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:
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.
I never said that is what homosexuality is or gave it as a definition. Homosexuality is the act of two of the same sex having sex. If you or the other person want to use that definition then ok but most animals don't form bonds so you might as well say they aren't heterosexual if the exclusive part is that important.