As we now have trans as a protected class it has shown the slippery slope in full free fall from the “gay rights” debate a decade ago. The problem is that laws based on fallacies will always be abused because their is no need to prove that any additions are legitimate. We have known for centuries men and women are not equal, we have known for centuries that racial aggregates depended on the culture dictating genetics. When we pretended that this didn’t matter we opened the door for non-biological protected classes. There has never been any evidence that being gay or trans is genetic, and there has been inconclusive evidence that gay and trans is biological at all aside from the biological impact occurring from grooming. In fact the best biological evidence we have is that external stimuli (aka other people) is what causes biological changes in the individual. Yet now we have more protected classes that are inherently non-biological than provably biological. These abuses are meant to subjugate not protect, they are meant to deny reality in place of accepting it.
Comments (138)
sorted by:
Has the concept of "protected classes" been constitutionally challenged yet? I don't see how it can possibly exist alongside with equal protection. Because it is literally UNEQUAL protection.
I know everything is about grabbing power for globalists and their useful idiot allies but this one just seems so blatant.
The problem is that the way protected classes are set up, they are technically equal. It's not that trans people are a protected class, it's that your trans status is protected. Under this law, it is equally illegal to fire a normal person for not being trans, which means that now all trans groups are obliged to accept normal people.
Of course, that's all on paper. We all know that the system is never going to enforce it equally. But it's written equally, so it's not unconstitutional. When this results in further oppression of straight white men, they can claim they had no idea that would happen, even though they obviously did.
The problem is never the law, the problem is selective enforcement.
The entire concept of discrimination law and civil rights is bullshit. There are a million legal reasons to fire someone and 16 or 17 illegal ones; what difference does it make? I can fire someone for wearing the wrong shoes, who cares if I fire them for being a tranny?
That's why they resort to drawing arbitrary lines across society and demanding cash because there's not enough melanin on one side or the other. It's just a retarded way to justify theft while brutalizing your enemies.
Plato explained 2000 years ago that all democracies devolve into chaos, then tyranny, and we're right on course.
As I understand it male sexual orientation is pretty much fixed after puberty, unlike with females where it's more fluid. That's why you hear about women doing bi experimentation in college before sticking with men and the large proportion of gay men who were molested as kids. In other words for gay men there's typically something in their prepubescent childhood that caused them to be that way, and it's usually being molested. I don't know if there's anything biological that causes homosexuality or makes people more susceptible to it. I'd love to see some honest studies about it if they exist.
With troons it's definitely grooming. Transgenderism is just the result of society being gaslighted into allowing a fetish to become a protected class, and people can absolutely develop fetishes from grooming. With troons having more access to grooming victims than ever and porn (including tranny porn) being more accessible than ever it's really not shocking that the troomer cult has grown more numerous and powerful than ever over past 5 or 10 years. I've mentioned this before but I don't think it's coincidental that this tranny shit took off only a few years after the smartphone revolution. Porn rot is almost certainly a contributing factor to the tranny problem.
I'm still not convinced that it isn't just women wanting attention and acting out in order to get said attention.
There is no alternative sexual orientation. That's like saying pedos just have a sexual orientation towards children. No, they have a degenerate perversion. There is no gene that says you are a homosexual or a pedophile, or you are attracted to horses.
Fucking Based.
This is post puberty. These studies are usually misnomers because they take people who have been gay and therefore conditioned to male pheromones and sex. It’s finding ways to prove nothing because this could also be due to grooming or conditioning to create a neurochemical response.
I read that one of the greatest data points against gay being genetic is FEMALE SEXUALITY.
Whereas male sexuality is fairly fixed - almost every gay person knows a woman who was a “lesbian” and became straight after finding a new guy.
Maybe it’s not fixed but more rigid. Maybe they put something in our food to make men permanently gay and their sexuality fixed. The world may never know…
It has never been shown to have a biological link, and there is actually plenty of evidence of a link to sexual abuse and trauma as a child. But even if it did have a biological link, it would make no difference. Many diseases and disorders have genetic origins and nobody would say this makes them good or that people should be proud of them or celebrate them. Just because something is genetic (I.e. you are born that way) doesn’t make it good, much less worth being proud of or celebrating publicly.
I’d say the fact that normalizing gay marriage has a huge negative impact on society is at this point nearly obvious. Does anyone really think the trans-agenda, gender spectrum “theory”, and burgeoning pro-pedophilia movements would be where they are today if gay marriage had been rejected?
You're mixing different problems.
Gay marriage, so long as it has been maintained, confers all the benefits of marriage to gay men, and makes them significantly better off than even heterosexual couples because two men working full time bring in an absolutely shitload of money and make them very upwardly mobile (the same is not true for Lesbians).
Gay marriage itself does effectively nothing to society, as it was always a choice for gay men to partner up anyway.
Your issue is with Leftism through the Queer Revolutionary Movement. Accepting or not accepting gay marriage does nothing to dissuade or incentivize Leftism. It's like saying that Socialism wouldn't have come to America if it didn't accept a minimum wage. One wedge policy does not stop Leftism.
Gay marriage and the “Queer Revolutionary Movement” are one and the same. You need to understand who the people are behind the scenes pulling the strings. Gay marriage was never about a genuine concern for peoples rights like the civil rights movement was — it was a masquerade, a skin suit that mimicked the civil rights movement with the goal of creating a wedge issue that could be politically exploited and to further the agenda of demoralization.
Many “useful idiots” bought the bleeding heart justification for gay marriage and many probably had good intentions, but they were just being used and the rational arguments behind gay marriage never held water. But societal conditioning did its job and an activist judiciary gave them a win by overriding the will of the people who democratically decided to reject gay marriage through the state legislatures, similar to Roe v. Wade on abortion.
Blocking gay marriage wouldn’t have stopped Leftism, but it would have stopped that particular avenue of attack (sexual identity politics) and put a huge obstacle in the path of their demoralization agenda, ala. Yuri Brezmenov. It would also have improved society, or rather, acted as a bulwark against further degeneracy instead of further accelerating it.
You wouldn't have stopped sexual identity politics, because that's not how Leftism works.
You don't deny an avenue of attack, merely delay it. The attacks are permanent and inevitable. Gay marriage, if anything, has denied a rallying point around Leftism to give itself legitimacy to a individuals and philosophically liberal population, that doesn't respect government regulation of family.
Honestly, look at Critical Race Theory. Integration didn't cause that, the Leftist Racialists opposed it. Integration had a nasty way of undermining their avenue of attack until they could re-normalize racial segregation as "anti-racism".
No they aren't, the former is a policy that the latter adopted. I do know who's pulling the strings and it was Leftists that were sexual deviants and saw a way in. They pulled the same stunt with 4th amendment protections, racial anti-discrimination, free speech, opposition to conscription. That doesn't mean that we should simply destroy those things because of who first proposed it.
I'm not going to upturn the interstate system just because Eisenhower go the idea from Hitler.
Yes, I know, so was the Civil Rights movement:
I'm Julia Brown. For 9 years I was a member of the Communist Party, serving as an undercover agent for the FBI. During that time, I learned that the Communist conspiracy had been planning and working for years to bring violent revolution to America. It was to be a Communist revolution, but the great majority of the American people would not be allowed to realize that until it had already happened. If all goes according to the Communist blueprint, Americans will believe that the chaos and violence has something to do with Civil Rights. Our enemies were quick to find our weakest point of their attack. They knew that racial differences could provide them with an excellent wedge to divide our people. Their strategy, simply, has been to keep hammering on that wedge. To drive it deeper into our social structure. To open all wounds that have since healed, and deliberately to create new ones wherever they can.
...
Now this doesn't mean that there isn't a legitimate need for the advancement of Civil Rights for many of our negro citizens. Of course there is a need there. Otherwise, Communist agitators, posing as Civil Rights leaders, could never hope to enlist massive support for their schemes. The aspirations for Negros for full equality were not created by Communists, but they are used by Communists in such a way that idealistic Americans of all races can be tricked into implementing the Communist blueprint for revolution.
Having been on the inside of the Communist Party, it's easy for me to recognize this revolutionary agitation in disguise. But, the average American finds it hard to believe that something as worthy and noble sounding as a Civil Rights movement could possibly be a Communist maneuver.
Keywords: "Of course there is a need there. Otherwise, Communist agitators, posing as Civil Rights leaders, could never hope to enlist massive support for their schemes
Civil Rights goes back to the Civil War, long before Russia became involved. The primary enemy of the civil rights movement were Democrat judges who upheld Jim Crow laws. The Republicans were the ones who passed the Civil Rights Act, negating the power of these judges.
Of course Communists exploited the movement just like they exploit everything else, but that doesn’t mean the Civil Rights movement was Communist in origin or motivation.
Right, I didn't say that it was. Neither was gay marriage. It was a genuine cause that the state didn't need to regulate families to that degree. Gay marriages themselves have changed effectively nothing because the number of people it effected in reality was so small.
Yes, I know you believe that, and you’re wrong. Gay marriage was always a political ploy sold to people as a civil rights issue. Most gay people didn’t even care about marriage until they were told that denial of marriage was a denial of their identity. The desire for societal acceptance of homosexuality was a thing long before gay marriage ever became a thing. Gay marriage was a natural progression for the political machine that always needs a new cause to justify itself.
Even if I were wrong, it’s irrelevant because it ultimately became political the moment it entered mainstream conversation.
Then we'll have to disagree.
Physically impossible. The government has no method of regulating a church. They can just either recognize a marriage or not recognize it. The government can't stop your church from allowing you to marry a cow, it just won't let you claim the cow as a dependent.
Your confusing gays and Leftism. Leftism has always sought to destroy religion as a rival faith. That's what you're calling 'the militant gay lobby'. Homosexuals didn't need the approval of your religion to be homosexual, or even to believe that it wasn't a sin.
I think you're wrong about there not being a biological link. I have a more longwinded hypothesis that it's actually a genetic trigger in some individuals based on the sex distribution of the general population in their environment.
The aspect of grooming simply doesn't account for all, let alone the majority, of homosexuality. It wouldn't even make sense for gender dysphoria ... because it's a dysphoria. That's a mental illness. Depression and negative self-image are going to be a better driver. And if you're interesex, well, that's not from grooming.
Even when it comes to instances of sexual abuse among children. We know that only 30% of those children who are sexually abused become abusers themselves, regardless of sexual preference as adults. The remaining 60% do not, and their sexual preference does not necessarily match that of their attacker or abuse. In the most severe cases it may, but you absolutely can't claim that it's 1:1. There's no evidence for that.
We can also use historical examples like Athens, Thebes, and Sparta where Pederasty was fully institutionalized. Particularly in Sparta, which was so gay it genuinely had population problems, and Spartan wives had to be shaved, dressed as younger men, and placed in darkened rooms to consummate their marriage. Even with open, institutionalized, pederasty; heterosexuality among all 3 city-states was still the norm. Obviously heterosexuality is a biological imperative that exists regardless of 100% institutionalization and normalization of pederasty. Wherefore, if homosexuality were a pure social construct that had no biological roots, you would also have to consider that heterosexuality were just as socially constructed, and that it a purely homosexual environment, you could basically eliminate heterosexuality altogether through grooming. But we know that didn't happen, and can't. Instead, we find homosexuality to exist, but to generally rare, only becoming more common when the imbalance of sexes is high. One of the more interesting studies I've seen is that the likelihood of a male child growing up to be homosexual is very low until that child is the 3rd brother. I think there's a biological mechanism at play.
Anecdotally, the stories of many gay / straight-who-experimented seem to have a very common story: what I like to call "The Dick In Mouth Test". Basically, they all have the same story: the dude in question was good friends with another dude. For some reason the friend's dick comes out. Then, one of two things will happen:
The dude in question will have an urge to put his friend's dick in his mouth. He will then enjoy it: this dude is gay.
The dude in question will have no urge to put his friend's dick in his mouth. If, for some reason the friend's dick somehow gets into the dude's mouth, he will be very uncomfortable: this dude is straight.
Seriously, this story is bizarrely common.
I believe that "sudden urge to put a dick in your mouth" is clearly not a socially conditioned. It appears to be as much of a biological driver as a guy looking at tits. It simply can't be helped because it's not a conscious choice. On the flip side, being highly uncomfortable with a dick in your mouth seems completely reasonable for a heterosexual, in the same way why a lot of gay men are disgusted by vaginas, and have no interest in breasts.
Every time this comes up there is a simple question that disrupts this line of thinking and you -- like all others who I've asked previously -- will either have to ignore the question or deflect, because it's not rooted in the basic fundamentals of biogenetics nor neurology, and that question is: where is the neonatal allele strand that determines homosexuality?
You'll point to the studies that have examined the epigenetic effects of homosexuality that claim, post-observation, that they have found genetic markers in homosexual behaviour. As I pointed out in previous comments, all of those links are attached to behavioural traits that were expressed as a phenotype AFTER the subjects became engaged in homosexuality; namely markers associated with depression, emotional imbalances, and heavy substance abuse.
Unfortunately people have been far too brainwashed by all of the misinformation floating around out there by pseudo-scientists and propagandists to understand the differences between social conditioning and genetic influences.
EDIT:
As an addendum.... your deferring to homosexuality having a basis in genetics is begging the question.
This here is the perfect example of, as you mentioned, sociological institutionalization of homosexuality, having zero basis in genetics. Especially considering that if it were gene-based they wouldn't be able to dress the women like little boys to get the men to have sex with them. So they used behavioural conditioning for the men to engage in pederasty and then that same behavioural conditioning to get the men to have sex with the women. That's a mutable trait -- if there was a genetic component there then they wouldn't have been able to be groomed one way and then the other through sociological conditioning.
You're begging the question again while ignoring basic biological science.
Human males and females are sexually dimorphic, meaning only males can inseminate females for impregnation and only females can become impregnated by insemination. That in itself is biological essentialism.
When puberty comes into play the average man will want to inseminate a woman. When a woman is ovulating, the average woman will want to be inseminated by a man as a biological necessity of procreation.
There is no biological necessity inherent in homosexual behaviour since neither two men nor two women can procreate. So the act is purely out of an expression of lust, and/or a need/desire to engage in sexual release, as evident with homosexual behaviour observed in animals typically when there aren't enough males/females for mating pairs. They (re)act out of primal urges. That's not genetic, it's instinctual; part of a base set of primal hormonal responses, sort of like how perfectly straight men will sometimes engage in homosexual acts in prison due to a lack of female companionship.
And before the instincts tangent is brought into the equation, the arguments surrounding the normalization of various instinctual acts is also moot, because people have all sorts of urges, thoughts, or desires. But the thoughts based on said urges are formulated through environmental stimuli, and without that stimuli the urges have no way to materialize as thought patterns.
People keep pushing forward without looking at the damage being caused. We currently are egregiously shortsighted on the biological damage being caused by social media, plastics, hormones, antibiotics, birth control, etc. it’s terrifying how much information we have available that no one talks about and the government enables.
Exactly this!
There are a myriad of factors that do negatively impact biological growth, and everything from disruptive propaganda, to GMOs, to whatever they're putting in the water, to everything else in between.
One big factor in all of that, though, is the largest search engines and media (and even the education system) hiding a lot of information that would otherwise help people become more informed.
But an informed populace is a dangerous populace, and so that's why there is such effort from the Powers That Be to keep the populace disinformed at every turn.
I'm not a geneticist so I can't give you such information. However, I don't think you are even correct. Typically that's not how anything in genetics works. It sounds like you are looking for one specific "gene". There is no gay gene. There is also no IQ gene, and we know that IQ is heavily influenced by genetics.
Not only that, but you're not addressing my argument. You're coming at it from your perspective not mine. I'm not asserting that I have genetic evidence. I'm saying I have historical and anecdotal evidence that it very likely isn't purely environmental, which is the implied argument from someone arguing pure genetic determinism. I'm tackling the problem from the alternative hypothesis. Let us assume all homosexual conduct is socially conditioned through grooming and there is NEVER a biological driver (which would be absurd on it's face). Could that hypothesis pass given what we already know elsewhere: No.
To be honest, full genetic determinism is a pretty silly argument to make, because that's pretty much not how humans operate generally. The idea that environment has no effect is mostly nonsense. It's an issue of degrees.
Of course, as you said, we already have the science saying there is no gay gene, but if you're going to say there is a genetic basis then the burden is on you to provide that there is a genetic component involved during the neo-natal, peri-natal, or pre-natal development process.
So far, there is zero neurophysiological evidence that even comes close to certifying this point of contention. In fact, the more we learn about neurological functioning during fetal development the more it completely nullifies any arguments about any potential genetic factor being involved.
Even if you want to split hairs that there is no single allele strand then where are the strands (plural)? Where are the genes that aren't affected by epigenetics?
That's why I said you're begging the question, because you've arrived at a conclusion based on zero evidence.
This is a false equivalence.
We know that various physiological capabilities/disabilities can be acquired through hereditary traits. For instance, memory retention, coordination, spatial articulation, and capacitive congruence, as well as sensory capabilities such as quality of eyesight, auricular attentiveness, or a heightened (or diminished) olfactory. This can affect a child's ability to retain, learn, focus, or develop intellectual capacities and capabilities.
For example, someone who is an excelled musician will develop epigenetic traits for hand-eye coordination, muscle memory, and sensory growth related to tone, pitch, and intonation. Developing traits that influence your biological chemistry can also affect an offspring, same as detrimental vices such as drugs or alcohol. In any case, this is why kids born to parents who have addictions come out with various disabilities or even neurological impairments, and it's typically why kids born to parents who have developed or excelled in an area of expertise, such as certain math, sciences, or arts, are more likely to develop in that area as well via cultivation. If you look at most accomplished music composers they were born into a home where one or both parents were also accomplished musicians.
The same thing applies to a lot of athletes as well, with certain athletes more likely inheriting certain traits that allowed them to excel with specific physical proficiency if their parent also had developed that trait.
However, your comparison falls flat between I.Q., and homosexuality because the expression of intellect is behavioural, not genetic, just like the expression of homosexuality is behavioural, not genetic. However, the capacity for intellect can be genetic, just like the capacity for a higher or lower sex drive can be genetic, but not the expression of said behaviour (there have been plenty of rapists who were impotent: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1795615/).
Furthermore, even then, there are a lot of factors that contribute to the expression of intellect, from sleep, to nutrition, to subculture, to education:
In short, this is why there is no single I.Q., allele strand because "intelligence" cannot be quantified as a singular paradigm, and much like homosexuality, we usually measure the epigenetic components of I.Q., after gene expression has occurred (usually after a child has developed and has been influenced in some capacity by their environment). It's a construction of behavioural expressions based on various genetic and learned factors.
Now homosexuality is based on behavioural acts, typically estimated as being based on sexual attraction. So what is sexual attraction? Sexual attraction is based on stimuli that excites the gonads. Well, how does that happen? Stimulated senses. Well, we now have a problem because as mentioned above, during the neo-natal process human sensory organs aren't fully developed due to the fact that the limbic system that allows us to perceive sensory stimuli isn't fully developed.
So this leads us back to the conundrum about genetic traits versus behaviour, because if there is no allele strand(s) attached to homosexuality, and the required behaviour traits of homosexuality requires sensory input, then it means it's developed post-natal. Because how can you have innate attraction before your senses are developed?
A good way of testing that concept is this: try to explain something you find attractive that doesn't require your five senses?
If you can't, then how can you have an innate attraction to something when the organs necessary for that attraction aren't developed at birth? And we already know that attraction of anything or towards anything is based on risk/reward, punishment/incentive factors related to stimuli, and we can only assess those traits through environmental influence, hence learned behaviour.
Except those examples are flawed for a number of reasons (I added that in the edited addendum of my first comment).
Could that hypothesis pass based on what exactly? Limited information based on anecdotes and historically insufficient data points? That's not a very convincing argument against that proposed assumption, even if it may be true.
This I can agree on.
Where is the neonatal allele strand that determines height?
Height can be affected by a number of gene clusters, up to 700 in fact. Polygenic clusters that are negatively impacted by hereditary or birthing defects can also affect height, along with nutrition, sleep, and region (i.e., altitude, weather, etc.)
You can actually read up on some of the clusters and strands that can impact height here: https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/understanding/traits/height/
Anything else?
Heritability is based on observational studies.
Rlevant part from your article is "which genes these variants are in and what they do to affect height are only partially understood".
Point being that there are a lot of things we don't know about genes. We don't know in exactly what way height or intelligence is genetic, we only know that they are based on observation and definition. And those are the most well studied, much more than homosexuality which no one wants to touch out of fear of woke backlash.
Essentially, you haven't proven that homosexuality isn't genetic. You've just stated that we don't know for sure yet to what degree it's genetic. If you frame it like that, no one will dissagree with you. Everything is a combination of genetics, epigenetics, and environment. That's not controversial.
You're arguing the exact same way a normie argues if you try to talk to them about the genetic and heritable component in IQ. They start going down a convoluted path to try to discredit you attacking everything from core assumptions to methodology to nitpicking on the smallest meaningless points. The best you can get out of this is a conclusion of "we don't know" but at a riddiculously high epistomological standard.
So it's pointless for you to make a negative argument. Can you put together a convincing positive argument? Something less retarded than "all gays were diddled and that's what turned them gay"? Something that doesn't have even bigger questionsmarks and holes around it than "probably homosexuality developed because group selection is real and there was an evolutionary advantage to having some % of non-reproducing caretakers".
Yes we do know in some exact ways intelligence and height are genetic. Follow the links in my previous comment about genetic inheritance affecting intellectual capacity. Those are irrefutable traits that can be observed in gene clusters during the natal period of development.
It's the same way that we know for a fact that the lack of proper nutrients from the FGF43 gene or the GH1 hormone gene affects growth. These are just a few of the strands part of more than 700 gene clusters that affect height. We know this and can observe this from the natal stage of development up until adulthood.
How tall someone becomes is based on their environmental conditioning, though, just like how intellect someone becomes is based on their environmental conditioning. Physiological capacity is not the same as behavioural growth.
But in regards to homosexuality... where are the genes that force you to become homosexual? What gene clusters are they located in? Where are these allele strands?
I keep asking this question, and no one in any community, not even the science community, opts to answer. There's just a lot of equivocation about gene percentages affecting homosexual behaviour, yet zero indication what these genes are and where they're located or what they do, especially during perinatal and neonatal development.
Except they have touched it, thousands and thousands and thousands of times with pointless and meandering bloviating and sophistry.
Nearly 40,00 articles about the subject matter, and all of it avoids the basic scientific question that should have been raised when the false postulations were put forth back in the 1980s: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/?term=homosexual
And of the multiple studies that were done, none of them could show any gene clusters associated with homosexuality during natal development: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02585-6
All of the science related to observing gene expression in homosexuals only showcases traits expressed in post-behavioural epigenetics, specifically gene expression related to addiction, heavy marijuana use, and depression.
Common sense tells us that it stands to reason that a myriad of environmental conditions play various roles in helping that behaviour develop, since no one is born with genes based solely on culturally developed traits.
Except this is completely wrong. I'm not the one who claimed, as a truism, that people are born gay. This was started as a hoax based on nothing, ZERO science. And yet it was taken at face value.
Now people are wrongly attacking anyone who criticizes that falsehood and upholding that falsehood under zero scrutiny.
You're right that there SHOULD be a hypothesis that asks “Can you be born gay and is homosexuality genetic?” at which point the question should be scrutinized until it is validated.
All of the genetic and neurological results today emphatically says NO you are not born gay because there is zero evidence to support that claim, in fact the evidence all points in the opposite direction.
This is the crux of the issue here, though, because everyone who believes what you believe are working backwards to find evidence to support a claim rooted in nothing.
It's the equivalent of everyone who believes that the Russians hacked the 2016 elections because Hillary Clinton said so, therefore they're now trying to find evidence to support the claim. As opposed to finding evidence that the Russians hacked the 2016 elections and then Hillary made a claim based on the evidence.
Do you not see how asinine that is? That an unverified and unvalidated claim is taken as a truism and anyone who questions it or attempts to scrutinize its validity is condemned or castigated, as opposed to the claim itself being scrutinized?
No one in this thread who supports the “born gay” hoax has even bothered to ask the same simple questions I'm asking, not even you. In fact, you're actually defending the opposite position, that homosexuality could be genetic even though you have no evidence to support that claim.
Your position should be, "Maybe people could be born gay but there is no science that supports that position based on the publicly available literature". That would be the reasonable stance to take for anyone who hasn't actually studied physiology or genetics.
The problem is that there never has been evidence to support that claim because because everyone has gone about addressing the issue backwards.
That's why in my above comment I said anyone supporting that homosexuality is rooted in some form of genetics is committing the fallacy of begging the question. Why? Because...
WHERE. IS. THE. EVIDENCE?
It's like claiming the sun is purple and stating it must be true, and anyone who doesn't believe it is homophobic. And so for 40 years scientists desperately attempt to find evidence to prove that the sun is purple, as opposed to asking “Is the sun purple?” and examining spectral analysis and realizing the sun, in fact, is not purple.
That's where we are with the “born gay” hoax. Everyone brainwashed to believe a lie and hold onto that lie because they've been inculcated to believe said lie with zero evidence, and anyone who questions said lie, is labeled as the one who is in the wrong.
It's ludicrous that we're even at this point where the scientific method has been so thoroughly and utterly destroyed to support propagandists' narratives.
Except we do know? Again, I already linked to studies showing the heritability of certain traits associated with intelligence. Here is another: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14594743/
Perceptual awareness and cognitive analysis are essential in intellectual growth. You can genetically inherit honed or reduced motor skill functions and cognitive processing, due to a mixture of various other traits as well, including speech discernment, eyesight, and motor-skill coordination. All of those traits affect your intellectual capacity, but HOW you behave and what behaviour you adapt will determine how your intelligence is exhibited.
You've also done exactly what the other poster did in the previous comment, make the false equivalence between physiological traits and observed behaviour.
Physiological capacity =/= behavioural propensity.
Intellectual capacity is determined by genetic inheritance. Exhibitory behaviour is based on individual choices.
Again, link to me the study showing any sort of gene cluster or allele strand in the natal stage of development that forces you to engage in homosexual behaviour?
Can you? No? Then you need to go back to the beginning and question the original claim, not the people scrutinizing the claim because it lacks evidence.
We know for a fact that intelligence is associated with inherited genetic traits; traits that can be observed in gene clusters during natal development. This is a capacitative observation, not a behavioural observation. Ergo, you can measure what certain traits a child may excel at based on certain genetic structures developed during natal growth.
There are ZERO gene clusters, strands, or anything within the human genome observed during natal development that even relates remotely to homosexual behaviour, a large part of this is due to the fact that the organ responsible for sexual attraction, the hypothalamus, is not even properly developed during that stage of birth.
It has less than 20% of its cell structure during that stage, and is only developed enough to help the gonads form (i.e., ovaries in females, testes in males), but not enough to allow the pituitary gland to secret neurotransmitters known as gonadotropin, which then affects sexual cognizance: https://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/index.php/Endocrine_-_Hypothalamus_Development
Those neurotransmitters don't become active until post-natal development.
I never said that. You did. I've argued against the anti-science, anti-evidence, anti-fact stance that gays are “born that way” when you and the rest of the people falling into the propaganda trap by the establishment have yet to provide any evidence showing any proof to satisfy that argument.
I just keep repeating the same thing, asking for evidence for your claims but none of you who support those arguments have been able to do so, not on the grounds of genetics, no on the grounds of biochemistry, and certainly not on the grounds of neurophysiology.
I would ask you to provide an argument that actually provides the substantial evidence that backs up the extraordinary claims that have been falsely circulating since the 1980s, but the best you'll be able to do is prevaricate and deflect.
This is an argument I've never made, and again, there is zero evidence showing immutable genetic traits dictating that kind of behaviour.
Otherwise, if people keep claiming it's genetic, it's about as inane as claiming that being a gaming addict is genetic, or being emo is genetic, even though those are all behavioural choices influenced by the environment, since there are no video game genes and there is no emo gene (although some genes can be influenced to enable addictive behaviour, any exhibited behaviour is still choice-driven by the individual).
It doesn't make any sense that there would be, and this is playing into their language game. Transgender or transsexual or whatever other new words they come up with are not a sexualities, conditions, or states of being.
"Gender dysphoria" - a strong feeling that you're a male trapped in a female body, or vice versa. Whether or not it's genetic is a research exercise that those of us without this condition will never have to worry about. It's rare enough that in non-Clown World most people wouldn't have even heard of it.
"Trans" - a lifestyle choice where you play act in public that you're the opposite sex, and demand society and laws respect your choice. Demanding we bend the meaning of laws which were written so people that can't change what they are can still find work is evil, but a necessary tactic to fully live the lifestyle.
Agreed, if dysphoria is partially genetic, it would be genetic like Altzheimer's.
It certainly wouldn't be fully hereditary, but I'm fairly confident a lot of non-transgender people are being given dysphoria as a result of early exposure to social pressure to become transgender, getting castrated or having puberty blocked, and thus causing them to be misaligned from the sex they were actually born as.
Comment Reported for: Platform misuse
Comment Approved
Kinda wish then we can find it early and abort the kid if they have the gay genes.
I think this is a good thing. Trans as a protected class is the only way to equality for men since conversavtives have utterly caved to the feminist religion.
Well I am gay and I wasn't groomed. If it's genetic it shows in a wonky way tough, cause I have a twin brother and he isn't gay.
My older brother is gay tough. So it's probably somewhat genetic? There has to be something there, since to my knowledge he wasn't groomed either.
Repressed memories perhaps?
Kind of a weird argument haha, I wouldn't know since they are repressed. I doubt it tough, I'm somewhat well adjusted so I doubt something that traumatic happened to me.
Sorry about your fucked up family
Funny how it can “run in the family” isn’t it? I’ve met more than a couple of gay dudes who swear up and down they were never molested only to later admit they “lost their virginity” to a 40 year old man when they were 12.
Huh... Okay? Nice smile.
Bit of a false dichotomy there are other options unless I guess you believe in no free will and you are just a moist robot subject to your chemistry and nothing more. There are other ways. Not saying I know what is right, but even aside from the genetic studies there are a lot of logical problems with it being simply genetic.
That aside, it actually isn't even a good defense against those who have a moral problem with people being gay [which is what 90% of people use it as, a very poor defense], once again unless you believe there is truly no free will then why does it matter for us to discuss this anyway if there is no free will xD.
I mean Humans are just evolved monkeys, our bodies are a huge part of what we are, I cannot even fathom what's the purpose of having a body attracted to the same sex tough (since you can't reproduce) but I'm just not attracted to females, I'm just not 🤷♂️. So I gotta deal with it somehow.
The key is being attracted to males. Just not being attracted to females would mean you're asexual. (of the sexual identity kind, which may be a psychological or hormone condition)
I'm attracted to males, and males only. No sexual attraction towards females whatsoever. Sorry if I wasn't clear.
You weren't unclear. I was just making the point because some young people who are asexual or undeveloped mistakenly think they are gay. When it may be that their hormones/sexuality just haven't developed yet and they can't tell the difference between lust, affection, and feelings of same-sex bonding that are meant to facilitate role-modelling. (not talking about you, just generalizing here)
Okay I get that point, I'm not young tough hahaha. I'm in my early 30's, so I've had a long while to come to terms with how things are and how I should react to them.
Somewhat high? I was losing my hair due to it (having hair everywhere BUT the top of my head haha). But I've been taking some pills for it and I'm not loosing anymore (I even got some back!)
Unironocally this. Our genetics determine our hormonal makeup and our personality. Human free will is extremely limited if it exists at all. Mostly, we just do what comes naturally to us and then rationalize it afterwards.
In the case of homosexuality, there is some evidence of same-sex attraction taking place among non-human animals, which indicates that either there is an overt genetic factor, or that it's a recessive genetic response to environmental factors such as food availability or population pressure. It could be that some individuals randomly express a trait that takes them out of the reproductive mix if population pressures grow too severe.
If there is no free will why should you believe any of the evidence you get from science on any topic? There is no reason to and in fact you shouldn't. Science requires free will to actually be science, otherwise you are just reacting to whatever your chemistry says.
Honestly, good luck to you but no interest in talking with someone who "has no free will" because there is no point to it anyway hahaha So good day to ya.
You can easily prove that someone who says he doesnt believe in free will doesnt believe his own bullshit. Punch him in the face until he asks you to stop.
If he truly believed there was no free will then him asking you to stop wouldnt matter because the number of punches he takes would have been determined from the beginning of the universe.
There's a difference between free will and self-awareness. Humans have sentience, but we are still biological beings and trying to act as if your character and behaviour are not determined by your biology and genetics is to deny reality.
Sorry I would type more but you literally don't have the free will to believe anything your chemistry tells you not to believe including that this text is something entirely different than what I actually typed. [and I am not speaking physical observation]
No, you are a scientific materialist. Its scientific materialism that is leading us on a direct path to Hell
I'm a biological essentialist: Evolutionary psychology explains virtually everything about human behaviour. Whether you believe in God or not, either His will or the natural order is expressed in your genetics. You can try to rise above it if you want, and it might even be that there is some virtue to be found in doing so, but to deny the role that your genes have played in shaping the person you are is just silly.
Evolutionary psychology is the BIGGEST crock of shit. Not all of our motivation in life exists because monkey. Its just absurd
People justify some of the worst human behavior based on evolutionary psychology
The evidence for it is overwhelming. Refusing to accept it because you don't like the implications doesn't make the evidence go away.
There really is no evidence. Its just something people use to justify poor behavior. Man has a higher nature and an animal nature. Evolutionarians only see the animal nature and as such justify the worst human behavior
Not even the modern evolutionary scientist community actually agrees. They recently had a whole thing trying to figure out a new theory even because there are too many problems with the current theory. I am not saying here it isn't true or claiming that, but you are way off the wild end on it and clearly someone who has not actually followed where the real science is. You live in the realm of pop science, not where the real evolutionary scientists even stand [who are people who DO support that]. It is ok though, most people don't realize the massive chasm in evolutionary science between pop science you see in news/magazines/books/everywhere vs the actual peer reviewed literature of current evolutionary biology where the actual scientists currently working through the theories and ideas are.
There is no genetic evidence that there are homosexual allele strands. If there is, feel free to link to it.
Out of curiosity, is your twin fraternal or identical twin? Feel free not to answer that though
There's room for it to be biological but not strictly genetic, differing developmental hormone exposure causing permanent changes in structure that then affect behaviour etc.
There's also room for it to be largely environmental without it strictly needing to be "groomed", just a confluence of otherwise innocuous stimuli that lead to developing differently.
There's also a hell of a lot of room for it to be a bit of both, especially when there's lots of known subtle interplay between social environment and internal hormone levels.
Or the fact that we live in a hypersexualized society that encourages people to be proud of their sexual fetishes.
^ I think it's this one. ^
I think that can play a large role in it, no doubt.
Fraternal twins, mirror subtype (sorry it doesn't really translate well into English). Basically we are from 2 different fertilized eggs, but look very much alike (as in mirrored, similar birthmarks in opposite places in the body, that kind of thing).
I get it's still a subject of study, but if you are asking me for my opinion, I would say there very likely is a genetic component.
As for a developmental or environmental component? Hard so say, we obviously had extremely similar childhoods, and have very similar opinions regarding almost all subjects, but one is gay and the other isn't. Take that as you will.
Do you know which one of you was heavier at birth? There's a good chance that if you were the smaller one that you were exposed to lower levels of Natal Testosterone which is believed by many to be a possible cause of Homosexuality. This is also believed to be a component of why men with older brothers are more likely to be homosexual.
I was heavier, about 3 kilos, he was 2 kilos (yes, we were really big)
Hmm. Dunno then. As with most of those fuzzy things it's probably a combination of things which is why it is difficult to pin down.
I’m completely open to possibility that homosexuality is genetic, I’m just saying the evidence isn’t there despite everyone pretending it’s a settled question and the Left persecuting anyone who questions it. As I said, it doesn’t matter in the end, it’s just an example of the Left forcing the conclusion that fits their agenda regardless of the truth.
I don’t care how you are born, it’s how you live that will determine how you’re judged.
In point of fact, if the recently disproved theory of evolution was true, there are no circumstances in which being gay ever could be genetic.
Sauce?
Math. Turns out the number of viable mutations that would be required to jump species in primates exceeds the estimated age of the planet, let alone the supposed timeline we're given.
And that's if there was a viable mutation passed on every generation. Which there observably is not. Evolution was a handwave from the beginning.
I don't have the exact numbers on me at present, it was detailed in a fairly recent blog post on Vox Day's site. Check it out there, turns out nobody had ever bothered to run the numbers before.
Math is a huge problem for it for real. Like, beyond astronomical problem for it.
Oh people have totally ran the numbers before, for quite a while in fact has this been known, and there have been many books written about this. Just doesn't get brought up because it is "CONFIRMED SCIENCE."
It's the whole "Million Monkeys at Typewriters" problem. We don't have an infinite amount of time for the monkeys to get it right. Whatever they do type is also going to be illegible 99% of the time, even if they got close. Maybe if they had an editor/proofreader.... Oh, but that'd be intelligent design. That's clearly a stupid thought.
Seriously? How about basic logic. I cant believe people were conned into believing something with NO evidence that has NEVER been observed
-Dogs from wolves
-Broccoli, cauliflower, mustard all from the same non-eddible ancestor plant.
-Viruses that mutate every year
There is a liteny of proof to prove evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution is our best explanation for the fact of evolution. The same as the theory of gravity explains the fact of gravity.
This isn't an argument. Evolution is a fact of life on Earth. Species change over time. There is mountains of evidence.
The number of individual genetic mutations required to change species is immense, and the timescale in which they were supposed to take place is so short that it would require multiple viable mutations per generation to accomplish - which we can observe in real time today is neither occurring nor possible.
For example, look at what a single protein is composed of, and the number of correctly-arranged amino acids required to produce that protein, and extrapolate from there the odds of such an event happening in nature - much less the dozens or hundreds of other mutations needed to actually capitalize on it.
Not really. Mathematically it's already happened. Regardless of the statistics the fact is that mathematically it's possible and it happened. You're argument is akin to looking at a rock and saying it could have taken all these other paths but it landed in this spot right here. The probability of this specific spot is huge. Well yeah but so what. If not this arrangement we wouldn't exist to examine it.
The mutations also aren't random. The set that works best for survival and reproduction is what gets selected. Pressure from the environment guides the process passively so that the remainder is the best fit for the current environment. Not being a random process greatly speeds up the changes and also makes your mathmatic probability argument irrelevant.
This is completely untrue on so many levels. Mutations are often random and caused by external factors ie viruses, natural disasters, vegetation, etc. The survival of the fittest crock has been so disproven it is laughable. There has never been a provable case of cross species mutation, evolution that is provable is very limited, and took hundreds of thousands of years for very small steps.
By your logic it’s possible to argue anything is possible given enough time and random chance. Even if that we’re true, the problem in this case is there isn’t enough time to accomplish everything evolution demands. You saying “but it happened” is just assuming the conclusion. The evidence for evolution is nowhere near as strong as you were led to believe and there are all sorts of problems with it that were glossed over and ignored for decades because academia hated Christianity and wanted desperately to distance itself from it.
As a theory it could still have legs if the glaring issues were addressed, but instead they just seem to just get worse the more we examine them, so at the very least it’s an incomplete theory (as it has always been). You’ll get your head taken off by academics, anti-theists and secularists if you even suggest such a thing though, as it’s taken on an almost religious importance in that community.
No I actually haven't made that assertion or alluded to it at all.
By what metric? What standard? And where does the theory of evolution make such a claim? You keep making this assertion with nothing to back it up.
It happened and I pointed out where you can find evidence of how and why it happened over multiple fields of study.
You're ignoring tangible facts and imperical evidence making this claim.
Then point out the problems so they can be discussed. The issues you've brought up so far I've given examples of evidence that points to you being absolutely wrong.
You're using the word theory in the scientific definition when it fits your need and changing it to the colloquial version to also fit your need. It's not both. You're being disengenuius by doing this. Especially after I pointed it out. The fact that you still are doing it makes me believe you have no interest in an honest discussion.
Nah this is bunk. The fact is there is mountains of evidence for evolution and you clearly don't want to look into any of it. I've provided examples that you just ignore completely. You're going to need more than baseless assertions to make a claim such as evolution isn't real. Your argument thus far makes it seem that you don't even know what the theory of evolution asserts to be the explanation.
I didn't say you did, I said that's where your logic leads.
If you want sources just ask. Google Stephen Meyer, David Berlinkski, James Tour and/or "evolution mathematically impossible" and you'll get plenty of resources.
You can start here if you're interested: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noj4phMT9OE
We are debating the evidence. That's precisely what we're talking about right now. I'm saying the theory is full of holes (i.e. lacking critical pieces of evidence). These holes aren't even really denied by scientists on your side of the issue, they're just hand-waved away as inconsequential or unimportant (much like you're doing).
Unfounded.
I'm not prepared to give you a full dissertation on the topic; it's simply too massive and there are way too many issues to discuss. I also don't think you'll be receptive to it, so it would be a waste of my time. If you're really interested I suggest starting with the sources above and go down the rabbit hole from there.
I'm not changing definitions.
What are you even talking about? I think you're mistaking me for someone else.
You don't know me so I don't really know how you can presume to know what I'm willing to, or have, done. I've been debating topics like this with people like you online and elsewhere since the mid-to-late 90's... most of my life really. Trust me, I've done my homework.
Honestly, most of your comments don't make a lick of sense, so it wouldn't surprise me if you're mistaking me for someone else.
The mutations are random. Those that are selected for (or against) are not. The difference is important, and it invalidates the rest of your paragraph.
You should read on genetics and how traits are passed from one generation to another. No one who is actually educated on the subject calls it random because it's not.
You're being intentionally dense, and downvoting me is not going to help you win the argument, if anyone even scrolls down this far. The generation of new traits is random. The passing on of existing traits is not random, but determined by relative dominance of competing genes.
A finch in a seed-scarce environment isn't going to spontaneously evolve the ability to digest insects just because it would be evolutionarily advantageous to do so - spontaneous mutation resulting in greater fitness could, but again the odds against that are astronomical. The only framework in which that could happen is intelligent design, not evolution.
All of this is compounded by the problem of propagation. Even if an individual has a mutation that increases fitness, that new phenotype must diffuse through the species across many generations.
No it's not. Traits are passed from the set the parents can provide and the traits most likely to survive to be passed on are the ones that fit best for reproduction of the species. And this isn't always bigger and stronger traits. For example Peacocks select for longer tails and bright colors. This is actually a disadvantage to the males when fleeing predators. That isn't random. The same occurs with deer being selected by females for large sets of horns. Again another disadvantage as smaller horns require less energy and have less weight but still provide protection. Human females select for larger penises. Sorry it's true. They also select for taller men. Which is why our species is getting taller year over year. Again not random.
And again the theory of evolution makes no assertion to it being random. So if you want to make the claim that evolution is random then first prove that it is random and then prove the math formula you keep alluding too but never actually produced.
Neither the theory of evolution nor I make this claim. So I don't get why you brought this up other than to make a strawman argument.
Again you seem to be arguing against the theory of evolution without actually knowing what it is, even though I gave a synopsis of it. You're again being disengenuius and ignoring facts.
Dogs are not from wolves, but from a common ancestor. And despite dogs showing by far the most mutability within the species, they have not yet jumped to another species among them via mutation.
If the theory of evolution was true, and by the way pointing to a provable law of physics to try and lend weight to an unproven theory of speciation doesn't hold water, then we'd actually have a concrete example of evolution somewhere in the fossil record and we just don't.
As an example that actually fits within the subject, supposedly humans, Homo Sapiens Sapien, evolved from a common ancestor to chimpanzees.
But we have millions, literally millions of genetic variances from chimps. So explain them. Explain to me the rate of mutation within the supposed evolutionary timeframe, and explain to me where the species jump is between them.
Right this is exactly how the theory of evolution describes the process. Minor changes through time lead to big changes via pressure from the environment. You don't look exactly like your mom or dad or anyone in your family tree. Taken over millions of years and generations speciation happens. The famous fruit fly experiment was able to prove this by breeding two separate colonies of fly into two distinct species that could not interbreed.
It's also not lost on anyone that you ignored the other glaring examples I gave you.
I wasn't actually pointing to the theory of gravity. I was pointing to the wording and how the science community uses theory as the highest level of any hypothesis.
As I pointed out speciation has been proven through multiple facets including the fruit fly experiment.
We do have examples of speciation through fossil records. Tons! When we travel the ancestry tree through life we can find links in the timeline left in rock sediments. Never once have we found a link in the chain in the wrong position in time. In addition the Tictalac species and fossils were found due to scientist's want to prove that whales evolved from hippo like creatures and guess what they found the intermediate species right where it should be in the timeline in the fossil. Evolution has biology, chemistry, and archaeology all supporting the claim. Not the science community. The data. This is all easy to find.
Yes
The genome project did just this. The change from chimp to bonobo to early human happened when the #2 and #3 chromosomes fused in the timeline. We have fossil records for tons of intermediate species between the bonobos and modern humans. This all exits.
No, it doesn't, that's the point. I said it before, and I'm going to say it again.
Tell me the suggested rate of stable mutation for a species jump to occur. Then explain to me how that many stable mutations can take place over a period of, say, thirty million years which is the oft suggested timeframe in which humans supposedly evolved from a chimp ancestor.
Because the number you need to reach? Is in the dozens of millions of genetic differences. You could have a billion years and still not reach sufficient stable mutations that breed true and still not have a single species jump, let alone the many necessary to differentiate humans and chimps.
It is not mathematically possible. You are doing an asspull and just hoping that nobody challenges it.
That's not what the theory of evolution says so again it doesn't make sense as a refutation. It's not my job to make your argument
Show me your math.
They say the same about the germ theory of disease, which has also not been proven.
Gayness doesn't exist in nature, therefore, it cannot be genetic. Gayness is always a choice.
This isnt true. Apes fuck each other all the time.
Either way argument from nature is 60 IQ anyway so it’s irrelevant
That isn’t homosexuality, if apes were gay they would also not fuck female primates. This is a retarded misnomer of an argument that fags screech because they have no actual evidence of any actual gay animal, just mass animal rape.
Most animal sex is “rape” the point is homosexual sex DOES occur in nature. But so does a lot of awful things so its a retarded argument
An animal humping anything it sees is not “homosexual” behavior. Homosexuality requires exclusivity in preference. There is never consistent and persistent animals engaging in gay sex. The fact of the matter is we have been able to prove that animals poisoned by substances like mercury caused the gay behavior alongside other erratic. Pesticides have caused frogs to change sex and engage in homosexual behavior. No information we have points to homosexual behavior in any species being inherent or genetic.
Homosexuality appears across most species with mammals having the highest occurrence of about 20%. Your statement is demonstrably false.
Homosexuality isn’t when one animal rapes another of the same sex and then rapes another of the other sex. Quit pushing pathetic disproven drivel. There has never been a “homosexual” animal, this would require the animal to fuck only one sex exclusively. Looking for when an animal happens to rape another animal of the same sex and crying “homosexuality!” is both hilariously stupid and extraordinarily denigrating to gay people.
You've constructed an argument I didn't make and hour response to it isn't even accurate.
It is you claim homosexuality occurs in most species of mammals, this is demonstrably false. Every claim of animal homosexuality outside of humans has been completely destroyed. There are no other species that have shown exclusivity in sexual intercourse with the same sex.
For some reason you seem to be focused on exclusively which isn't relevant. Chimps have homesexual sex for fun all the time. It's not rape, it's not forced. They just do it. Dogs fuck each other regularly as well. And parrots will form homesexual bonds that are exclusive and can last a lifetime. So again what you're saying isn't true.
Again “homosexuality” requires exclusivity in practice. An animal humping anything it comes across is not homosexual by any definition. The argument that animals display “homosexual” behavior is noting whenever males act in congruence which is not homosexual. Two male birds raising an egg is not “homosexual” behavior, it is survival based on conditions. Other “homosexual” behaviors in birds have been due to toxins like mercury (sound familiar?). These are not naturally occurring instances of “homosexuality” that occur due to genetic or normal biological factors.
His point is you’re using a different definition of homosexuality for humans than you are for animals. Homosexuality in humans is exclusive, to the point of revulsion towards the idea of sex with the opposite sex in some cases.
All of your examples in nature are just animals humping each other and often anything else they can get their hands on including fire hydrants, tree stumps and even humans in some cases.
That's really not how things work at all.
Sure it is. Genetics requires being passed on to continue existing. If nobody ever had a child with blonde women, then blonde hair would be bred out of the species within about a hundred years.
Unless you're about to suggest to me that recessive traits that are functionally never passed on by the person who has them... will show up consistently for centuries? Because as far as I'm aware there is no such thing.
number of siblings and order of birth appears to be a factor.
We may be looking at something caused by hormone levels in the womb, which is not genetic.
However, we may also be seeing a genetic trait that increases the rate of fertility/breeding behavior at a cost of increased anomalies among the children.
If a gene that makes your mom more likely to have 5 kids instead of 2 results in 2 gay kids and 3 straight kids, that's still more straight kids born. That's still a superior breeding performance, even subtracting the homosexuals.
Is your father's name Gene? If not, then you've failed to account for a basic component of the equation.
There's no point discussing this with a toddler such as you.
Oh my god, just go back to the early 2000s where this shit didn't get you laughed at. Holy fuck.
Cry more, "humanist."
Yes.
Cry? I'm mocking your stupidity. Try to tell the difference.
I don’t think you should have protected classes even if it IS biological or genetic.
And old me would have say, everybody equal under the law. But now I’m debating that too. Because if women can’t vote, which they shouldn’t, then I guess I don’t believe that either.
You're 100% right.
For anyone actually interested in the neurological science (with actual studies/research) related to why you can't be born gay, I posted a couple of lengthy comments about the subject matter some time ago here : https://kotakuinaction2.win/p/12ih0L7Pvj/x/c/4J9LzcA967L
these threads always crack me up, both here and on other right-wing sites I frequent. a bunch of people who have clear disdain for modern science and scientists, trying to invoke The Science™ to support their preexisting gut feelings.
reminds me of this smuggie.
I love science; I have disdain for many of the people who do science, many of who are more interested in playing politics, gaining prestige and earning large government grants than actually pursuing the unvarnished truth.
But do you fucking love science?
It always cracks me up how retards claim something is natural then does nothing to prove it while massive amounts of evidence suggests otherwise. The closest argument we’ve seen to a biological impact is the pregnant moms hormones impacting the fetus, but this doesn’t explain why twins have different sexual preferences. You could always try reading about the actual studies before derping your thoughts around.
that's one huge strawman. when did I claim any of this? show me. you know absolutely nothing about my opinions.
I'm talking about the phenomenon of people who tell you they mistrust science and academia ...and then tell you to trust this screenshot of some anon on an imageboard with little or no sources or verification.