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.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (138)
sorted by:
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.