Dewey wrote a book!

[bachophile]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_the_DSM

Leaving this here without comment, let you folks fight it out.

But I don’t think anything written will convince anyone out of their own convictions.

[Doctor Phibes]

Diversity in a biological context rather than its woke meaning is important for natural survival. If everyone was the same the entire species would be much more likely to get wiped out by some type of event. People describing anybody who doesn’t fit the norm as being in some way inferior, which the term impairment implies, kind of misses the point, as well as being a bit silly, and obviously pretty offensive to anybody who doesn’t fit within their definition of ‘normal’. Every characteristic has a spectrum.

And before somebody says their can’t be an evolutionary advance to being homosexual, because they can’t breed, then answer why it occurs so frequently in nature. Unless of course God made them like that, which creates a whole different bunch of questions.

[Klaus]

@Doctor-Phibes said in Dewey wrote a book!:

And before somebody says their can’t be an evolutionary advance to being homosexual, because they can’t breed, then answer why it occurs so frequently in nature.

Of course homosexuals can breed, and they do. They just enjoy it less. The vast majority of homosexuals has had heterosexual intercourse at some point.

[Axtremus]

@Klaus said in Dewey wrote a book!:

Of course homosexuals can breed, and they do. They just enjoy it less. The vast majority of homosexuals has had heterosexual intercourse at some point.

Like most cat people have petted a dog at some point.

[George K]

@Doctor-Phibes said in Dewey wrote a book!:

it occurs so frequently in nature

Interesting read:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

[Aqua Letifer]

@Doctor-Phibes said in Dewey wrote a book!:

People describing anybody who doesn’t fit the norm as being in some way inferior, which the term impairment implies, kind of misses the point, as well as being a bit silly, and obviously pretty offensive to anybody who doesn’t fit within their definition of ‘normal’. Every characteristic has a spectrum.

I'd be more impressed with this even-handed and measured approach to tolerance if it was universally applied, and not just to the wokes' greatest hits.

[Jolly]

@Aqua-Letifer said in Dewey wrote a book!:

@Doctor-Phibes said in Dewey wrote a book!:

People describing anybody who doesn’t fit the norm as being in some way inferior, which the term impairment implies, kind of misses the point, as well as being a bit silly, and obviously pretty offensive to anybody who doesn’t fit within their definition of ‘normal’. Every characteristic has a spectrum.

I'd be more impressed with this even-handed and measured approach to tolerance if it was universally applied, and not just to the wokes' greatest hits.

Or even just the flavor of the day, regardless of political orientation at the time.

[Jolly]

@Klaus said in Dewey wrote a book!:

@Doctor-Phibes said in Dewey wrote a book!:

And before somebody says their can’t be an evolutionary advance to being homosexual, because they can’t breed, then answer why it occurs so frequently in nature.

Of course homosexuals can breed, and they do. They just enjoy it less. The vast majority of homosexuals has had heterosexual intercourse at some point.

Then, are they homosexual or bisexual?

[Jolly]

@George-K said in Dewey wrote a book!:

@Doctor-Phibes said in Dewey wrote a book!:

it occurs so frequently in nature

Interesting read:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

In essence, it's down to sheep and humans.

[Axtremus]

@Jolly said in Dewey wrote a book!:

@Klaus said in Dewey wrote a book!:

@Doctor-Phibes said in Dewey wrote a book!:

And before somebody says their can’t be an evolutionary advance to being homosexual, because they can’t breed, then answer why it occurs so frequently in nature.

Of course homosexuals can breed, and they do. They just enjoy it less. The vast majority of homosexuals has had heterosexual intercourse at some point.

Then, are they homosexual or bisexual?

Review my "cat person petted a dog" comment a few posts prior and think: if a cat person petted a dog, is the cat person still a cat person?

[Jolly]

Lot of difference between petting one and fucking it.

Beastiality is another subject, if you wish to start your own thread.

[Axtremus]

Lots more where that came from ...

If a Republican voted for a Democrat, is he still a Republican?

If a coffee person drank tea, is he still a coffee person?

If a redhead lover had sexual intercourse with a brunette, is he still a redhead lover?

[Jolly]

Trying to trivialize and deflect aren't you?

[Horace]

I couldn't care less what people do with consenting adults. But if you want to claim oppressed minority status after choosing those bedroom behaviors as a middle aged adult, I might be skeptical. Especially if you're blatantly excited about all the rhetorical benefits thereof, in your lifestyle as a professional virtue leader. He gets to carry the banner of the world's most popular religion and all the virtue behind it, alongside the banner of contemporary social justice. He's maximized his virtue signaling position on a number of fronts, almost as if that's the algorithm he's following. It's amazing that some of you don't even think twice about it. It's all so completely on the nose for a narcissist who wants to be considered a shining beacon of goodness in this world.

[Klaus]

@Horace said in Dewey wrote a book!:

I couldn't care less what people do with consenting adults. But if you want to claim oppressed minority status after choosing those bedroom behaviors as a middle aged adult, I might be skeptical.

Agreed, but these are two very different things.

Gays don't need some kind of special status or protection.

[Jolly]

@Klaus said in Dewey wrote a book!:

@Horace said in Dewey wrote a book!:

I couldn't care less what people do with consenting adults. But if you want to claim oppressed minority status after choosing those bedroom behaviors as a middle aged adult, I might be skeptical.

Agreed, but these are two very different things.

Gays don't need some kind of special status or protection.

Actually, they do. At least in some forms of discrimination, such as housing, hiring, etc. The level can vary from 0 on up, depending.

[Mik]

They’ve certainly sought it enthusiastically.

[Jolly]

No, I think they've passed the point of equality back down the road.

[Mik]

I meant special status and protection.

[Jolly]

Correct.