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

[The Scientific States]

The only thing I see you posted is "I don't give a damn about Psychology and the like"

You posted more then once, but as far as I can see every one of your posts related to that.

Because he thinks sexuality is a simple logical gate of "Heterosexual/Asexual"

I can see this.

He's already telling me to read more of his posts, but it's the same bullcrap.

The rest of them revolve around the "biased source" argument which I can't stand.

[Shershah]

And you have proved that it is free of political bias how again ?

Proving a lack of political bias is unnecessary. So long as the research's methods are valid and its conclusions are logically sound, whether the research is biased or not is irrelevant. If current research conclusively proves homosexuality to be anything but a disease, whether that research has political motivations or not is irrelevant, since the results are undeniably real.

That might be acceptable to you, but not to me. It is necessary and completely relevant. It changes everything infact.

[Lemanrussland]

Yawn. Go re read from that post onwards.

The hell are you saying?

You guys are obviously not comprehending his genius.

Any issues you have with his flawless logic are due to you not knowing how to read.

[The Truth and Light]

Yet research can be blatantly faulty or not, regardless of political bias. Thus far, research overwhelmingly proves homosexuality to be just another natural, normal and perfectly harmless sexual orientation.

And you have proved that it is free of political bias how again ?

Spouting out the mouth and demanding that others go out of their way to prove you wrong is not only childish, but frankly it's the path of least effort. It's lazy, and you're lazy, both morally and intellectually. Go figure.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

You shouldn't have said that.

I mean, his mind might implode.

No. Not really. At the time people tried to exterminate them instead of help. And now politics has changed. Stand by them and you get more vote. So why not ?

Or maybe is because generationally the younger generation of people who are actually educated about the issue simply do not give a fuck?

[Shershah]

Because he thinks sexuality is a simple logical gate of "Heterosexual/Asexual"

I can see this.

He's already telling me to read more of his posts, but it's the same bullcrap.

The rest of them revolve around the "biased source" argument which I can't stand.

Then don't read anymore. You will just end up frustrating yourself. Or feel free to actually.

[The Scientific States]

Proving a lack of political bias is unnecessary. So long as the research's methods are valid and its conclusions are logically sound, whether the research is biased or not is irrelevant. If current research conclusively proves homosexuality to be anything but a disease, whether that research has political motivations or not is irrelevant, since the results are undeniably real.

That might be acceptable to you, but not to me. It is necessary and completely relevant. It changes everything infact.

So would you mind finding us a "non biased' source that gives evidence that LGBT people are diseased?

I'll be waiting.

To save you embarrassment, I give you this advice that nobody uses. Don't use the Onion, don't use a Right Wing Blog, don't use Fox News. Got it?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

The hell are you saying?

You guys are obviously not comprehending his genius.

Any issues you have with his flawless logic are due to you not knowing how to read.

How could I have not seen this.

I mean, my mind has just been blown.

[The Scientific States]

I can see this.

He's already telling me to read more of his posts, but it's the same bullcrap.

The rest of them revolve around the "biased source" argument which I can't stand.

Then don't read anymore. You will just end up frustrating yourself. Or feel free to actually.

[Liriena]

Proving a lack of political bias is unnecessary. So long as the research's methods are valid and its conclusions are logically sound, whether the research is biased or not is irrelevant. If current research conclusively proves homosexuality to be anything but a disease, whether that research has political motivations or not is irrelevant, since the results are undeniably real.

That might be acceptable to you, but not to me.

It's acceptable to the entire scientific community. Your denial of it only helps to show your hubris.

It is necessary and completely relevant. It changes everything infact.

Prove it.

[Shershah]

And you have proved that it is free of political bias how again ?

Spouting out the mouth and demanding that others go out of their way to prove you wrong is not only childish, but frankly it's the path of least effort. It's lazy, and you're lazy, both morally and intellectually. Go figure.

Look, i don't care whether you agree with me or not. But if you want to argue then do so, or if not then don't. It is simple. If you don't like the way how it is, simply ignore me.

[The Truth and Light]

Allow me to divine. Is literacy another one of those concepts that you'd rather define to suit your own prejudices, logic be damned?

You know what ? define logic.

Why don't you define it? The further this discussion progresses, the less effort you put into your responses or arguments, and the more effort we put into them. I'd like to flip the script for the moment, and see you actually challenge yourself.

[The Scientific States]

Spouting out the mouth and demanding that others go out of their way to prove you wrong is not only childish, but frankly it's the path of least effort. It's lazy, and you're lazy, both morally and intellectually. Go figure.

Look, i don't care whether you agree with me or not. But if you want to argue then do so, or if not then don't. It is simple. If you don't like the way how it is, simply ignore me.

It's called a debate forum for a reason.

If we don't like what you say, we'll debate you. Simple.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Spouting out the mouth and demanding that others go out of their way to prove you wrong is not only childish, but frankly it's the path of least effort. It's lazy, and you're lazy, both morally and intellectually. Go figure.

Look, i don't care whether you agree with me or not. But if you want to argue then do so, or if not then don't. It is simple. If you don't like the way how it is, simply ignore me.

So... *looks seriously*

Have you ever gone out of your basement?

[Blasveck]

Proving a lack of political bias is unnecessary. So long as the research's methods are valid and its conclusions are logically sound, whether the research is biased or not is irrelevant. If current research conclusively proves homosexuality to be anything but a disease, whether that research has political motivations or not is irrelevant, since the results are undeniably real.

That might be acceptable to you, but not to me. It is necessary and completely relevant. It changes everything infact.

Have you ever considered that the research you have presented could have political bias?

[The Truth and Light]

Spouting out the mouth and demanding that others go out of their way to prove you wrong is not only childish, but frankly it's the path of least effort. It's lazy, and you're lazy, both morally and intellectually. Go figure.

Look, i don't care whether you agree with me or not. But if you want to argue then do so, or if not then don't. It is simple. If you don't like the way how it is, simply ignore me.

The simple thing here is, no matter how you paint it, I'm not doing anything that needs correction or that results in error. I'm good. You, however, should read your posts and consider whether it's good for a person to be so mentally inactive.

[Liriena]

If you don't like the way how it is, simply ignore me.

I would rather see you admit that you have no idea how the scientific method work, that you have no valid sources to prove your assertions, and that the lack of evidence means your claims are currently worth less than Glenn Beck's.

[Shershah]

That might be acceptable to you, but not to me.

It's acceptable to the entire scientific community. Your denial of it only helps to show your hubris.

It is necessary and completely relevant. It changes everything infact.

Prove it.

I already said how it can influence the result. And the "entire" ? as in all of them ? can you say that for a fact ?

That might be acceptable to you, but not to me. It is necessary and completely relevant. It changes everything infact.

So would you mind finding us a "non biased' source that gives evidence that LGBT people are diseased?

I'll be waiting.

To save you embarrassment, I give you this advice that nobody uses. Don't use the Onion, don't use a Right Wing Blog, don't use Fox News. Got it?

But the fox...

Anyway i have already stated how that is almost impossible due to all the liberals.

No. Not really. At the time people tried to exterminate them instead of help. And now politics has changed. Stand by them and you get more vote. So why not ?

Or maybe is because generationally the younger generation of people who are actually educated about the issue simply do not give a fuck?

The same generation where "men are no longer men, women try to be men..." and all that ? right.

[Liriena]

That might be acceptable to you, but not to me. It is necessary and completely relevant. It changes everything infact.

Have you ever considered that the research you have presented could have political bias?

What? His research? Of course not! Silly Blas, that's a stupid thing to say!

[Soldati Senza Confini]

If you don't like the way how it is, simply ignore me.

I would rather see you admit that you have no idea how the scientific method work, that you have no valid sources to prove your assertions, and that the lack of evidence means your claims are currently worth less than Glenn Beck's.

You really had to bring Glenn Beck into the conversation?

I mean, really?

[Graknopia]

It's acceptable to the entire scientific community. Your denial of it only helps to show your hubris.


Prove it.

I already said how it can influence the result. And the "entire" ? as in all of them ? can you say that for a fact ?

So would you mind finding us a "non biased' source that gives evidence that LGBT people are diseased?

I'll be waiting.

To save you embarrassment, I give you this advice that nobody uses. Don't use the Onion, don't use a Right Wing Blog, don't use Fox News. Got it?

But the fox...

Anyway i have already stated how that is almost impossible due to all the liberals.

Or maybe is because generationally the younger generation of people who are actually educated about the issue simply do not give a fuck?

]The same generation where wmen can vote and get a well paying job. Where womn can serve to fight for one's country and doesnt have to be taking care of children all dayThe same generation where "men are no longer men, women try to be men..." and all that ? right.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

The same generation where "men are no longer men, women try to be men..." and all that ? right.

Maybe is the fact we don't believe in bullshit gender roles?

Oh, how can we ever be redeemed on challenging such a wise concept as the fact men cannot be soft and women should only stay at home and make sandwiches for us men.

[Shershah]

Look, i don't care whether you agree with me or not. But if you want to argue then do so, or if not then don't. It is simple. If you don't like the way how it is, simply ignore me.

It's called a debate forum for a reason.

If we don't like what you say, we'll debate you. Simple.

Then don't complain when it doesn't go your way. I already said that you are welcome to argue.

You know what ? define logic.

Why don't you define it? The further this discussion progresses, the less effort you put into your responses or arguments, and the more effort we put into them. I'd like to flip the script for the moment, and see you actually challenge yourself.

I am not going to bother.

[The Scientific States]

It's acceptable to the entire scientific community. Your denial of it only helps to show your hubris.


Prove it.

I already said how it can influence the result. And the "entire" ? as in all of them ? can you say that for a fact ?

So would you mind finding us a "non biased' source that gives evidence that LGBT people are diseased?

I'll be waiting.

To save you embarrassment, I give you this advice that nobody uses. Don't use the Onion, don't use a Right Wing Blog, don't use Fox News. Got it?

But the fox...

Anyway i have already stated how that is almost impossible due to all the liberals.

Or maybe is because generationally the younger generation of people who are actually educated about the issue simply do not give a fuck?

The same generation where "men are no longer men, women try to be men..." and all that ? right.

It's impossible to find a non biased source because homosexuality isn't a disease, and the only websites that claim it is one, are downright lying without any source.

[Liriena]

It's acceptable to the entire scientific community. Your denial of it only helps to show your hubris.


Prove it.

I already said how it can influence the result. And the "entire" ? as in all of them ? can you say that for a fact ?

You just made a couple of assertions. Said assertions require proof, either by logical argumentation or empirical evidence. You have yet to provide any of that, and your mental gymnastics only serve as poor distractions.

So would you mind finding us a "non biased' source that gives evidence that LGBT people are diseased?

I'll be waiting.

To save you embarrassment, I give you this advice that nobody uses. Don't use the Onion, don't use a Right Wing Blog, don't use Fox News. Got it?

But the fox...

Anyway i have already stated how that is almost impossible due to all the liberals.

If you have no sources, then we have no reason to take your claims seriously.

Or maybe is because generationally the younger generation of people who are actually educated about the issue simply do not give a fuck?

The same generation where "men are no longer men, women try to be men..." and all that ? right.

Ad hominem, and a lousy one at that.