 Quote:
Originally Posted by Tigerwiccan  Thank you. That was my only point with that and I'm glad you agree. | Any human can reproduce. An Asexual person "can" still reproduce. So that's not the litmus. Quote: |
You are going beyond the meaning of the word "physiological" then. My point stands as the truth, and you need to be more specific in yours.
| Really? Physiology encompasses every aspect of sexuality and the defects it might have. Males and females of all animals have evolved traits that compliment each other and the mating instinct. Just as breasts were evolved for feeding young. If a woman's breasts produce no milk, she is considered disordered. But she might still otherwise still live a full life and "in our society" breasts aren't necessary for reproduction. But it's not brokebreastophobic to deem a woman with broke breasts disordered. Quote: |
Of course those are disorders. But homosexuality is not one, so I don't see why you are bringing up things that are clearly outside the conversation.
| It's a clear comparison. That's why. Homosexuality shares a lot with them with very few differences. The only difference is the object of attraction. But biologically the differences are minor. Quote: |
Humans have evolved beyond basic instinct. Or did you miss that day in biology class?
| But they haven't evolved to include homosexuality. Remember it's a mistake throughout the animal kingdom. Humans have evolved to include homosexuality but not the other sexual deviant acts? Sounds again like the typical homosexual trying to pigeonhole themselves at the expense of common sense. Quote: |
One study is not a "history".
| How many studies you need? Got any evidence to discredit it? This is my new signature. |