So, homosexuality is natural, because people are born that way, it is harmless because love of two people none of whom is you cannot harm you (and if you are going to bring up gay rapists as a proof that homosexuality is harmful, then straight rapists are a proof that heterosexuality is harmful too). Homophobia is unnatural because you have to teach it to a person and nobody is born homophobic, it is harmful because it interferes with personal feelings of other people in a bad way.
If you want to converse with me about it, I'd be happy to.
It's just my opinion, don't kill me.
so no, it is not harmless, and its not natural
homosexuality is something you are born with, and being homosexual in itself doesnt hurt anyone, so please shut up
Which you refused to answer.
And apparently super upset.
Obvious that you want to troll and not deal with any debunking of your bullshit.
Perhaps next time that the USA Congressional Hearings into vaccinations being linked with Autism happen, you can try in futile effort to defend the lies of the pharmaceutical corporations and CDC which were exposed last time;
Unlike you, I stopped accepting the bullshit from fakenews OldMedia long before they were exposed as blatant frauds by the election results of November 8-9 of this year, when for the past year they'd lied with fake polls and lied about Hillary Clinton being 'popular'.
I think we all learned something valuable here today. That Onlytheboast desperately needs a dick since his wife obviously is not giving him any.
>Man, that twit is DUMB!
Weren't you the one bitching about "AD HOMINEM" before?
>Blogs don't beat peer-review scientific papers
One of those blogs was one of the ones you cited.
Onlytheboasts. The only guy who will nuke his own arguments for you.
>Insults against scientists, don't beat peer-review scientific papers
Which scientists got insulted?
>Magazines written for entertainment don't beat peer-review scientific papers
You cited... Conservepedia as one of your "PEER-REVIEWED" papers.
>Attacking someone's religious beliefs don't beat peer-review scientific papers.
Isn't that EXACTLY what you did here?
>Calling someone a Christian when they aren't, and you haven't a clue about their religion, which is irrelevant to the subject anyway, is just DUMB too.
If you are referring to yourself I never called you a Christian. We're reaching levels of autism here we never thought possible. Also even if i never mentioned you being Christian I had a point.
You seem to white-knight the religious as some sort persecution in Western nations.*
*Ironically Christianity isn't even Western. It came from the Middle East.
**Also ironic the East isn't too friendly to Christianity either.
Man, that twit is DUMB!
Blogs don't beat peer-review scientific papers
Insults against scientists, don't beat peer-review scientific papers
Magazines written for entertainment don't beat peer-review scientific papers.
Attacking someone's religious beliefs don't beat peer-review scientific papers.
Calling someone a Christian when they aren't, and you haven't a clue about their religion, which is irrelevant to the subject anyway, is just DUMB too.
The reason I was fucking with you is someone more or less in your caliber of cuckholdery tried to use the same argument that you did. Like you their argument gets smashed when I pointed out that identical twins are not so identical. Highly similar yes but even they can have differences. To use the term we are all special. Not the kind special like when your mom dropped you down stairs as a baby but that we are all different kind of special.
>No wonder at all that older homosexual men I know
Confirmed onlytheboasts secretly homo. Craves Big black dick. No wonder he says it is a choice. He's conflicted over his own feelings.
If your sources are so great then there's no reason to block me only the cucks?
Born gay is where science seems to be leading and I just roasted your former argument
"GENETIC TWINS ARE THE SAME!!!!!!"
And now you're back-tracking after being proven wrong. As pointed out twins are NOT 100% genetically similar.
"But experience shows that identical twins are rarely completely the same. Until recently, any differences between twins had largely been attributed to environmental influences (otherwise known as "nurture"), but a recent study contradicts that belief."
"For example, one twin in Bruder's study was missing some genes on particular chromosomes that indicated a risk of leukemia, which he indeed suffered. The other twin did not."
Denying something just because it doesn't fit in with your worldview isn't doing you any favors buddy. Your argument relies that twins are should always the same when they're not.
Especially since your only argument is
In which almost every study in today's world is peer-reviewed.
Not only that. The sources you then spewed out were unrelated to the topic in an attempt to try to put correlation to causation. Also I will say it again. To claim it is a choice is to admit that you too secretly like big black cock. No shame in that. If you like it so much I'm sure your wife will let Tyrone try his hand at your anus.
Also you forget that sexuality is more fluid in girls. So your argument might only have had a chance if you wee talking about lesbians but below you said "sorry, don't know enough about them."
This ties in with ex-gay. You do know that bisexuality exists correct? Someone who likes both genders? Your hollering of "EX-GAYZ" rings hollow when they liked both genders to begin with and decided to date the opposite one at the end. Maybe you're one of these bisexuals and just like cock? Most likely the answer.
>Yet again, the claims in those 'science' blogs and magazines written with the purpose of "dramatic appeal"
Isn't that EXACTLY what you're doing? Bringing in your drama and emotion into this very fight?
>are refuted by the actual peer-reviewed scientific studies which they misrepresent.
You keep repeating "PEER-REVIEWED STUDY" as if that's the end all means all and that's the final say. This is ignoring the studies done in the links I gave which in your own words "PEER-REVIEWED" hope every bit of your autism was captured in that caps lock.
>What's funnier still, I already referred to those VERY SAME SCIENCE MAGS pointing out what the scientific papers actually said HERE;
What's even funnier is that is also the article that me and ReclusiveChicken linked as well and the one I gave you. However that article only refers to GIRLS. Lesbians who you previously stated "
(Sorry, I don't mention the opinions of any older lesbians because I don't personally know any, maybe older lesbians believe that the Sun shines out of younger lesbians arses but I don't think so)" That you don't know jack about them. However this still slams your theory as that's about BISEXUALITY. Liking both. Not even the right sexuality you're bitching about. Also the studies find out that girls by and large are more likely to muff dive, even the ones who identify as straight.
Onltheboasts. The only autistic Jap who argues your points for you.
>As I've stated before; If you want to refute peer-reviewed science, you have to provide peer-reviewed science.
We did give you links. You just acted like an autistic spazz. Not even your boyfriend oddgarfield is this much of a lolcow.
>Obvious by this point that you can't do it. A rational person would accept the facts, but "OH NO!" you have to hide in denials and keep repeating the same links, misrepresenting the actual science, lying outright about what other people say.
In other words you're just butthurt that people contradict your claim for ruining your pure idelaogy.
>You believe that your ideological crap beats real scientific facts, and when it's pointed out that your silly ideology isn't scientifically supported,
Homosexuality was removed from mental diseases in the late 60s. Back when there was hardly any sympathy for gay people. Ironically the sources you gave were based on pure ideology.
Neil Whitehead is a Christian writer. And in fact someone did try to refute him here.
But this is basically what everyone in the comments has been telling you. That you're attempt at a gotcha moment fails since identical twins are not 1000% identical all the time.
Also funny you mention idelaogy when your main excuse actually is ideologically driven.
>lying outright about what other people say.
I'm only quoting you. Not my fault if you are so stupid that even you are shocked by it.
>Your kind, by promoting an ideology based on false beliefs and ignoring the real statistics, ignoring the real science, are providing fuel for extremists who will use your false narratives against you, with violent ruthlessness.
>YOU ARE LITERALLY FUELING EXTREMISTS REEEEEEEEEEEEEEE.
pure idelaogy. As for "use it against us."
>All of you people carrying on that you absolutely don't have a choice are endangering yourselves in the long run, because if you persist promoting this false concept of being "born gay" then some equally fanatical reactionary movement is going to rise up and use that, believe it, can point to the "evidence" supporting your false narrative as if it were "true", and decide what they want to do is "cure" homosexuality by forced surgical and other medical intervention. By promoting an ideology based on false beliefs and ignoring the real statistics, ignoring the real science, you're providing fuel for such extremists.
So what you're basically saying is that the only thing keeping fanatics from killing gays is the fact they might be able to convert us? Problem with that is
>Conversion therapies have already been a thing.
>They still try this even if they think the choice argument (well you made the wrong choice.)
>If it is a choice I still recommend you enjoying that semen shake.
>If it is a choice why would anyone fucking choose it? I mean they'd have to risk death or imprisonment in certain cultures and in others have the much less dangerous but more lulzy option of having cranky old Japanese guys autistically rage at them over the web. Also it sounds a lot like "Repent sinner or else REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE." is your main argument.
>This is why less people believe idiots such as the major troll who is only here for the LOLZ comments.deviantart.com/1/6379…
Generally speaking I walkout from these things unscathed while little lolcows like you only rage and scream in the comments. Even dear Aki here knows that. For someone who realizes he's a lolcow it seems you still aren't smart enough to keep coming back to get milked.
1) They can't cope with PEER-REVIEWED SCIENCE when it contradicts their dumbass politically-correct nonsense.
2) They resort to calling people "homophobes" because these same liars think that anyone who just happens to disagree with them simply 'must' be homophobic *rolleyes*
3) They misrepresent and lie about what other people and scientific studies say, including lying about such things as GENETICALLY-IDENTICAL TWINS and trying to pretend that these GENETICALLY-IDENTICAL TWINS are not "genetically-identical" even though the peer-reviewed papers clearly stated that the twins were GENETICALLY-IDENTICAL. *rolleyes* (Monozygotic twins are two offspring that have identical DNA).
No wonder at all that older homosexual men I know often say that the young male gays these days are stupid, shallow, and vain. You're all too busy shining lights up your own arses and pretending it's the Sun shining from your own shit SJW/PC ideologies.
4) I asked some of the crybabies for peer-reviewed scientific studies to support their claims, all they did instead was use derogatory epithets and bullshit illogical arguments while NEVER providing any peer-reviewed scientific studies. I get tired of dealing with twits who have tiny brains and emotional issues that they believe outweigh all facts and evidence.
(Sorry, I don't mention the opinions of any older lesbians because I don't personally know any, maybe older lesbians believe that the Sun shines out of younger lesbians arses but I don't think so)
One of those moronic dolts that I blocked has posted links which are repeating OUTDATED information and/or are misrepresenting the results of scientific studies (epigenetic differences do NOT equate to being genetically different - but some sadly ignorant folks confuse the two)..
Mostly they're repeating stuff from 2008 as if it were the 'latest' for 2011-2012, and ignoring the full details of the science currently known; epigenetic changes happen during the entire lifetime, as shown by studies of the results of drug abuse, alcoholism, stressful situations, family relationships, diet, career, and other life-style choices. The idea that people may be “born gay” and stay that way, unchangingly, isn't supported by epigenetic studies as human psychology and your mental state can change epigenetic influences on the brain. The brain is far more flexible and adaptable than scientists assumed decades ago. It is not like the fixed circuitry of a computer, but can effectively be rewired by choices and experiences.
The very existence of "ex-gays" refutes your "born gay" crap. These above links show why. Genetically identical twins may differ 'epigenetically' but they share the exact same DNA, being different epigenetically does not change their genes, only how those genes influence them - and these epigenetic changes are NOT fixed and permanent, they can change, again and again and again during their whole lives.
Yet again, the claims in those 'science' blogs and magazines written with the purpose of "dramatic appeal" (to sell magazines and for advertising revenue) are refuted by the actual peer-reviewed scientific studies which they misrepresent. Sorry idiots, citing a supposed 'science' magazine aimed at non-scientists isn't the same as citing the peer-reviewed scientific papers which the non-scientists journalists are writing about - AND MISREPRESENTING.
What's funnier still, I already referred to those VERY SAME SCIENCE MAGS pointing out what the scientific papers actually said HERE;
As I've stated before; If you want to refute peer-reviewed science, you have to provide peer-reviewed science.
BLOGS aren't peer-reviewed scientific studies, so NO, they don't 'debunk' anything - and Ad Hominem claims against a scientist doesn't refute PEER-REVIEWED SCIENCE either *rolleyes*
Obvious by this point that you can't do it. A rational person would accept the facts, but "OH NO!" you have to hide in denials and keep repeating the same links, misrepresenting the actual science, lying outright about what other people say. This is why less people believe idiots such as the major troll who is only here for the LOLZ comments.deviantart.com/1/6379…
You believe that your ideological crap beats real scientific facts, and when it's pointed out that your silly ideology isn't scientifically supported, you falsely accuse people of being homophobic because you're unable to respond in a rational manner with any true scientific backing for your bullshit. Your kind, by promoting an ideology based on false beliefs and ignoring the real statistics, ignoring the real science, are providing fuel for extremists who will use your false narratives against you, with violent ruthlessness.
The Canadian statistics are here
The concept of "born gay" is stupidly in denial of survival of the fittest and evolution anyway. If those carrying a "gay gene" don't breed, then they don't reproduce, so therefore there is no "gay gene".