Homosexuality Is A Birth Defect

[Ontologuy]

As the OP's accurate science links presented:

1. Homosexuality is not a conscious choice and not a genetic trait, but is epigentically inculcated.

2. The epigenetic mechanism that causes homosexuality is abnormal.

3. Epigenetic malfunction abnormalities occur during gestation, causing birth defects.

4. The abnormal epigenetic mechanism that causes homosexuality occurs during gestation and is present at birth.

5. The condition of homosexuality is having a physiological sex that is at abnormal and defective cross-purposes with one's neuropsychological attracted-to gender, creating an intrinsic misery.

When you put all of these facts together, the only logical, rational, conclusion is that ..

.. Homosexuality is a birth defect.

Obviously.

Science has clearly spoken.

Denial of the scientifically obvious is futile.

 

[Gwendoline]

I actually liked the theory that was running around another forum: that homosexuals were being sent telepathic messages "to be gay". There was a Special Organisation involved in sending out telepathic messages to unsuspecting humans... making them gay.

I'm intrigued... really intrigued why straight people care so much about homosexuality. Their very own heterosexuality must be a very dull thing to them, I guess...

 

[Ontologuy]

Genuine question: Why do you care?

I care because I seek the truth, and I posted a scientific presentation of fact in the OP because it reflected a scientific breakthrough in realizing the long sought after etiology of homosexuality.

For that scientific presentation, I'm taking a ton of flack.

So the real question is why do so many post here in obvious contradiction of the scientific fact -- why does the birth defect reality of homosexuality bother them so greatly?

 

[Ontologuy]

I'm guessing that in your attempt to be patronizing, you don't realize you're also baiting here. But okay. The real point is that there remain scientific and "rational" conjecture and that the jury is still out, irrespective of your particular view or anybody else's. But in plainer English, blah-blah-blah-popinjay-blah.

Clearly, the jury is not "still out" -- the scientific verdict is now in: homosexuality is a birth defect.

But what is also clear, now that I look over to the left at your political leaning, is that you perhaps have a problem with the birth defect reality of homosexuality, not for the same reasons the left-wing ideologues do, but because of your right-wing ideology that erroneously thinks homosexuality is a conscious choice. :shock:

So, just to clear this up, do you think homosexuality is a conscious choice?

 

[Aunt Spiker]

LOL - the conspiracy theories rooted in quacky science are becoming extravagant and veering further apart. It's convincing me more and more that my view of not giving a rats ass is spot on and quite logical.

Every effort to turn homosexuals into broken, twisted individuals conflicts with my real life experiences with nothing but balanced, healthy, well educated, intelligent individuals.

 

[Ontologuy]

LOL - the conspiracy theories rooted in quacky science are becoming extravagant and veering further apart.

As the OP science links accurately pointed out, epigentics is not a "quacky science", has been a scientific breakthrough for about ten years now, and epi-marker modification has lead to a drastic reduction in the incidence of the birth defect of spina bifida.

Epigentics is focused and right on in its accurate etiology of the birth defect of homosexuality, obviously.

That you erroneously call the scientific reality of epigentics "quacky science" evidences a biased likely ideological aversion to the scientific truth that homosexuality is a birth defect.

It's convincing me more and more that my view of not giving a rats ass is spot on and quite logical.

Clearly you need to concoct outrageously false premises to justify your personal idiosyncractic decision to "not give a rat's ass".

Meaningless.

Every effort to turn homosexuals into broken, twisted individuals

You error in your perception.

The fact that the science of epigenetics has created the breakthrough in accurately presenting the birth defect etiology of homosexuality is not an "effort to turn homosexuals into broken, twisted individuals".

Your purposeful mischaracterization of science is merely your own ideological prejudice at work.

conflicts with my real life experiences with nothing but balanced, healthy, well educated, intelligent individuals.

And your apologetic is thus meaningless.

Scientific reality remains that homosexaulity is a birth defect.

That reality, once spread to the general public, will cause an increase in compassion and a decrease in bullying ..

.. Not to mention funding to prevent the birth defect of homosexuality and thus prevent for many the intrinsic misery of the birth defect they would have otherwise suffered.

These are all good things ..

.. Good things realized by simply accepting the truth.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

I don't think I care.

All I see is pathetic desperation to get the desired result no matter what imbalanced and senseless means one must take to get there - so long as the outcome justifies the loathing the haters are all on board.

In essence - I see temper tantrums and hissy fits when one's way isn't begotten. Your post there is proof of that - name calling and foot stomping?

 

[Ontologuy]

I don't think I care.

That you don't care that only good things will happen when the general public realizes the birth defect reality of homosexuality ..

.. Is very sad.

All I see is pathetic desperation to get the desired result no matter what imbalanced and senseless means one must take to get there - so long as the outcome justifies the loathing the haters are all on board. In essence - I see temper tantrums and hissy fits when one's way isn't begotten. Your post there is proof of that - name calling and foot stomping?

Then you suffer from obvious hallucinations, as what you're "seeing" is simply not there ..

.. Either that or you are projectingly referring to the ideologues who simply can't handle the birth defect reality truth about homosexuality and are whining and throwing irrational tantrums in response.

Regardless, you are in obvious error.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

That you don't care that only good things will happen when the general public realizes the birth defect reality of homosexuality ..

.. Is very sad.



Then you suffer from obvious hallucinations, as what you're "seeing" is simply not there ..

.. Either that or you are projectingly referring to the ideologues who simply can't handle the birth defect reality truth about homosexuality and are whining and throwing irrational tantrums in response.

Regardless, you are in obvious error.

LOL - watch, in a few months a scientist will come out and prove and different theory. . . will you jump ship? I thought the mercury poisoning experiment would have won you over.

 

[Ontologuy]

LOL - watch, in a few months a scientist will come out and prove and different theory. . . will you jump ship? I thought the mercury poisoning experiment would have won you over.

Your fantasy is simply that.

The epigenetic presentation of the birth defect reality of homosexuality is solid science, and there is no rational conjecture, only major support.

In fact, epi-marker abnormal malfunctions, as presented in the OP, are often stimulated by harsh inhalants/ingestions such as mercury which actually lends credence to the implication of mercury as an epigenetic malfunction trigger in the matter.

Regardless, the hormonal malfunction that causes homosexuality is epigenetic in its etiological birth defect causation.

Like with spina bifida, it was discovered that epigenetic malfunction chemical triggers can be compensated for by giving the pregnant woman high doses of B vitamins and folate, and that tracking the result of so doing revealed a drastic reduction in the birth defect of spina bifida.

Reality remains, you are having a difficult time with the hard science of epigenetics because it has revealed the etiological birth defect reality of homosexuality.

That speaks to your ideological predisposition to dumb yourself down in the face of hard, solid scientific facts that are in conflict with your pre-conceived ideology.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Your fantasy is simply that.

The epigenetic presentation of the birth defect reality of homosexuality is solid science, and there is no rational conjecture, only major support.

In fact, epi-marker abnormal malfunctions, as presented in the OP, are often stimulated by harsh inhalants/ingestions such as mercury which actually lends credence to the implication of mercury as an epigenetic malfunction trigger in the matter.

Regardless, the hormonal malfunction that causes homosexuality is epigenetic in its etiological birth defect causation.

Like with spina bifida, it was discovered that epigenetic malfunction chemical triggers can be compensated for by giving the pregnant woman high doses of B vitamins and folate, and that tracking the result of so doing revealed a drastic reduction in the birth defect of spina bifida.

Reality remains, you are having a difficult time with the hard science of epigenetics because it has revealed the etiological birth defect reality of homosexuality.

That speaks to your ideological predisposition to dumb yourself down in the face of hard, solid scientific facts that are in conflict with your pre-conceived ideology.

Cold hard facts wouldn't come with 10 differing other cold, hard 'facts'

There's no a single bit of a venom and snarling spite you can work into a post that will make me see anything differently. I'd like to thank DP for hardening me as such - expecting real proof for real claims, not subjection and theory. . . while interesting topics - it often is based on biased sentiments and emotional ploys.

 

[CLAX1911]

Here you post in obvious admission of the intrinsic suffering inherent in the birth defect condition of homosexuality, whereby you suffered your own intrinsically oriented depression.

Then, rather than endure your own condition and accept the reality of it, you distract with making it all about others, that the only reason you suffered was because of the bullying of others, and obviously false allusion.

The fact remains that most bullies and rejecters think that homosexuality is a conscious choice.

When they realize that it's the birth defect it truly is, many of them will simply cease their bullying/rejecting and replace it with compassion.

But until you go back to your roots, your birth defect roots, and reclaim the instrinic reality of the suffering endemic to being homosexual, you will now continue to falsely blame people like me, who've done absotluely nothing to harm you, for your intrinsic suffering.

Kids with freckles have a birth defect then, if they get picked on and they fell undue stress they must be defective by your definition

 

[nota bene]

Cold hard facts wouldn't come with 10 differing other cold, hard 'facts'

There's no a single bit of a venom and snarling spite you can work into a post that will make me see anything differently. I'd like to thank DP for hardening me as such - expecting real proof for real claims, not subjection and theory. . . while interesting topics - it often is based on biased sentiments and emotional ploys.

And projection. Don't forget projection.

I'd surely recommend looking at the "scholarly" links provided (most aren't). Pitiable. And at some point, you begin to lose sympathy for those who've crossed the line beyond credulity. I mean, being credulous and naive is okay; being willfully and insultingly stubborn is...not. What it is is embarrassing.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

And projection. Don't forget projection.

I'd surely recommend looking at the "scholarly" links provided (most aren't). Pitiable. And at some point, you begin to lose sympathy for those who've crossed the line beyond credulity. I mean, being credulous and naive is okay; being willfully and insultingly stubborn is...not. What it is is embarrassing.

LOL - I could prove I'm God if I was so inclined

 

[Strucker]

LOL - the conspiracy theories rooted in quacky science are becoming extravagant and veering further apart. It's convincing me more and more that my view of not giving a rats ass is spot on and quite logical.

Yeah, it would appear you have chosen your path wisely.

Some of us are a little more foolish.

 

[joko104]

Your fantasy is simply that.

The epigenetic presentation of the birth defect reality of homosexuality is solid science, and there is no rational conjecture, only major support.

In fact, epi-marker abnormal malfunctions, as presented in the OP, are often stimulated by harsh inhalants/ingestions such as mercury which actually lends credence to the implication of mercury as an epigenetic malfunction trigger in the matter.

Regardless, the hormonal malfunction that causes homosexuality is epigenetic in its etiological birth defect causation.

Like with spina bifida, it was discovered that epigenetic malfunction chemical triggers can be compensated for by giving the pregnant woman high doses of B vitamins and folate, and that tracking the result of so doing revealed a drastic reduction in the birth defect of spina bifida.

Reality remains, you are having a difficult time with the hard science of epigenetics because it has revealed the etiological birth defect reality of homosexuality.

That speaks to your ideological predisposition to dumb yourself down in the face of hard, solid scientific facts that are in conflict with your pre-conceived ideology.

First, it is only a "birth defect" if we assume your incessant hatred of LGTBs is correct.
Second, again, by your logic YOU are a birth defect.
Third, it is no "solid science" whatsoever.

 

[Rocketman]

You laugh because you've got nothing.

I laugh at you, just like my 5 year old grandson

 

[CriticalThought]

I care because I seek the truth, and I posted a scientific presentation of fact in the OP because it reflected a scientific breakthrough in realizing the long sought after etiology of homosexuality.

For that scientific presentation, I'm taking a ton of flack.

So the real question is why do so many post here in obvious contradiction of the scientific fact -- why does the birth defect reality of homosexuality bother them so greatly?

I figured you out. You like the attention. Why else would someone be as intentionally gauche as you are being? You deliberately chose to interpret the evidence by calling it a "defect" despite having no evidence of the harm allegedly inherent in being gay. You wanted to bait people and to hide behind a facade of caring about the truth. But the truth is you have an agenda that makes you far from objective. You believe you can get people to treat gay people better by declaring there is something wrong with them and people should feel sorry for them. But that is likely just another ruse you are using to justify your attempts to denigrate and belittle gay people.

 

[nota bene]

Your obviously false premise is a concoction of yours to justify your conclusionary ad hominem.

Clearly you have an emotional problem with the birth defect reality of homosexuality, and you're venting your emotional vile on the messenger.

You're practicing psychology without a license here. Let's get back to your begging the question. You have no proof that homosexuality is a "birth defect," yet you continue to insist that "science" has proven this. Further, the majority of your sources aren't scholarly, are tangential, and both.

 

[CLAX1911]

You're practicing psychology without a license here. Let's get back to your begging the question. You have no proof that homosexuality is a "birth defect," yet you continue to insist that "science" has proven this. Further, the majority of your sources aren't scholarly, are tangential, and both.

He can insist all he wants, his insurance doesn't change fact, fact still remains that there is no way to know homosexuality is a defect. He dodges every question about how he defines that which he doesn't understand. He cowares from the Frey at every hard point that disapproves his case. Critical thought hit the nail on the head with his evaluation.

Science hasn't proven him correct, if it did there wouldn't be any argument. Simply a peer reviewed journal that establishes his claim. It is a non expert opinion.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

The word "defect" does sound bad so what word would you suggest using when things don't go entirely as planned in the womb and the baby comes out different than normal?

Well, your word usage is pretty poor. Firstly, homosexuality is normal. I'd say if things turn out different, I'd use the word "different".

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Absolutely, and obviously, false -- it was right there in front of your eyes, and in typical blind-ideologue fashion you refuse to acknowledge what is there in plain sight.

Absolutely NOT. Post the quotes. You have STILL not done so.

Here you are making one of the biggest projections you've ever made, a moderator on this site, constantly coming back to this thread, spamming and trolling.

Post direct quotes from the science in your OP that supports your assertion, as you claim they do. If you cannot, you are debunked, if you do not, you are trolling.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Your trolling request for others to filibusteringly spam the thread is simply that, the whining of an ideologue who simply can't handle the scientific breakthrough truth that homosexuality is a birth defect.

You STILL haven't posted the quotes from your "science"... because you CAN'T. You have been destroyed, Onologuy, and you are too dishonest to admit it. I will, of course give you a way to prove yourself NOT cowardly and dishonest in how you have posted in this thread:

Post direct quotes from the science in your OP that supports your assertion, as you claim they do. If you cannot, you are debunked, if you do not, you are trolling.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Same old inaccurate and dishonest crap I keep posting.

Edited for accuracy.

Post direct quotes from the science in your OP that supports your assertion, as you claim they do. If you cannot, you are debunked, if you do not, you are trolling.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Inaccurate garbage.

Dishonest garbage.

Debunked garbage.

Continued garbage that has been proven worthless..

Refuted stupidity.

Nothing of substance.

The above posts have been edited by me to reflect exactly what you are posting. I have requested that you post direct quotes from your "science" that supports your position that homosexuality is a defect. You have refused. We KNOW why... it's because it's not there. If it was, you would have posted the quotes already. Your "science" has been obliterated and shown to have no validity... as has your entire position on this.

Again, I encourage all other posters on this thread to post the following as a response to anything that Ontologuy posts:

Post direct quotes from the science in your OP that supports your assertion, as you claim they do. If you cannot, you are debunked, if you do not, you are trolling.

He has refused to support his position. Until he does... which we know he can't, there is no reason to discuss anything with him, as his position has no merit. He is just an anti-gay ideologue.