iNow

Without question, this is clearly the ONLY viable hypothesis. You mean except, of course, with my very first reply that you chose to defecate upon? Genuinely curious. How so, and even if true, why would that matter? And for this I’m genuinely grateful.

At least here we agree But unfortunately here we, without either question or equivocation, do not. Your bigotry sadly seems to be clouding your judgment and preventing an accurate reading of the evidence. Any mental illness you believe you detect is almost certainly a direct result of how so very many feeble minds like yours in our society rejects these individuals merely for being authentic to who they are and honest about who they love.

For what?

Happy to help

Appreciate your feedback.

Wait, what?

Actually, what they reported is that homosexual boys were more likely to be mistreated, not that mistreatment leads to more homosexual boys. Do you also believe carrying your umbrella makes it more likely to rain?

And also a present if we’re being honest It’s rather sad that you’re preemptively exploring justifications. Should we notify the authorities? I’m not ready to accept this as a valid conclusion.

I agree, and that over 20 year old paper has since been refuted. Did you have a point?

Very sorry to hear that. Also, very sorry to point out that security is not the only thing you’ve been inventing since joining this community.

But I’ve narrated nothing. All I’ve done is highlight flaws in your thinking and references to how it’s contradicted by modern science. Okay. Whatever. Good on ya. I accept your concession that you won’t/can’t actually “pointout a series of mistakes made there” in the numerous references and quotes I shared.

“There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged.One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."

Is this a journey of self exploration for you?

Also, I’d like the admins to do an IP check of you and that other reading comprehension problem guy who keeps responding. I’d be willing to bet you’re just sock puppets. Then do so

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environment_and_sexual_orientation Shall I go on, or will you acknowledge that maybe there’s merit in my criticism of your point?

You aren’t giving yourself enough credit. I’m sure you’re capable of being respectful. I showed why your point appears flawed. Try not to take it personally. Which is why I highlighted other data for you. How so? Please be specific. Here’s the reference and relevant bit to make meaningful and relevant response as easy as humanly possible for you: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1529100616637616

This is not an accurate reading of the data on the subject, ESPECIALLY since you refer specifically to child abuse and food as dominant environmental factors. When considering environmental factors of homosexuality, nearly all of it comes from time in the womb. You’re welcome to your opinion, but your conclusion seems flawed. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation#Twin_studies Promise?

Lol. Still absolutely unrelated to my actual point. You’re clearly under no obligation to share or confirm, but perhaps you suffer from some sort of mental handicap that leads to these consistently absurd and ridiculous exchanges every. single. time you post here?

Agreed, and yet this has literally nothing to do with my point. At this point, I can no longer give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you have severe reading comprehension problems. You’re obviously arguing in bad faith.

Irrelevant. Changing the definition of love has zero impact to either the veracity or validity of my challenge. Homosexuality is not disordered. Calling it disordered is a judgement.

Labeling two people who love each other as “disordered” due solely to their plumbing is, in fact, a judgment, and this will remain true regardless of how forcefully or consistently or condescendingly you protest.

Depends on the disorder and my relationship to them, but to reiterate my actual point: homosexuality isn’t a disorder so your reply is moot.

Of course, but I obviously was commenting on your suggestion that they were influenced by desire for rebellion and antisocial behavior. I’m in 100% agreement that flavor preferences are a result of both genetics and experience. Is this another example of your problems with reading comprehension?