Originally posted by NewGuy01
Get with the program, Sel. Homosexuality is caused by genetics and the environment, completely different from disorders. Those are caused by, uh, like, demons and shit, right?
Oh my ****ing Christ, you homophobic pig. Fitting homosexuality to the definitions of old disorders and diseases is just another example of the gay community being repressed again. Real equality is judging everything else based on these new ground realities.
I'll go tell everyone with Breast Cancer that it's not a disease because it's caused by a hormone. You run off and tell people with skin cancer that it's caused by environmental factors and is therefore factually fine, and we'll let the others tell the haemophiliacs that since it's only caused by a minuscule recessive allele, they are also just a demographic and not victims of a disease.
That wasn't so hard was it? 🙂
I don't see how. Whether you want to call the urge to reproduce with something you can't a disorder or not doesn't matter; that's just semantics. The point is that discrimination against homosexuals stems from people's social norms, and homosexuality being placed in the "non-disorder" category in health class is unlikely to do anything about those.
A disorder implies it's a hinderence of some sort, yet most homo/bisexuals live completely normal and healthy lives... well besides the exception of close-minded, homophobic pr!cks harping on them.
It's more likely to be a deviation/aberration from the average and normal, but you can say the same for people with a high IQ.
From an atheistic-evolutionary standpoint, faggotry is nothing but a severe dysfunction, regardless of whether its causes are primarily genetic or the result of exposure to childhood sexual abuse or some sort of pathogen... or as Newguy puts it; demons and shit.
The result is an organism that is much, much less likely to reproduce than its normal, straight peers. Homosexuality therefore has no rational defense from intellectually honest atheist-evolutionists, who should all agree that gayness should be highly discouraged and limited, being a highly maladaptive evolutionary trait that serves to remove otherwise healthy individuals from the gene pool.
Originally posted by SaltySally
From an atheistic-evolutionary standpoint, faggotry is nothing but a severe dysfunction, regardless of whether its causes are primarily genetic or the result of exposure to childhood sexual abuse or some sort of pathogen... or as Newguy puts it; demons and shit.The result is an organism that is much, much less likely to reproduce than its normal, straight peers. Homosexuality therefore has no rational defense from intellectually honest atheist-evolutionists, who should all agree that gayness should be highly discouraged and limited, being a highly maladaptive evolutionary trait that serves to remove otherwise healthy individuals from the gene pool.
Originally posted by Beniboybling
i hope ur children get infected with gayism. 🙁
Originally posted by SaltySallyStudies show that homosexuals are more likely to have higher IQs than average yes. 👆
I'm not sure how it compares to Mythlord's supreme argument : Gays are just like ppl with high IQ's man.
Originally posted by NewGuy01Of course it would, if gay people are scientifically classified (and therefore treated) as mentally ill, people are more likely to be brought up to think they are mentally ill. That's just common sense pally.
I don't see how. Whether you want to call the urge to reproduce with something you can't a disorder or not doesn't matter; that's just semantics. The point is that discrimination against homosexuals stems from people's social norms, and homosexuality being placed in the "non-disorder" category in health class is unlikely to do anything about those.
Regardless you're wrong. Mental disorders are not semantics lol, and they've got nothing to do with whether or not one adheres to evolutionary norms. Instead to be classified as a mental disorder there need be evidence of pathology, in which respect Myth is right, gay people are no less healthy and mentally sound than homosexuals, in addition they are indistinguishable to straights when undergoing psychiatric tests designed to probe for pathology and finally efforts to "cure" this would be disorder through say, conversion therapy, are not only highly ineffective, but create mental disorders all on their own. Therapy that FYI, is given mandate by this classification, as are a host of other brain-dead discriminatiory practices.
In short homosexuality was not declassified as a mental disorder because people thought "it's OK, to be gay" but because it fails to fit the criteria, and evidence of actual pathology are weak and unsubstantiated.
I also can't help but find it amusing when the heterosexuals raise "but we can repraduce!11!!!" as the (sole) defence of the advantage of their existence, when on a planet facing unprecedented overpopulation and consequent poverty and starvation, it would actually be advantageous as a species for us to limit reproduction, not encourage it. Let's be honest, in an ideal world the heteros would be used as nothing more than reproductive livestock, while the gay gene would be cultivated to create a intellectually superior and culturally deviant master race to rule as your benevolent overlords. 🙁
Originally posted by SaltySally
From an atheistic-evolutionary standpoint, faggotry is nothing but a severe dysfunction, regardless of whether its causes are primarily genetic or the result of exposure to childhood sexual abuse or some sort of pathogen... or as Newguy puts it; demons and shit.The result is an organism that is much, much less likely to reproduce than its normal, straight peers. Homosexuality therefore has no rational defense from intellectually honest atheist-evolutionists, who should all agree that gayness should be highly discouraged and limited, being a highly maladaptive evolutionary trait that serves to remove otherwise healthy individuals from the gene pool.
So the only reason it's a hinderence is because these people can't have kids? In a world that's already suffering from overpopulation, not having progeny isn't really that bad a thing. And, by the by, homosexuals can reproduce: Lesbians can get artificially inseminated and gays can always have a surrogate mother. And then there's always adoption, given that a considerable chunk of children get either abandoned by or lose their parents at a young age.
So really... what's the problem, here?
Originally posted by SaltySally
From an atheistic-evolutionary standpoint, being ugly is nothing but a severe dysfunction, regardless of whether its causes are primarily genetic or the result of exposure to childhood abuse or some sort of pathogen... or as Newguy puts it; demons and shit.The result is an organism that is much, much less likely to reproduce than its normal, better looking peers. Ugliness therefore has no rational defense from intellectually honest atheist-evolutionists, who should all agree that ugliness should be highly discouraged and limited, being a highly maladaptive evolutionary trait that serves to remove otherwise healthy individuals from the gene pool.
U could swap dozens of adjectives out and the point would remain the same.
On a side note. If we "got rid" of everyone who is "evolutionarily inferior" both physically and mentally, I wonder how many people here would make the cut. I can't be certain, but I'd be willing to bet that I'd be very lonely here afterwards.