Sexuality can be fluid, but that doesn't mean that it's decided by conscious choice. I'm pretty certain that no one would make the decision to be a part of a heavily marginalized and stigmatized group.
That's a new one... I mean there are better ways to try and avoid making discrimination laws, trying to classify some people as not humans, is pretty darn low on the rankings.
I mean that is some slavery age logic going on there.
No, 'gays' haven't. Homosexual behaviors have. The two are distinct ideas, and the distinction is important because one is a reasonable evolutionary strategy while the other is not.
Let me draw a parallel. Fetishes are also cultural - I think most would agree with this, considering that they often involve human inventions that were not present during our evolution. Fetishes arise under culturally oppressive circumstances all the time. At a glance, this would seem to be contradictory, but I think it's important to understand that demonization of a behavior will not always result in its suppression. This is true across cultures and time periods, and anyone who has kids will immediately understand.
(This signature was removed for violation of the Avatar & Signature Guidelines)
So now I'm not human! Wooh!
Google Diversity Memo
Learn to use critical thinking: https://youtu.be/J5A5o9I7rnA
Political left, right similarly motivated to avoid rival views
[...] we have an intolerance for ideas and evidence that don’t fit a certain ideology. I’m also not saying that we should restrict people to certain gender roles; I’m advocating for quite the opposite: treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group (tribalism)..
Oh is that so?
First, development is subject to culture once you're out of the womb.
Second, rate of concordance in sexuality between identical twins is between 5-20% (with smaller studies reporting greater variances). One would expect much higher rates of concordance considering that identical twins share their entire genomes, initial epigenetic status, as well as most developmental influences while in the womb.
Bearman and Brückner (2002) criticized early studies concentrating on small, select samples[8] and non-representative selection of their subjects.[9] They studied 289 pairs of identical twins (monozygotic or from one fertilized egg) and 495 pairs of fraternal twins (dizygotic or from two fertilized eggs) and found concordance rates for same-sex attraction of only 7.7% for male identical twins and 5.3% for females, a pattern which they say "does not suggest genetic influence independent of social context."[8]
not sure about the initial statement, but i do think it falls under "the gays and the normals are different" category
whether they want to call it choice, disease, confusion, w.e, the gays are far from the expected reproductive normal behavior from an evolutionary perspective of a civilized species.
of course there will be those who claim animals are gay too so its natural... well, i have seen dogs smell each others ass as part of their greeting.. should that be considered normal too?....
keywords here are "evolutionary perspective of a civilized species".
fornow and forever, the gays and the normals will be as far from each other as the blacks and the whites.
infracted - Forbidden Topics
Last edited by Crissi; 2017-05-12 at 03:40 PM.
Anyone who lives here knows there are two Missouris, "Missouri" and "Missourah". (See the Simpsons episode that parodied Tom Sawyer.)
This assclown is obviously from a county in the latter and I apologize on my state's behalf.
F2P: If you don't think it's worth my money, I don't think it's worth my time.
(This signature was removed for violation of the Avatar & Signature Guidelines)
'Expected normal behavior' is relative. And the behavior of other animals becomes less informative the further they are from humans.
The expected norm for humans is heavily informed by our cultural history. And our cultural history is generally a stack of failures sprinkled with successes.