should* be supporting them just because I'm French ? I just respect them as people because they deserve it...
Because male-female sex for reproduction is not the same as heterosexuality.Heterosexuality is a total exclusive bonding with opposite sex to the exclusion of same-sex bonding-which extends to things beyond mere physical contact, including romantic/emotional and even social. This is very uncommon in mammalian world and is certainly not the stuff most human males are made of.
Gays are not being "excepted" from anything. Marriage simply has a definition. It's one man and one woman. I don't have the right to deem my relationships a "Marriage" outside of that definition of marriage either. Not one single person in this country of legal age is barred from entering into that arrangement with a person of the opposite sex, and thus meeting the definition. Sexual orientation is never questioned. I'm straight and I can't "marry" another man either.
I agree that we are born attracted to other men and this makes us no different than a man attracted to females. Neither is superior or inferior. My love of a man is as much valid as a straight man's love of a woman or a straight woman's love of a man or a lesbian's love of another female. There is just one word-LOVE.
1. I want to end the decline of the traditional family, and encourage potential reproducers to control themselves. That's all. One step is a symbolic gesture reminding people that the responsibility of being a potential reproducer should outweigh your feelings and desire to indulge ourselves. Reminding people why we have a marriage tradition in the first place. That's all. I really could care less what preferences an individual was born with.
"So, it can be inferred that male-female sex is more borne out of the need to reproduce, than out of physical attraction ... Those fish are proof that male female bonding is about more than the physical act. That sexuality in species that get no sexual pleasure follows the same guidelines and rules. That sexual attraction is based on preferred traits one subconsciously hopes to pass on to their offspring. Not the surface intent of their own pleasure. You have it backwards.
"It's like the society has put a gun on men telling them to like women." There's no gun. That's what how we are. The natural state of the human male is to chase women for sex. Go to a singles bar, they don't have to be forced. It's our nature. The males who chased after sex in the wild did more breeding, obviously, thus the trait was passed on to the population at large over time.
"how can it be altered if the society starts to value man-man sex equally?" Because that by default means reproduction is not a societal concern. I have the kind of sex that makes human beings. The single greatest power a human being will ever have. Create life!! That has to have value in society. And we need to make a noticable effort to celebrate those who handle it the best way. Society NEEDS to look at sex that can't reproduce as missing out on something great.
I cannot say for sure if men universally are attracted to men, but it is true that before the medieval ages, there were no gays and lesbians and there certainly was not such a huge condemnation of men who loved men (same for women.
Darwin had propagated this crap idea.For a man who liked to see the world in terms of functional adaptations, the tails of male peacocks seemed like a useless absurdity. Why would nature invest in such a baroque display of feathers? Did male peacocks want to be eaten by predators?Darwin’s hypothesis was typically brilliant: The peacocks did it for the sake of reproduction. The male’s fancy tail entranced the staid peahen.
7. Heterosexuality is a biological necessity of our species. That would be like opposing food. Men can and should bond with other men. There is no reason, or historical precedent, that it be anything sexual. It's simple friendship. A wife is not a piece of livestock you only enjoy to make babies. It's a loving devoted partnership for the sake of each other and the children. If they're soo low in your opinion, why breed with them? Don't you want GOOD traits for your kids?
I support gays having rights. What you don't need is the word. There needs to remain some recognition for heterosexuals entering into the kind of relationships that inherently keep reproduction under control, or none of them are going to bother. It's that status and recognition above other kinds of relationship that inspires that behavior. The potential to make human beings needs to get back to the front of people's minds, not disregarded.
"To be or not to be that is the question". Despite all the rhetoric out there, sexuality is not like gender, it is not like race. It is a physiological response to be engaged or avoided. And when a person identifies with a particular orientation, he has decided to incorporate that choice into his overall lifestyle. Its really simple. By denying your choice in the matter you weaken your integrity.
"because for women it is limited to just physical, towards men, it is more about emotions, love everything" My point exactly. Your culture has TAUGHT you not to love a female partner, when in our species since it's dawn, male female bonding has been the norm. You're simply looking for men to love because you need to love, and can't have it where you're supposed to. Hence all the confusion and hair splitting about Gender, Biology, and sex. & There's nothing Macho about it. It's just misguided.
Also this: "Emotional relations are very different. Men and women both may become exceptionally attached to people of the same sex, to the point that Westerners would swear that they must have a sexual relationship. It is not necessarily so. Kissing, holding hands, weeping, jealousy, physical contact and all the signs of partnership can exist without any sexual activity or, indeed, with an undercurrent of absolute horror that it might take place.....
In short,attraction to men or women or both or neither in masculine gendered males is a part of a male's inner masculinity. Attraction to men/women/both/neither in feminine gendered males is a part of a male's inner femininity. It is gender that decides the nature of the attraction, rather than the attraction itself. So, a masculine man's attraction to men is masculine and is not same as a feminine gendered male's attraction to men which is feminine in nature (the gays).
Love is a chemical reaction meant to pair bond mating couples. Sorry, your "soul mate" doesn't just happen to be another man, nor does being homosexual mean you have some kind of new era enlightened soul. It's just biology.
I agree with this! But that is something most people don't mean perhaps. When sexual-orientation is used to categorize people, the romance is taken into consideration as well.
That is also a strong case against heterosexuality. Because heterosexualtiy represents non-procreative male-female sex.Then everything that the western world stands for will be negated -- at least as far as human gender and sexuality goes.Non-procreative male-female sex and love/romance has no biological role at all,is very abnormal,fit for only wimps.Same-sex sexual bonds are important because they help in forming strong bonds with the others of one's herd,which form emotional and social ties.
You are right. Parts of the brain can become feminine in a male and lead to any number of feminine traits in a 100% male body. However, attraction to men is not one of them. It is attraction to women which is a part of a male's feminine side. There are several queer gendered males who are exclusively heterosexual and even "lesbians trapped in male bodies". So also transvestites.Exclusive real heterosexuality is the ultimate sign of effeminacy or even transsexualism in a male.
In the early tribal societies at the dawn of human civilisation, few men participated in the mating process regularly, many preferring not to partake at all.Men were also not involved in the raising of children,although they took care of male adolescents.Men spent their entire lives in male-only groups.When humans started settling down in civilisations in uninhabited lands,they felt the need to grow in number at a faster rate and it was from this time that men were pressured to bond with women.
There have been 3 stages of all that: (1) Pre-recorded tribal cultures closest to human nature where men had sex with women only for reproduction in the mating seasons. And then formed intimacy with men at other times. Men and women lived separate lives. This is what happens in mammalian world too. (2) Traditional cultures where formally,some degree of male-female intimacy was forced through marriage. (3) Modern heterosexual societies that have taken the oppression of stage (2) to the extreme.
Continued. This is not to minimize oppression lgbt faced but encourages liberty. If you look at your history gays can engage as they have never done before where as 50 years ago. Years prior the only choice was to stay in the closet. Many are making the choice to come out. The comparison of gays with race is more similar to interracial dating rights. Oppression causes ppl to only see what they don't have and not what they have.
@Elkhartboy The BIG difference is that heterosexual relationships are responsible for bringing life into the world. After bringing life into the world through a loving heterosexual act, a continued and dedicated monogamous partnership strives, often through hardship and great sacrifice, to ensure that the resulting baby becomes a good member of society who will also continue the family line through the same means. Love takes no consideration for gender, but appropriate expressions of love do.
It is only in modern west that this small pressure to marry and reproduce has been extended to a lifelong exclusive "heterosexuality".The heterosexual society does not make a distinction between male-female sex for procreation and male-female sex for pleasure/ bonding without the burden of reproduction. It doesn't give them distinct names because that would begin the process of concretising their divide. Both are summarily called 'heterosexuality' and promoted as a "normal" lifestyle for men.
And you do not have the right to redefine the constitutions with the excerpt 'Except for the gays.' And we redefine marriage all the time. At one time in my state 16 year olds could marry people older then 18. And they deserve the right to marry because they pay taxes, sever in the military and are product citizens. My parents support gay rights and they had four children. Seeing gay people together didn't stop my parents from 'breeding'.
1. Actually this is intergender relationship in the wilds. No they can't produce, but thats basic anatomy. 2. Say if I was a man dating a girl who was wheel-chaired bound. She is unable to reproduce. As such my love or attraction to her is unnatural correct? Oh and before you go with the 'still have sex' argument that many of my friends use. No. She is unable to feel down their. The only answer to our relationship? Love. And love doesn't give a damn about science.
No, I didn't woke up one morning and said that I want to be gay, but I'm sure of one thing : I'm just soooo proud to be gay, to walk on the streets holding my boyfriend's hand, to kiss him wherever I go. I'm so happy to be myself and I wish one day everybody on this Earth will know I'm gay (even if everybody already does). Unfortunately, there's the fucking stereotypes, but since I'm confortable with my person, I know that I'm not part of either of those shit so I really don't care...
Homosexuality does not simply describe the act of having homosexual sex. Homosexuality describes a normal and common variation of human sexuality where a person is attracted to the same sex. Like all human traits, diversity is normal within them, and like eye colour, hair colour and skin colour, sexuality varies. Sex does not describe procreative sex as you describe. Every major scientific or legal body describes sexual activities as an act performed with another for sexual gratification
Pls understand this...sexuality is little understood, all the many forms. Thus I challenge some accepted beliefs. My comments were pursued by those wanting to affirm their belief commitments, and I responded to those only. My addictions? 1 is challenging so called truths. "Gay" is a hot topic in the social landscape and I believe the ideas of many posters here are not thinking but regurgitating rhetoric a lot of which is untrue. This little untruth causes bigger misunderstandings IMO.
I love the fashion part of this video because my female friends and a whole lot of my gay friends always rag on me for not looking perfect all the time. It's a like a deficiency I was born without. Not every gay guy is fashion obsessed and even though there's nothing wrong with that don't rag on me for not being like that. Every portrayal of a french dude I've seen on tv is this hot seductive guy but I don't think every guy in france is like that.
--- Which tells any rational person that they're sexually ATTRACTED to females.--- So? Did I ever claim that these males are not sexually attracted to females when the time comes? I said it is not exclusive, all the time and everlasting. It is at certain phases of life.Also, not having the 'lovelorn' feelings associated with this lust.In any case, lust and romance don't go in the same boat. ---and just PLAY with the other boys because it's fun.--- If there is no attraction,why will it be fun?
I don't think we should change traditions.Afterall,we need to keep our population going, so men need to mate with women.I don't dispute that. But in traditional cultures,we did not have males being forced with heterosexual identities.Their manhood was intact so long as they married & reproduced and did their job!There was no expectation of romance/love with women, neither did anyone stop man-man intimacy as long as they were hidden behind social screens. The western model is anti-man to extreme.
"If it comes too you willingly, then you are transsexual." What the hell are you smoking? If it comes to you willingly from a woman, it's because you were man enough for her to actually WANT to do it with you. You know, mother nature, MEN COMPETE FOR WOMEN.
Two lesbians raising a child produced the best outcome (I have my theories as to why but won't go into to too much detail except to say that there are studies that show that mothers cuddling their babies along with other nurturing behavior stimulates the development of the babies brain along with setting it up to have the same innate nurturing ability later on. So 2 mothers is 2 times better...). While a heterosexual couple came in second and a male and male couple came in third...
but individual heterosexuals are still identifying as heterosexual without saying so. It is done through flirting, mode of dress, social conditioning, etc.. Indeed, it would take a great deal for heterosexual individuals not to identify as such.
Actually we just call them bisexual. You either like men, women, or both. Being attracted to both doesn't make you a "Third Gender." Gender is about YOU, not who you're attracted to.
That men are universally bisexual, or even have a predominant need for men than towards women (because for women it is limited to just physical, towards men, it is more about emotions, love everything) is something that has been said indirectly by several experts. Greeks already had said tat the most important relation a man has is with another man,be it social,political, emotional everything. Macho Afghans say-"Women for reproduction, men for pleasure and bonding"
You're not "transgender" unless you either feel like a woman in a man's body (not necessarily attracted to men either) or have switched sex surgically. Being a little girly wuss of a man does not make you "transgender" or anything female. the lack of "masculne" gays to study is due to the rarity of it. Which should be evidence to you that there is something inherently FEMALE about being a gay male. Also because of how sociallly acceptable it is these days for gay males to finally be themselves.
Men screwing men is not what I am talking about. And neither is male-female sex for reproduction is what I am talking of. I am talking of the exclusive heterosexual model practiced in some contemporary western cultures which artificially divide people on the basis of sexual-preferences which is unnatural as well as contrived. Just because I am talking about male-male intimacy does not mean I am saying there is no male-female sexual attraction at all. try to get the point clearly.
It's not only fish. Species after species of animals show a strong periodic desire to procreate, but give little evidence of exclusive strong opposite-sex sexual desire. In fact there are clear indications of a lack of constant sexual desire in most species. And in the males of a species that do show some evidence of sexual desire, such a desire is not strong enough. There is no need for emotional bonding, no desire for togetherness, no 'love' involved.And also no aversion to same-sex bonding.
"It used to be believed that only humans and a handful of other species performed sexual acts other than for procreation, and that animals' sexuality was instinctive and a simple response to the "right" stimulation (sight, scent). Current understanding is that many species that were formerly believed monogamous have now been proven to be promiscuous or opportunistic .....in many species animals try to give & get sexual stimulation with others where procreation is not the aim..."
"What makes you think I am attracted to a man the way a woman is?" I was under the impression you were gay. That's what that means. What do you think goes through a woman's head when she sees a male she's attracted to? It's consciously no different than what you think. You both look at Brad Pitt with his shirt off in Thelma & louise the same way. Just google the brainscan study, done BY gay activist groups. It explains everything.
"By nature, men are not supposed to partake in the raising of children." Then why do kids all over the world do best when raised in the traditional family? They do better in school, commit less crime, experiment with drugs at lower rates, and are constistently more successful later in life than kids raised without a stable father figure? Our mission as humans is to be better than our basic instincts.
Marriages were arranged throughout history to preserve royal bloodlines. Men and women have been falling in love and pair bonding since time began. In your culture and every other, children do best when their biological parents raise them as a team. Emotional connections evolved to further that circumstance. No wonder your culture prides itself on education and hard work, yet you're still little more than third world.
Google third-gender wikipedia. " Indian photographer Dayanita Singh writes about her friendship with a Hijra, Mona Ahmed, and their two different societies' beliefs about gender: "When I once asked her if she would like to go to Singapore for a sex change operation, she told me, 'You really do not understand. I am the third sex, not a man trying to be a woman. It is your society's problem that you only recognise two sexes.'""
Marriage doesn't exist so we can oooh and awww at two people's love for each other, and you can have your special day and eat cake and look gorgeous. It's vital social engineering. We need to inspire more straight marriage. Letting them know they can turn around and say "ha ha I'm better than you" to EVERYBODY else (not just gays) is how you get people to do things you need them to do. That's what marriage is.
No wonder all the smart people from over there are coming here. THEY know WE'RE right. They don't mind moving where their wives are guaranteed equality and can be who they WANT to be. They're real men.
(1) It was witnessed but concealed by historians. I have given a link of history of man-man love bonding before. (2)It is observed in all mammalian species, much more than male-female intimacy is!Joan Roughgarden in her book "Evolution's Rainbow" has mentioned how scientists for 200 years have observed but totally hidden instances of same-sex intimacy in the wild or atleast tried to misrepresent it as mere acts of domination,herd-pair etc.
The Arab world, india, and Eastern Europe don't make up the entire world. The UN doesn't think the way you do. The World Health Organization recognizes homosexuality and Heterosexuality as a dichotomy. I've had discussions with other men from those same regions who agree with me on other threads. Threads that aren't dominated by the homosexual minority in those countries like this one.
contd.. That is what has always been in all ages. Anything a culture wanted to stigmatize for men has been relegated to third-genders and labeled queer.In case of sex, in other cultures, it has been taking the receptive role. So long as a male was active in sexual intercourse even with another male, he was by every inch a straight. But the moment he took receptive role, he got condemned as third-gender. This despite it being that many third-genders are active in sex roles.
My agenda is to keep policy and cultural norms based on fact. No matter if some group finds it offensive. The truth hurts sometimes. Still what policy needs to be based on.
"Why do you have to love to reproduce?" Who the hell said that? Don't tell me you're already at that point where you can't argue what I ACTUALLY say.... Let me put it this way... LOVE evolved... because kids do better when the two people who made them with their SEX, stay together... I'm sorry if you've never understood the connection between reproduction, sexual attraction , & emotional attachment, but it's well established science. Not to mention common sense.
I can tell you that my long-sustained attraction to women is based upon solely that, but so is the long-sustained attraction to men experienced by both of my brothers. I can also tell you that Dr. Robert L. Spitzer debunked his own study regarding the success of "ex-gay" therapy (he used no set criterion for the "therapy," almost half of his sample was referred to him by ex-gay ministries, and there was "no way to judge the credibility of... change.").
This video is 16 years old, and in some parts of the world I feel that the discourse has moved on, and this is an artefact of its time; but in all too many places it's still relevant.
"That obsession with Cher I don't have..." Omg.
I love how he says "I don't wear make-up EVERYDAY"
Thanks for posting this! It means so much to so many!
Oh my gosh this made my day. Even though it's only been 2 hours and 57 minutes into the day. Still made it.
Thanks for making this, great work of satire. I guess I must be someone's physics student friend. It's an awesome friend.
taylor lautners long lost twin, ladies and gentlemen
Another one of my favorites, "do the gays" like football? ... Yes, "the gays"!
I remember when I found all these videos about 4 years ago. I've come a long way since then and accepted myself, and I'd like to thank you for being part of that for me.
"I have said that the cultures have encouraged opposite-sex marriage relationships for sustaining reproduction and family. "
Opposite gender relationships don't have to be encouraged. It's the natural condition of the properly functioning mind. Our species does so naturally. What has to be socially conditioned is monogamy.
Brilliant vid! Thank you for being such a voice of sanity.
@gravigera
A dedicated, legally recognized heterosexual relationship is the only acceptable type of sexual relationship. Nobody said that childhood sexual activity is moral either. The word for that is peer-on-peer child abuse. Homosexuality is another name for consensual adult peer-on-peer sexual abuse.
Bringing life into the world deserves a great deal of reverence by society. That's why it's regulated and protected via anti-sodomy, age-of-concent, and marriage laws. Wisdom has value.
I have said that the cultures have encouraged opposite-sex marriage relationships for sustaining reproduction and family. This does not mean that they see men and women as heterosexuals who are exclusively attracted only to opposite genders.Outward social control of behaviors in the direction of opposite-sex marriage is not the same as seeing individuals as heterosexuals.
In traditional non-west, men had stringent laws and religions to persecute them if they had man-man relations openly. The liberal west had no such defence mechanism to make men reign in their sexuality for men. So, it used a clever device (science) to isolate men who dared to be open to sex with other men as queer (LGBT).This social mechanism ensures that straight men are forced to repress and hide or reign in their sexuality for men and be 100% heterosexual even in a sexual free culture.
Most species have male-female sex for reproduction but no heterosexual lifestyle.
Male fish frantically pursues the female The female drops several eggs,the male fertilises them.But he never even once touches her.As soon as this process is over they both lose interest,go their own way, never meet again.
Where in the mammal world do you see anything equivalent of dating?
Where in the mammal world do you see nuclear families?
Where in the mammal world do you see mixed gender societies?
this video helped me as a struggling in the closet 13 yo here i am 30 out and proud thanks for this man
"on the basis of stupid gender roles "
Uh.. Yeah. Because your physical defines if you're MALE or not, which is a prerequisite for being a MAN.
And I know women that can kick your ass in any sport. What makes you a MAN is how you treat your wife, provide for your family, and benefit your community.
Sorry if you can't live up to the gender role ASSIGNED to you from birth, and have convinced yourself you actually had a choice.
omg i friggin love you! this speaks for me so much!
I don't like musicals. I don't care for Cher, Striesand or Lady Ga Ga, I hate shopping, I can't do a floral arrangement, or plan a wedding.I don't wear dresses or make-up. I don't refer to my friends as she or her or you go girl.I have a deep voice and am not flamboyant. i like football, basketball and other sports. i don't even refer to myself as a gay man. But because i am sexually attracted to men and not women I consider myself as a man who is gay. Gay is just a part of me.
It's already happened in The Netherlands. Marriage stopped being the beginning of the traditional "family," and now 60% of births are out of wedlock. You can't expect heterosexuals to be inspired to engage in behavior if it's no better than being gay. It's the people wielding that awesome power of reproduction policy needs to focus on. Not a minority group who just want to make a statement. Look up stats on how those netherlands kids are going to grow up. Especially crime rates. It's a disaster.
Just because there has not been any biological evidence of sexual orientation, does not mean we are making a choice and committing a sin. We don't choose who we can be attracted to, it is just an attraction. It is just as it is. You only tell me- do you as a man ever make a choice when you lust for a woman? Do you ever feel a sensual desire on seeing a beautiful woman just because others tell you this is who you should be? Likewise, I never chose my attraction to the male form.
Being straight is also a choice so it doesn't matter. Hiding your sexuality in the closet or choosing to live authentically are choices. Anytime you have options you have the power of choice. If you want to stick with your victim propaganda that is your choice also.
Frankly I respect ppl who made choices that represent their integrity despite social taboo and who have paved the way for the weak to do the same.
because she was a big gay icon, her daughter turned into a man, and she has supoorted them for like 40 years
What exists in the Wild is love and pair bonding between males (and to a much much lesser extent between females), apart from reproductive sex between some of the males, and most of the females. This is not "homoosexuality". This is what being a male is all about.
I have never said they formally tolerate it. I have just shown how much unusually common these things become in informal male only spaces where men have more leeway to be themselves.In west,even in informal male-only spaces they don't have this leeway, as they would become 'gay'. Where man-man desire is not seen effeminized but simply morally condemned formally, these things are very common in private.
Gender is neither separate from physical sex nor equal to it. It is a combination of outer and the inner sex. Feminine males are of a different gender from masculine males regardless of sexual preferences.Masculine females are of a different gender from feminine females,again, regardless of sexual preferences.
"I have never denied the importance of reproduction and family in human society."
But gay marriage does. Whether that's your intent or not. One generation learns from the last by EXAMPLE. How can they learn reproductive responsibility is a priority when it's not even a factor in which relationships we hold up as the ideal, with a special title like "Marriage?" That's what marriage is for. It intices breeders to control themselves, the way no lecture possibly could.
I've said repeatedly Gays should be allowed to adopt kids. My problem is with Hetero's
The statistical truth is that lower the percentage of people in any generation raised in a traditional family, the more crime, drug abuse, and teen pregnancy you're going to get. We need to get hetero's priorities back in line and you do that by holding up monogamous devoted couples as an example to follow, above everybody else. That's the whole reason we even have a marriage tradition.
Men are perfectly free here in the west to do as they please. The rest of the world doesn't do this, and it has nothing to do with oppressing any inherent feelings straight males have towards other males.
Your culture just has an attitude towards sex that applies it to friendship and male bonding, because you see that as superior to male/female matrimony.
Where as we keep it to family and love. It's not that you're all really bisexual.
It is third-gender that forms a valid social division. Gender is a trait that naturally gives in to social identities, sexual needs do not. To help your thick half male/ half female brain understand this, let me put it this way. Men doing sex with men doesn't naturally translate into a separate identity,so to force it is wrong, esp as its universal. Feminine gender in males naturally lends itself into a separate social identity of a male, regardless of hir sex needs-pointing it out isnt wrong.
Making son is one thing, loving women romantically that too exclusively is another thing. Having sex for reproduction is one thing, heterosexuality is another thing.
And at the same time if I was to marry a woman who could have kids, and after a few years leave her for a younger woman. I understand that the rule of thumb for men like Trump and Gingrich, but to real men like me no. We fall in love. Not to animal-like intentions.
Polygamists pay taxes too. Doesn't mean we redefine our traditions and societal norms just to be all inclusive. The purpose of the marriage tradition is not society giving your relationship legitimacy or celebrating your love for one another. It's social engineering. A title meant to entice other people to follow suit. Specifically, people whose sex lives have a tendency to create other human beings, who if raised outside of the traditional family are more likely to become a societal burden.
A truly hetero male will never have sex with males or "drinking bros" even if for fun. Isn't that so? Afterall, this is what "bisexual" or "bi-curious" males do, not hetero males. That by itself shatters your myth that 97% of males are 100% heteros.
Now, we are just left with debating about who has exclusive sex with whom. That is a different matter to be sorted out.
Romance and sexuality are two entirely different things. You can be a homoromantic-heterosexual.
Probably at this time, men who had sex with men never were discriminated against as it is today. The religious groups have really made it worse for us, but that does not mean we were really wanting to go against mother nature this way.
"Heterosexuality is a total exclusive bonding with opposite sex to the exclusion of same-sex bonding"...
No.. it's just that male bonding doesn't have to be sexual. There's no reason for it. And yes the bond between male and female reproductive partner should be stronger than between you and your "bro's" since you're now PARENTS. Which is a more important role than you and your male friends can ever have. All ATTRACTION is meant for reproduction, even if misguided.
@PlayitBough I honestly don't think there are more gay people in France that anywhere else, but if you say so... One thing is sure, the amount of homophobia is not any smaller ! So why is it that I *should* be supporting them just because I'm French ? I just respect them as people because they deserve it...
Because male-female sex for reproduction is not the same as heterosexuality.Heterosexuality is a total exclusive bonding with opposite sex to the exclusion of same-sex bonding-which extends to things beyond mere physical contact, including romantic/emotional and even social. This is very uncommon in mammalian world and is certainly not the stuff most human males are made of.
Gays are not being "excepted" from anything. Marriage simply has a definition. It's one man and one woman. I don't have the right to deem my relationships a "Marriage" outside of that definition of marriage either. Not one single person in this country of legal age is barred from entering into that arrangement with a person of the opposite sex, and thus meeting the definition. Sexual orientation is never questioned. I'm straight and I can't "marry" another man either.
I agree that we are born attracted to other men and this makes us no different than a man attracted to females. Neither is superior or inferior. My love of a man is as much valid as a straight man's love of a woman or a straight woman's love of a man or a lesbian's love of another female. There is just one word-LOVE.
1. I want to end the decline of the traditional family, and encourage potential reproducers to control themselves. That's all. One step is a symbolic gesture reminding people that the responsibility of being a potential reproducer should outweigh your feelings and desire to indulge ourselves. Reminding people why we have a marriage tradition in the first place. That's all. I really could care less what preferences an individual was born with.
"So, it can be inferred that male-female sex is more borne out of the need to reproduce, than out of physical attraction ...
Those fish are proof that male female bonding is about more than the physical act. That sexuality in species that get no sexual pleasure follows the same guidelines and rules. That sexual attraction is based on preferred traits one subconsciously hopes to pass on to their offspring. Not the surface intent of their own pleasure. You have it backwards.
"It's like the society has put a gun on men telling them to like women."
There's no gun. That's what how we are. The natural state of the human male is to chase women for sex. Go to a singles bar, they don't have to be forced. It's our nature. The males who chased after sex in the wild did more breeding, obviously, thus the trait was passed on to the population at large over time.
"how can it be altered if the society starts to value man-man sex equally?"
Because that by default means reproduction is not a societal concern. I have the kind of sex that makes human beings. The single greatest power a human being will ever have. Create life!! That has to have value in society. And we need to make a noticable effort to celebrate those who handle it the best way. Society NEEDS to look at sex that can't reproduce as missing out on something great.
I cannot say for sure if men universally are attracted to men, but it is true that before the medieval ages, there were no gays and lesbians and there certainly was not such a huge condemnation of men who loved men (same for women.
Darwin had propagated this crap idea.For a man who liked to see the world in terms of functional adaptations, the tails of male peacocks seemed like a useless absurdity. Why would nature invest in such a baroque display of feathers? Did male peacocks want to be eaten by predators?Darwin’s hypothesis was typically brilliant: The peacocks did it for the sake of reproduction. The male’s fancy tail entranced the staid peahen.
7. Heterosexuality is a biological necessity of our species. That would be like opposing food.
Men can and should bond with other men. There is no reason, or historical precedent, that it be anything sexual. It's simple friendship. A wife is not a piece of livestock you only enjoy to make babies. It's a loving devoted partnership for the sake of each other and the children. If they're soo low in your opinion, why breed with them? Don't you want GOOD traits for your kids?
I support gays having rights. What you don't need is the word.
There needs to remain some recognition for heterosexuals entering into the kind of relationships that inherently keep reproduction under control, or none of them are going to bother. It's that status and recognition above other kinds of relationship that inspires that behavior. The potential to make human beings needs to get back to the front of people's minds, not disregarded.
"To be or not to be that is the question". Despite all the rhetoric out there, sexuality is not like gender, it is not like race. It is a physiological response to be engaged or avoided. And when a person identifies with a particular orientation, he has decided to incorporate that choice into his overall lifestyle. Its really simple.
By denying your choice in the matter you weaken your integrity.
But then, I forgot that this is exactly what you do all the time-confusing gender with gender roles.
"because for women it is limited to just physical, towards men, it is more about emotions, love everything"
My point exactly. Your culture has TAUGHT you not to love a female partner, when in our species since it's dawn, male female bonding has been the norm. You're simply looking for men to love because you need to love, and can't have it where you're supposed to. Hence all the confusion and hair splitting about Gender, Biology, and sex. & There's nothing Macho about it. It's just misguided.
Also this:
"Emotional relations are very different. Men and women both may become exceptionally attached to people of the same sex, to the point that Westerners would swear that they must have a sexual relationship. It is not necessarily so. Kissing, holding hands, weeping, jealousy, physical contact and all the signs of partnership can exist without any sexual activity or, indeed, with an undercurrent of absolute horror that it might take place.....
In short,attraction to men or women or both or neither in masculine gendered males is a part of a male's inner masculinity. Attraction to men/women/both/neither in feminine gendered males is a part of a male's inner femininity. It is gender that decides the nature of the attraction, rather than the attraction itself. So, a masculine man's attraction to men is masculine and is not same as a feminine gendered male's attraction to men which is feminine in nature (the gays).
Love is a chemical reaction meant to pair bond mating couples. Sorry, your "soul mate" doesn't just happen to be another man, nor does being homosexual mean you have some kind of new era enlightened soul. It's just biology.
Good for Taylor Lautner making this video against gay stereotypes. I guess this is his coming out video too.
I agree with this! But that is something most people don't mean perhaps. When sexual-orientation is used to categorize people, the romance is taken into consideration as well.
That is also a strong case against heterosexuality. Because heterosexualtiy represents non-procreative male-female sex.Then everything that the western world stands for will be negated -- at least as far as human gender and sexuality goes.Non-procreative male-female sex and love/romance has no biological role at all,is very abnormal,fit for only wimps.Same-sex sexual bonds are important because they help in forming strong bonds with the others of one's herd,which form emotional and social ties.
You are right. Parts of the brain can become feminine in a male and lead to any number of feminine traits in a 100% male body. However, attraction to men is not one of them. It is attraction to women which is a part of a male's feminine side. There are several queer gendered males who are exclusively heterosexual and even "lesbians trapped in male bodies". So also transvestites.Exclusive real heterosexuality is the ultimate sign of effeminacy or even transsexualism in a male.
In the early tribal societies at the dawn of human civilisation, few men participated in the mating process regularly, many preferring not to partake at all.Men were also not involved in the raising of children,although they took care of male adolescents.Men spent their entire lives in male-only groups.When humans started settling down in civilisations in uninhabited lands,they felt the need to grow in number at a faster rate and it was from this time that men were pressured to bond with women.
There have been 3 stages of all that:
(1) Pre-recorded tribal cultures closest to human nature where men had sex with women only for reproduction in the mating seasons. And then formed intimacy with men at other times. Men and women lived separate lives. This is what happens in mammalian world too.
(2) Traditional cultures where formally,some degree of male-female intimacy was forced through marriage.
(3) Modern heterosexual societies that have taken the oppression of stage (2) to the extreme.
Continued.
This is not to minimize oppression lgbt faced but encourages liberty. If you look at your history gays can engage as they have never done before where as 50 years ago. Years prior the only choice was to stay in the closet. Many are making the choice to come out. The comparison of gays with race is more similar to interracial dating rights. Oppression causes ppl to only see what they don't have and not what they have.
Stand tall and be proud of who you are. My entire life, I have fought against stereotypes.
Of course the divorce rate is low!!! The only half of the equation that gets a vote, also gets to do whatever the hell he wants!!!
@Elkhartboy
The BIG difference is that heterosexual relationships are responsible for bringing life into the world. After bringing life into the world through a loving heterosexual act, a continued and dedicated monogamous partnership strives, often through hardship and great sacrifice, to ensure that the resulting baby becomes a good member of society who will also continue the family line through the same means. Love takes no consideration for gender, but appropriate expressions of love do.
It is only in modern west that this small pressure to marry and reproduce has been extended to a lifelong exclusive "heterosexuality".The heterosexual society does not make a distinction between male-female sex for procreation and male-female sex for pleasure/ bonding without the burden of reproduction. It doesn't give them distinct names because that would begin the process of concretising their divide. Both are summarily called 'heterosexuality' and promoted as a "normal" lifestyle for men.
And you do not have the right to redefine the constitutions with the excerpt 'Except for the gays.'
And we redefine marriage all the time. At one time in my state 16 year olds could marry people older then 18. And they deserve the right to marry because they pay taxes, sever in the military and are product citizens. My parents support gay rights and they had four children. Seeing gay people together didn't stop my parents from 'breeding'.
1. Actually this is intergender relationship in the wilds. No they can't produce, but thats basic anatomy. 2. Say if I was a man dating a girl who was wheel-chaired bound. She is unable to reproduce. As such my love or attraction to her is unnatural correct? Oh and before you go with the 'still have sex' argument that many of my friends use. No. She is unable to feel down their. The only answer to our relationship? Love. And love doesn't give a damn about science.
No, I didn't woke up one morning and said that I want to be gay, but I'm sure of one thing : I'm just soooo proud to be gay, to walk on the streets holding my boyfriend's hand, to kiss him wherever I go. I'm so happy to be myself and I wish one day everybody on this Earth will know I'm gay (even if everybody already does). Unfortunately, there's the fucking stereotypes, but since I'm confortable with my person, I know that I'm not part of either of those shit so I really don't care...
Homosexuality does not simply describe the act of having homosexual sex. Homosexuality describes a normal and common variation of human sexuality where a person is attracted to the same sex. Like all human traits, diversity is normal within them, and like eye colour, hair colour and skin colour, sexuality varies. Sex does not describe procreative sex as you describe. Every major scientific or legal body describes sexual activities as an act performed with another for sexual gratification
Pls understand this...sexuality is little understood, all the many forms. Thus I challenge some accepted beliefs. My comments were pursued by those wanting to affirm their belief commitments, and I responded to those only.
My addictions? 1 is challenging so called truths.
"Gay" is a hot topic in the social landscape and I believe the ideas of many posters here are not thinking but regurgitating rhetoric a lot of which is untrue. This little untruth causes bigger misunderstandings IMO.
Manly way, means feeling as if it is a masculine -masculine bonding. Not a masculine-feminine bonding as those gay activists feel.
I love the fashion part of this video because my female friends and a whole lot of my gay friends always rag on me for not looking perfect all the time. It's a like a deficiency I was born without. Not every gay guy is fashion obsessed and even though there's nothing wrong with that don't rag on me for not being like that. Every portrayal of a french dude I've seen on tv is this hot seductive guy but I don't think every guy in france is like that.
--- Which tells any rational person that they're sexually ATTRACTED to females.---
So? Did I ever claim that these males are not sexually attracted to females when the time comes? I said it is not exclusive, all the time and everlasting. It is at certain phases of life.Also, not having the 'lovelorn' feelings associated with this lust.In any case, lust and romance don't go in the same boat.
---and just PLAY with the other boys because it's fun.---
If there is no attraction,why will it be fun?
I don't think we should change traditions.Afterall,we need to keep our population going, so men need to mate with women.I don't dispute that. But in traditional cultures,we did not have males being forced with heterosexual identities.Their manhood was intact so long as they married & reproduced and did their job!There was no expectation of romance/love with women, neither did anyone stop man-man intimacy as long as they were hidden behind social screens. The western model is anti-man to extreme.
"If it comes too you willingly, then you are transsexual."
What the hell are you smoking?
If it comes to you willingly from a woman, it's because you were man enough for her to actually WANT to do it with you. You know, mother nature, MEN COMPETE FOR WOMEN.
Two lesbians raising a child produced the best outcome (I have my theories as to why but won't go into to too much detail except to say that there are studies that show that mothers cuddling their babies along with other nurturing behavior stimulates the development of the babies brain along with setting it up to have the same innate nurturing ability later on. So 2 mothers is 2 times better...). While a heterosexual couple came in second and a male and male couple came in third...
but individual heterosexuals are still identifying as heterosexual without saying so. It is done through flirting, mode of dress, social conditioning, etc.. Indeed, it would take a great deal for heterosexual individuals not to identify as such.
Actually we just call them bisexual. You either like men, women, or both. Being attracted to both doesn't make you a "Third Gender."
Gender is about YOU, not who you're attracted to.
That men are universally bisexual, or even have a predominant need for men than towards women (because for women it is limited to just physical, towards men, it is more about emotions, love everything) is something that has been said indirectly by several experts. Greeks already had said tat the most important relation a man has is with another man,be it social,political, emotional everything. Macho Afghans say-"Women for reproduction, men for pleasure and bonding"
You're not "transgender" unless you either feel like a woman in a man's body (not necessarily attracted to men either) or have switched sex surgically. Being a little girly wuss of a man does not make you "transgender" or anything female. the lack of "masculne" gays to study is due to the rarity of it. Which should be evidence to you that there is something inherently FEMALE about being a gay male. Also because of how sociallly acceptable it is these days for gay males to finally be themselves.
Being gays not wrong. People are just mad cause we care about how we look and were open minded.
Men screwing men is not what I am talking about. And neither is male-female sex for reproduction is what I am talking of. I am talking of the exclusive heterosexual model practiced in some contemporary western cultures which artificially divide people on the basis of sexual-preferences which is unnatural as well as contrived. Just because I am talking about male-male intimacy does not mean I am saying there is no male-female sexual attraction at all. try to get the point clearly.
It's not only fish. Species after species of animals show a strong periodic desire to procreate, but give little evidence of exclusive strong opposite-sex sexual desire. In fact there are clear indications of a lack of constant sexual desire in most species. And in the males of a species that do show some evidence of sexual desire, such a desire is not strong enough. There is no need for emotional bonding, no desire for togetherness, no 'love' involved.And also no aversion to same-sex bonding.
"It used to be believed that only humans and a handful of other species performed sexual acts other than for procreation, and that animals' sexuality was instinctive and a simple response to the "right" stimulation (sight, scent). Current understanding is that many species that were formerly believed monogamous have now been proven to be promiscuous or opportunistic .....in many species animals try to give & get sexual stimulation with others where procreation is not the aim..."
"What makes you think I am attracted to a man the way a woman is?"
I was under the impression you were gay. That's what that means. What do you think goes through a woman's head when she sees a male she's attracted to? It's consciously no different than what you think. You both look at Brad Pitt with his shirt off in Thelma & louise the same way. Just google the brainscan study, done BY gay activist groups. It explains everything.
"By nature, men are not supposed to partake in the raising of children."
Then why do kids all over the world do best when raised in the traditional family? They do better in school, commit less crime, experiment with drugs at lower rates, and are constistently more successful later in life than kids raised without a stable father figure?
Our mission as humans is to be better than our basic instincts.
"... i dont know every gay man on this earth..."
Marriages were arranged throughout history to preserve royal bloodlines. Men and women have been falling in love and pair bonding since time began. In your culture and every other, children do best when their biological parents raise them as a team. Emotional connections evolved to further that circumstance. No wonder your culture prides itself on education and hard work, yet you're still little more than third world.
Google third-gender wikipedia.
" Indian photographer Dayanita Singh writes about her friendship with a Hijra, Mona Ahmed, and their two different societies' beliefs about gender: "When I once asked her if she would like to go to Singapore for a sex change operation, she told me, 'You really do not understand. I am the third sex, not a man trying to be a woman. It is your society's problem that you only recognise two sexes.'""
Marriage doesn't exist so we can oooh and awww at two people's love for each other, and you can have your special day and eat cake and look gorgeous. It's vital social engineering.
We need to inspire more straight marriage. Letting them know they can turn around and say "ha ha I'm better than you" to EVERYBODY else (not just gays) is how you get people to do things you need them to do. That's what marriage is.
No wonder all the smart people from over there are coming here. THEY know WE'RE right. They don't mind moving where their wives are guaranteed equality and can be who they WANT to be. They're real men.
(1) It was witnessed but concealed by historians. I have given a link of history of man-man love bonding before.
(2)It is observed in all mammalian species, much more than male-female intimacy is!Joan Roughgarden in her book "Evolution's Rainbow" has mentioned how scientists for 200 years have observed but totally hidden instances of same-sex intimacy in the wild or atleast tried to misrepresent it as mere acts of domination,herd-pair etc.
The Arab world, india, and Eastern Europe don't make up the entire world. The UN doesn't think the way you do. The World Health Organization recognizes homosexuality and Heterosexuality as a dichotomy.
I've had discussions with other men from those same regions who agree with me on other threads. Threads that aren't dominated by the homosexual minority in those countries like this one.
lol this is so funny. I deal with literally all of these asinine stereotypes all the time. Thank you for posting!
Any group will find heterosexuality offensive. It was found to be offensive even in your pre-modern west and that is a fact. Face it.
contd..
That is what has always been in all ages. Anything a culture wanted to stigmatize for men has been relegated to third-genders and labeled queer.In case of sex, in other cultures, it has been taking the receptive role. So long as a male was active in sexual intercourse even with another male, he was by every inch a straight. But the moment he took receptive role, he got condemned as third-gender. This despite it being that many third-genders are active in sex roles.
My agenda is to keep policy and cultural norms based on fact. No matter if some group finds it offensive. The truth hurts sometimes. Still what policy needs to be based on.
"Why do you have to love to reproduce?"
Who the hell said that? Don't tell me you're already at that point where you can't argue what I ACTUALLY say....
Let me put it this way... LOVE evolved... because kids do better when the two people who made them with their SEX, stay together...
I'm sorry if you've never understood the connection between reproduction, sexual attraction , & emotional attachment, but it's well established science. Not to mention common sense.
I can tell you that my long-sustained attraction to women is based upon solely that, but so is the long-sustained attraction to men experienced by both of my brothers. I can also tell you that Dr. Robert L. Spitzer debunked his own study regarding the success of "ex-gay" therapy (he used no set criterion for the "therapy," almost half of his sample was referred to him by ex-gay ministries, and there was "no way to judge the credibility of... change.").