3 ms·

I think the appeal to evolution helps more than it harms, because it serves to point out the feelings against homosexuality can be classified as a reaction to a

I think the appeal to evolution helps more than it harms, because it serves to point out the feelings against homosexuality can be classified as a reaction to anything that used to hamper your ability to reproduce, like a lack of physical strength, hunting skills, slow running speed, lower environment sensitivity, etc. If a society has moved beyond the ‘natural’ impulse to shun members with some evolutionary disadvantages, it must consider that it cannot shun members with any of them. Homosexuality is always a subconscious threat, because until recently if you were homosexual your bloodline died with you. If your child was homosexual that’s one possible family tree gone, and if it was an only child that’s your bloodline gone again. So if feels like there’s always going to be some opposition as long it’s still connected to reproduction.

foldr 8y ago
>I think the appeal to evolution helps more than it harms, because it serves to point out the feelings against homosexuality can be classified as a reaction to anything that used to hamper your ability to reproduce, like a lack of physical strength, hunting skills, slow running speed, lower environment sensitivity, etc. It could be classified this way if there's scientific evidence to support that hypothesis. But throwing it out there as a speculation isn't helpful. >like a lack of physical strength Surely this shows how silly the argument is. Where are the cultures that criminalize having a lack of physical strength? >Homosexuality is always a subconscious threat, because until recently if you were homosexual your bloodline died with you No, because there's only a rough connection between sexuality and who you actually have sex with. Being gay doesn't stop you having sex with women, and you don't have to have sex many times in order to reproduce.

foldr 8y ago

>I think the appeal to evolution helps more than it harms, because it serves to point out the feelings against homosexuality can be classified as a reaction to anything that used to hamper your ability to reproduce, like a lack of physical strength, hunting skills, slow running speed, lower environment sensitivity, etc. It could be classified this way if there's scientific evidence to support that hypothesis. But throwing it out there as a speculation isn't helpful. >like a lack of physical strength Surely this shows how silly the argument is. Where are the cultures that criminalize having a lack of physical strength? >Homosexuality is always a subconscious threat, because until recently if you were homosexual your bloodline died with you No, because there's only a rough connection between sexuality and who you actually have sex with. Being gay doesn't stop you having sex with women, and you don't have to have sex many times in order to reproduce.