Dewey wrote a book!
-
@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.
-
@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?
-
@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.
-
@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?
-
Lot of difference between petting one and fucking it.
Beastiality is another subject, if you wish to start your own thread.
-
-
Trying to trivialize and deflect aren't you?
-
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.
-
@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.
-
@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.
-
No, I think they've passed the point of equality back down the road.
-
Correct.
-
Discrimination.
As Americans, especially in the latter half of the 20th century, we've been raised to think discrimination is a bad thing. Actually, it is and it isn't.
We discriminate constantly. It's often called wisdom. We discriminate and do not promote those things which are bad for us as individuals or as society. While what people do behind closed doors is their own business (mostly), when those things are brought into the public square, if they have a negative effect upon society, we should not condone or promote them.
Gay marriage is one of those ideas. It serves no purpose that a domestic partnership cannot achieve.
-
@Klaus said in Dewey wrote a book!:
Gays don't need some kind of special status or protection.
Agreed.
Tell that to the guys in San Francisco who parade down the street with genitalia exposed, or masturbate in public.
I would get arrested if I did that - and rightly so.
-
@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.
Yes, of course that’s true. My point was that some have said that homosexuality is not a trait that is evolutionary advantageous, however if that was the case why does it show up even in societies where it heavily discriminated against?
-
@Doctor-Phibes 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.
Yes, of course that’s true. My point was that some have said that homosexuality is not a trait that is evolutionary advantageous, however if that was the case why does it show up even in societies where it heavily discriminated against?
Wisdom teeth or male breast nipples serve no evolutionary advantage either. Some traits are just a byproduct of something else, and that else may be evolutionary advantageous.
-