What’s the big deal about the pairing of two people with opposite sexual identities? Since the Supreme Court now requires same-sex couples to be married just like opposite sexed couples, what’s the big deal about the sexuality of couples anyhow? Actually it’s surprising no one has asked that question so it’s no surprise there’s no answer either. No answer until now, that is.

Heterosexuals are half of a pair. That’s quite a bit different than having two gay people each of whom can offer the gay perspective but neither can offer the opposite one. Lets not get in the weeds about gay’s having a dominant and a submissive. Those are gay positions. Hetero’s on the other hand can learn from the opposite sex. Perhaps that’s the reason nature required two different sexes to mate. Gays can’t mate. They can have a different kind of intercourse but they cannot mate. They do not mate and intrinsically they cannot mate. Nature took care of that.

Look. Being gay is not a choice. Neither is being straight. And it’s not just the difference between same and opposite partners. The most opposite gay couple is far more similar than any hetero couple. Male-male is close. Male-female is opposite. That’s just the way nature did it.

Here’s an example. A gay couple goes to the opera. Presume they are well bonded. They have two different male reactions to the opera. Compare that to a hetero couple. They have a different set of reactions to the opera. The male uses the male attributes to analyse the opera. The female does the opposite. She brings the female set of attributes. Two gay people cannot do that. They can only bring the attributes of a male because gay men are men. It’s not that one way is right or one way is better. They are vastly different.

How different? Take the more masculine of the gay couple. Since that individual is gay, the full set of male attributes is somewhat changed to include some female attributes. Same for the submissive gay partner who has presumably more female attributes than the dominant male partner who has fewer female attributes. Compare that to a hetero couple where the male partner has no female attributes. that’s in the definition and the nature of a human male. The opposite holds for the hetero female. No masculine traits.

Well, you say there are plenty of hetero’s who exhibit some attributes of the opposite sex. Yes but. the but is a big exception. A male who has feminine attributes remains a male while a gay male has a very different set of attributes. That is after all why a gay male is identified as gay. Gay is not hetero and hetero is not gay regardless of how far in the direction of the opposite sex the hetero’s attributes go.

It’s explained by the bell curve that summarizes the sexuality of a large sample of people. At one end would be gay’s and at the opposite end would be hetero’s. Most of the population would be in the middle meaning somewhere between the extremes but a clear division exists between gay males and hetero males.
According to wikipedia, about 5% of the population is gay and slightly more than 5% is lesbian. That means 95% of the males are heterosexual. Nature does that. So nature makes the number of hetero’s far, far greater than the number of gay men. That means nature favors heterosexuality by a huge amount. Note the absence of morality in figuring out the difference between homo and heterosexuality. Morality is not the correct way to evaluate homosexuality. That also means religion should not be involved with homosexual practices because sexuality is an attribute of nature, not a gift from a deity pr a matter for philosophy. It’s strictly nature. It also nature that’s the graveman for identifying the attributes of males and females.

There is no such thing as a third sex, at least not until one becomes apparent at the birth of each baby. Yes there are abnormalities but the abnormalities about sexuality are insignificant. It’s either male of female. There’s no third sex.

Views: 33