Gay Weddings Legalized in....wait, Vietnam?

[Shershah]

And i just consider it as something for which a cure if possible should be created. That is all. I don't hate them, i just pity them.

They don't need nor want your pity. They don't want you to enforce your baseless rules on to them. There is nothing to cure. Gayness is not a disease.

I respectfully disagree.

Mutations doesn't contradict the fact that only the strong survive. You need to be able to reproduce to ensure the continuity of the species and hence heterosexual behaviour is favoured. That is a fact.

Also it can just as well be sterility or asexuality. It need not be homosexuality. So not really much of a point.

Humans are K strategists. A larger number of adults looking after a fewer number of children is favored. A non-reproducing uncle with strong family ties is a boon for you.

Doesn't mean that the uncle need be gay. False logic.

Favoured = the norm =/= the exception.

Sanity is the norm, insanity is the exception. Healthy is the norm, diseased is the exception. We try to cure diseases don't we. That is what i see it as.

Favored just means it is more likely to appear, it doesn't mean it has, by law, to appear in a population.

Again, you can't cure a natural process.

Diseases are natural processes...

[Sun Wukong]

another leftet state

Damn those leftet states.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

But saying "gayness" is

I couldn't think of a better word.

Homosexuality my friend, homosexuality.

Or, if you want to be all classicist, homophilia.

[Lost heros]

They don't need nor want your pity. They don't want you to enforce your baseless rules on to them. There is nothing to cure. Gayness is not a disease.

I respectfully disagree.

And your scientific backing is?
Oh right, scientists are just evil libruls.

[Liriena]

another leftet state

That English...

[Furious Grandmothers]

another leftet state

Damn those leftet states.

We need to heat them to melt them into a middlet state.

[Sun Wukong]

Humans are K strategists. A larger number of adults looking after a fewer number of children is favored. A non-reproducing uncle with strong family ties is a boon for you.

Doesn't mean that the uncle need be gay. False logic.

No, but a gay uncle obviously would qualify. Natural selection doesn't care how a result is achieved, so long as it is. Misunderstanding my argument does not serve as a rebuttal.

[Liriena]

Evolution is not about the "survival of the strong"

Evolution is about the survival of the species as a whole.

And it just so happens that not everybody needs to be able to reproduce to contribute to the survival of the species.

And your argument ?

You pity mentally healthy people for having a sexual orientation different from yours, and think they should be force to undergo medical procedures aimed at "curing" them of something that is not a disease and is inherently harmless?

You make no sense.

I consider it as a disorder or mental illness. I thought i said that already.

Yet you have no proof.

[Lost heros]

I couldn't think of a better word.

Homosexuality my friend, homosexuality.

Or, if you want to be all classicist, homophilia.

I derped

[Shershah]

Only it is not an advantage. If you are talking about overpopulation, sterility is an advantage, but homosexual people can still reproduce, so not really an advantage from biological point of view.

Sterility is just one form of advantage.

That's the funny thing about biology, random shit happens and we have one or multiple variables. Homosexuality has existed since forever because it is advantageous to the population group of humans. Christianity on the other hand has placed a serious stigma on homosexuality, and as such we can conclude Christianity is unnatural.

And just because cancer has existed naturally for a long time doesn't mean that we don't try to cure it.

As for religions, i don't really care.

And your argument ?

The vast majority of ants are non-reproductive. Ants are among, if not the most, successful species on the planet.

Natural selection does not support your argument.

Are they homosexual ? Is the queen homosexual ?

[Sun Wukong]

The vast majority of ants are non-reproductive. Ants are among, if not the most, successful species on the planet.

Natural selection does not support your argument.

Are they homosexual ? Is the queen homosexual ?

You're shifting the goalposts. It doesn't matter, so long as you contend homosexuality is disfavored because homosexuals do not reproduce (which is false, by the way.)

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Favored just means it is more likely to appear, it doesn't mean it has, by law, to appear in a population.

Again, you can't cure a natural process.

Diseases are natural processes...

...Which are created by organisms from the outside in the majority of cases, trying to compete for dominance. Except for autoimmunological diseases like Lupus, but then those diseases are results of a malfunction of the immune system acting as if the body was a foreign object and trying to get rid of it.

In that case, are humans a disease because they have competed against all other animals and we have killed plenty of species?

[Shershah]

Doesn't mean that the uncle need be gay. False logic.

No, but a gay uncle obviously would qualify. Natural selection doesn't care how a result is achieved, so long as it is. Misunderstanding my argument does not serve as a rebuttal.

And i am simply saying that that itself is not a justification.

I respectfully disagree.

And your scientific backing is?
Oh right, scientists are just evil libruls.

Not really. Most are just afraid of the backlash and political correctness.

[Lost heros]

Sterility is just one form of advantage.

That's the funny thing about biology, random shit happens and we have one or multiple variables. Homosexuality has existed since forever because it is advantageous to the population group of humans. Christianity on the other hand has placed a serious stigma on homosexuality, and as such we can conclude Christianity is unnatural.

And just because cancer has existed naturally for a long time doesn't mean that we don't try to cure it.

As for religions, i don't really care.

The vast majority of ants are non-reproductive. Ants are among, if not the most, successful species on the planet.

Natural selection does not support your argument.

Are they homosexual ? Is the queen homosexual ?

He was debunking your argument that homosexuals are bad because they don't reproduce.

[Blasveck]

Sterility is just one form of advantage.

That's the funny thing about biology, random shit happens and we have one or multiple variables. Homosexuality has existed since forever because it is advantageous to the population group of humans. Christianity on the other hand has placed a serious stigma on homosexuality, and as such we can conclude Christianity is unnatural.

And just because cancer has existed naturally for a long time doesn't mean that we don't try to cure it.

As for religions, i don't really care.

The vast majority of ants are non-reproductive. Ants are among, if not the most, successful species on the planet.

Natural selection does not support your argument.

Are they homosexual ? Is the queen homosexual ?

You still haven't sourced that homosexuality is a disease.

And you completely misunderstood Sun's argument. Having non-reproductive members, like homosexual members of a species, is not always a bad thing.

[Lost heros]

No, but a gay uncle obviously would qualify. Natural selection doesn't care how a result is achieved, so long as it is. Misunderstanding my argument does not serve as a rebuttal.

And i am simply saying that that itself is not a justification.

And your scientific backing is?
Oh right, scientists are just evil libruls.

Not really. Most are just afraid of the backlash and political correctness.

Conspiracy theories, yay!

[Sun Wukong]

No, but a gay uncle obviously would qualify. Natural selection doesn't care how a result is achieved, so long as it is. Misunderstanding my argument does not serve as a rebuttal.

And i am simply saying that that itself is not a justification.

Justification for what?

Consensual behaviors that hurt no one do not require justification.

[Furious Grandmothers]

And i am simply saying that that itself is not a justification.

Justification for what?

Consensual behaviors that hurt no one do not require justification.

Or those that hurt so good.

[Threlizdun]

No, but a gay uncle obviously would qualify. Natural selection doesn't care how a result is achieved, so long as it is. Misunderstanding my argument does not serve as a rebuttal.

And i am simply saying that that itself is not a justification.

And your scientific backing is?
Oh right, scientists are just evil libruls.

Not really. Most are just afraid of the backlash and political correctness.

So literally every mental health reputable mental health official in the world is afraid of political backlash and you are clearly this enlightened figure that knows better than them. You are calling homosexuality a mental disorder, yet you must be delusional yourself to make such a claim.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Sterility is just one form of advantage.

That's the funny thing about biology, random shit happens and we have one or multiple variables. Homosexuality has existed since forever because it is advantageous to the population group of humans. Christianity on the other hand has placed a serious stigma on homosexuality, and as such we can conclude Christianity is unnatural.

And just because cancer has existed naturally for a long time doesn't mean that we don't try to cure it.

As for religions, i don't really care.

Do you even know the physiopathology of cancer?

[Shershah]

Diseases are natural processes...

...Which are created by organisms from the outside in the majority of cases, trying to compete for dominance. Except for autoimmunological diseases like Lupus, but then those diseases are results of a malfunction of the immune system acting as if the body was a foreign object and trying to get rid of it.

In that case, are humans a disease because they have competed against all other animals and we have killed plenty of species?

So are you trying to say that if you got any disease you wouldn't try to cure it ? or that you wouldn't want a cure regardless of you have that disease or not ?

He was debunking your argument that homosexuals are bad because they don't reproduce.

And failed as far as i can see. And i don't intend to use the term bad. More like they are suffering from a defect.

[Blasveck]

...Which are created by organisms from the outside in the majority of cases, trying to compete for dominance. Except for autoimmunological diseases like Lupus, but then those diseases are results of a malfunction of the immune system acting as if the body was a foreign object and trying to get rid of it.

In that case, are humans a disease because they have competed against all other animals and we have killed plenty of species?

So are you trying to say that if you got any disease you wouldn't try to cure it ? or that you wouldn't want a cure regardless of you have that disease or not ?

He was debunking your argument that homosexuals are bad because they don't reproduce.

And failed as far as i can see. And i don't intend to use the term bad. More like they are suffering from a defect.

Failed in what ways?

Care to elaborate on your rebuttal?

[Lost heros]

...Which are created by organisms from the outside in the majority of cases, trying to compete for dominance. Except for autoimmunological diseases like Lupus, but then those diseases are results of a malfunction of the immune system acting as if the body was a foreign object and trying to get rid of it.

In that case, are humans a disease because they have competed against all other animals and we have killed plenty of species?

So are you trying to say that if you got any disease you wouldn't try to cure it ? or that you wouldn't want a cure regardless of you have that disease or not ?

He was debunking your argument that homosexuals are bad because they don't reproduce.

And failed as far as i can see. And i don't intend to use the term bad. More like they are suffering from a defect.

He failed because you purposefully misinterpreted. Regardless, your argument that homosexuals are suffering from something malignant, because they don't reproduce is wrong because reproduction is not necessary for species survival.

[Liriena]

More like they are suffering from a defect.

A "defect" you have yet to prove.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

...Which are created by organisms from the outside in the majority of cases, trying to compete for dominance. Except for autoimmunological diseases like Lupus, but then those diseases are results of a malfunction of the immune system acting as if the body was a foreign object and trying to get rid of it.

In that case, are humans a disease because they have competed against all other animals and we have killed plenty of species?

So are you trying to say that if you got any disease you wouldn't try to cure it ? or that you wouldn't want a cure regardless of you have that disease or not ?

Wut?

I would try to cure it because it is an outside organism that causes a threat to my own life if I do not, Lupus is a genetic disease that causes my body to try to kill itself with its own immune system (which to be honest, the immune system is almost autonomous).

Homosexuality does not have that particular genetic trait, therefore it isn't a disease but more of a normal phenomenon that happens in nature. It doesn't compete with heterosexuality and is, in fact, complimentary to it.