Who decided "straight" was normal and everything else wasn't?

[Galen.Iksnudnard]

How did society as a whole arrive at the heteronomative state that it's in currently and decide that "straight" is the default while everything else is not, or even evil?

When people have a baby, it is automatically assumed that the baby will grow up to be straight. Sometimes, if the child turns out to have a homosexual preference, the parents will be disappointed. If people meet a person who acts outside his/her norms for his/her gender, they ask "are you gay?" Why does no one ask "are you straight?" to the 'normal' acting people?

More importantly how can we overcome the culture of heteronormativity and create a more inclusive society?

 

[sandandfoam]

In the society I move in homosexuality is normal.

 

[LuisDantas]

It is a holdover from a time when its was considered a person's duty to marry and have children who would be helpers and heirs, I think

 

[ChristineES]

It used to highly valued to have babies- particularly sons- in the past. Nowadays, because of overpopulation and the fact that there are so many unwanted children, it shouldn't matter anymore. I am not sure why it does.

 

[Sand Dancer]

When you have to "jury rig" sex, it's probably because the body isn't made to have that part go there. It's hard to "begat" when you can't conceive. But, people make due and that's all some can do. I have no problem with that.

 

[psychoslice]

Its only normal when sex is used to populate the world, other than that, its a toy to play with.

 

[Quintessence]

*blink blink*

Statistics determine straight is normal: the overwhelming majority of humans are heterosexual. Therefore, of course it's a logical default assumption to assume someone is homosexual given less than 10% of the population identifies as anything other than that.

How do you create a more inclusive society? By making pluralism a national value.

 

[Ablaze]

It seems that majority rules. The majority of people are predominantly attracted to members of the opposite sex. What the majority partakes in is often considered the norm.

 

[Falvlun]

Probably because the majority of humans are heterosexual?

Although, it's good to remind people that just because something isn't normal, that doesn't necessarily make it abnormal (with it's connotations of "unnatural" or "messed up"). It just means that it is relatively rare in the population, like red hair.

 

[Quintessence]

It'd be nice if that word "abnormal" didn't have such negative connotations. I think that says something about our culture right there, doesn't it?

 

[Skwim]

Who decided "straight" was normal and everything else wasn't?

Sociologists, when they looked at the figures and saw that "straight" was the most prevalent sexual orientation---I don't think it took much looking or that they were surprised, do you? And, this is regarding "normal" in the sense of "most common," not in a qualitative sense.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It's because only a small part of the population is homosexual, and people base their world past experiences, which is that most people are heterosexual. Also because we don't do a very good job at being aware of others outside our own, especially those who are privileged (and it seems so often the more privileged the less aware). But as to how it got to be the assumed default and everything else is wrong/doesn't exist would probably be how our society came to view male homosexuality as effeminate. The Bible speaking of homosexuality between men as one of them being effeminate ("as he would a woman") probably plays a strong role.

 

[Pegg]

Its nature that dictates what is normal. We see that opposites attract in the animal kingdom and it benefits the species.

Anything that is beneficial to the survival of a species must be accepted as normal, otherwise we are turning against nature and thus against what benefits us as a species.

And there really is no 'overpopulation'...that is a buzz word used to scare us into thinking we have to stop living the way nature intended and start killing our offspring.... its not beneficial to us, its detrimental and therefore against nature.

 

[Skwim]

And there really is no 'overpopulation'...that is a buzz word used to scare us into thinking we have to stop living the way nature intended and start killing our offspring.... its not beneficial to us, its detrimental and therefore against nature.

So you're saying what, that abortionists concocted the notion of overpopulation to keep themselves in business? If not abortionists, then just who is using this "buzzword" to "scare us into thinking we have to stop living the way nature intended and start killing our offspring"?

Consider.

"According to the UN's food and agriculture programme, 854 million people do not have sufficient food for an active and healthy life.

The global population has risen substantially in recent decades. Between 1980 and 2000 it rose from 4.4bn to 6.1bn and food production increased 50%. By 2050 the population is expected to reach 9bn.
source
​

And when one looks at the definition of over population

"Human overpopulation occurs if the number of people in a group exceeds the carrying capacity of the region occupied by the group. The term often refers to the relationship between the entire human population and its environment, the Earth,[1] or to smaller geographical areas such as countries."
Source:Wikipedia
​

Over population is obviously more than just a buzzword to "scare us into thinking we have to stop living the way nature intended and start killing our offspring." It's a true problem.

 

[Pegg]

So you're saying what, that abortionists concocted the notion of overpopulation to keep themselves in business? If not abortionists, then just who is using this "buzzword" to "scare us into thinking we have to stop living the way nature intended and start killing our offspring"?

Consider.

"According to the UN's food and agriculture programme, 854 million people do not have sufficient food for an active and healthy life.

The global population has risen substantially in recent decades. Between 1980 and 2000 it rose from 4.4bn to 6.1bn and food production increased 50%. By 2050 the population is expected to reach 9bn.
source
​

And when one looks at the definition of over population

"Human overpopulation occurs if the number of people in a group exceeds the carrying capacity of the region occupied by the group. The term often refers to the relationship between the entire human population and its environment, the Earth,[1] or to smaller geographical areas such as countries."
Source:Wikipedia
​

Over population is obviously more than just a buzzword to "scare us into thinking we have to stop living the way nature intended and start killing our offspring." It's a true problem.

No, its not.

There is enough land on this earth for every person alive to obtain more then an acre each.


the problem is that we all want to live in cities in the same patches of ground....and as you wiki article says "Human overpopulation occurs if the number of people in a group exceeds the carrying capacity of the region occupied by the group


Of course if we all cram into one area there will be overpopulation. But there are vast masses of land where no one lives. So spreading out is the solution.... but the way we've designed the economy makes that impossible because we all need to be close to work, which is all crammed into a tight little space....and on and on we go with the stupidity of mans governance!


Overpopulation is not real. You've been conned. You've fallen for the propaganda.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

No, its not.

There is enough land on this earth for every person alive to obtain more then an acre each.


the problem is that we all want to live in cities in the same patches of ground....and as you wiki article says "Human overpopulation occurs if the number of people in a group exceeds the carrying capacity of the region occupied by the group


Of course if we all cram into one area there will be overpopulation. But there are vast masses of land where no one lives. So spreading out is the solution.... but the way we've designed the economy makes that impossible because we all need to be close to work, which is all crammed into a tight little space....and on and on we go with the stupidity of mans governance!


Overpopulation is not real. You've been conned. You've fallen for the propaganda.

It's just not the physical space though. Any given area of land can only support so much life. This is factored in first with soil fertility. More fertile land will support more life as more plant life can thrive. When there are plenty of plants, you can have organisms that eat the plants. And when there are organisms that can eat the plants, you can have organisms that eat other organisms. However, say if a large surge in herbivore population happens, and more plants are being eaten. The land can only produce as many plants as the soil will allow. Eventually there are not enough plants to sustain the herbivore population, and eventually they begin to starve and die. In the other parts of the forests, this is effecting the bears because these herbivores are eating the plants the bears need for hibernation. Even other grazing animals are being out competed by the numbers of this pesky herbivore. The wolves are happy and feasting, at least until the plants die in excess, the herbivore dies in excess, and then the wolves too must die in excess because of an over population in a simple plant eating animal.
Do we have enough physical space for everyone and more? Of course we do. We can build upwards, downwards, and outwards. Is there enough nutrition and usable soil to feed all of us? Not even close to enough.

the problem is that we all want to live in cities in the same patches of ground....and as you wiki article says "Human overpopulation occurs if the number of people in a group exceeds the carrying capacity of the region occupied by the group

But the largest region, the entire planet, has to feed all of us, and it simply can't. We could feed many more people if we weren't so wasteful, but it wouldn't solve the fact we are exhausting the soil and the growing capacity of the earth. Vegetables were more nutritious 50 years ago if that says anything about how we are exhausting the soil.

Its nature that dictates what is normal. We see that opposites attract in the animal kingdom and it benefits the species.

That is true. So true in fact, than homosexuality is found in a myriad of other animals. But, in all reality, if you want to get technical, homosexuality is not the norm, that distinction goes to bisexuality!

 

[Skwim]

No, its not.

There is enough land on this earth for every person alive to obtain more then an acre each.

Yup, 5.17 acres to put a number on it.

Here are yours.

ENJOY
​

 

[Semitone-Truce]

Maybe because heterosexuality is normal in the sense that it is necessary for the continuation of species. Sexual organisms are expected to procreate and produce children. Or maybe just because as per the definition of the word normal, it is "usual, typical, or expected".

 

[Pegg]

But the largest region, the entire planet, has to feed all of us, and it simply can't. We could feed many more people if we weren't so wasteful, but it wouldn't solve the fact we are exhausting the soil and the growing capacity of the earth. Vegetables were more nutritious 50 years ago if that says anything about how we are exhausting the soil.

so its not the planet who is incapable of providing the food, its the way we manage (or mismanage) it.

And when one person keeps growing on the same patch of ground over and over, of course the soil will deplete of nutrients. Gods word made it law that a field should be permitted 1 year of rest every 7th year. But people dont follow the bibles advice so they experience the negative consequences.

Thats not the earths fault. Its mans.

That is true. So true in fact, than homosexuality is found in a myriad of other animals. But, in all reality, if you want to get technical, homosexuality is not the norm, that distinction goes to bisexuality!

but among animals it is a domination trait. eg,female dogs will mount other dogs and even their owners leg. Its a domination trait and nothing more.

Here's an example to consider. Young male calves will mount their own mothers and they will impregnate their mothers if they are not removed from the herd....does that mean that incest is natural for us too??

 

[Pegg]

Yup, 5.17 acres to put a number on it.

Here are yours.

ENJOY
​

Why thank you!

One day that desert is going to blossom as the saffron!