Homosexuality is caused by parasites 🦠

[puniteking]

lol I though the study was bs but it’s real

Over for @Orc

 

[Orc]

the premise of the argument is already flawed, homosexuality doesn't make you infertile, many gay people do reproduce.

 

[Sub5UglyMan]

It seems like it says that homosexuals who don’t clean before sex are more likely to contract parasites

 

[looksmaxxed]

homos=brainworm infestation via anum

 

[valentine]

being straight is caused by brain disease

 

[puniteking]

being straight is caused by brain disease

gay

 

[mortis]

op i have sexual feelings for goats, what do i have inside me?

 

[JeanneDArcAlter]

the premise of the argument is already flawed, homosexuality doesn't make you infertile, many gay people do reproduce.

 

[Sub5UglyMan]

op i have sexual feelings for goats, what do i have inside me?

Islam

 

[The Grinch]

BBC can’t lose

 

[puniteking]

BBC can’t lose

BBC is the future

 

[BrainrottenZoomer]

View attachment 3693920
lol I though the study was bs but it’s real
View attachment 3693933
Over for @Orc

Does this apply to lesbians and bisexuals?

 

[Deleted member 146915]

Humans have always had parasites though..
@thereallegend @sigma boii

 

[Part-Time Chad]

So, then homosexuality is indeed a disease.

 

[kwjqxlw99]

It is a mix of both parasites and chemical exposure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBTQ_chemicals_conspiracy_theory. There is also grooming, mental issues and trauma response which is evident when you look at how many Hollywood celebrities have gay/tranny kids

 

[Ogionth]

the premise of the argument is already flawed, homosexuality doesn't make you infertile, many gay people do reproduce.

It did not argue that but rather that "the universal practise of strict homosexuality (no heterosexuality) would lead to extinction", not that it makes you infertile.

I'm not interested in the argument - however, I'm just correcting you.

 

[kwjqxlw99]

Does this apply to lesbians and bisexuals?

No. Gay men are the ones transmitting diseases

 

[truthhurts]

Isn’t homosexuality widespread in the animal kingdom aswell?

 

[Orc]

It did not argue that but rather that "the universal practise of strict homosexuality (no heterosexuality) would lead to extinction", not that it makes you infertile.

I'm not interested in the argument - however, I'm just correcting you.

once again flawed because homosexuality doesn't occur at those rates

and that's unless reproduction is maintained through alternative means, the majority of gay men still desire to have children and this number is increasing over time as social and legal barriers decline.

 

[Orc]

Isn’t homosexuality widespread in the animal kingdom aswell?

technically no because homosexuality requires the strict conscious intent to be with a man, and most animals have no signs of consciousness and don't intent to do anything, they run on biological programming.

strictly speaking they can't even eat or drink because that also requires intent, instead they assimilate.

homosexual behavior is common however, but just because you act gay doesn't mean you are.

 

[Deleted member 130748]

View attachment 3693920
lol I though the study was bs but it’s real
View attachment 3693933
Over for @Orc

raw meat copers seeing this

 

[truthhurts]

technically no because homosexuality requires the strict conscious intent to be with a man, and most animals have no signs of consciousness and don't intent to do anything, they run on biological programming.

strictly speaking they can't even eat or drink because that also requires intent, instead they assimilate.

homosexual behavior is common however, but just because you act gay doesn't mean you are.

appreciate the answer

 

[Ogionth]

once again flawed because homosexuality doesn't occur at those rates

the argument didn't argue that it did,

it must universally occur without such a major consequence (extinction in this case), then it'd be moral. [ This isn't my argument, but the presupposition of the text, I will state mine later ]

and that's unless reproduction is maintained through alternative means, the majority of gay men still desire to have children and this number is increasing over time as social and legal barriers decline.

through alternative means would necessarily require the involvement opposite gender which again isn't what was being argued.

and no one argued that gay men didn't want children, irrelevant.

 

[puniteking]

the argument didn't argue that it did,

but for something to be moral, it must universally occur without such a consequence (extinction in this case).

through alternative means would necessarily require the involvement opposite gender which again isn't what was being argued.

and no one argued that gay men didn't want children, irrelevant.

Can you rate me

 

[Ogionth]

Can you rate me

the argument didn't argue that it did,

it assumed that it must universally occur without such a major consequence (extinction in this case).

just becau
through alternative means would necessarily require the involvement opposite gender which again isn't what was being argued.

and no one argued that gay men didn't want children, irrelevant.

Btw this isn't my argument Orc, this is what the text said so disregard it for now and

Why don't you try and tell me why homosexuality is moral?

 

[Ogionth]

Can you rate me

pm

 

[Orc]

the argument didn't argue that it did,

but for something to be moral, it must universally occur without such a major consequence (extinction in this case).

just because you cannot comprehend what it actually said, doesn't mean it's "flawed".

you already failed at comprehension when you assumed that extinction is immoral.

through alternative means would necessarily require the involvement opposite gender which again isn't what was being argued.

and no one argued that gay men didn't want children, irrelevant.

having heterosexual reproduction doesn't make you straight.

 

[Ogionth]

you already failed at comprehension when you assumed that extinction is immoral.

I didn't assume that,

and im not arguing that, thas the text.

i didn't fail at comprehending it, instead you did since you've strawmanned the original text so many times while it being so easy to refute.

having heterosexual reproduction doesn't make you straight.

no one said it did, but it implies that strict homosexuality without cannot be maintained in nature without extinction, has there always been the resources to artifically aid the reproduction? do u even read what im typing?

 

[Ogionth]

Btw this isn't my argument Orc, this is what the text said so disregard it for now and

Why don't you try and tell me why homosexuality is moral?

Also don't run away from your kryptonite.

 

[Orc]

I didn't assume that,

and im not arguing that, thas the text.

i didn't fail at comprehending it, instead you did since you've strawmanned the original text so many times while it being so easy to refute.

you did assume that, you just edited it.

human extinction due to the cessation of reproduction is morally neutral, there isn't any inherent value to a particular species existing, and there's no bloodshed from simply not having children, extinction is usually not some catastrophic event, species just cease to adapt properly and slowly diminish over time.

you could also argue that the existence of humans is immoral, because we are the catastrophic event.

no one said it did, but it implies that homosexuality cannot be maintained without extinction, do u even read what im typing?

homosexuality doesn't prevent you from getting women pregnant, so it can be maintained if the desire is there.

it would just require surrogacy.

 

[Ogionth]

you did assume that, you just edited it.

did i edit it before you replied or after?

if it is before then should ur reply be influenced by it?

and by your strawwmans, since the start, it is clear that you lack basic comprehension so it's not a surprise that you brought this up

human extinction due to the cessation of reproduction is morally neutral, there isn't any inherent value to a particular species existing, and there's no bloodshed from simply not having children, extinction is usually not some catastrophic event, species just cease to adapt properly and slowly diminish over time.

so? i didn't argue this.

my argument is waiting, stop disregarding that, are you scared?

you could also argue that the existence if humans is immoral, because we are the catastrophic event.

now you're just being nonsensical jfl.

homosexuality doesn't prevent you from getting women pregnant, so it can be maintained if the desire is there.

"desire"

if there is desire to impregnate women, thats not strict homosexuality.


btw my argument is still waiting stop running away, lets see you tell us why homosexuality is moral?

and for artificial aids, has there always been the resources to artifically aid the reproduction?

 

[True truecel]

homosexuality is just a birth defect, just like Chrohn's disease or down syndrome

that doesn't make me homophobic, its a fact

 

[Orc]

did i edit it before you replied or after?

if it is before then should ur reply be influenced by it?

your original comment assumes it's immoral, editing it doesn't change that

so? i didn't argue this.

my argument is waiting, stop disregarding that, are you scared?

you have no argument, sexuality is morally neutral

"desire"

if there is desire, thats not strict homosexuality.

the desire to reproduce and the desire to be with women are two different facets.

btw my argument is still waiting stop running away, lets see you tell us why homosexuality is moral?

you'd have to come up with an argument first.

and for artificial aids, has there always been the resources to artifically aid the reproduction?

not really required considering the gay population has been stable meaning the genes for it aren't going anywhere, that would only be necessary if the entire population was gay, but in that scenario we still wouldn't go extinct because lesbians also want to become parents and they need men for that.

so you'd just have an entire population that's gay, and they'd still reproduce, not because they desire eachother, but because they desire kids.

studies show that ~50–60% of gay men and ~70–80% of lesbians express a desire to be parents, so you wouldn't even have a big drop in population.

 

[Ogionth]

your original comment assumes it's immoral, editing it doesn't change that

the text didn't assume it, thats why i edited it, my comments were interpretations of the text.

you okay mate?

you have no argument, sexuality is morally neutral

if you proceed with the question I asked then the argument will be presented, are you ragebaiting or what?

why is sexuality morally neutral?

the desire to reproduce and the desire to be with women are two different facets.

the desire to reproduce with women and the desire to be with a woman are correlated.

you'd have to come up with an argument first.

why dont you answer my question so i can proceed with it? are you scared of your kryptonite?

not really required considering the gay population has been stable meaning the genes for it aren't going anywhere, that would only be necessary if the entire population was gay,

the text assumed universability, how many times do i tell you? do u have dyslexia?

but in that scenario we still wouldn't go extinct because lesbians also want to become parents and they need men for that.

so you'd just have an entire population that's gay, and they'd still reproduce, not because they desire eachother, but because they desire kids.

So they'd need to have sex with the opposite gender then it wouldn't be homo-sex-uality or they'd use artificial means but did the artificial means always exist?

studies show that ~50–60% of gay men and ~70–80% of lesbians express a desire to be parents, so you wouldn't even have a big drop in population.

irrelevant so im gonna disregard it


BTW stop running away, are you that scared to defend what you practise?

why is homosexuality moral? and why is it neutral if you claim so?

 

[Orc]

the text didn't assume it, thats why i edited it, my comments were interpretations of the text.

it did directly assume this.

''for something to be moral, it must universally occur without such a major consequence (extinction in this case)''

extinction is neither a major consequence, nor fundamentally immoral

if you proceed with the question I asked then the argument will be presented, are you ragebaiting or what?

why is sexuality morally neutral?

it's an innate characteristic or orientation, not an action

the desire to reproduce with women and the desire to be with a woman are correlated.

not really, most gay people want kids, but they don't desire the opposite gender.

why dont you answer my question so i can proceed with it? are you scared of your kryptonite?

there is no answer to your question, morality applies to voluntary actions, you don't hold people responsible for being tall or left handed

the text assumed universability, how many times do i tell you? do u have dyslexia?

why would this ever be assumed?

So they'd need to have sex with the opposite gender then it wouldn't be homo-sex-uality or they'd use artificial means but did the artificial means always exist?

heterosexuality is an active desire to engage in sexual intercourse with the opposite sex, if this isn't there, if you're doing it just to have kids, then it is not hetero.

animals are not hetero either

irrelevant so im gonna disregard it

room temperature iq

if most humans want kids, their sexuality doesn't matter, they'll have kids regardless of their sexuality

BTW stop running away, are you that scared to defend what you practise?

why is homosexuality moral? and why is it neutral if you claim so?

'defend a claim you never made'

 

[Ogionth]

it did directly assume this.

not necessarily, it didn't assume that it was immoral.

''for something to be moral, it must universally occur without such a major consequence (extinction in this case)''

extinction is neither a major consequence, nor fundamentally immoral

this was stated by me, as i thought that wat was the text meant but i realised a few sec later, that it was not related to the text so i omited it, you clearly are retarded to the point that despite telling you like 3 times, you brought tis up over and over.

is your only argument "muh you edited it" even tho you clearly saw that i had edited it before you replied, you literally are the epitome of someone that is mentally retarded.

why would this ever be assumed?

because the topic was about "EXTINCTION", it wouldn't lead to extinction otherwsie? are you like mentally okay mate?

'defend a claim you never made'

You literally fucking said it was morally neutral.

"sexuality is morally neutral" -Orc

so it includes homosexuality but since you referred to the sexual orientation rather than the act, then here comes the question that I was intending to ask.

"Is homosexuality moral, immoral or morally neutral?" (Homosexuality as in engaging in sex -male to male- -female to female- and in the case of intersex, engaging in sex with whichever (male or female) you possess more physical characteristics close to, not as in having the desire to enagage in sex but the specific voluntary action)".

[ I disregarded your points that were relevant to that specific text by OP bcz it was making the text bigger and it isn't my original argument so id like to proceed with this, and you can disregard everything in this text except this one question so that we can argue with small passages to convey properly]

 

[InanimatePragmatist]

View attachment 3693920
lol I though the study was bs but it’s real
View attachment 3693933
Over for @Orc

ah you found the parasite pill. A classic

 

[Ogionth]

not necessarily, it didn't assume that it was immoral.

this was stated by me, as i thought that wat was the text meant but i realised a few sec later, that it was not related to the text so i omited it, you clearly are retarded to the point that despite telling you like 3 times, you brought tis up over and over.

is your only argument "muh you edited it" even tho you clearly saw that i had edited it before you replied, you literally are the epitome of someone that is mentally retarded.

because the topic was about "EXTINCTION", it wouldn't lead to extinction otherwsie? are you like mentally okay mate?

You literally fucking said it was morally neutral.

"sexuality is morally neutral" -Orc

so it includes homosexuality but since you referred to the sexual orientation rather than the act, then here comes the question that I was intending to ask.

"Is homosexuality moral, immoral or morally neutral?" (Homosexuality as in engaging in sex -male to male- -female to female- and in the case of intersex, engaging in sex with whichever (male or female) you possess more physical characteristics close to, not as in having the desire to enagage in sex but the specific voluntary action)".

[ I disregarded your points that were relevant to that specific text by OP bcz it was making the text bigger and it isn't my original argument so id like to proceed with this, and you can disregard everything in this text except this one question so that we can argue with small passages to convey properly]

@Orc

Disregard everything written and answer this.


"Is homosexuality moral, immoral or morally neutral?" (Homosexuality as in engaging in sex -male to male- -female to female- and in the case of intersex, engaging in sex with whichever (male or female) you possess more physical characteristics close to, not as in having the desire to enagage in sex but the specific voluntary action)"


dont be scared to defend your faggotry now, gayboy, too many red herrings now.

 

[Orc]

not necessarily, it didn't assume that it was immoral.

necessarily and without a doubt, if that's the excluding factor to morality then you're by default calling it immoral.

this was stated by me, as i thought that wat was the text meant but i realised a few sec later, that it was not related to the text so i omited it, you clearly are retarded to the point that despite telling you like 3 times, you brought tis up over and over.

so you realized it was retarded and then backpedaled.

because the topic was about "EXTINCTION", it wouldn't lead to extinction otherwsie? are you like mentally okay mate?

the premise is entirely false if that is the case, because a lack of heterosexuality doesn't cause extinction.

most animals are not hetero, that requires the explicit intent to be with the opposite gender, most animals are literally bugs that get no satisfaction from reproduction, it often even kills them, their only drive is a biological need to reproduce, there is no further intent in it beyond that, which makes it not hetero.

if the majority of gay people want children, then if the entire population were gay there'd still be children.

You literally fucking said it was morally neutral.

so why ask again.

so it includes homosexuality but since you referred to the sexual orientation rather than the act, then here comes the question that I was intending to ask.

"Is homosexuality moral, immoral or morally neutral?" (Homosexuality as in engaging in sex -male to male- -female to female- and in the case of intersex, engaging in sex with whichever (male or female) you possess more physical characteristics close to, not as in having the desire to enagage in sex but the specific voluntary action)".

consensual enjoyable sex between two people is always moral, it's two people satisfying eachother.

[ I disregarded your points that were relevant to that specific text by OP bcz it was making the text bigger and it isn't my original argument so id like to proceed with this, and you can disregard everything in this text except this one question so that we can argue with small passages to convey properly]

you mean you didn't answer the points that challenged your worldview.

 

[fr0st]

View attachment 3693920
lol I though the study was bs but it’s real
View attachment 3693933
Over for @Orc

there have been many documented cases of homosexual animals documented throughout history homosexuality is just a difference in chemistry this argument is completely retarded

 

[Sub5UglyMan]

What’s the point of this retarded thread

 

[Ogionth]

consensual enjoyable sex between two people is always moral, it's two people satisfying eachother.

So following a consistency in that logic,

sex between a mother and her son is moral if it is consensual, contraceptive is used, and they enjoy it, correct?

you mean you didn't answer the points that challenged your worldview.

Not really, plus you don't even understand that it wasn't my worldview but of the text itself but dont worry, i will disregard your paragraphs and expose your faggotry with my "World View" now.

 

[Sub5UglyMan]

So following a consistency in that logic,

sex between a mother and her son is moral if it is consensual, contraceptive is used, and they enjoy it, correct?

It’s immoral because there’s a power imbalance, children can’t consent, and there has to be grooming involved

 

[Orc]

So following a consistency in that logic,

sex between a mother and her son is moral if it is consensual, contraceptive is used, and they enjoy it, correct?

if they're both adults no one's legally or morally able to prevent that.

Not really, plus you don't even understand that it wasn't my worldview but of the text itself but dont worry, i will disregard your paragraphs and expose your faggotry with my "World View" now.

nobody cares about it

 

[Orc]

It’s immoral because there’s a power imbalance, children can’t consent, and there has to be grooming involved

this is also true.

 

[Ogionth]

It’s immoral because there’s a power imbalance, children can’t consent, and there has to be grooming involved

Who said that the son was a child?

Faggot

 

[Deleted member 131140]

This thread is a doozy

 

[Ogionth]

this is also true.

Who said that the son was a child?

If i said "consensual" then it means it's an adult or something that is capable of consenting.

Looks like my world view exposed your faggotry indeed huh that you've to resort to strawmanning

 

[Ogionth]

if they're both adults no one's legally or morally able to prevent that.

No, say it this way.

So it is moral and absolutely right to do so, according to you, correct, incest is moral?

 

[Jelexy]

I ain’t reading allat because im animalsexual.

I basically moustrize my dick with beef tallow and fucking the little circle that i made inside of my grass fed beef