First of all, there is no gay gene so far. They're been looking for it for decades and nothing was found, not even in a recent gigantic genetic study (500k people).
The problem is that **you can not prove a negative**. They will always cling to the possibility of such a gene existing and you CAN'T contradict them.
However, even if tomorrow they find the "gay genes", it still means nothing in regards to LGBT not being a disorder.
You have genetic heart problems, genetic liver problems, genetic kidney problems and i could go on and on. If such a genetic disorder affects a person we don't say "well, he was BORN THIS WAY", so let's leave it like that, it's normal. We acknowledge it's a disorder and we try our best to fix it.
Every time you engage with some degenerate in the "homos are genetic - no they're not", you're only enabling and empowering their position while crashing yours. The only answer, which you should repeat ad nauseam, is that **we have thousands of disorders and we don't let them be because they are genetic, we fix them**.
If you manage to have children before you die, it's not a genetic dead-end. If your children have a x% death rate, it's still sufficient to perpetuate these genes. There are objectively bad genes that can perpetuate despite being bad.
> Lgbt might as well be genetic (even if its not).
But the point is that it shapes the behavior in a way that prevents the perpetuation of genes entirely (no children or almost none). And homosexuality sets in at early age (literally victims of pedophilia). Meaning if it were genes causing homosexuality, they'd be removed from the gene pool with extreme persistence ALL the time. Having issues with the liver at age 50 but still having children is genetically still *successful enough*.
There could be something however that increases the susceptibility to it, like hormonal changes (too effeminate men). But that's not a "gay gene" because behaving less like a Chad doesn't make you a faggot.
> The point is not to entertain this idea because even if it was, it would still be a disorder.
Disorder or bad genes, yes. Clearly disadvantageous just like having liver problems at age 50.
> You're doing what i warned you should not be doing
> Every time you engage with some degenerate in the "homos are genetic - no they're not"
I'm just assessing the topic objectively. You and others here aren't degenerates, right?
The topic is about NOT discussing anything about this because even if it was genetic we still recoginze that there are genetic disorders and we treat them as disorders.
Just because something is genetic does not mean you leave it as is