The point kind of got lost when you started equating function with purpose.
[quote=“Xianwae-wyrmrest-accord, post:1823, topic:451845”]
If you go the whole way back, I was actually trying to be sympathetic to that by also showing why there needs to be an understanding of why some people don’t want it [/quote]
I know that from your fist comment, and appreciate it, so I tried to remain neutral. But, I had to jump in when you tried to justify homophobic logic with science. Maybe that wasn’t your intent, but that’s generally how those ‘unnatural’ arguments are used; and that’s also why they have all been debunked.
Fair enough. I think it does, but, you are right nonetheless.
I did too; I just get a little more heated when it comes to this subject.
Can we just not compare gay people to pedophiles and animal abusers. That seems rather demeaning. Not sure if I would appreciate it if people compared me to such a thing.
While I never agree with these threads. I always hate to see them go this direction but there is always that one person that has to say these things. I apologize for the more…idiotic of my orientation
I would like to make the argument that homosexuality serves a natural function that benefits the survival of many species. Specifically, bisexuality–from a strictly survivalist standpoint–is optimal for the propagation of the species.
While it’s true that same-sex couples cannot reproduce, they are still superior in function to a single parent when it comes to raising children. If a species were strictly heterosexual, and there was ever a gender imbalance in a given “tribe”, which is reasonable to expect happening sometimes by nature of random chance, you would have extra adults that would have trouble forming the types of bonds necessary for healthy socialization and child-rearing.
Homosexuality serves the purpose of making our ability to socially bond with each other more flexible, which in turn creates more parents that can help raise the kids in a tribe, and even creates a sort of safety net for if a child gets orphaned and needs another parent to pick up the slack.
This is why many species in nature display these traits. They do benefit survival.
Sure. I consider the Fake News Empire that benefits monetarily through pushing and perpetuating this narrative of “SJWs gone mad! Click for more” to be my actual enemy, rather than any individual person with disagreeable beliefs. I think that tackling Fake News, generally speaking, has the potential to greatly benefit our society.
Well, there’s a distinction between me caring about their feelings and me caring about their wellbeing. People are (broadly speaking) dumb and LGBT+ folk are people. Do the math and there are some LGBT+ people saying really dumb stuff out there. It’s part of being human, y’know?
I need to not care about their feelings because that’s an important part of filtering out bad ideas. If I didn’t put aside their feelings, any time I questioned a bad idea someone would get upset at me and I’d wind up having to cave to them. And if I went around supporting bad ideas that I wasn’t capable of backing up using hard logic, that would ultimately make it harder for me to advocate for people I care about.
I’m more than happy to have a heart to heart with people outside the context of critical thought and discussions, but feelings have such a high potential to be disruptive to any given debate that I’d be sabotaging myself if I didn’t put them aside when it came time to think critically and argue.
A lot of gay penguins end up adopting abandoned chicks so yeah. There is a purpose. I also tend to think gay animals help when a species is too populated so mother nature is just “woah hold on there is A LOT of you”
There is a breed of monkeys that. I’m not sure if you can say are gay but are definetly at least bi-sexual. They have sex for everything. Anger, love, boredom. They don’t care about gender. I forget the breed i’d have to look it up ….damn you animal planet and boredom.
Yeah! Imagine a small group of 4 adults. 3 women, 1 man. They have a bunch of kids because it’s the olden times and you never know how many will survive. The man gets eaten by a tiger while out hunting. In a strictly heterosexual species, the 3 women would act as three single parents, which is not efficient. That’s not to say they couldn’t get the job done, but having three bisexual women who can form closer bonds and act as a more cohesive family unit would do better on average.
I think the moral here is that the ability to love each other is a strength.
I mean I guess we could just have our world leaders deal with it. In this corner we got the great Wigged one the Oompa Loompa, and this corner the Disney sensation Winnie the Pooh… Everything below the belt GO!
man what a wonderful world that would be. Sadly I don’t think I would be able to live comfortably in it. While I do try to be progressive I fail in many areas and one such area is I could never feel comfortable allowing myself to be in that possession with another of the same gender.
