Great to hear there are more advanced nations out there that aren't slowed down by pathetic, antiquated, and obsolete ideas.

That said, I am fine with rights for gays, but I hate it when they try to pass themselves off as "normal." When the human race becomes asexual and you don't need a male and a female for new humans to be made then they can start off with the whole "normal" argument. Until then, I am sorry, but it is not normal.

Having sex for pleasure is not normal since it doesn't create new humans.

I mean, according to you, that's true, right?

It may sound like a stretch, but simply think like this:

If there wasn't a repulsion, many horny males (and there's lots of them, and the reason is that it's an advantage to spread your seed to as many females as possible) would start to have sex with each other instead of hunting difficult chicks. And we can't have that because it's very important for our species survival that the majority of males are interested in chicks.

See you have this classical imbalance between the genders and their craving for sex. Chicks are by nature hard to get, for their own reasons (programmed to carefully select the right partner, thus hey don't want to fcuk around as much as men want in fear of getting pregnant with the wrong partner. This is the biological explanation).


* When I say "we can't have that" I'm talking from an evolutionary perspective obviously, it's not morals, not our modern society or my own opinion.

Here's the thing:

Heterosexual men don't want to fuck each other.

Not out of repulsion, but because they sorta can't get horny.

No you completely misunderstood what I was saying. They can have as much sex as they want, but there will be no new human mande out of it, hence it can't be normal.

The reason we have evolved sex to be pleasureable was to encourage us to have it and reproduce and make more of our kind. So even theoretically, yes having sex without chance at reproduction is not normal.

Well you come up with a better explanation then lol.

I have done what you asked me to, prove that homphobia has a genetic component. To explain or speculate on how exactly it's a survival advantage is another task, which I obviously failed in your opinion.

You haven't proved anything at all, but if it helps you sleep better, then good. You're only proving what we already know, no one is even trying to debate that homosexuality and heterosexuality are innate, and thus obviously a heterosexual male would not feel atraction towards another male. We already know that.

What you're assuming is that such innate heterosexuality causes homophobia, which is ridiculous and you haven't shown proof for at all. We've shown you time and again that homophobia is caused by culture, no one is born hating homosexuality, we are born with a preference for one or other gender or for both, but we don't have any innate hate.

I haven't even touched the subject of wether homo- or heterosexuality is innate. Of course it is. I am talking about homophobia and what makes people homophobic besides culture.

Where did I say "hate"? Homophobia is a term that includes lots of things, including the repulsion I have been talking about. Repulsion towards witnessing certain homosexual acts or repulsion to thoughts of oneself being intimate with another man.

And yes I have proved that homophobia has a genetic component. Read the abstract I provided of the twin study of homophobia.

So eating excrements is wrong only because you don't like it. Who should be banned then? You are being elitist and you are discriminating others because of their preferences. Giving sexual preferences the priority over all preferences is totally wrong and unacceptable.

Plus you are speaking out of your ass when saying that biological history has nothing to do with people feeling repulsion over certain acts or things.

SO hetro sex with a condom isn't normal?