In nature you’re supposed to, being able to is related to health problems.
But yeah, I will raise my son/daughter in heterosexuality, if he/she wants to be gay/bi/etc that’s fine. But I don’t expect little boys to like other boys for example
First, it’s factually wrong. Homosexuality occurs all through nature and it’s not a mistake or random abberation. Presumably there’s some advantage to having a percentage of any population not reproducing. Perhaps so that they aren’t burdened with children and are free to fill other roles in their community, herd, flock or whatever. This increases the group survival/reproduction rate, even though they aren’t reproducing themselves.
Secondly, “supposed to…” implies that there’s something wrong with any non-heterosexual individual. It sounds like, at best, you’ll accept their homosexuality as natural but, at the same time, you understand that they’re actually defective. That attitude isn’t going to lead to good things, and not something I would like to see widespread in society.
And finally, the fact that you would even say this points out the need for more education on this in schools, not less.
That sounds like a you problem. By the way, able to and supposed to are different.
A me problem? Why ?
In nature you’re supposed to, being able to is related to health problems. But yeah, I will raise my son/daughter in heterosexuality, if he/she wants to be gay/bi/etc that’s fine. But I don’t expect little boys to like other boys for example
The “supposed to be…”, is a really big problem.
First, it’s factually wrong. Homosexuality occurs all through nature and it’s not a mistake or random abberation. Presumably there’s some advantage to having a percentage of any population not reproducing. Perhaps so that they aren’t burdened with children and are free to fill other roles in their community, herd, flock or whatever. This increases the group survival/reproduction rate, even though they aren’t reproducing themselves.
Secondly, “supposed to…” implies that there’s something wrong with any non-heterosexual individual. It sounds like, at best, you’ll accept their homosexuality as natural but, at the same time, you understand that they’re actually defective. That attitude isn’t going to lead to good things, and not something I would like to see widespread in society.
And finally, the fact that you would even say this points out the need for more education on this in schools, not less.
There is no “suppose to” in nature. Nature is literally random
Changes are random, the outcome throughout time is not
deleted by creator
Homosexual Behavior In Animals, - this article has 121 citations.
No, nature is bi / gay as fuck. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals
Removed by mod
Gay penguins are about 1 in 5
Male dogs also love humping other dogs regardless of gender too.
So why are there homosexual animals?
Removed by mod
Yes, very.
deleted by creator