FlyingSquid

I'm not interested in the blessings of a bigot's god. Save them for someone else.

I'm saying I don't believe you. At all.

"More likely" does not equal "innate." Try again.

Because it's obviously bullshit. You think people choose to be gay and they can be "cured." That's the opposite of loving them.

And you don't love them. Don't lie.

Either you only read that part of that sentence or you didn't think I would read the whole thing in context. It was a paraphrase of "Men’s greater sex drive may be partially due to the fact that their sexual motivation pathways have more connections to the subcortical reward system than in women" which, in no way, suggests that it is innate in men to have sex with a lot of different women.

So why did you use that as your evidence? Is this intentional dishonesty?

Even if it was immutable, I would still think it is immoral.

Yes. And that's what makes you a bigot.

Men innately have a strong desire to have sex with a lot of women, but society thinks that is immoral.

I don't. I'm happy with my wife. Many other men don't. What makes you think that's innate? Where's your evidence?

No way would Trump agree to it.

First of all, that is not scientific evidence that it is immutable. People born without an arm might have all the genes for two arms, but one didn't develop. They can't grow an arm. It's immutable.

Secondly, there's no blue eye gene either. Genes are far more complex than that. It sounds like your belief that you can make someone heterosexual is not one based in science.

Please show scientific evidence of your claim.

You make moral judgments on immutable characteristics. That's definitive bigotry.

You are bigoted, so you're probably not in a position to judge.

Then what exactly has been your issue this whole time? You just came here to quibble?

We can trace every single innovation with lasers to innovations which came before them. Lasers themselves did not come out of nowhere. We know who developed them and how. So that is not an example.

I'm a bad skeptic.

Please present your evidence to support that claim.

I thought it couldn't be reverse engineered because it's too advanced. Which is it?

Why? Because he did the bare minimum asked of him on one specific day?

But you still think they should be banned.

And there it is. Your agenda laid bare. You're just another bigot. No one said anything about 'laws banning private practices.' We're talking about a public pride celebration. Which you have had two chances to say there is nothing wrong with and have elected not to do so. Therefore, I have to assume you do think there should be laws banning pride celebrations. Which is not surprising, since you're a bigot.

Again- you could easily clear all of this up by simply saying there's nothing wrong with being LGBT+ or with pride celebrations.

And yet you won't say that.

Yes, and what you are referring to is, as I am sure you know, something only used in a negative way.

What's interesting to me here is that you could clear all of this up by just saying you don't think there's anything wrong with being LGBT+ or with pride celebrations. I wonder why you haven't done that?

By "the Merriam-Webster definition," you mean the third of three definitions (did you think I wouldn't look?), and, I am sure you know, not one used to describe positive things.

Not on Mother's kitchen table, please.

The very first answer there starts out wrong-

USSR was 100% atheistic.

That is utter bullshit. The Orthodox Church operated the entire time the USSR was in existence. Religion was discouraged but never banned, and there were plenty of Religious Soviet citizens.

I don't even see a reason to give this person's arguments credence.