And I compared it with heterosexuality as well, so no, not just conscious belief systems. It doesn't matter whether the thing you are talking about is an unconscious compulsion, a conscious belief structure, or your favorite sports team. Your 'argument' responds to all of the resulting statements with equal lack of effect, which is why it is a shit argument.
There's no legitimate compassion between normal and gay sex. One is a bilogical function to create offspring the other is not. I personally don't care if dudes get down but the above is absolutely true. Hetro eex gas a function beyond pleasure while homo sex does not.
So they're bad parents then? All you've done is explain why they're bad parents.
But your 'argument' can still be used against it. Hence it's a shit argument.
What "argument"? I made no argument I made a biologically accurate statement. Homo sex does not serve any function beyond pleasure. Doesn't mean you can't or even shouldn't be gay. It just means you aren't going to produce a baby that way.
That's not an advantage, it's just not a disadvantage. People still have Huntington trinucleotide repeats and mutated BRACA genes and they kill you in horrible, grim extremely painful ways. Just because something exists now doesn't make it an evolutionary advantage it just means it can be passed on before you die; and even then the specific 'thing' itself might not be passed on but rather it can come about from a series of cascading effects later on in life like the trinucleotide repeats, or as a reaction to epigenetic factors
What purpose beyond pro creation and pleasure does sex serve?
Pair bonding, but that does help in procreation.
Pair bonding is pleasure though? So...
L-Lewd
I figure it is more a matter of the ability to adapt sexual attraction based on cultural norms getting hacked. Like becoming attractive to people who are fat in a society that experiences regular famines.
Sorry, I screwed you up with this initial poster:
No, this isn't a rare thing though, we see it throughout the animal kingdom. It seems like it is behavior that is very widespread through a lot of different species. So much like play behavior, there is probably an evolutionary explanation for it.
Creating social bonds, for one thing. A more socially cohesive group works better together, and can pass on the group's genes more effectively.
It really depends upon the researcher and the species. For example, 90% of giraffe matings in the wild are homosexual. But those giraffes aren't necessarily exclusively homosexual (but I'm pretty sure some are). Other times, there are individual animals that are exclusively homosexual, but this doesn't mean the species is (obviously, or it would be a generation away from extinction).
Yeah I'd put bonding under pleasure as I said above. Bonding with your partner is pretty pleasurable after all.
1. I do infact hold my old ladies hand. It's not enjoyable for me but she likes it so I do.
That's why personally I draw a distinction between gays and "LGBTYQ7@4". I personally know 4 gay Republicans one a retired Ranger. Who flatly dispise and actively oppose the ""LGBT" movement. I can identify a bit due to crap like BLM. It sucks being pigeonholed into a politicalbox. Due to irrelvant crap.
I generally distinguish between LGBT people, and LGBT 'activists'/woketivists. Also, tag me in the new thread when you start it, please!
