There's nothing to argue. You haven't offered anything to respond to. Your initial garbage was refuted long ago and you came back with...wait for it...nothing.all over this forum?
Please, STFU. You can't discuss or argue for because you think what you believe to be true is universal.
Is there anyone that has come to your defense in this thread? With anything even remotely debatable? You asked me to list right or wrong...that doesn't even make sense. You're so ed you're just grabbing for anything at this point.
You really don't realize how stupid you look. It would be one thing if you actually brought something to the table but you've got nothing here. You need to come to terms with the fact that you're essentially all alone on this. Its a losing situation and its only going to get worse from here.
I know one things for sure the more you post the worse it gets for you.
You need to take your and just take it away. Don't go away mad...just go away.
How does it exist naturally? Are you basing this on the current scientific literature? From what I've been able to find and read, I've found the notion of being gay and it being a natural thing to be inconclusive. In other words, it's not an absolute certain that it's natural... a lot of people on this forum automatically jump to that conclusion.
lololololololololololololololololololololololololo lolololololololololololololol
He truly doesn't understand. Even worse he thinks if he hurls some insults and fights back a few board trolls will pile on and have his back redeeming him for this garbage of a thread.
He's sunk, the fights over and he's swinging at air.
lol at these posters who automatically assume being gay is natural. I'm not even an anti-gay activist, but the stupidity and synchronous ability for these bigots to process that association in this thread is amzing.
You're beyond clueless. Let me clear this up...but not that it would register.
Define Natural
1. Present in or produced by nature
Gay people have been occurring throughout history since history was recorded.
Approx 5-10% (conservatively) of the worlds population is sexual. That is occurring "naturally". Again not counting all the silenced voices and people living private lives. That number could greatly increase.
Furthermore this doesn't take into account naturally occurring gender transformation and/or asexual species. The list is enormous.
The very fact that you attempted to make this a point fully exposes what you are because the only people regurgitating this absurd claim are the ones who parrot the anti-gay advocates. All you're doing is reiterating common hate rhetoric and strawmen arguments made by even more pronounced bigots than yourself.
Again this was refuted pages ago.
lol at this poster who doesn't even know what the word "natural" means.lol at these posters who automatically assume being gay is natural. I'm not even an anti-gay activist, but the stupidity and synchronous ability for these bigots to process that association in this thread is am
I love that you made this post because it only serves to make you look like an even bigger fool.
You clearly don't know the difference between natural/common/deviate and the list goes on. Then you want to put yourself on a pedestal with posts like this.
You are beyond stupid.
Where was it refuted exactly? I never saw anything scientifically supporting gay as a natural thing. Increase your reading comprehension before you ing reply, dumbass.
I got to go run errands, when I get back I'm gonna post everything I've found on online (while I also give some of my own commentary) that sheds some light on the inconclusivity you seem to want to ignore to save yourself from the ignorance and stupidity you've shown to me in your replies.
You need to keep reading. You're pretty ignorant about all this.
Being in the medical field (as a medical assistant while in undergrad) for multiple years (culminating with me currently enrolled in medical school and looking into seeking a psychiatry residency) and shadowing a family member who works as a psychiatrist...I think I have a better idea of what a natural/common/deviant* is. I'm not even putting myself in any type of pedestal. I'm just looking at the hot debate between gay and it's propensity to be listed as natural. Your comments towards me reek immensely from an ethical standpoint...ethics aside, you don't know nor do I think you would understand about .
Just stop replying, it's obvious you aren't gonna offer any credible and legit takes on this topic.
You are beyond stupid. It doesn't need to be refuted. There doesn't need to be a scientific study.
You just need to understand what the definition of natural is.
Are you now disputing the definition of "natural" or are you just refusing to acknowledge it.
Hilarious that you...the guy who doesn't understand what the word "natural" means...the guy who refused to look at the definition, suggests I need to increase my reading comprehension.
You obviously don't realize what a moron this makes you look like.
Its only going to get worse for you.
Smh
Okay, so what's natural to all you people? Let's hear it.
It already has a definition dumbass. Its not up for interpretation.
Could you be any more dense.
What definition? The one you google or the one you find in the dictionary of your bookcase? So how does this definition of natural relate to humans and this topic? Let's hear it.
The definition of "natural". Its not up for debate. It either is or isn't. If it occurs in nature its natural. If it doesn't it doesn't...this isn't up for interpretation.
You need to read the dictionary. Any of them.
Gay people exist = natural
Human body with a moose head doesn't exist = unnatural.
Figure it out already. You can't possibly be this ignorant.
And I'm the dense one?
Yes you are. You're refusing to recognize the definition of "natural". I even posted it and you still don't get it.And I'm the dense one?
You're attempting to debate "deviance" or commonality by redefining "natural". Its what makes you come across as a total moron.
Do you have a different definition you read somewhere?
No.
Natural.
1. existing in or formed by nature ( opposed to artificial)
even
2. based on the state of things in nature; cons uted by nature:
applies.
He's attempting to debate the relevance of deviancy by redefining "natural".
Gay people naturally occur 5-10% of the time. There isn't a gay factory.
Right. There may be a couple of the 15 or so definitions he could try to apply, but he'd still be wrong.
...and he's too stupid to debate the merits of sex resulting in something man made vs. naturally occurring.
But yeah he's wrong all the way around.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote