Yes, but only when a person commits the act to another person or non-person animal... If rape was made illegal for plants, then considering they are incapable of any form of consent, there would be no plant life on earth. All agriculture business would fail and the economy would collapse. Since the only way for a plant to have sex is non-consensual pollination (another way to say plant sex) this is true.
Absolutely. What are we suppose to test on? Not all testing is what has been instilled in some peoples minds as an evil scientist electrocuting bunnies. A lot of testing doesn't even kill animals. Much testing is simply taking samples from the specimen, or test on things like habits. Chemical testing is not the only way to test an animal. You can test their skills, their preferences, their IQ, their reactions, and biology. Humans are also animals as you know, so restricting animal testing would make it where we could only test on plants, bacteria, and fungus. And to ban testing on animals would hurt researches with less funds or resources for testing on a large subject like a human. That is all I got to say.
The human brain is the same regardless of sex. The male and female brains have no difference, they carry out the same functions and are virtually indistinguishable. The only thing that may make men and women think and act differently are hormones that affect how the brain reacts. And hormones themselves, although they affect the brain, do not make a brain "different". Just because a woman's brain produces produces more estrogen doesn't make it biologically different, it just produces different amounts of the same hormones a man produces. The brain is the same, the hormones and psychology are different.
Just because you can't see something, doesn't mean it hasn't been demonstrated. This is hardly the case of evolution though. You can observe the process of evolution at a cellular level. It is only called "micro evolution", not because it is entirely different from "macro evolution" but because one occurs on a microscopic scale. But all evolution does anyway. Claiming there is no "macro-evolution" but "micro-evolution is just a way for some creationist to special plead. But what makes specification at a microscopic scale different than at the macroscopic scale? Every organism is made up of cells, if we observe cells, micro-organisms, and virus evolve why is this evolution excluded to a larger organisms? It is special pleading to accept microbes can variate to new organism but nothing else. The microscopic world is truly phenomenal and amazing, the diversity easily beats that of the macroscopic world. Just as there are fossils of microbial evolution there are living examples. (brad pointed out the long-term E.coli study)
Adults are in no way superior to minors, so yes. Minors are actually superior to adults, they learn faster, they are younger, they are also probably going to be alive when we are dead. Adults can be equally irresponsible and make stupid, regrettable, and irrational decisions as minors. And minors have the ability to think rationally, make informed decisions, and be mature to know what they want just like adults. So I see no reason to make it illegal.
Is it wrong? Ain't it wrong? I feel, even being it to supporting the right of abortion, that it is the wrong choice to make regardless. Just because it is an option for you to take, doesn't mean you should take it. I support smarter sex education and overall people must be more rational, we don't need a bunch of irrational people raising impressionable children. I say to the pro-lifers and pro-choicers, think of it as taking the test, you have every right to not study for the test, and every right to select the wrong answers, but should you?
Not concluded A "gay gene", as far as we know, is not there. Homosexuality is simply a deviation of "heterosexuality". But "sexuality" is only something human beings have claimed. Traditionally males prefer a feminine person, while females prefer a masculine subject. Humans are not simply attracted to genitals. We are attracted to many different parts of a person, from the face, body structure, smell, and sound. Sexuality assumes you are attracted to someone based on the fact of their sex, but men can look like attractive women, and women can look like attractive men. So if peoples sexuality can be fooled by these types of people, whats to say our brains can't fool our sexuality as well? Homosexuality could be in part a result of genetics (like instances of androgynous people), but it can also be completely neurological.
How could there not be? Sexual orientation all comes down to being attracted to different people based on their physical form and genetics. Even if you are homosexual, you only think someone is attractive because they have desirable genes to you. Our body releases hormones to determine our femininity or masculinity, it also releases smells to attract the opposite sex.
The notion is absurd. What does a persons masculinity have to do with mass shootings at all even? Correlation does not imply causation! Masculinity is completely irrelevant to mass shootings anyway! The masculinity of a person has no effect on their mental health and especially not on mass shootings. To say so would be like saying something as equally irrelevant as race should be considered in mass shootings.
Humans are by definition apes! Apes are TAILLESS catarrhines! Humans belong to the biological superfamily Hominoidea! We are by the simple fact of being TAILLESS catarrhines, apes! If you deny you are an ape, I hope you have a tail to back that claim up. The ability to reason and have intense emotions (just like other great apes and other non-human organisms on earth?) does not make you a "separate life form". To deny being an ape, is further suggest you either A) Are not a primate (not a human) or B) Have a tail.