Hungary bans same-sex couples from adopting children.

[Mingle]

What if homosexual and bisexuals are also natural?


There are tons of studies pointing in that direction. You just do not know those studies exist.

Look:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3296090/

Why do you want to group feminine straight men with homosexual men? That doesn't make sense. They're different beings. And your claim that studies cannot differentiate between bisexual men and gay men is not true.

Look: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17394056/
Being good at mental rotation is a thing that requires a masculine brain. Men do better than women, straight men do better bisexual men, bisexaual men do better than homosexual men, meaning brains of bisexual men are feminized but not as much brains of homosexual men. Homosexual and bisexual women did better than heterosexual women, so they have masculine brains compared to heterosexual women. It's a spectrum.

What if dominance/submissiveness is also the result of biology? People who have feminine brains (male or female) are not dominant and will be attracted to men.

Why do you not want to think gayness in biological?

I didn't claim homosexuality is genetic.

Saying it is biological is not the same as saying it's genetic. I believe in the theory that masculinity/feminity of the brain (and thus sexual orientation) is determined in the womb by a cocktail of hormones and substances that act like hormones (eg microplastics can act like estrogen). Studies point to that. Another study: https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...91886916304044

Bisexuals are natural, homosexuals are not. Homosexuals don't exist among wild animals (only one debunked study from 1996 claimed this for one species), bisexuals are common among wild animals. Historically speaking, bisexuality was normal while no word existed to describe the concept of a homosexual until the late 19th century and it was just treated as a behavior that "bisexual" people engage in.

Brains are malleable, they can change structure and shape through activities and life experiences. I don't dispute brain differences, my dispute is claiming that these differences are innate and immutable. Biology can be an influence in your personality and behavior, I already mentioned that biology has an effect on career choice. But you can't dumb it down to biology only. Twin studies show that environmental influences are a major factor in people's sexual preferences later on. As well as studies about being raised by gay parents (especially relevant to this thread). Dumbing this all down to biology is ignoring these major environmental influences.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20642872/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6026959/

I mentioned effeminate men because I believe effeminate behavior early on in life is what causes people to become homosexual in their late childhood since it appears earlier than sexuality does. Womb studies like the one you posted have causes for a multitude of factors, but they selectively choose homosexuality and ignore all others. This is like that "God gene" study published by a geneticist making the claim there's genes that make people spiritual. Biology/genetics influences people's behaviors to a degree, and these behaviors or feelings can influence people to become homosexual later, but that doesn't mean they straight up came out of the womb gay.

Furthermore, in the modern age, we developed these boxed in identities of "gay" and "straight" that didn't traditionally exist. Having the option to identify with these identities mentally boxes people into them and tells them that attraction to others that don't fit their sexuality spectrum is impossible making sexuality less fluid. Even gay rights activists originally campaigned based on freedom of expression and didn't use the "born that way" argument until recently as a last resort (while privately acknowledging among themselves it is a lie and viewed sexuality as at least partially environmentally influenced).

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/2...eterosexuality

Sexual fluidity and change in sexuality still happens, but much less compared to before. Though it seems to be on the rise again with the percentage of people identifying as bi specifically increasing at a massive speed.

https://www.logotv.com/news/id73b0/a...fy-as-bisexual

https://c-hit.org/2022/02/21/poll-21...tify-as-lgbtq/

Even if you just want to look at homosexual behavior (rather than modern homosexuality) and say it is just a normal feature of humanity, then it would have a relatively similar constant across history and a wide variety of cultures. But in some cultures, it's very common. In others, rare to non-existent. Historically, it also varied between being very common and much less common.

[Rumata]

Just look at young generations: 20% of Gen Z identifies as LGBT, mainly because it has become a fashionable way of getting attention. This is mostly driven by young women, of whom >30% identify as some kind of LGBT. This would not happen if it were not heavily pushed to young people. When I was in highschool I only knew of one gay guy and there were no trannies. Everyone else was normal.

Yes, they push to the young generations things they want to play out during their lifetimes. They play very long term.

[Universe]

....

Ew. This discussion requires too much time/energy. I don't want to spend that much time on TA anymore. I may reply later.

My short reply:
When you say "bisexuality was seen as normal in the past" I don't agree. That type of bisexuality was not real bisexuality. By "real bisexuality" I mean when people are attracted to both genders. Vast majority of bisexual/homosexual activity happened back then because people had lust. There was no contraception so they couldn't have casual sex with women, porn did not exist so they fucked other men because they couldn't do better. Having casual sex with women would have resulted in unwanted children. But that doesn't mean they were attracted to men, they did not find them sexy. If I masturbate that does not mean I am attracted to my hands. People who have sex with animals do not find animals hot either, they just want to stimulate their genitalia. Fake bisexuals exist today too. A real male bisexual finds men sexy, just look at Tooting Carmen drooling at Anthony Josha pictures. Hetereosexuals, gays and bisexuals all existed in the past, the labels were used differently.

[rothaer]

Ew. This discussion requires too much time/energy. I don't want to spend that much time on TA anymore. I may reply later.

Btw when you say "bisexuality was seen as normal in the past" I don't agree. That type of bisexuality was not real bisexuality. By "real bisexuality" I mean when people are attracted to both genders. Vast majority of bisexual/homosexual activity happened back then because people had lust. There was no contraception so they couldn't have casual sex with women, porn did not exist so they fucked other men because they couldn't do better. But that doesn't mean they were attracted to men, they did not find them sexy. If I masturbate that does not mean I am attracted to my hands. People who have sex with animals do not find animals hot either, they just want to stimulate their genitalia. A real bisexual finds men sexy, just look at Tooting Carmen drooling at Anthony Josha pictures. Hetereosexuals, gays and bisexuals all existed in the past, the labels were used differently.

True. A good point.

[rothaer]

Bisexuals are natural, homosexuals are not. (...)

For ultimately analysing the conditions that are of biological relevance one should focus on the question whether there is a sexual attraction to the opposite sex or not. If so, you can procreate. Period.

What you do beyond that, collecting stamps or f-cking trees or folks of the same sex, may be okay, unpleasant or disgusting, but functionally it's irrelevant.