The best they could find was a very weak link that wasnt casual, theres a very good reason "born this way" all but disappeared when faggot acceptance was shoved down on everyone's throat at gunpoint. They were lying, and they knew they were lying.
New here?
Create an account to submit posts, participate in discussions and chat with people.
You must log in or sign up to comment
11 comments:
7
1 year ago
7 points
(+0
/
-0
/
+7Score on mirror
)
Permalink
Reply
Mirrored from scored.co
Its not genetic
There is one simple argument against that: To assume there is a genetic component that leads to become a genetic dead-end is more than foolish. Logically all of those filter themselves out from the evolutionary process. Homosexuals do not perpetuate their genes. How could such genes possibly exist?
Answer: They don't. It's children who are molested and groomed into becoming homosexuals. And they do that by coping that "they wanted it all along." They try to preserve their dignity as they engage in acts that deprive them of it, and lead them to a life of shame and trying to numb their minds. Then they crawl around in BDSM outfits on leash as they lick the piss off the street from STD riddled homosexuals. Amazing display of pride btw.
Answer: They don't. It's children who are molested and groomed into becoming homosexuals. And they do that by coping that "they wanted it all along." They try to preserve their dignity as they engage in acts that deprive them of it, and lead them to a life of shame and trying to numb their minds. Then they crawl around in BDSM outfits on leash as they lick the piss off the street from STD riddled homosexuals. Amazing display of pride btw.
If genetic components would lead to disorders being eradicated, we would not be having persistent genetic disorders in the first place. But we do.
Lgbt might as well be genetic (even if its not). The point is not to entertain this idea because even if it was, it would still be a disorder. Being genetic would not remove the disorder status.
You're doing what i warned you should not be doing
Lgbt might as well be genetic (even if its not). The point is not to entertain this idea because even if it was, it would still be a disorder. Being genetic would not remove the disorder status.
You're doing what i warned you should not be doing
> If genetic components would lead to disorders being eradicated, we would not be having persistent genetic disorders in the first place. But we do.
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?
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?
If it's genetic, then it's incurable and the death penalty is even more justified. I think this line of reasoning might have occurred to the degeneracy apologists, and that's why the nature/nurture debate isn't as prominent as it used to be.
Toast message