- Joined
- May 27, 2009
- Messages
- 27,631
- Reaction score
- 22,611
Who's a hate group? and if you already know the story please share, don't be shy.
Unless your post is just a slanted way of casting yourself virtuous and me a uniformed villain
Social almost 1/3 of gen z americans identify as lgb
- Thread starter grimballer
- Start date
Unless your post is just a slanted way of casting yourself virtuous and me a uniformed villain
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2007
- Messages
- 116,783
- Reaction score
- 50,028
Lesbians and gays are "wrong"? What? Sorry "seriously wrong"? The fuck is wrong with you?
- Joined
- May 6, 2008
- Messages
- 61,107
- Reaction score
- 22,706
I took a quick look and it seems identical to the Younger case. Court rules against him so he goes to social media to claim it was all the mother's idea, he even has people talking about MBP, which again is IDENTICAL to the Younger case.
I found an article from February showing a pic of Ruby at age 9 saying "see he's a male!" despite the fact the article is complaining he can't stop her from taking puberty blockers. Because he lost the case.
I don't know for certain if he's lying, but his losing the court case is pretty damning.
And Libs of TikTok is absolutely a hate group. Chaya Raichik is a piece of work and has done a mountain of harm.
Here's a video about the Younger case, which even fooled some progressives because who would lie about something like this? Well, it resulted in some pretty heinous legislation despite being a lie, so maybe they're at it again.
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2003
- Messages
- 18,268
- Reaction score
- 17,270
You sure you wanna use nature as a standard for human behavior? Mother Nature is a pretty fucked up moral compass.
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2013
- Messages
- 12,507
- Reaction score
- 13,329
I’m for gay Jesus
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2007
- Messages
- 10,445
- Reaction score
- 6,996
When arguments are made that it’s unnatural or some serious detriment to a species survival yea I’ll use it.
I don’t think being straight or gay has anything to do with morals.
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2003
- Messages
- 18,268
- Reaction score
- 17,270
For what it's worth I think consenting adults should be allowed to do what they want as long as they don't make it mine or my kid's business.
You're right, in nature there are no morals. Animals commit incest and eat their young to secure their numbers. Wanna eat your poop? No problem, gorillas do it all the time. I don't know how much time you spend outdoors but there are some seriously wild things that happen when animals become desperate. The argument, "You see it in nature, therefore it's fine" is pretty poor in this case. I just don't think using nature as a standard for behavior fits the human condition.
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2007
- Messages
- 10,445
- Reaction score
- 6,996
I never made that argument. Others claimed it's unnatural, which it's not. They also claimed nature wouldn't produce gay behavior because it wouldn't directly create offspring, which is false.
They also claimed it would be a be serious detriment to a species population, which nature proves it's not.
You can list a bunch of random behavior in nature that's bad to you, doesn't mean anything. I can list a bunch of selfless behavior animals exhibit. This isn't forming any argument that homosexual behavior is bad. It's just going on tangents.
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2006
- Messages
- 4,691
- Reaction score
- 1,917
Ok, so who lit the fuse on your tampon?
Having a hissy fit about my view on this is all good and well but you need to really give me a reason why you think I'm wrong in what I said. Not just express that it makes you mad and then just expect that to be enough.
Pretty much anyone who believes in creation will agree homosexuality is a massive sin. That's not really up for debate.
And anyone who believes in evolution will agree that homosexuality has not one single evolutionary advantage.
There you go, I've stated my obvious reasons. Over to you.
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2003
- Messages
- 18,268
- Reaction score
- 17,270
Yeah people claiming it's not natural are off on that one. Some species do it for pair bonding or to settle arguments, others do it to assert dominance, and some just like to fuck around and hump everything. Natural selection dictated the behavior of those animals and if that's nature's way to stop their genes from passing on then so be it. I still find using nature as a metric for human behavior a slippery slope. We'll just have to disagree on that one.
Gay behavior at 30% is pretty steep though. I can't think of any populace of animals in the wild that are even close to that number. For sure people can naturally feel that way, but I also believe there's a big social contagion to the numbers we're seeing in the West, especially within the transgender community. Being that there are billions of us on the planet, 30% won't be the end of us in our lifetime, but with enough time(a long time) we'd be in trouble.
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2007
- Messages
- 10,445
- Reaction score
- 6,996
There are species where the females focus a majority of their sexual behavior with each other, they still thrive.
Since the west doesn't define a relationship, even straight ones, by fertility success rates, and since they are numerous ways for gay couples to add to the population, and since there's no logic to we need 8 billion people on this planet for our species to thrive.... this line debate is pointless.
Gay people are in no way shape or form a threat to our species success. It's silly argument with no basis in nature or reality.
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2007
- Messages
- 10,445
- Reaction score
- 6,996
Bullshit. LOL every time one of you try to make an assumption about what the field of science believes, you can bet the complete opposite is true.
"Our phylogenetically informed analyses testing for associations between same-sex sexual behaviour and other species characteristics suggest that it may play an adaptive role in maintaining social relationships and mitigating conflict."
The evolution of same-sex sexual behaviour in mammals - Nature Communications
There is still no consensus on the factors favouring the evolution of same-sex sexual behaviour in mammals. This study presents evidence that it is a widespread behaviour that has evolved repeatedly in mammals, and that may play an adaptive role in bonding and conflict resolution.
www.nature.com
"Some scientists argue that most instances of same-sex sexual behavior are not costly, but instead adaptive—that is, same-sex sexual behavior provides some benefit that outweighs its costs. These could be benefits to survival such as social bonding, stress relief, and community maintenance."
New Science on Same-sex Behavior in Wildlife - The National Wildlife Federation Blog
Scientists have long known that animals engage in sexual behavior with individuals of the same sex.
- Joined
- May 9, 2023
- Messages
- 3,227
- Reaction score
- 5,852
I asked one of my really close friends about this subject because he has a 17 year old daughter who is a senior in a Catholic School, and he told me that from what he hears from her, 1/2 of the school is LGBT.
- Joined
- May 30, 2019
- Messages
- 55,043
- Reaction score
- 120,655
The suicide rate comparisons are stupid. It's always comparing post op people to the general population. You need to compare post op people to people who considered having an op and then didn't have one to properly ascertain whether it's a big factor for people in that position.
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2006
- Messages
- 4,691
- Reaction score
- 1,917
Lol, lots of "suggest", "could be" and "some scientists argue" in there. All that's doing is trying their best to make it fit. But it doesn't fit. Homosexuality halts evolution dead. Gay marchers love to claim it is a genetic trait (without a shred of evidence for that claim but whatever, let's assume they're right just for now) but if it is genetic, how can it be passed on through homosexuals that do not reproduce?Bullshit. LOL every time one of you try to make an assumption about what the field of science believes, you can bet the complete opposite is true.
"Our phylogenetically informed analyses testing for associations between same-sex sexual behaviour and other species characteristics suggest that it may play an adaptive role in maintaining social relationships and mitigating conflict."
The evolution of same-sex sexual behaviour in mammals - Nature Communications
There is still no consensus on the factors favouring the evolution of same-sex sexual behaviour in mammals. This study presents evidence that it is a widespread behaviour that has evolved repeatedly in mammals, and that may play an adaptive role in bonding and conflict resolution.
"Some scientists argue that most instances of same-sex sexual behavior are not costly, but instead adaptive—that is, same-sex sexual behavior provides some benefit that outweighs its costs. These could be benefits to survival such as social bonding, stress relief, and community maintenance."
New Science on Same-sex Behavior in Wildlife - The National Wildlife Federation Blog
Scientists have long known that animals engage in sexual behavior with individuals of the same sex.blog.nwf.org
You might find some links about "some scientists that argue", but that's not science. That's wishful thinking.
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2007
- Messages
- 10,445
- Reaction score
- 6,996
you posted "anyone who believes in evolution will agree that homosexuality has not one single evolutionary advantage."
and now you're triggered they don't agree and are calling scientists publishing studies "not science"
Every time you guys try to reference science in your arguments you face plant and end up screeching science isn't science.
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2006
- Messages
- 4,691
- Reaction score
- 1,917
A small minority of people who 'argue' against what I've said, obviously don't believe in evolution in the way it's taught and understood. That's why it's only a small minority. They're trying to make their own version (of what they want to call evolution) fit.
And no face plant involved. If there's zero evidence, then it's not science I'm afraid.
