LGBTQ+ Rights / Similar Discussion

@billy7oblos

Quote

no, they are relevant but it would be a little useless to respond to it, if i said "I linked many studies too?" it would not help the topic, this is like commenting on the debate from the sidelines.

You even acknowledged before that they weren’t relevant. The studies you’ve linked thus far have either been non-peer reviewed or have supported (or at least not rebuked) my claim. That’s why I keep on quoting your own sources right back at you, because it’s clear to me that you don’t read your sources thoroughly enough – otherwise I wouldn’t be claiming that they don’t refute anything I say.

Quote

i made the first point that the number of LGBT people is increasing and i presented proof.

No, the whole crux of this argument is if its "natural" to be LGBT or not.

What proof have you presented so far that shows an increase in homosexuality among the general population? As I made clear in my last post: so far you’ve argued that there is an increase in homosexuality, not that people are simply being more open about their homosexuality.

If you’ve provided actual proof that supports your claim, then I’ve missed it. Suicide stats are not proof. Stats on an increase in open homosexuals are not proof. Your links to religious / conversative advocacy groups claiming being gay is unnatural or otherwise are not proof.

Quote

the fact that no test can predict your sexuality is relevant is because if it was biological it would be visible through tests in most cases

That’s a giant oversimplification of biology.

Quote

https://harvardmagazine.com/2019/08/there-s-still-no-gay-gene
"In fact, the team estimated that the genetic variants they studied could predict, at best, somewhere between 8 percent and 25 percent of the reported variation in the entire cohort’s sexual behavior."

So you’re just going to cite a source I already went over and discussed why it didn’t say what you claimed it did? You’re evolving into a record player.

This is quoting my previous post (which ironically quoted my previous post, because you simply have a hard time reading everything apparently):

"Is this an article detailing there being no “gay gene”? I thought I explained that I never said this. Should I go as far as to point out that this is yet another example of you misconstruing my argument?
I think it’s disingenuine to not quote the relevant supplemental quote to the one you listed:
“Though the genetic effects are small and their provenance uncertain, Neale continued during the press conference, the results do show that genes have a role to play in the development of sexual behavior. “There is no single gay gene, but rather the contribution of many small genetic effects scattered across the genome,” he emphasized.”

Insofar as this thread is concerned I have argued that biology is what the scientific consensus seems to link most heavily to same-sex attraction. The 2019 study doesn’t dispute this.

I will quote my previous post because it’s clear to me what you didn’t read it:

A detailed article explaining the study:
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/scien…-study-confirms
“There is no single gene responsible for a person being gay or a lesbian. That’s the first thing you need to know about the largest genetic investigation of sexuality ever, which was published Thursday in Science. The study of nearly a half million people closes the door on the debate around the existence of a so-called “gay gene.”
“It’s effectively impossible to predict an individual’s sexual behavior from their genome,” said Ben Neale, a geneticist at Massachusetts General Hospital and the Broad Institute who led the study.
“[Our study] underscores an important role for the environment in shaping human sexual behavior and perhaps most importantly there is no single gay gene but rather the contribution of many small genetic effects scattered across the genome,” Neale said."

Quote

my opinion has been that there is no or little genetic effect on homosexuality

Define “Little”

Quote

Its clear to me that this person is cherry picking, looking for whatever unproven scientific theory that supports his hope that homosexuality is biological.

… You do realize that the article was something you referenced, not me, right? You just acknowledged that your own source doesn’t agree with you lol.

Now kindly do respond to my question below:

Why would they argue for a gene-based answer if they know that the “latest study” estimated that genes account for 8-12% of sexual orientation?

And here are the excerpts from the article, and my previous comment. Both of which you didn’t respond to:

“By analyzing the DNA of nearly half a million people from the U.S. and the U.K., they [2019 study] concluded that genes account for between 8% and 25% of same-sex behavior.

The new finding is consistent with multiple earlier studies of twins that indicated same-sex attraction is a heritable trait.

The 2019 study is the latest in a hunt for “gay genes” that began in 1993, when Dean Hamer linked male homosexuality to a section of the X chromosome. [They continue to list examples of potential gene candidates for the “gay gene” throughout the last thirty years]

With multiple gene candidates being linked to homosexuality, it seemed highly unlikely that a single “gay” gene exists. This idea is further supported by the new study, which identified five new genetic loci (fixed positions on chromosomes) correlating with same-sex activity: two that appeared in men and women, two only in men, and one only in women.

Males with a genetic condition called androgen insensitivity syndrome can develop female genitalia and are usually brought up as girls, despite being genetically male – with an X and Y chromosome – and they are attracted to men. This suggests that testosterone is needed to “masculinize” a prenatal brain; if that doesn’t happen, the child will grow up to desire men.

Similarly, girls who have a genetic condition called congenital adrenal hyperplasia are exposed to unusually high levels of male hormones like testosterone while in the womb, which may masculinize their brain and increase the odds of lesbianism.

It’s also possible that hormonal shifts during pregnancy could affect how a fetus’ brain is configured. In rats, manipulation of hormones during pregnancy produces offspring that exhibit homosexual behavior.

[…] While there is no single “gay gene,” there is overwhelming evidence of a biological basis for sexual orientation that is programmed into the brain before birth based on a mix of genetics and prenatal conditions, none of which the fetus chooses.”

So you were indeed cherry-picking. The fact that you didn't even read the headline for the first article is frankly quite hilarious. You aren't supposed to go out of your way to find answers which allign with your own beliefs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias"

Quote

this is the article you referenced: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/articl…018506X19304660
Yea.. im pretty sure i didn't include that.

True. I thought you were talking about the article above (https://theconversation.com/stop-calling-i…exuality-122764)

Now that I know what you’re talking about I can respond to your original comment:

Quote

the review you showed [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/articl…018506X19304660] is a collection of research supporting a biological answer to homosexuality, so its ironic how you call me out on nitpicking.

I don’t know what you expect of me? Of course I'm going to include a peer-reviewed study that supports my claim, just as I would acknowledge any study you show me that shows the opposite of what I'm talking about. So far you haven't.

It's a metastudy on biological research on development of sexual orientation wherein they conclude:
“These studies, taken together, have provided substantial support for biological influences underlying the development of sexual orientation, but questions remain unanswered, including how biological mechanisms may differ in contributing to men's and women's sexual orientation development.”

Quote

No, its illegal to discriminate against LGBT people. If anything they would have more of a job opportunity because big companies want to seem 'inclusive'.
I also dont see the point in mentioning that "the more you get older the more wealth you acquire"

When something is illegal, does that it ceases to happen at all?

I would like a source for your comment: “if anything they would have more of a job opportunity because big companies want to seem 'inclusive'.”

The reason why I raised the last point was to demonstrate that millenials are one of the younger generations, meaning that of course they’re going to have less income alongside with lower wealth acrued compared to their elders. That’s what your own study showed, and you clearly didn’t want to comment on the quote I gave in my last post. Really shows your honesty in this argument, huh?

“You also forgot to include the quote from the Gallup Poll:

"As LGBT demographic expert Dr. Gary Gates noted in his report on Gallup data last year: "A variety of factors can affect the willingness of adults to identify as LGBT. These can include how comfortable and confident survey respondents feel about the confidentiality and privacy of data collected." Thus, it is possible that those in the younger generation who are LGBT are feeling increasingly comfortable over time with their sexual orientation, and thus are more likely to identify as such. Self-reported LGBT identification among older Americans is much more stable.

Self-identification as LGBT is only one of a number of ways of measuring sexual and gender orientation. The general grouping of these four orientations (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) into one question involves significant simplification, and other measurement techniques which ask about each of these categories individually yield different estimates. Additionally, self-identification of sexual orientation can be distinct from other measures which tap into sexual behavior or attraction."”

Quote

so you accept it unless someone gives you a reason why its morally wrong? if someone did something like this would you be ok with it or not.

You aren’t going to get me to say that I think fucking a dead animal is wrong or not. I’ve explained this five times over now.

Quote

BECAUSE ITS AGAINST NATURE AND IT CAUSES MANY HEALTH PROBLEMS. Its also bad for society as a whole because LGBT people commit more suicide (they will always be discriminated against), they molest more and they encourage more sexual deviancy

u mad?

Is smoking immoral? Is having unprotected sex inherently immoral? Is drinking alcohol immoral?
Two of the above are also “unnatural”, while all three cause health problems. Nice logic.

LGBTQ+ people don’t commit more suicide just because they’re LGBTQ+.

Citation need on your comment: “They will always be discriminated against”.

Also you haven’t shown that homosexuals molest more than straight people. What you have showed is that homosexuals are more often – molested – than straight people.

Quote

“they [LGBT) encourage more sexual deviancy”

Citation needed.

Quote

i claimed that 27 people received it total, people receive the death penalty for things other than homosexuality.

?what misleading statement

I was talking about was your original statement that 27 people in total had been killed by execution. I said that you had corrected this to be “27 people in 2020”, which is still a misleading figure as I noted earlier.

Quote

SCP and child sex dolls are inherently bad because they encourage sexual deviation.

Citation needed.

Quote

widespread pornography and sexual indecency, although i don't have an exact definition.

Is sexual indecency widespread… like at all?

Quote

more sexualized societies will have more sexual problems

Citation needed

Quote

No, the fact that the show [Cuties] got approved and shown on netflix shows how sexualized we have become. I think that after public outrage anyone supporting the movie would have silenced themselves in fear of being hated.

But the show got cancelled due to the outrage that followed because people didn’t support the premise of the show due to it’s “sexual” aspect? Are you going to claim that a silent majority secretly wanted the movie to stay up?

Quote

when i said periods i was talking about the stress.

Which is shown to happen to both M>F and F>M, so what’s your point? You even linked to several articles showcasing this.

Quote

you still dident answer the question that if child porn could be downloaded anonymously without leaving traces, would you accept it?

Actually, I did:

“So you have no sources. Gotcha. If you’re trading CP you’re exploiting others suffering for your own (and others) pleasure.”

So no, I wouldn’t accept it. I don’t have a well-thought-out opinion on CGI CP.

Quote

there are many studies that show that the number of LGBT people is fluid:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demograph…lence_over_time
"For example, the Hamburg Institute for Sexual Research conducted a survey over the sexual behavior of young people in 1970 and repeated it in 1990. Whereas in 1970 18% of the boys ages 16 and 17 reported to have had at least one same-sex sexual experience, the number had dropped to 2% by 1990."

This doesn’t dispute anything I’ve said.

Quote

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15275997/

It’s common courtesy to quote your sources instead of just giving me a link. I just read the abstract and this is word-for-word what it says. I don’t think you read your own sources, because this still speaks against your thesis lol:

“The prevalence of male homosexuality probably varies over time and across societies. One reason for this variation may be the joint effect of two factors: (1) variations in fertility rate or family size; and (2) the fraternal birth order effect, the finding that the odds of male homosexuality increases with each additional older brother. Because of these effects, the rate of male homosexuality may be relatively high (at least in terms of sexual attraction if not behavior) in societies that have a high fertility rate, but this rate has probably declined somewhat in some, particularly western, societies. Thus, even if accurately measured in one country at one time, the rate of male homosexuality is subject to change and is not generalizable over time or across societies.”

Quote

https://scienceoflgbt.com/what-causes-homosexuality/

It’s common courtesy to quote your sources instead of just giving me a link. This is a blog. I also only see a single reference in the blog (the Integrated Househould survey), which isn’t even a proper reference.

Quote

More proof that homosexuality is related so social factors is in the fact that homosexuals are more likely to have been molested/had a traumatic experience at youth. https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/study-hom…hildhood-trauma

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlati…imply_causation

Also, here’s the website’s wikipedia page. You have a really hard time finding objective & reliable
sources which support your claims, don’t you:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_Life_Coalition

“The Campaign Life Coalition (sometimes shortened to Campaign Life) is a Canadian political lobbyist organization founded in 1978.[1] Based in Toronto, the organization advocates for socially conservative values.[2] It opposes abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, assisted reproductive technologies, same-sex marriage, and gender identity legislation.[3][4][5]”

According to the fact-checking website Snopes.com, LifeSiteNews is "a known purveyor of misleading information"

It’s also pretty funny how you glossed over the fact that I called you out for using abhorrent sources in your last post. But no, that’s not cherry-picking at all lol.

Quote

did you just ask why fetishizing animals is not ok?
wow i thought that homosexuality does NOT normalize zoophilia? weird because you already rationalized SCP, child porn( to some extent), fetishizing animals and sex with dead animals.

So the only thing you can do is act offended when I ask you a question you cannot answer.

I didn’t rationalize child porn at all, but nice strawman.
I didn’t rationalize fetishizing animals, but nice strawman.
I didn’t rationalize having sex with dead animals, but nice strawman.

Quote

saying that sexual deviancy is morally wrong is not circular reasoning,

That’s not what I claimed was circular reasoning. I said it was circular reasoning because your argument was literally: “it’s wrong because it’s wrong”, which is indeed circular reasoning. Your original quote:

Quote

because its morally wrong and disgusting, its not natural and leads to higher depression, suicide, std's and death rates. (just the same way you would be against sex with animals)

You didn’t give any reasoning as to why it was morally wrong and disgusting, so that is indeed a perfect example of circular reasoning. It’s morally wrong because it’s morally wrong.

Quote

one deviancy leads to another and it ruins the structure of society.

Citation needed.

Quote

well for trans people especially, trying to pretend you are another gender your whole life would probably take a toll on your mental health. I honestly feel bad for them

Actually most, if not all people suffering from gender dysphoria are much happier after their transition. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6974860/ - “Transsexual individuals after surgery experienced more happiness and mental health than those before surgery.”)

I feel sad for the individual who won’t look beyond their own biases and look at the science objectively.

Quote

I don't think something is more universally rejected and hated more than sexual deviancy.

I could think of plenty of things, also it’s a broad thing to simply say “sexual deviancy” as that is an umbrella term encompassing voyeuristic disorder, exhibitionistic disorder, frotteuristic disorder, sexual masochism disorder, sexual sadism disorder, pedophilic disorder, fetishistic disorder, and transvestic disorder.
Murder & slavery quickly come to mind as worse than the majority of those disorders. Also, notice how homosexuality and transgenderism is – not – listed as a sexual deviancy according to the DSM-5?

Quote

a dog is not a human and does not need to consent, do we ask the dog for consent before we castrate them?

A child doesn’t consent to being seated in a car, despite it being possible of being involved in a car crash. A child doesn’t consent to getting vaccinated because the child cannot consent and their legal guardian instead has to consent on their behalf. Just like a child, the dog is uncapable of consenting due to their intellect or other circumstances, and their legal guardian therefore makes the choice for them. If the guardian abuses this power they get fined or sentenced to jail time.
This is not hard stuff to fathom.

Quote

One of the main points in this argument is if homosexuality is natural or not, me saying its unnatural is not an appeal to nature, its just establishing that its not natural and therefore it cant be argued that we are suppressing someone's instinct

When you use it’s “unnatural” as something to support your argument, then you’re indeed appealing to nature (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature).

All the peer-reviewed studies and scientific magazines linked in this thread all support the case that homosexuality is natural, so again, you’re arguing against your own point when you say that “we are suppressing someone’s instinct”. Even the articles you’ve linked support this notion lol.

Quote

yea i would say the modern take on sexuality (that they cant change and were born that way) is very harmful to someone's mental health

So you’re not going to answer the question. Gotcha.

Quote

are you denying that trans people and lgbt people are commiting suicide because of how they are?

...Yea…

Quote

LGBT > discrimination(will always be there) > depression

Citation needed

Also this doesn’t support your point, because you said they commit suicide (and by extension are depressed) because of their sexuality/gender. Not because they get discriminated against, but because they are inherently prone to those things because of their body / sexuality.

Quote

well lgbt can cause depression in some cases like trans people might have depression without discrimination.

transgender people can be depressed without discrimination

Yeah… That’s the point lol. That’s why they change gender to become happier.

Also, citation needed on that entire claim.

Quote

yes... but those same factors apply to non lgbt people (and lgbt people have a higher depression rate)

Not to the same extent.

Quote

https://www.healthpartners.com/blog/mental-he…nder-community/
"There is a high level of emotional pain that can come with transitioning. And there is a high level of emotional pain that can come with continuing to live with gender dysphoria. This pain (just like the pain that comes from living with any chronic disease) is what can lead to depression and anxiety. And it is these mental illnesses that can make a person feel like they have no way out and have thoughts of ending their life."

Your reference and quote don't support your claim. The quote mentions that there’s emotional pain involved with specically the transition. They then mention the emotional pain that can come if they continue to live with the “sex” they were assigned at birth (which I would say advocates that they should indeed transition). None of these two “pains” have anything to do with after their transition lmao.

Quote

no actually, the suicide rate of trans people doesn't improve after they transition

Citation strongly needed because I know this is bullshit lol.

ITT

->Billy claims homosexuality is not natural
-> links to studies showing that homosexuality is natural.

-> Billy claims homosexuality is increasing and says he has proof
-> doesn't show "proof"

-> Billy claims that transgender people are sad because they're transgender
-> links to article saying that transgender people post-transition are happier

methinks

@billy7oblos#13147

Quote

You quoted (1) of my sources back to me, the rest were relevant to the topic.

I didn’t say that they weren’t relevant to the topic. I said that the only peer-reviewed studies you’ve shown spoke against your own point, but you misconstrued their conclusion (mislead) to somehow fit your argument. This is why I continue to call you out for cherry-picking, whereas you have yet to find a single instance of me doing so.

Quote

Even the one source you quoted back to me supported my claim that the study concluded that genes could only account for 8-20% of 'sexuality'

That is not the only source I’ve quoted back to you lol.

And that is less than 1/10th of what I wrote as a rebuttal, but if you don’t want to have an honest conversation, then I don’t know why you even attend the “Deep Discussion”-forum. I explained thoroughly why the article didn’t support your claim, and now for a fifth time I will be re-quoting it:

_"The article you linked before: (https://theconversation.com/stop-calling-i…exuality-122764), which you apparently realized doesn't support your viewpoint since you are not pointing to it anymore.
Why would they argue for a gene-based answer if they know that the “latest study” estimated that genes account for 8-12% of sexual orientation? I’m getting curious, because it sounds an awful like cherry-picking:

Some excerpts from the article:

“By analyzing the DNA of nearly half a million people from the U.S. and the U.K., they [2019 study] concluded that genes account for between 8% and 25% of same-sex behavior.

The new finding is consistent with multiple earlier studies of twins that indicated same-sex attraction is a heritable trait.

The 2019 study is the latest in a hunt for “gay genes” that began in 1993, when Dean Hamer linked male homosexuality to a section of the X chromosome. [They continue to list examples of potential gene candidates for the “gay gene” throughout the last thirty years]

With multiple gene candidates being linked to homosexuality, it seemed highly unlikely that a single “gay” gene exists. This idea is further supported by the new study, which identified five new genetic loci (fixed positions on chromosomes) correlating with same-sex activity: two that appeared in men and women, two only in men, and one only in women.

Males with a genetic condition called androgen insensitivity syndrome can develop female genitalia and are usually brought up as girls, despite being genetically male – with an X and Y chromosome – and they are attracted to men. This suggests that testosterone is needed to “masculinize” a prenatal brain; if that doesn’t happen, the child will grow up to desire men.

Similarly, girls who have a genetic condition called congenital adrenal hyperplasia are exposed to unusually high levels of male hormones like testosterone while in the womb, which may masculinize their brain and increase the odds of lesbianism.

It’s also possible that hormonal shifts during pregnancy could affect how a fetus’ brain is configured. In rats, manipulation of hormones during pregnancy produces offspring that exhibit homosexual behavior.

[…] While there is no single “gay gene,” there is overwhelming evidence of a biological basis for sexual orientation that is programmed into the brain before birth based on a mix of genetics and prenatal conditions, none of which the fetus chooses.”

So you were indeed cherry-picking. The fact that you didn't even read the headline for the first article is frankly quite hilarious. You aren't supposed to go out of your way to find answers which allign with your own beliefs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias"_

I never talked about a gay gene i was talking about the effects of genetics on homosexuality.

https://youtu.be/oHC1230OpOg?t=3

Quote

after the 2019 study debunking the gay gene, the mainstream consensus is that they don't fully understand and that it cant be pinpointed mainly on genes

all the studies you cited here are before 2019; when the study debunking the gay gene came out

before the study debunking the gay gene came out

not really, the link i was replying talked about "the link of genetics and LGBT community" and claims there is a gay gene or similar

the article you linked to talks about "the genetics of sexual orientation", it has been proven many times that there is no "gay gene" and that being LGBTQ is not based on genetics.

The so called "gay gene" has been debunked there is no test that can accurately say if you are gay and there is nothing even suggesting that homosexuality is not influenced by society

What that quote says does not change the fact that " that the genetic variants they studied could predict, at best, somewhere between 8 percent and 25 percent of the reported variation in the entire cohort’s sexual behavior."

Display More

And he says that these genetic predictors (8-25%) all contribute to small genetic effects across the genome. I might even go out of my way to send a message to the author just to get him to affirm what I’m saying lol.

Quote

Note how he said "genetic" and not "biological", and he didn't mention other biological factors.
Lets look RIGHT ABOVE the text you quoted, it says:
"The rest comes down to the expansive realm of “non-genetic” or “environmental” effects—which Neale said “can range from anything in utero all the way through to who you happen to stand next to on the Tube in the morning.”"
nitpicking -_-

“non-genetic” or “enviromental” effects don’t dispute what I’m saying. Biology =/= genetics, and biology doesn’t exclude enviroment.

Still going strong on that strawman.

Quote

biology is not the consensus (as shown in the quote above).

Your quote doesn’t dispute the consensus. And a single quote does not equal a consensus for the scientific community lol.

Do you want me to repeat my references for why the consensus is that it’s mostly (or entirely) a matter of biology?

Quote

Also, feel free to actually find a metastudy or scientific magazine saying that the consensus is – not – that it’s biology-based, because so far you haven’t.

little as in maximum 8-25%

I disagree but ok.

Quote

No its not the article i sourced, i don't know why you keep saying that.

My apologies I didn’t mean to include that part.

Quote

I sourced one article that does not agree with me to prove a point

TheConversation article? But you used it to support your own point:

Quote

here is another article talking about the study that debunked the gay gene
https://theconversation.com/stop-calling-i…exuality-122764
" By analyzing the DNA of nearly half a million people from the U.S. and the U.K., they concluded that genes account for between 8% and 25% of same-sex behavior."

I merely quoted the article back to you because you were (most likely) intentionally being misleading by only using a single quote that supported your viewpoint. I wanted to correct the record, so that’s why I cited it back to you.

Quote

see quote above. Not sure if you mean the harverd article or the cherrypicking article, but if you mean the cherrypicking article than -obviously- they want to shill for a biological answer.

I don’t see why it would be nitpicking or cherry-picking when I include an article that supports my viewpoint by examining the vast amount of studies directly pertaining to what I’m claiming? If they found that the majority of studies didn’t conclude that biology was the key factor in predicting sexuality, then they wouldn’t have claimed the opposite.

What would they even get out of “shilling” for a biological answer lol.

Quote

There is not "overwhelming evidence of a biological basis for sexual orientation", just a bunch of small findings that people try to connect to homosexuality

I’ve cited countless of studies (incl. Metastudies) and I’m quite certain you haven’t read the majority of them.

Isn’t it convenient to be able to claim that something isn’t true without having to do the work of finding out if it actually is the truth. But I suppose linking to Conservative & religious advocacy groups is fine due dilligence in your eyes?

Research shows that homosexuality is a normal and natural variation in human sexuality
"Sexual orientation, homosexuality and bisexuality". American Psychological Association.

No single theory on the cause of sexual orientation has yet gained widespread support, scientists favor biologically-based theories.
Frankowski BL; American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Adolescence (June 2004). "Sexual orientation and adolescents". Pediatrics. 113 (6): 1827–32. doi:10.1542/peds.113.6.1827. PMID 15173519.

There is considerably more evidence supporting nonsocial, biological causes of sexual orientation than social ones.
Bailey JM, Vasey PL, Diamond LM, Breedlove SM, Vilain E, Epprecht M (2016). "Sexual Orientation, Controversy, and Science". Psychological Science in the Public Interest. 17 (21): 45–101. doi:10.1177/1529100616637616. PMID 27113562.
LeVay, Simon (2017). Gay, Straight, and the Reason Why: The Science of Sexual Orientation. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199752966.
Balthazart, Jacques (2012). The Biology of Homosexuality. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199838820.

There is no substantive evidence which suggests parenting or early childhood experiences play a role with regard to sexual orientation.
"Submission to the Church of England's Listening Exercise on Human Sexuality". The Royal College of Psychiatrists. Retrieved 13 June 2013.

Are you going to do the work and examine each of these sources and claims I just put forth, or are you just going to assert, “Nah it’s wrong because it’s wrong”.

Quote

Its not cherry-picking to be arguing for a point, you also have not shown me any study contrary to the studies i cited.

I’ve examined your studies, where half of them are from unreliable sources, and the other half are studies that don’t support your viewpoint.
I’ve shown plenty of studies that are contrary to your claim that “homosexuality is not natural” and that “homosexuality is increasing”. E.g. see above ^

Again, it’s easy to just put claims out in the air without having to back them up. Do you honestly believe that you’re arguing in good faith? You don’t even check your own sources before citing them.

Quote

yea, companies cant just discriminate without consequences and if they do they can probably get sued

Nobody ever speeds because it’s illegal to speed.

You do realize that it’s pretty hard to win a court-case when it’s a “he said”- “she said” scenario, yes?

Quote

When i said 'if anything gay people have more of a job opportunity' it was an opinion.

So we’re doing the feelings over facts thing?
When something can be directly examined it’s not a matter of opinion.

Quote

Wealth is not relevent here because we are talking about discrimination in employment. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018…us-labor-force/

You were the one who mentioned income?

Quote

"LGBT identification is more common among those with lower incomes, as has been the case consistently since 2012. The income gap is larger this year than it has been, with 6.2% of those making less than $36,000 a year in household income identifying as LGBT, compared with 3.9% of those making $90,000 or more."

You don’t think income has anything to do with discrimination in employment? What happens to your income if you don’t get a job, or get a worse position based on your sexuality?

Again, it’s nice and easy to put forth claims without doing any work to support them.

Quote

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018…us-labor-force/

It’s common courtesy to actually cite your source instead of just linking to a study. What do you to assert with this study? Millenials are the largest age group in the US, and they’re alse in the prime age group for the work-force, so I don’t get why you’re linking to the study when this is a “duh”-point?

Quote

The paragraphs you quoted dont make an assumtion, they say 'its possible that the younger generation are more comfortable identifying' and you also cited these earlier.

They gave an explanation for the study’s results.
They mention factors that can affect the willingess of adults to identify as LGBT. Comfortability and confidency about the confidentiality and privacy of the survey. The explanation they give for the survey results are that younger, LGBT people are increasingly comfortable with their sexuality/gender in contrast to the elder generations. This is why they are more likely to identify as such.
They also mention that the general grouping of LGBT into one question involves significant simplification, and that if you were to survey each category individually you’d get different estimates. And that self-identification of sexual orientation is distinct from other measures in regards to sexual behaviour or attraction.

Yes I cited them earlier, but since you blatantly ignored them (which I mentioned) I thought I’d be appropriate to cite them once again.

Quote

If you cant tell me that fucking a dead animal is morally wrong i don't know what to say. How can you still stand by the statement that "homosexuality does not lead to other deviancies"

You have yet to give me a single reason as to why fucking a dead animal is morally wrong.

Why do you want to fuck dead animals my dude?

Quote

No, i am not mad but you bolded your question (for like the 5th time)
you can argue smoking, sex and drinking are immoral (not sex) because it can encourage others to engage in harmful things, but either way people should not do those things because they are harmful

is sex immoral because it can encourage others to engage in harmful things?

Idk about you, but I think people should be allowed to do whatever they want to do as long as it doesn’t infringe on others.

Quote

me saying they will always be discriminated against is an opinion(just like sex work is discriminated against)

Facts over feelings my dude.

Quote

Homosexuality is connected to pedophillia, ill cite it again: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1556756/
It says at the end "This, of course, would not indicate that androphilic males have a greater propensity to offend against children.", this is true,

I literally can’t tell if you’re trolling at this point. This must be like the tenth time I have to say this. You didn’t claim that homosexuality ids connected to pedophlilia. You said that homosexuals are more likely to molest / abuse children based on their sexual orientation. You then linked to that study, which I made very clear did not claim that at all.
The study says that homosexuals are more likely – to have been – molested as children compared to straight people. They don’t make an explanation as to why or any interpretations of the results, they simply show the statistics.
You even mention so yourself just now, so I have no idea why you still want to cling on to this study when it has nothing to do with what you claim lol.

Quote

but gay people are still overrepresented in pedophilia

Citation strongly needed because I know this is false. You’re literally arguing the same (proven false) point that Brian Fischer has been doing. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/bryan-fi…f=gay-voices%20

A fine editorial detailling why this is nonsense:
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/homosexu…dophi_b_1932622

Also a good read:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Societal_…_and_pedophilia

Quote

i also cited the 184 people who received it in 2019 source

You never mentioned this number in this thread. You claimed that 27 people had been executed previously in this thread, then you post said link and don’t acknowledge that it disputes your number. Did you just admit you were being purposefully misleadning?

Does this fit the definition of a “self-own”?

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=self-owned

I guess so

Quote

Yes [, Sexual indeceny is widespread]

Citation needed.

Quote

its might not be a majority but it very likely is a huge percent

Is this a opinion (feeling) without anything concrete to substantiate your claim as well?

Quote

source? the articles i linked talked about "testimonies" and "why is the scientific community not looking into this"

The articles - you - linked said this and as far as I’m aware they cited their own sources.

Also this highly depends on what you’re claiming. Are you claiming that trans-people don’t get period symptoms, or that they don’t menstruate?

Quote

Suffering is not something that can be 'exploited' the child has already been exploited and watching the CP will not harm or benefit anyone (other than you).

Exploit:
make full use of and derive benefit from (a resource).
(Oxford Languages)

I’ll be honest and say that if we lived in a vacuum I couldn’t give you a good answer as to why it would be wrong to watch it, but that’s because I don’t involve myself with CP-related topics that often lol.

Quote

That is not even the question i asked though, i asked: if child porn could be downloaded anonymously without leaving traces, would you accept it? It doesn't matter if such a website exists or not, or how impractical it would be. would you accept it or not?

Intuitively no. As I said, you’re still exploiting the suffering that the child has endured for you to watch said material.

Quote

yes it does, you said the number has remained relatively constant. If its natural why is it not constant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demograph…lence_over_time

I don’t see why you feel the need to cite the same Wikipedia page without elaboration.

I said that it has remained relatively constant throughout history. Keyword being relative.
The study linked in the article is a – survey – done when homosexuality was not culturally accepted. Look for my explanation of the Gallup paragraphs for why this is not a good indicator of how gay the population in reality was.

Quote

they dont know scientifically why this variation exists so they say "one reason may be", this doesn't speak against my point because they said that "the rate of male homosexuality is subject to change and is not generalizable over time or across societies"

A scientist will never make an assumption based on nothing. Their assumptions are not equal to your “opinions”. Also the way scientific literature is worded is not the same as normal day-to-day speech. Scientists are humble because nothing in reality is certain. You will find similar wording in generally well-regarded literature.

Also it was you who linked to the study, not me. This is once again and example of you linking to something, then me pointing out that it doesn’t support your claim.

Here’s the entire quote:
“The prevalence of male homosexuality probably varies over time and across societies. One reason for this variation may be the joint effect of two factors: (1) variations in fertility rate or family size; and (2) the fraternal birth order effect, the finding that the odds of male homosexuality increases with each additional older brother. Because of these effects, the rate of male homosexuality may be relatively high (at least in terms of sexual attraction if not behavior) in societies that have a high fertility rate, but this rate has probably declined somewhat in some, particularly western, societies. Thus, even if accurately measured in one country at one time, the rate of male homosexuality is subject to change and is not generalizable over time or across societies.”

Quote

*alot of these are questions but you still refused to say simulated child porn is wrong

How nice of you to include the most misleading quotes you could find without context. This most accurately summarizes my viewpoint:

"Child porn is not inherently wrong because it all depends on the context. If studies showed that pedophilia could be treated in some manner wherein child porn is involved as a form of therapy, then I wouldn’t see that as unethical IF the individual filmed in the child porn is now above the age of consent and has agreed to their footage being used in a clinical setting to combat child predators.
So yes, you can indeed find inherent harm in these things in that if you watch child porn you’re supporting the uploader / supporting the act of filming children being abused."

Child porn if watched/filmed for pleasure by exploitation of a child is ethically immoral. That’s what I have said over and over in this thread, and the fact that you have to accuse me of “rationalizing child porn”. I am against the filming and enjoyment of child porn.

By me continually asking – you – why simulated child porn is wrong does not mean that I support it. Also it’s pretty ironic how you’ve yet to give me a single reason as to why it’s wrong. The fact that you can’t find a single reason speaks more of your approval than it does mine.

Do you like getting buttfucked? You never said that you didn’t like it personally in your ass.

Quote

You also are ok with furries from what i gather (this is fetishizing animals).
I also already answered why they are morally wrong.

No you didn’t. You said they were morally wrong because they’re disgusting. That is not an answer lol.
Seems to me like you support fucking dead animals since you can’t come up with a good argument against it.

Furry:
an enthusiast for animal characters with human characteristics, in particular a person who dresses up in costume as such a character or uses one as an avatar online.
(Oxford Languages)

Quote

well, the stable structure of society with fidelity and decency. I already cited in this thread studies that find that gay people have many more partners that straight people.

Citation still needed. The fact that gay people tend to have more partners does not mean more “sexual problems.”. Whatever that means.

Quote

its an opinion, i cant predict the future

Science can with great accuracy. But those feelings again.

Quote

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3043071/
"Persons with transsexualism, after sex reassignment, have considerably higher risks for mortality, suicidal behaviour, and psychiatric morbidity than the general population."

Funny how you exclude the latter part of the conclusion.

“Our findings suggest that sex reassignment, although alleviating gender dysphoria, may not suffice as treatment for transsexualism, and should inspire improved psychiatric and somatic care after sex reassignment for this patient group.”

Implying that gender dysphoria is not the only thing that needs to be treated in regards to transgender persons.
But nah. You’re definitely arguing in good faith and definitely not cherry-picking.

Quote

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/acps.13164
"However, the suicide risk in transgender people is higher than in the general population and seems to occur during every stage of transitioning. "

You still cherry-picking my dude:

Objective:
This study explored the overall suicide death rate, the incidence over time, and the stage in transition where suicide deaths were observed in transgender people.

Conclusion:
We observed no increase in suicide death risk over time and even a decrease in suicide death risk in trans women. However, the suicide risk in transgender people is higher than in the general population and seems to occur during every stage of transitioning. It is important to have specific attention for suicide risk in the counseling of this population and in providing suicide prevention programs.

We observed no increase in suicide death risk over time and even a decrease in suicide death risk in trans women.

I’ve already told you why transgender people are more suicidal than the general population, and this study does not demonstrate it’s intrinsically because of them being transgender, which was what you also claimed. You claimed that the risk of suicide doesn’t improve after they transition:

Quote

no actually, the suicide rate of trans people doesn't improve after they transition

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26479779/
" No significant difference in psychiatric morbidity or mortality was found between male to female and female to male (FtM) save for the total number of psychiatric diagnoses where FtM held a significantly higher number of psychiatric diagnoses overall."
meaning that the suicide rate did not improve

This study doesn’t examine suicides. It examines morbidity and mortality (general).

Quote

Funny meme

haha funny meme is funny. How are your feelin- I’m sorry I meant what are your opinions on this image