Gay, Trans.

Your 100% question is the wrong way to look at this issue.

The only possible approach here is to look at biology to see what actually exists.

Has human biology provided a range of sexuality? Absolutely - just like in numerous other species.

Your attitude and desires aren't going to change biology.

 

I think that needs a little clarification, as new humans can't be created without a sperm and an egg.

I'm probably misunderstanding your post.

 

Show the proof of your “fact”.

 

Walking upright is not unique to Homo sapiens. It is a defining characteristic, it is not unique. The same for heterosexuality.

 

It's unique among species that are alive today.

No heterosexuality isn't. There are members of the species that are homosexual.

 

Primates (gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos, orangutan) walk upright. So do penguins.

How do humans reproduce? Heterosexually, method of reproduction is a defining trait in a species.

As already and repeatedly discussed, because an individual has an abnormal trait does not mean that trait then defines the species, particularly when a tiny percentage of the species has the abnormal trait.

 

No it's considered abnormal for great apes to walk upright. They are bipedal but so is a chicken.

Walking upright means your hips and knees are vertical.

Right I've said multiple times they reproduce sexually. I don't think anybody ever had the idea that humans reproduce asexually.

That's a different argument.

Heterosexual and homosexual are orientations.

You are talking about a sexual orientation. Having two sexes to reproduce is sexual reproduction, the opposite of that is asexual.

You're confusing two different things.

 

You are missing that sexual reproduction began developing about 2 BILLION years ago, before plants and animals became differentiated.

So, the idea that sexual procreation could be a "defining trait" is just plain ridiculous. It doesn't even differentiate between plants and animals!

Plus, the idea that the presence of different sexuality is a "problem" is also just plain ridiculous. After all, that is a common feature among animals (including humans) today.

You ask for "facts". But, you have consistently refused to accept how biology on Earth works, making up your own versions and then seemingly claiming that you can change human biology to match your personal desires.

You are the one with zero facts.

 

You have bought into the scam that sexual preference and reproduction are separate and independent. They are not. The physical gender is very very highly correlated to the sexual preference. The physical gender drives orientation, there is absolutely nothing in evolution that will drive humans to be homosexual, and everything drives humans to be heterosexual and to prefer heterosexuality. The fact a very few people have desires that are contrary to their physical being just means they are abnormal, it does not mean science has to be redefined just to make a few people feel better.

 

This is your dream, not reality.

Please remember that correlation is absolutely NOT proof - at most it is an indication of where one might actually spend time investigating.

Here are some HILARIOUS examples of correlations that clearly do NOT indicate causation:
http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

 

So do you believe that people who are homosexual are trying to reproduce hermaphroditically? If sexual orientation is tied directly to reproduction, then you would have to believe that.

so homosexuals just exist to confound you?

if that were true there wouldn't be homosexuals. Are you suggesting there aren't?

it's not contrary to their physical being it's in accordance with it. If you think they're going against what they want just to make a political statement why has this political statement needed to be made for millennia? Even within cultures that took no issue with it?

 

You're essentially saying homosexuality is wrong because it's not usual and that's not a good basis to determine whether something's right or wrong.

Lots of things that are not considered wrong that people do or engage in or prefer are not usual.

 

I think what you are claiming is that external morphology drives orientation. You say things like "physical being". But, that has to include brain wiring, genetics, chemistry in various glands, etc. It is not limited to external morphology.

Please remember that there is same sex orientation in pretty much all mammals, and probably beyond. So, your comment on evolution really doesn't make any sense at all.

You are the one attempting to redefine biology. And, I'm quite suspicious that you are doing that in order to justify societal exclusion or assault based on sexuality. That is absolutely NOT acceptable.

 

It's not absolute. There is variation, variation does not mean its normal. About 4% of people (about the number who are homosexual or bisexual) are sociopathic, there have been sociopaths throughout all of history, some sociopaths deal with their problem without formal medical treatment and function successfully in society, that does not mean its normal to be a sociopath. The normal human is not a sociopath.

There is nothing physically that forces or drives a person to be homosexual. No "gay gene" has been found despite intense searching. No intrinsic chemical or hormonal feature has been found that makes a person gay. No aspect of evolution theory supports homosexuality in humans. The human body was not made to operate in a homosexual manner (anal sex).

Could it be the result of environment? Possibly, but that's not been proven (or disproven, and in this poisoned environment, I doubt such a discovery would be allowed).

The normal human is heterosexual physically and mentally.

<>

Politics is a separate issue.

Because of a humans ability to think, and because of society's wealth, humans can make more allowances for abnormal behaviour than other species. Humans can tolerate some abnormal traits. When an abnormal trait does not negatively impact society, society can tolerate it.

The current political issue is that the LGBT community is extremely intolerant and aggressive. Its not enough for them to live their lives in peace, they have to force their view onto society and demand acceptance in thought and deed. LGBT's now negatively impact society and society is starting to fight back.

 

the existence of variation means that there is variation suggesting that the species is not heterosexuals because there are variations.

but because of the existence of sociopathic people you can't say a defining characteristic of humanity is empathy and compassion.

absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence.

There is no Gene for sickle cell anemia there is a genetic sequence that makes malaria resistant blood and in a small number of people that have that Gene they develop sickle cell anemia.

This is called pleiotropy.

Genetics aren't as simple as this Gene makes you that.

again just because nothing has been found doesn't mean nothing exists. There is no caging but kinetics could still play a role in a pleiotropic effect. It's very possible hormones could work the same way again your endocrine system is not as simple as your understanding of it. That's why when you have hormonal issues you have to see a specialist doctor called an endocrinologist.

And yes there is an aspect of evolution that supports homosexuality. It could be a pleiotropic effect. Meaning there is some benefit to a set of genes that cause something even though sometimes it causes an anomaly like homosexuality or sickle cell It's still worth it to keep those genes around.

And yes the human body is made to enjoy anal sex that is not a homosexual manner. Far more heterosexual people enjoy anal sex than there are even gay people in existence.

If it were not made this way then that wouldn't be the case.

it's possible that it could be an environmental factor that we just don't understand but it's unlikely. There have been twins identical twins that one of them is gay and the other one isn't despite being raised in the same environment.

We have very very good evidence to suggest PTSD is caused by environmental issues. Or various other diagnosis that have an environmental components.

But in so far there is less evidence that it's environmental versus hormonal or genetic.

yes I still agree homosexuality is not usual. It's just not that valuable of a statement.

I think it's the only issue with this. Sorry I've been cultures and societies that pay no attention to it. And then there have even been society today venerate it.

The only reason we're having this discussion is because in the late 19th century and early 20th century we had the Evangelical movement.

I think it's a dishonest to call it LGBT. Before the most part it's just T. And I don't even think it's that.

Trans people as in people who wish to live as the opposite sex tend to get along just fine in the world. It's the non-binaries and the third genders and all the made up nonsense that's really just an excuse to an adopt an LGBT lifestyle without engaging in the LGBT sex life. Essentially they're straight people that want to feel special.

I am a gay person myself and I personally find it rather odd house I can say that if it comes up in conversation to someone that I don't really know that well and they'll say oh that's so good no it's not it's just what it is.

I think it's good when people stay married to their wives or husbands for 30 years because that takes a lot from the person to do that being gay doesn't it's just something that happens to me. Like being tall or having dark hair.

Time with you about the generation of this at this level I think it's a little strange but then again I'm one of those people that just wanted to be treated like everyone else I don't want to be special. I don't want parades I don't want laws forcing bakers to make cakes for me.

All I want is a government to get the hell out of my way. And they did to me the movement is over it has been completed.

 

well I think a big part of it is not wanting religious traditions to be wrong. For instance there is a very simplistic view on genetics.

There is not a specific Gene that dictates sexual orientation so I can't be genetic at all well we all know genetics aren't this simple. Pleiotropy for example is a well-founded theory in genetics. And it suggests a gene or sequence of genes ,because it's not a one-to-one ratio, can produce a trait that is predominant and in a small percentage of people with this genetic to make this straight also develop an anomaly.

well we don't know if there is orientation at all no other animals many animals live solitary lives and only encounter another one of their species to mate. So this may just be projecting human behavior onto animals.

I don't think that it's for the purposes of exclusion or assault based on sexuality. Attacks on gay people by heterosexuals that disapprove are extraordinarily rare in our society.

 

There are significant gaps in our laws, employment, and behavior when it comes to treatment of those who aren't pretty much strictly hetero.

Let's remember that the current SC ruling on abortion included a shocking callout that the next step needs to be to reverse protections that do exist - such as same sex marriage, sodomy, etc. The court feels so strongly on this that they actually expressed a legislative and legal direction in their decision - rather than doing their FREAKING JOB.

There are gaps in law and implementation of domestic violence, etc.

https://www.americanprogress.org/ar...e-lgbt-peoples-lives-subtle-significant-ways/

https://www.lgbtmap.org/equality-maps/hate_crime_laws

https://www.hrw.org/report/2016/12/.../discrimination-against-lgbt-youth-us-schools

http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/multimedia/2015/lgbti-violence/lgbti-violence-forms.html

 

I'm not so sure laws regarding employment are necessary most places you work for it doesn't matter if you're gay they just want you to perform and if you perform to their expectations are greater you get promoted there's plenty of companies that practice nepotism and all sorts of other good old boys tricks and you can't really fight that. I've worked as a mechanic on construction equipment and I'm out I didn't have a problem. I'm not sure there's an issue that raises to the point where we need a law made.

I think this is a bit of scaremongering. The supreme Court can't rule on a Case unless the case is brought to them. I have a hard time contemplating a point where someone would have a legitimate grievance caused by two dudes or two women getting married to each other. He only hope that there would be that this would get reviewed is that if the state sued the federal government. I don't see that happening.

so all we would need to do is wait for a case that rises to the point where the supreme Court needs to get involved.

So that would mean the state would have to deny a marriage to a couple and they fight it all the way up to the supreme Court.

have to look at these links and after I do and evaluate what they're saying if anything I'll make a response to you regarding the links.

https://www.americanprogress.org/ar...e-lgbt-peoples-lives-subtle-significant-ways/

https://www.lgbtmap.org/equality-maps/hate_crime_laws

https://www.hrw.org/report/2016/12/.../discrimination-against-lgbt-youth-us-schools

http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/multimedia/2015/lgbti-violence/lgbti-violence-forms.html[/QUOTE]

 

Homo Sapiens are not defined as a heterosexual species, they aren't even defined by reproductive capacity because all species have to reproduce in order to survive as a species. You are conflating the need for a species to reproduce with sexual attraction and calling any human who isn't properly sexually attracted to the opposite sex 'abnormal'. Humans are by definition homo sapiens. Basically, we are a bunch of primates who have large and complex brains which has allowed us to develop advanced tools, language and culture. Homo Sapiens or humans are a gonochoric species (divided into male and female sexes) which allows for the species to continue. Sexual attraction is one of the traits of being a human. It doesn't define us a species. Homo sapiens mostly are defined as such due to bipedalism, ulnar opposition, and brain size. All the evolutionary primate groups had males and females and existed to procreate. What makes homo sapiens different isn't reproductive need to exist as a species, we are different because we evolved in anatomically different ways with the larger and more complex brains making us most different and that is what defines us as humans.

You are conflating heterosexuality -- the majority -- with normal and homosexuality -- the minority -- as abnormal.
Normal should probably be rephrased as predominant. Homo sapiens are predominantly heterosexual.

You are using the label 'abnormal' to describe a minority. When something is seen in only a small part of the population, it is 'normal variation'. Colour blindness is a normal variation in the population as is homosexuality.

The reason why the majority of humans are heterosexual is because humans are a sexually reproducing species. This doesn't mean that it's only normal to be heterosexual. There are some estimates out there that about 20 percent of humans are actually attracted to the same sex. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smar...opulation-is-gay-more-than-you-think-5012467/

If homosexuality is a regular lasting feature of all human populations, then it can be considered 'normal'. If homosexuality exists in all human populations that means it is a normal variation and part of being human. It's exists in over 1500 species which supports it is just a normal variation that exists in nature. All species continue as species because they are predominantly heterosexual.

When scientists actually research heterosexuality/homosexuality they, by design, make objective observations like "we have determined by long-term observation that 60% of all bonobo sexual activity occurs between two or more females". This is their conclusion, this would be a 'normal variation' of the population of bonobo's. Scientists avoid subjective conclusions like throwing in words like 'abnormal', and judgements like 'they, must as a species, be mentally ill". These kind of subjective conclusions are inappropriate and unscientific because there is no proof of abnormality, mental illness etc from their observations and they are letting subjective biases lead to poor and erroneous conclusions.

That's exactly why you believe homosexuality is abnormal. It isn't all in the mind, it isn't as uncommon as you believe -- in humans or other animals, and it certainly isn't a mental health problem.

Over 1500 different species engage in homosexual behaviour.

https://thenextweb.com/news/yale-study-shows-same-sex-sexual-behavior-provides-species-wide-benefits
https://blogs.scientificamerican.co...ame-sex-sexual-behavior-so-common-in-animals/
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/homosexual-animals-debate
https://environment.yale.edu/news/a...s, scientists have,snow geese to common toads.

Now, I am finished.

 

What do you personally think of my answer to this question in this other topic?

Am I an idiot to have replied in this way?

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...t-been-thomas-aquinas.602815/#post-1073787367

 

Good, because I didn't bother reading most of that BS so you can save the effort in the future.

As to homosexual species, yale is ultra woke and totally untrustworthy, but I read it (the actual study) anyway. It admits

"Evolutionary biologists have long sought to uncover the adaptive origins of ‘homosexual behaviour’ in an attempt to resolve this apparent Darwinian paradox: how has SSB repeatedly evolved and persisted despite its presumed fitness costs? "​

They admit homosexual activity is a problem and contrary to evolutionary theory, and they never resolve the issue. Its pure speculation and opinion with zero evidence to back it up. The authors even admit it.

So you fail completely there.

On to National Geographic. Their lead example is 2 male chimps born and raised in captivity - in other words, 2 chimps raised in abnormal and stressful conditions turn out to be gay, gee I wonder what that might indicate?
They list other examples, some are very likely displays of dominance (which NG doesn't consider, it just jumps straight to "they are gay!"), some are adolescent animals going through a phase which they grow out of (and NG admits it). NG then says maybe homosexual behaviour in animals is just gratifying, except the vast majority of species indicate sex is purely reproductive with no "orgasm" or other emotional gratification.
In the end, their conclusion is they don't know why (even though they give some explanations in the article, explanations that don't support your claim) but some animals engage in same sex acts.

Another fail.

Scientific American (what a misnomer), another fabulously woke piece of crap rag. And guess what? Its from the same authors as the Yale failure. Both published in 2019.

I guess you did not read your own articles, just saw the headline and did a cut and paste. Tsk-tsk, you fail.

 

[/QUOTE]
The SC is a separate branch that was formed to focus on one thing - determining whether laws and other legal actions are constitutional.

It's been a focus that the SC is not promoting its own political agenda.

With the current court, we find the SC clearly and explicitly promoting a political agenda that doesn't even pertain to the case in question.

Their call in the abortion case carried a clear message to lower courts and to those who whose political agenda includes assault on the rights of citizens.

Your comment on employment is a happy dream. I'm sure it's true with some companies. But, it doesn't match the history of employment where issues such as gender, sexual orientation, skin color, religion, and other factors have been a serious enough issue that laws have been required and are strongly resisted in many states. And as for government, there continues to be resistance to the notion that LGBTQ individuals should be treated with equality.

Marriage was not the only issue.

 

it can't. It can only rule on cases broght to it.

Explain.

is it? I'm getting myself and I know quite a few gay people and I've never heard of someone being fired for being gay you have to show me examples of that.

you can't correct history with laws the history already happened. I don't really care about history I want to see current events where there's all these gay people getting fired for being gay.

when you lump all these groups together it's probably because you're talking about trans people is that what you're talking about?

Show me these other issues. Don't just tell me the exist and expect me to believe you I live this life. Further I live in Texas.

 

~ In the near future humans will all be non-binary. Our pets will stay as they are ...

Gald to be a cat — a white one at that ! ​

 

Again, the statements in the SC majority opinion in the abortion case made crystal clear reference to other features in our society that they want to make illegal.

What the court says is clearly heard by lower courts, legislatures and activist groups that are encouraged to know the likely result of cases they can get to the SC.

You can read the majority opinion.

I gave you several links.

You stated that you hadn't read them.