But I eat the food, AND I also drink the water. Does this mean that I am gay?

I’ll take my answer off-air. Thank you, and good night.

Only if the balls touch.

Yep, this should be a huge story in the USA.

The number of people who give a fuck: . . . 0

Homosexuality is linked to maternal prenatal stress hormones, particularly if she also smokes or takes amphetamines. Society is not happy with this subject however.

The statistically measured, natural percentage of homosexuality among males is 2-10% & 5% for women. Atrazine is likely responsible for the increases above this norm.

The norm is about 0,5% actually. 2-10% is a lie.

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/12/where-masturbation-and-homosexuality-do-not-exist/265849/

It's likely more complicated than this. From wikipedia -

The Maya Chilam Balam books, for example, regularly contained sexual insults directed toward the Itzá. According to mythology contained in the book, sodomites were responsible for destroying the order of Maya society by producing illegitimate children through their anuses who were unable to run society.

Now I just laughed aloud reading all this, because it seems nervously accurate to today's powers that be.

[removed]

How would you recommend alerting people to this? I tried to explain this to my friends that are normies and they laughed it off and called each other gay. There’s a lot of articles that are years old as well. It seems hopeless in every sense of the word.

Is there anything wrong with being gay, bi etc?

There are a lot of straight people who kill themselves too.

With no statistical relevance. Don't be retarded, come now.

Yes, but 40% of straight people don't attempt suicide.

Its unnatural so as to say... wrong

Define 'natural'.

Being gay isn't natural. Whether it is right or wrong is down to society to decide.

While homosexuality can be found in nature, it is not the natural order of things.

Define 'natural'.

i would say the natural order of things is to replicate and reproduce. If you aren't reproducing or continuing life, then that is not natural and against nature.

Whatever spin we put on this as a society is a different matter entirely. 'Choosing' not to replicate is against nature.

This isn't a social commentary on whether gay/trans is acceptable.

What's your justification for defining 'natural' in this way? Doesn't make much sense. Rocks do not replicate and reproduce - are they not natural?

See, if you're just going to continue to attack (or maybe something along those lines without the aggression behind an attack) perception of words then we are wasting each others times.

Yeah, rocks aren't here to reproduce though are they? Life, a part of natural, in the way of nature, has only one mission : reproduction.

If something goes against the prime directive, it is going against the norm or Is classed as not normal. Going against nature is not natural, by definition.

So, life has a prime directive, which is to reproduce. If you don't or can't reproduce you are not normal, not natural or unnatural by the very definitions of the words. That means, homosexuality, which cannot reproduce, by definition, is the same as going against the prime directive of reproduction and is thus not natural.

Again, I will reiterate; this is not a social commentary on whether or not homosexuality is wrong, immoral or unacceptable.

This is, however, clearly stating that homosexuality in nature, not just humans, is unnatural.

So, life has a prime directive

What the hell are you talking about? Life is just something that happens - a physical/chemical process like the formation of stars or rocks or hurricanes. There is no Prime Director and there are no prime directives, just a chain of cause and effect that stretches forwards and back into the infinite abyss of time. Anything that happens in the cosmos is natural by default. Nothing that exists in Nature can be unnatural, don't you see?

No, I can't disagree with that. Envoking the power of the universe as a way to get your point across is a bit...pointless though.

My point is that it is meaningless to call something 'unnatural', since nothing unnatural can exist.

Yeah, I get what you're saying, it's just a totally pointless discussion though.

I could just as easily ask : What is existence?

Do you agree that nothing unnatural can exist in the universe?

I can only agree by disagreeing with equal measure.

No, nothing can be seen as unnatural when you put it into the context of the universe. At the same time, nothing can be existence in the context of the universe without first explaining what existence is.

Can you see where I'm coming from?

Does homosexuality exist in the universe? If you aren't sure, then there's nothing left to discuss. I do think that homosexuality exists.

Pee in va-gee

Is that the only thing that's natural, by your definition? If so, it's utterly usefuless - how useful is a map that's as large as its territory?

No nothing at all!

T. Bill Gates

Remember what your sub you're in, it attracts the loons.

That's not the point, though. OP is asking if A causes B, not if you think B is good or bad.

Which filtering type is recommended?

Buy a distiller first...$75 on eBay

Define 'natural'.