HomophobiaCan you help me respond to this homophobic question please?

submitted by UWUness from self.LGBDropTheT

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]loveSloaneSuperDuperBi 11 insightful - 3 fun11 insightful - 2 fun12 insightful - 3 fun -  (6 children)

Id ask what vaginas and penises evolved from in the first place and how we as a species kept repopulating if our genitals had to evolve to be with each other…

Then I’d remind them that people have genitals even when they aren’t using them for sex with either sex. Maybe even ask if, if homosexuals are sexless because they don’t use their genitals to engage in sex with the opposite sex, what it means when someone masturbates? Are they even human?

If i bothered to respond. In this case I’d probably just laugh at the stupidity.

[–]Elvira95Viva la figa 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Genitalia did evolved to reproduce and penis and vagina are naturally designed to meet each others. Now the fact that nature random variation makes a minirotiy of the population develops to have a typical sexuality of the opposite sex doesn't change the nature and purpose of our anatomy.

[–]loveSloaneSuperDuperBi 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Sorry… vaginas don’t exist solely to be penetrated by a penis, nor do penises exist just to penetrate vaginas. Just because they can "meet each other" doesn’t mean that’s their whole purpose or function. I understand that genitals are sexual organs- that doesn’t mean they have to be used for sex at all or even specifically sex with each other. It also doesn’t mean they have no other functions.

And again, what did vaginas and penises evolve from? I don’t mean how did they develop in utero, I mean what did humans have before we evolved to have vaginas and penises, and how did we reproduce before this evolution?

People who don’t have sex at all still have a sex. Because the sex of a person isn’t based on what they do with their genitals or if those genitals ever "meet" with the other type of genitalia.

Genitalia being the means of reproduction doesn’t mean that that’s the whole point of our genitalia, is basically what I’m saying. Heteros have sex all the time without intending to reproduce. We don’t call them sexless when they use condoms or birth control.

[–]Bright_paintingLoad, lesbian biologist 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

A answer to your question about how reproduction works, with or without reproductive/sexual organs. There is two kinds of reproduction, asexual and sexual. Asexual reproduction is common amongst cells, plants and a few selected breeds of animals (jellyfishes is one example). In that kind of reproduction, the organism will copy their entire genome and then pass it on to their offspring. The opposite of asexual reproduction is sexual reproduction. Here, two individuals exchange genetic material so their offspring gets a new, unique genetic make-up. This kind of reproduction is more common with more complex animals (including animals). For sexual reproduction to work there must be two distinct reproductive organs, ovaries and testicles, involved in the progress. Humans have at no point in the evolutionary tree been asexual, but once apon a time, (We are talking 2 billion years ago.), one of our ancestors did reproduce in this manor.

[–]loveSloaneSuperDuperBi 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Okay… but humans have to sexually reproduce so I feel like my point still stands lol

This was interesting to read but my point is still that we as a species may reproduce sexually but not doing so doesn’t render anyone sexless.

But I should have also just said that gay people reproduce all the time and are capable of reproducing even if they don’t (obviously not with each other but they still have the equipment). That’s really the answer to the post imo lol

[–]Bright_paintingLoad, lesbian biologist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Your reasoning is perfectly sound and I compleatly agree with you. It was just me who got a little bit carried away by the question about evolution...

[–]loveSloaneSuperDuperBi 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I realized that after a few minutes lol. My bad