Parents be aware that your kids are in LGBTQ clubs in the public schools, and schools aren't telling the parents.

@SatanBurger same old regurgitated nonsense.maybe it could be because the parents will start asking questions they don't want to answer? Ever thought of that?

@SatanBurger watch out, she'll think you're being abusive by saying that.

@SamInAZ Okay, if it turns out your kid was, how would you act and respond. Would you accept them?

@Starcrossed Bring it on lol

@SatanBurger No. I would find out where they got the idea from & separate them from the bad influences.

@SamInAZ What if there's no bad influences and your kid is still gay many years later? If you wouldn't accept them even then, then there's your answer. It's not everyone's fault your kid can't trust you.

@SatanBurger there has to be bad influences. They didn't get it from me or my wife or family members. My kids do trust me. So this wouldn't be a problem.

@SamInAZ They didn't get it from your wife or family members because they don't choose their sexuality, it's not something you go to a mall to pick out. If you feel like it does, you should tell me how you chose to be straight because if you choose to be gay the you have to choose to be straight because there's no other way that would work logically.

@SatanBurger there is zero evidence that one is born to be homosexual. There is no reason for it. Do you know what a "biological imperative" is?

@SamInAZ How would you know what determines if a baby will naturally be straight or gay when coming out the womb? I find it amazing how you claim to know so much that even scientists don't know. If you read about sexuality, it's a lot more complicated than what you're making it and a majority of scientists will tell you that the cause of human sexuality isn't known.

There are NO straight genes, so what makes you straight?

@SatanBurger biological imperatives. That is how. So I ask again, do you know what a biological imperative is? Define it for me.

@SamInAZ What would that make heterosexual people who don't want kids naturally or can't have kids then? What's the biological imperative there. A newborn doesn't know what a biological imperative is, if they are younger children and they are gay, they don't have the imperative to have a kid or even want to, much less know what sex even is. So biological imperative doesn't tell you all children are "born straight" as there's no "want" for children yet. Your argument is there is no evidence for people being born gay but there's no evidence for people being born straight, children don't have any "imperative" right out the womb.

[b]https://open.lib.umn.edu/evolutionbiology/chapter/12-9/[/b]

@SatanBurger
Give me an example of homosexuality being a benefit to human evolution? How? In what way? If you say something like population control, you need to understand that is basically saying that homosexuality is a virus or a disease, or a mutation...mutations are never beneficial. Biological imperatives are what keep us going, we don't evolve to cull ourselves. To claim that as a "benefit" is more of a left wing ideological claim than a scientific one.

@SamInAZ Okay will do below but again you should know that scientists only refer to human sexuality in hypothesis of how they think certain things evolved including heterosexuality. Just like when you claimed "there are no gay genes" but there's "no one straight gene" either, to which I gave you a link as to why explained by scientists and researchers.

What you're doing is using biological imperative as a "means to an end," to "encompass literally everything," to really oversimplify such a thing to what scientists don't even know, is you either misusing on purpose or you literally don't understand and you can only simplify down to "one" mechanism by which a species survives.

As I said, where does this leave heterosexual people who don't want or can't have kids.

[b]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6976918/[/b]

[quote]In many prosocial mammals sex has adopted new social functions in contexts of [b]social bonding, social reinforcement, appeasement, and play[/b]. We argue that for humans the social functions and benefits of sex apply to same-sex sexual behavior as well as heterosexual behavior.[/quote]

[quote]Assessing SSSA in non-human animals is not easy, but what is clear is that homosexual behavior is not a human innovation. It is widespread in primates (Sommer and Vasey, 2006) and other animals (Bagemihl, 1999; Bailey and Zuk, 2009), and is certainly ancestral to hominids. Analyses of the contexts of occurrence of homosexual sexual behavior in primate societies [b]suggest the behavior has various diverse functions. These include appeasement, pacification, reinforcement of social dominance structures, juvenile play, social tolerance, stress reduction, and barter (Sommer and Vasey, 2006; Clay and de Waal, 2015). Heterosexual sexual behavior shows a similar diversity of expression across primate societies (Sommer and Vasey, 2006). It appears there has been an expansion of the social functions of sexual interactions (both homosexual and heterosexual) as more complex societies evolved in primates (Werner, 2006). As a consequence, sexual behavior in primates has been subject to selection for adaptive social functions as well as the obvious reproductive functions.[/b]

Social evolutionary processes have been a major driver of recent human cognition and behavior (Eisenberg et al., 1983; Dos Santos and West, 2005); particularly selection for increased intra-group tolerance and reduced intra-group aggression (Bowles and Gintis, 2013; Hare, 2017). [b][c=BF0000]Prosocial individuals would have more readily accessed the fitness benefits of cooperative group living (Hare, 2017), and would have gained both greater reproductive success and social mobility[/c][/b] (Bowles and Gintis, 2013). Enhanced tolerance also would allow for smoother integration of juveniles that moved from their natal group to a new group – bringing new ideas and technology with them. Selection for prosociality is thought to have driven the recent evolution of bonobos from their chimp-like ancestor, and proto-dogs from their wolf-like ancestor also[/quote]

@SamInAZ Edward O. Wilson addressed this in his classic work [i]Sociobiology[/i]. In early human societies, gay members may have been more willing to take risks on behalf of the community, since they didn't have biological children they were responsible for. Genetically, if a man has no children, but his brother has four kids, that amounts to the same thing since on average he shares 50% of his genes with his brother, so the brother's kids share 25% of his genes. He doesn't need kids of his own to reproduce indirectly.

Homosexuality is also a meta-characteristic. It's observed that a man is more likely to be gay if he has an older brother. This trait may have evolved to prevent brothers from competing for the same woman.

Of course, none of this will make sense to a bigoted piece of shit like you, who hates and fears gay men because you're terrified that you might be one of them.