I'm sorry if I offend you, and agree that of all the posts I quoted yours benefits the most from more context. But that doesn't change the fact that those who actually study sexuality believe that homosexuality and people who fall under the lgbt umbrella don't do so for strictly genetic reasons. Within the context of a nature vs nurture framework both nature and nurture are believed to play substantial roles. Furthermore the "keep it quiet" generation as you call it basically stems back for most (though not all) of history and wouldn't reliably lead to higher 'incidence' rates today relative to most of the past.
Tulsa school district about to substitute biology classes with 3 weeks of indoctrination on "sex Ed".
- Thread starter RockHopper
- Start Date
IT NOT MY FAULT?????? IT NEVER IS????????? Like I said, make excuses as you will, for what ever you CHOOSE to think, and do! President John C Calhoun, the SLAVE OWNER, RACIEST, ETC. WAS NOT ALIVE IN 1947, WAS HE? Talk about a lame attempt to discredit anything YOU don't like, AS WERE ALL THE OTHER LAME EXCUSES, YOU LISTED! THE BOTTOM LINE IS, homosexuality is so abnormal, healthy animals, in their naturals environment, do not practice it! I have worked with animals my whole live as a cattle, and horse, rancher, and have never witnessed one instence of this perverted behavior in any animal except when crowded togather like this experiment did! ALL animals have hard wired mechonisums to prevent over population. Humans have been able to overcome many of these, that would have controlled over-population, right? I submit humans also have control mechinisums we are not yet aware of, and this rat expirment exposed one of them, in 1947, and people like YOU have denied it's existence, ever sense! Had YOU ever heard of this expeirment? And just look at the mess we are in? Homosexuals DID CAUSE THE AIDS EPIDEMIC TO SPREAD ALL OVER THE WORLD! I SUSPECT THEY GOT IT FROM FOOLING AROUND WITH CAPTIVE MONKEYS, IN LABS? TALK ABOUT SICK!
Ya I do deny that that statement itself constitutes hate and would be labeled so by the trans community. However depending upon the context and motivations it could be very hateful.
"Some people are better at things than others" isn't itself hateful, but if you heard David Duke say it you'd still shiver because you understood what he meant. Context is king.
Not to mention this is just a weird place to get stuck, historically womens sports has been an absolute punching bag and many of the people who complain about title ix have suddenly become staunch defenders of womens sports. High school girls have long been forced to compete against guys but it wasn't an issue until it involved other groups that people feel quite strongly against. And to my understanding even the trans community isn't a unified front about the idea of sports. Last but not least, in my personal opinion people put too much emphasis on gender in athletics anyways. If Rhonda Rousey, Amanda Nunes, or Hope Solo beat the ever loving **** out of me it wouldn't be surprising, nor more impressive just because they are female.
I firmly believe that approaching people with nuance and understanding as opposed to absolutes benefits everyone, but in particular the firearm community. We suffer from much of the same general lack of education that affects mamy other communities and taking a pro education stance helps, well, everyone. Making Guns an inclusive activity leads to meeting cool people and makes it harder for oppressors to try to take guns away
Is there any limit to the contortions we as a society should go through to pacify someone's feelings? If you are non-binary and prefer they/them pronouns, I'm out. I'm not going to be rude to you. I'm not going to snicker, to your face anyway, or bully you. But I'm also not going to play the silly game with you either. You can call it hate, but I call it silly and non-sensical.
I should use they/them for one guy? Should I use ze/zir too? Xe/xim/xir? So the guy feels like a zir today? Where does it stop? This stuff makes sense to you? Your take is I need more education to become more enlightened and tolerant? Then I won't be so stupid as to think there are two genders? Clown world.
What would people even 50/60 years ago think of this? That we had gone crazy, I suspect? And WE HAVE I GUESS?
No my take is that this started about sex ed and more education is definitely good.
If your name is Robert and you ask to be called Bob, I'm not gonna be a dick and call you Robert on purpose. I'd equally expect you to be understanding if I accidentally call you Robert. I don't think thats a silly game. But your birth certificate says Robert! So what, it is not at all hard to call you Bob and if thats what you prefer, so be it.
But to answer your question there is a limit to our efforts and its the no harm principal. If it doesn't cause tangible harm to someone else to "pacify someone's feelings" then ya its good amd you should do it
So the full curriculum is posted online?
Have you tried to read articles where one guy is referred to as they/them? It's definitely harming grammar. But to pacify they/them, we should speak and write such that 99.9% of the population will be lost? What do you do if you are writing about a married couple, both of which prefer they/them pronouns? Are theys thems?
Bless your heart you didn't offend, I was just noting your misrepresentation and was surprised by it.
Ok, for nature vs nurture, like or not there's been a lot of evidence to show a significant genetic component. Granted I'm not saying there's a specific gay gene but PR studies are indicating genetic markers. Couple that with other occurrences in other species and there's a lot of smoke there. Now you can try to polarize what I said to fit your argument. Hint: I didn't say the genetic component was 100% responsible per se. Either way, in addition to noted genetic markers in studies, and occurrences in other species, you have a prevalence of homosexual individuals throughout history and in several cultures. If "nurture" were significant or the majority of the "cause," you'd see at deviation or significant delta in the numbers across cultures, especially more conservative ones.
Therefore, the keep it quiet theory on my part is just that, but again, there's a lot of smoke there to say the least.
I guess I am a neanderthal (sorry, no offense to the one here whose username is that) because I may have offended someone the other day at the mall.
The wife and I like to walk for exercise, and during this time of year it is usually in a mall for comfort. As we were getting out to go in, another "person" got out of their car and walked towards the store as well. This other "person" held the door for us so I rushed up to hold the door for my wife and said, "Thank you, sir." After all, this person was dressed like a man and with short hair and had a ball cap and sunglasses on. However, the wife stated to me that she wasn't sure it was a man.
As we went on in, we headed to the bathrooms and this "person" went into the ladies restroom. So, I am now officially confused as to whether it was a lady or a man posing as a lady posing as a man.
My head hurts now, so God must be punishing me.
The wife and I like to walk for exercise, and during this time of year it is usually in a mall for comfort. As we were getting out to go in, another "person" got out of their car and walked towards the store as well. This other "person" held the door for us so I rushed up to hold the door for my wife and said, "Thank you, sir." After all, this person was dressed like a man and with short hair and had a ball cap and sunglasses on. However, the wife stated to me that she wasn't sure it was a man.
As we went on in, we headed to the bathrooms and this "person" went into the ladies restroom. So, I am now officially confused as to whether it was a lady or a man posing as a lady posing as a man.
My head hurts now, so God must be punishing me.
