Is the percentage going up or are more people willing to come out as society gradually becomes less judgmental? See history of left-handedness.
www.truthorfiction.com
While this argument carries no merit to begin with -- two brown-haired parents can produce a blond child, for instance, and one's sexual preference is not completely determined by genetics, anyway -- you also present as fact something that's not fact. Gay people reproduce all the time.
That’s a good point about the left handed less. My observation is a bit clouded. We have a female family member that married then divorced. She came out and said she’s a lesbian. Now after a few years she is not a lesbian. She is starting to date men again. Since I’m not gay it’s hard to understand this behavior. Wondering how many gay people fall into her category? Are people born gay or do the develop a sexual preference at some point either young or later in life based on behavior experience?Is the percentage going up or are more people willing to come out as society gradually becomes less judgmental? See history of left-handedness.
‘The History of Left-Handedness’
A years-old Washington Post chart about left-handedness over time frequently appeared in discourse about a perceived spike in transgender youth.
This is so well said. I can’t tell you how fast I would come to the aid of anyone being bullied for being different.. and I’m also a populist Lefty (the real left… Jimmy dore, Glenn greenwald, lee camp, Chris hedges etc). So that should tell you something when I agree with you verbatim and I’m not interested in anyone’s woke bullshit.
Neither I, nor anyone else, could speak for your family member. You'd have to talk with her about it. It's possible she's actually been bisexual all along, in which case being attracted to a woman at one point and then to a man at a different point is completely expected. She's also a single case that may or may not be able to be generalized to the larger population.
While you were doing your research, did you come across any theory for why evolution did not phase out a sexual trait that does not lead to reproduction?
www.frontiersin.org
I'm not sure you know what circular reasoning is, because your claim here is not an example of it. I was simply pointing out a flaw in your argument, which I'll re-form as a syllogism:
You're not aware that gay people can have children with opposite-sex partners despite their sexual preference? You're not aware that gay people can use sperm or egg donors (or be sperm and egg donors themselves)? Gay people have biological children all the time.
I am aware that people who claim to be gay can have children through medical manipulation just like people who do not claim to be gay can do the same.
I didn't ignore all of it, but I assumed none of it would consider the possibility there is no such thing as homosexuality, and instead would seek a convoluted theory to explain the incongruence with how evolution works. The first one I looked at did exactly that:
And, as I've pointed out more than once, genetics is not the only determinant of homosexuality (according to the research), so evolution cannot be the only factor.
Your hypothesis that homosexual people do not exist would need to be demonstrated. Currently, there are mountains of evidence that confirms they do.
Cool. How would you go about determining whether or not someone who claims to be gay actually is or not?
Because it is self-evident that there is. You might as well disregard science that seeks to explain why some people don't like coffee because it doesn't "consider the possibility that there is no such thing as people who don't like coffee."
So, you dismissed it at the stage of them stating their hypothesis, because YOU think it's convoluted, without looking to see whether it was proven to have merit or not? That is not how science works. Why should I or anyone else care what you think is convoluted if the data bears out that the hypothesis may be correct?
I don't have a hypothesis, just the knowledge that, as far as I know, homosexuality has not been proven to exist. I would be willing to change my mind if you could point to scientific evidence that proves it does.
Instead of pointing to scientific proof, you are reduced to saying it is self-evident.
Homosexuality doesn't need to be proven to exist any more than cats need to be proven to exist. It is simply an observable fact that there are homosexuals within the human population. The existence of gay people is not a scientific question, but a simple google search on your part will show you the research into the biological differences (genetic and otherwise) between homosexuals and heterosexuals. If they did not exist, neither would the biological differences. Of course, I'm sure you'll dismiss that research because none of it considers the possibility that gay people are fictitious...
That's because it is. Not everything needs to be scientifically proven.
Glenn Greenwald is a classic liberal which unfortunately no longer has a home in the “left.” Crazy how the woke kicked him out of the investigative news company he started. And how “populism” has found a new home on the right, along with Hispanic voters and non-public union members.
The lefties I follow all have to appear on tucker Carlson.. they aren’t welcome on msnbc
First, it's hilarious to see who 'liked' your post (Bob, Purduefa1 and Indy35.....classic) and second, what the hell is 'pansexual'? Does that mean you're attracted to cookware?
Transexuals are about .001% of the population. Clinically, I believed they're usually diagnosed with 'gender dysphorpia", which by definition, isn't normal.
gay people might reproduce, but they're not reproducing together. No gay man is giving birth and no gay woman is impregnating her partner. Physiologically and biologically impossible.
No claim that people are lying, just that homosexuality is so contrary to evolution and is so poorly understood that it may just be somewhere on the far end of the spectrum of normal human sexuality, per one of your links:
I have nothing to add here (I mean, do I ever really? 😂😂😂), but I have appreciated the civility between you and droid on this topic. The entire conversation has been pretty enlightening.
What's your point? Only one parent need carry a particular gene in order for it to be passed on. Would it be somehow surprising if a blonde and a brunette had a blonde child? Only one of the parents is blonde, after all. It wasn't like two blonde people having a kid. Aside from that, the current research suggests genetics is only part of the equation.
I know I said I was done with this conversation, but if homosexuality "on the far end of the spectrum of normal human sexuality," then it must necessarily exist.
Ok, that's clarifying. I thought you were talking about that magic moment where a woman (who really wants to be a man) becomes pregnant and crazy liberal people point and say "Look, a man can have a baby!!!"
Valid point, but I was thinking more that the relation to evolution is so strange and poorly understood that, per Occam's razor, what is called homosexuality might be an extreme and highly perplexing form of heterosexuality.
I'll end with this, I don't think it's accurate to say that homosexuality is "poorly understood." There's still more to learn, sure, but it seems you're only able to claim that it is poorly understood because you're dismissing all the things we actually know about it from a scientific perspective.
Well, making the argument that homosexuality just doesn't exist when we can clearly see that it does seems like a not serious argument, hence the suspicion of trolling.
Amen.
She said it was more a curiosity thing and that she has no attraction to other women now.
Ok, any number of reasons why that could happen, but I won't speculate on her behalf.
