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:
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.
That’s not the definition of homosexuality. Homosexuality is specifically about who you’re sexually attracted to. Animals can, and often do, hump inanimate objects. This doesn’t mean they’re sexually attracted to inanimate objects. I feel like we’re beating a dead horse on this though.
This is what happens when definitions aren't defined before a debate. If we don't agree on a definition then everything else is just talking past the person.
The primary definition of homosexuality has always been sexual attraction to someone of the same sex [1] [2] [3].
You're trying to claim animals humping members of the same sex -- as well as members of the opposite sex and other species and inanimate objects and anything really -- makes them homosexual, when nobody would say the same thing about humans. At most we would call people who engaged in this kind of indiscriminate sexual behavior bisexual or pan-sexual.
Nobody claims men become homosexual when you put them in prison. It's acknowledged that the act of sex is often masturbatory and doesn't necessarily require specific sexual attraction.
If you can't see the difference then you're just being dense.