The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free! Is being gay, Curable?in General

Logic

 I heard that this group of Russians, Created a cure for being gay. What do you guys think?

kandhhjj_global

No, it's uncurable. It just happens, and I'm not sure, but I think at a young age.

islander507

I actually think that Is ridiculous.  The issue is the Russia is highly homophobic and treat it like a terminal illness.  Some parts (or most) of Russia even denies that they have LGBT community. To make it even worse, some areas like Chechnya actually go after LGBT and put them in jail or beat them.  It is a violation of human rights.
I don't believe it is "curable" or should be treated like a disease.  I suggest we accept LGBT community and let them be.  We don't need to join them, just accept them for who they are.

kmelkevolution17

No, being gay can't be curable. I was talking to some other people on debateisland who agreed.

kend_countries19

No, it's usually found by the person at a young age and it lost likely in curable. It's just in their genetics. In the future, a cure could be developed, but I don't believe that's a priority for the near future and possibly a while from now as well due to letting people be happy.

Logic

If by being happy, You mean finding love in their own way, Love can be blind. How do we know they won't be happier when cured? IF they can be cured

melanielust

Being gay isn't a thing that needs to be cured!! It's completely natural and there's nothing wrong with it

ale5

@melanielust, I agree. "Cure" sounds like a Chechnya talk in their attitude towards LGBT.  My position on that topic is accepting of the gay community, although I personally
don't have that preference.
a more appropriate phrase for this debate probably should have been "change sexual orientation" instead of "cure".  In any case, I think it's pretty much genetic.

MayCaesar

There are a few sides to this question. Let us explore them all.

1. First of all, it is not entirely clear yet whether "gays" exist. Science has not discovered any significant differences between people exhibiting homosexual and heterosexual preference. It is possible that sexual orientation is not a hard-wired individual characteristic, but, rather, a preference heavily influenced by the society. Some people prefer blue-eyed partners, others prefer brown-eyed partners - but generally the eye color is not a definitive characteristic. Perhaps sexuality is like this as well; some people prefer women more, others prefer men more, and it is the society enforcing the anti-homosexual stigma that prevents many of us from discovering this side of us.
2. Then, the word "curable" assumes that the object is harmful to the individual. I fail to see why being a gay would be fundamentally detrimental to one's life. Aside from not being able to get a blood-related child easily (bypassable with modern science), and from being ostracized by the society (which is the societal failure, not the individual one), there is nothing being a gay impairs one with, hence it is hardly something that needs to be "cured".
3. So, given the previous two are settled, can one change from being a gay to being non-gay? Yes and no. As of now, no scientifically verified ways of inducing such a transformation are known; in the future, however, when we learn to easily manipulate genes and cells, there will probably be a way to change one's sexuality on the fly.

ethang5

No, homosexuality cannot be "cured", but it can be prevented.

Countries now disappearing under negative population growth are finding a new reason of how homosexuality is detrimental to society.

JackNewton

is being straight curable?

Applesauce

Have gays gone straight, yes, just like straights have gone gay.  Though some of the instances of the gays gone straight, they did so with help and or wanted the help, which imo is totally different than "coming out".  So if you consider that a "cure" then your answer is yes.

John_C_87

The issue is that Homosexuality is not just a persons choice it is a lie told publicly, so yes it can be curable so to speak with the truth. The understanding for constitutional separation is only the accusation sets a legal precedent based on the lie that is told.  A choice is still just a choice not lie. As we are expected to tell a truth, a whole truth.

Zombieguy1987

ethang5 said:

No, homosexuality cannot be "cured", but it can be prevented.

Countries now disappearing under negative population growth are finding a new reason of how homosexuality is detrimental to society.

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm…

WordsMatter

@ethang5 yeah the gays are totally to blame for people deciding to have kids later and later in life and to only have 1 or 2 children. The average family not person, but married couple that decides to have children, has ~2 kids on average. When straight couples are only replacing themselves and not producing a surplus the population can only logically remain the same size at absolute best. When you factor in people who die before having kids and straight married couples who decide not to have any kids at all then obviously the population will decline.

Sorry but the gays aren't making the population decline, straight families that decide not to have kids or not to have more than two kids are making the population decline. Sorry we don't live in a world where women are forced to be a baby factory like your religion would prefer anymore.

ethang5

@WordsMatter

>yeah the gays are totally to blame for people deciding to have kids later and later in life and to only have 1 or 2 children.

Lol. Guess you think gays do contribute to population growth. How in the world could you have concluded from my post that I was blaming gays for the choices of others?

>The average family not person, but married couple that decides to have children, has ~2 kids on average. When straight couples are only replacing themselves and not producing a surplus the population can only logically remain the same size at absolute best.

PEOPLE who procreate contribute to population growth, and PEOPLE who do not procreate contribute to population decline. There is no need for weasel words.

>When you factor in people who die before having kids and straight married couples who decide not to have any kids at all then obviously the population will decline.

But we won't "factor in" gay people because according to PC dogma, homosexuality can have no negative effects, right?

>Sorry but the gays aren't making the population decline, straight families that decide not to have kids or not to have more than two kids are making the population decline.

How liberals can say such silly things with a straight face is fascinating. Everyone who doesn't have offspring make the population decline. Gays are not exempt.

>Sorry we don't live in a world where women are forced to be a baby factory like your religion would prefer anymore.

Who forced your mom? And I'm sure this new world you live in will be a comfort to those countries that are disappearing. They'll be extinct, but will take comfort that the women weren't forced.

With illogical PC thinking like this, how will western countries NOT go extinct?

ethang5

@Zombieguy1987

The genius posted a .gif, I must concede his superior debating skill.

Hey z-guy, what say we wait 5 years till you're 20 and then debate? I might be mature enough for you then.

Zombieguy1987

ethang5 said:

@Zombieguy1987

The genius posted a .gif, I must concede his superior debating skill.

Hey z-guy, what say we wait 5 years till you're 20 and then debate? I might be mature enough for you then.

mmmm...

or it’s because religious people like you are extremely homophobic for no good reason and as such has no common sense about the reality of the world around them

WordsMatter

@ethang5 did you ever go to math class? If 2 people make 2 people then guess what? You stay constant at 2. The people that are having kids have about 2 kids so you should get on the horn and tell all your friends with kids they better go have more babies. Most people are contributing to population decline, let's force all women to have more babies

Zombieguy1987

Logic said:

 I heard that this group of Russians, Created a cure for being gay. What do you guys think?

Well... It's from Russia…

And the first thing I would think of when Russia and cure for homosexuality are in one sentence is genocide 

ethang5

@Zombieguy1987

>....or it’s because religious people like you are extremely homophobic for no good reason.... 

Stop posting your opinion. It isn't argument and makes you look stupid.

>....has no common sense about the reality of the world around them.

But you won't state what this "reality" is. This is why liberals will not answer questions put to them.

In ANY population, homosexuals do not contribute to the growth of that population. The higher the percentage of homosexuals in the population, the closer the population growth will be to zero.

This is a common sense fact. No amount of .gifs or PC opinion will change that.

Now, you could address that, or, being the sharp thinker you are, post another .gif or rant about homophobia.

Yawn.

ethang5

@WordsMatter

>did you ever go to math class?

All the way up to college yes.

>If 2 people make 2 people then guess what? You stay constant at 2.

Lol. What, parents aren't counted in the census? What about the homosexuals having zero children? Do we still stay constant at two?

>The people that are having kids have about 2 kids so you should get on the horn and tell all your friends with kids they better go have more babies.

Sorry liberal. Ethan doesn't do stupid. No matter how many kids heteros have, homos will still be depressing population growth.

Sorry if reality is inconvenient to you because of your illogical PC POV.

>Most people are contributing to population decline,

Untrue. Most people will have kids. It is the people not having kids at all, including homosexuals, who depress population growth.

>....let's force all women to have more babies

By forcing homosexual men to impregnate women?

Religious hate doesn't make you smarter. And try answering a few of the questions put to you.

Who forced your mom? Which church? Or was it the Holy Spirit?

No answer?

Zombieguy1987

ethang5 said:

@Zombieguy1987

>....or it’s because religious people like you are extremely homophobic for no good reason.... 

Stop posting your opinion. It isn't argument and makes you look stupid.

mmm... no.

highly religious people are homophobic that's a fact.

>....has no common sense about the reality of the world around them.

But you won't state what this "reality" is. This is why liberals will not answer questions put to them.

Not a liberal. Just pointing out how out of touch you are

In ANY population, homosexuals do not contribute to the growth of that population. The higher the percentage of homosexuals in the population, the closer the population growth will be to zero.

Such an absurd claim 

This is a common sense fact. No amount of .gifs or PC opinion will change that.

Prove that it's common sense fact

Now, you could address that, or, being the sharp thinker you are, post another .gif or rant about homophobia.

Yawn.

My reaction to your bigot homophobic comments ignorant religious person

ethang5

@Zombieguy1987

>My reaction to your bigot homophobic comments ignorant religious person

This is a debate site jasper. Can you SAY how the truth that homosexuals depress a countries population growth is homophobic? Or are we to take your pronouncements on faith?

All you have is self-righteous emotion, thinking free. Go be a social justice warrior somewhere else. We need logic here.

Homosexuals do not contribute to population growth. That is a fact. That your PC dogma forces you to interpret that as negative, and then conclude that I'm somehow attacking homosexuals, is not my concern.

Neither is your juvenile opinion.

Zombieguy1987

ethang5 said:

@Zombieguy1987

>My reaction to your bigot homophobic comments ignorant religious person

This is a debate site jasper. Can you SAY how the truth that homosexuals depress a countries population growth is homophobic? Or are we to take your pronouncements on faith?

So, simply because of homosexuals exist, they depress a countries population growth? They make up roughly 10% of the population. So it's not a huge issue if some people are LGBTQ+

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/apr/05/10-per-cent-population-gay-alfred-kinsey-statistics

All you have is self-righteous emotion, thinking free. Go be a social justice warrior somewhere else. We need logic here.

I'm no SJW. You're just complaining that 10% of the population don't reproduce even though the world is going through an over population issue, and 10% of the world being LGBT isn't enough of an excuse to complain.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/alon-tal/overpopulation-is-still-t_b_3990646.html

Homosexuals do not contribute to population growth. 

So? 

That is a fact. That your PC dogma forces you to interpret that as negative.

No, it's actually neither negative nor positive because 10% of the world population being gay isn't going effect anything!

 and then conclude that I'm somehow attacking homosexuals, is not my concern.

The way you've structured your sentences it seems like you're bashing gay people because they don't help with population growth, even though genocides around the world are worse than gay people existing

Neither is your juvenile opinion.

Off topic N.E.X.T.!

Zombieguy1987

ethang5 said:

No, homosexuality cannot be "cured", but it can be prevented.

This sentence looks like you want to kill all gays as means to "prevent" it

Countries now disappearing under negative population growth are finding a new reason of how homosexuality is detrimental to society.


Detrimental sounds like you want to deport them and/or round them up and put them in camps because they're somehow negative to society

ethang5

@Zombieguy1987

>The way you've structured your sentences it seems like you're bashing gay people because they don't help with population growth,....

It seems that way to you because you operate more on emotion than logic. PC-ness corrupts clear thinking.

>So, simply because of homosexuals exist, they depress a countries population growth?

No genius, it's because they don't procreate, not because they exist.

Ten percent of the world's population is not gay, it's less than that, and it is indisputable that homosexuals do negatively affect population growth.

>This sentence looks like you want to kill all gays as means to "prevent" it

Your silly perceptions are not my problem. There is a difference between reality and what things "look like" to you.

>Detrimental sounds like you want to deport them and/or round them up and put them in camps because they're somehow negative to society

Again, I couldn't care less about how things "sound" to you. But most rational people think negative population growth is detrimental to a society.

Homosexuals do not contribute to population growth. 

>So?

You tell us. You're the one arguing against that fact.

And yes, your juvie opinion is off topic.

WordsMatter

@ethang5 so what exactly is the problem with gay people not having kids? What is the solution? Even if you make hat marriage illegal it's not like they are going to say "oh well since I can't do that I'll just have a bunch of kids instead." They still aren't going to have kids.

What should we do with me? I'm absolutely never going to have kids and if I get a girl pregnant I'm going to heavily suggest abortion whether it's legal or not. But that's a small window as I'm getting a vasectomy so it will be impossible for me to ever have a child

ethang5

@WordsMatter

>so what exactly is the problem with gay people not having kids?

I guess it depends on whether you view negative population growth as good or bad.

>What is the solution?

The solution for what? Negative population growth or homosexuality?

>Even if you make gay marriage illegal it's not like they are going to say "oh well since I can't do that I'll just have a bunch of kids instead." They still aren't going to have kids.

Why would I make gay marriage illegal?

>What should we do with me?

Who is "we"?

>I'm absolutely never going to have kids and if I get a girl pregnant I'm going to heavily suggest abortion whether it's legal or not.

Yet I bet you will take social security and a pension. And people wonder why social security is going bust.

>But that's a small window as I'm getting a vasectomy so it will be impossible for me to ever have a child

Thousands never have a child without ever getting a vasectomy.

>....I'm absolutely never going to have kids....... If I ever get a girl pregnant....

You seem fuzzy on the word  "absolutely".

WordsMatter

ethang5 said:

No, homosexuality cannot be "cured", but it can be prevented.

Countries now disappearing under negative population growth are finding a new reason of how homosexuality is detrimental to society.

I canc also get a vasectomy to gaurentee I never have kids from that point on. You claim homosexuality is detrimental to society because countries are "disappearing" because of negative population growth.

Therefore anyone who doesn't have kids is detrimental to society, including me. So what do you do to fix those detriments? Nevermind the fact that I'm working providing a benefit to the economy, and paying taxes that some of which go towards raising other people's kids.

Pensions are already gone except some government jobs, I don't work for the government so I won't be taking a pension. By the time I retire social security will be gone so I won't be taking that, plus I started my retirement fund at 18 so I'll be fine. Got any more problems besides those two?

Zombieguy1987

@ethang5 ;

You're still not getting it. Simply because some people don't reproduce doesn't mean they're the devil. 

And without a lick of evidence, you continue to call me an SJW, despite the fact I despise them so... fail

And speaking of SJWs. They're the real problem.

How?

False rape accusations.

Since the Kavanaugh issue, people have been staying away from people of the opposite gender. Why?

Because they don't want their reputations destroyed. And as such reproduction will decrease.

So, why don't you look at the bigger issue instead of only picking out the LGBT community.

K_Michael

Homosexuality is neither curable or genetic. First of all, if homosexuality was a hereditary trait, then it would've died out, because gay people, get this, don't make babies!
It can't be cured either, and isn't a disease. Let's take a look at history. in more unforgiving times, when it was thought to be a thing that could be cured. Take Alan Turing, as a famous historical example (the Cumberbatch movie is amazing). He was given a medication for a process known as chemical castration, which affects your hormones and reduces your sex drive, though it was later shown to have various negative effects, such as bone density loss, this was the solution of the times.
Modern pharmaceuticals generally follow the practice of symptom suppression. An allergy medicine will reduce inflammation and congestion, but you will still have allergies. Your sore throat goes away, but you're still sick. This approach DOES help you, your body's expending more energy on fighting the disease, rather than producing those symptoms. 
However, homosexuality is a psychological function, so it's not as if suppressing the symptoms will do any good. As soon as the medications wear off, sex drive will return, and the subject would still be attracted to the same gender. 
Moreover, saying that homosexuality can or cannot be cured makes it sound like a disease, which it isn't, so the entire questioning of whether it can or not is just flat out false.

WordsMatter

@ethang5 also over the past 20 years Russia's population growth has fluctuated between -.4% - +.1%  it is the 9th most populous country, and  In the first world, in the top 3 strongest powers in the world. Yet they have been and still are VERY anti LGBT. So it would seem there is some other factor that is affecting developed countries population growth to be negative in recent years. China doesn't have a negative population growth but 60% of their population is still agrarian, so they are developing but not yet developed. It would seem there is something about a country being established as developed, rather than accepting gay people, that leads to a negative population growth.

YeshuaRedeemed

Can you prove that it is?

ethang5

>I can also get a vasectomy to gaurentee I never have kids from that point on.

True.

>You claim homosexuality is detrimental to society because countries are "disappearing" because of negative population growth.

No. I said negative population growth is one of the results of people not having children. That is undeniably true. The end result of negative population growth is the disappearance of the country.

>Therefore anyone who doesn't have kids is detrimental to society, including me.

As far as population growth goes, yes.

>So what do you do to fix those detriments?

There are only 2 cures for negative population growth. More children, or more immigrants. Is that not obvious?

>Nevermind the fact that I'm working providing a benefit to the economy, and paying taxes that some of which go towards raising other people's kids.

People can do both good and harm at the same time.

>Pensions are already gone except some government jobs, I don't work for the government so I won't be taking a pension.

Some private company jobs have pensions.

>By the time I retire social security will be gone so I won't be taking that, plus I started my retirement fund at 18 so I'll be fine.

Lol. So the problem is solved? Your attitude is very selfish no? Why will social security be gone? Is no social security not a detriment?

>Got any more problems besides those two?

Sure, but if the end result of negative population growth is the death of a country, do other problems matter?

ethang5

@Zombieguy1987

>You're still not getting it. Simply because some people don't reproduce doesn't mean they're the devil.

I did not call them devils. You must be able to differentiate between what I say, and what you think.

>And without a lick of evidence, you continue to call me an SJW, despite the fact I despise them so... fail

You have concluded that I "sound" to you like I want homosexuals killed, (!!) and that I refer to them as devils. You are a typical liberal PC snowflake. Always ready to be outraged at what you imagine.

>And speaking of SJWs. They're the real problem.

>How?

>False rape accusations.

You mean like false homophobic accusations?

>Since the Kavanaugh issue, people have been staying away from people of the opposite gender. Why?

>Because they don't want their reputations destroyed. And as such reproduction will decrease.

Lol. Population decrease is due to the Kavanaugh issue? Funny.

>So, why don't you look at the bigger issue instead of only picking out the LGBT community.

What is the issue bigger than the LGBT one? I did not "pick out" the LGBT "community", (whatever that is), I simply stated the truth.

And you went into an SJW froth, thinking I was picking out and calling the LGBT "community" devils, and wanting them "rounded up and killed".

If you weren't a progressive liberal snowflake, I'd call you deluded, but I don't want to be redundant.

ethang5

@WordsMatter

>also over the past 20 years Russia's population growth has fluctuated between -.4% - +.1%  it is the 9th most populous country, and  In the first world, in the top 3 strongest powers in the world. Yet they have been and still are VERY anti LGBT.

Can you blame them?

>So it would seem there is some other factor that is affecting developed countries population growth to be negative in recent years.

There is more than one factor, yes. There is war for example. Just as detrimental.

>China doesn't have a negative population growth but 60% of their population is still agrarian, so they are developing but not yet developed.

So?

>It would seem there is something about a country being established as developed, rather than accepting gay people, that leads to a negative population growth.

You probably should have edited the above paragraph. The simple truth is, negative population growth comes from people not having offspring. Their sexual preference doesn't matter.

But for you SJW snowflakes, ANYTHING not overtly congratulatory of homosexuality is hate, and you will deny any truth you think contradicts your PC dogma.

Zombieguy1987

ethang5 said:

@Zombieguy1987

>You're still not getting it. Simply because some people don't reproduce doesn't mean they're the devil.

I did not call them devils. You must be able to differentiate between what I say, and what you think.

>And without a lick of evidence, you continue to call me an SJW, despite the fact I despise them so... fail

You have concluded that I "sound" to you like I want homosexuals killed, (!!) and that I refer to them as devils. You are a typical liberal PC snowflake. Always ready to be outraged at what you imagine.



>And speaking of SJWs. They're the real problem.

>How?

>False rape accusations.

You mean like false homophobic accusations?

>Since the Kavanaugh issue, people have been staying away from people of the opposite gender. Why?

>Because they don't want their reputations destroyed. And as such reproduction will decrease.

Lol. Population decrease is due to the Kavanaugh issue? Funny.

>So, why don't you look at the bigger issue instead of only picking out the LGBT community.

What is the issue bigger than the LGBT one? I did not "pick out" the LGBT "community", (whatever that is), I simply stated the truth.

And you went into an SJW froth, thinking I was picking out and calling the LGBT "community" devils, and wanting them "rounded up and killed".

If you weren't a progressive liberal snowflake, I'd call you deluded, but I don't want to be redundant.

Not a liberal snowflake...

You're just being annoying right now

Zombieguy1987

@ethang5 ;

Calls me an SJW.

Completely ignores this:

http://dev1.debateisland.com/discussion/3228/are-social-justice-warriors-actually-good-for-social-justice

and, this:

http://dev1.debateisland.com/discussion/3150/has-political-correctness-gone-too-far

Oh, and calling Liberalism a mental disease

http://dev1.debateisland.com/discussion/2884/is-modern-liberalism-is-a-mental-disease

But simply because I say that gays aren't the problem for population (Water shortages, food shortages, war etc are bigger issues) means I'm a liberal

 

WordsMatter

@ethang5 " The simple truth is, negative population growth comes from people not having offspring. Their sexual preference doesn't matter."

"What is the issue bigger than the LGBT one? I did not "pick out" the LGBT "community", (whatever that is), I simply stated the truth."

"Countries now disappearing under negative population growth are finding a new reason of how homosexuality is detrimental to society."

Your statements are at odds

AmericanFurryBoy

Being Gay is not a disease, therefore, there is no cure.

ethang5

@Zombieguy1987

>Not a liberal snowflake...

>You're just being annoying right now

How would a snowflake have been different from how you behaved?

Snowflakes are unable to discuss homosexuality without accusing someone of homophobia. To them, any comment about homosexuality, is either advocating full acceptance, or mass genocide. No middle ground.

You thought I wanted gays killed! 

Stay away from mirrors if you don't want to be surprised by a liberal snowflake.

ethang5

@WordsMatter

>Your statements are at odds

So you claim. I think your perception is at odds with itself.

But maybe when you have the time to make an actual argument, you will do so instead of just making a bald claim.

ethang5

@Zombieguy1987 ;

>But simply because I say that gays aren't the problem for population....

They are a problem. The reason you can't admit they are a problem is because you are trapped by liberal PC dogma that forbids you from pointing out any negative traits to homosexuality.

>(Water shortages, food shortages, war etc are bigger issues)

Bigger issues does not mean homosexuality is not an issue. The thread was about homosexuality, not food or war.

>.....means I'm a liberal

You aren't even aware that the PC zeitgeist has corrupted your ability to think. In our short time interacting, you have towed the liberal line on every issue we've discussed.

And like a liberal, you don't debate. You don't argue points. You assume you're right, post a .gif or a mime, and, tadaa! You think your point is proven.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news kid, but you sir, are a typical PC libtard snowflake.

Zombieguy1987

ethang5 said:

@Zombieguy1987

>Not a liberal snowflake...

>You're just being annoying right now

How would a snowflake have been different from how you behaved?

1. An SJW would've reported and blocked you. I've done neither
2. An SJW would've complained to the news about you. I've not complained about this
3. An SJW would cause a dog pile which I've not done
4. An SJW wouldn't use facts to back up their claim. I've used multiple websites to show that the LGBT community isn't negatively effecting the population. YOU. On the other hand have yet to link me to some sort of website that proves the LGBT community is negatively effecting the population

Snowflakes are unable to discuss homosexuality without accusing someone of homophobia. To them, any comment about homosexuality, is either advocating full acceptance, or mass genocide. No middle ground.

There is a middle ground. But not here right now.

You think simply because they exist and since they cannot reproduce, they're somehow resulting in a negative population growth, despite the fact by 2050, the population with be a roughly 9 billion people. It's still growing even with their existence

I think you're demonizing them because they cannot reproduce, despite the fact people, people, straight or LGBT, can choose whether or not to reproduce.

It's funny how you single out the LGBT community for a "negative" population growth. 

Once again just explaining how your first argument is phrased... Oh, and you've yet to show me HOW serious LGBT people when it comes to population growth.

You thought I wanted gays killed! 

Once again, it was how your sentences where phrased. Not actually you...


No, homosexuality cannot be "cured", but it can be prevented.

"But it can be prevented"

That sounds like you want to prevent homosexuality from existing simply because they don't reproduce. 

And it just so happens one of the ways to prevent homosexuality involves a little killing.

I was saying how you phrased your sentence, not actually saying you were a killer

You're missing the point

Stay away from mirrors if you don't want to be surprised by a liberal snowflake.


I've seen a liberal or conservative snowflake before...

I'm talking to one right now, because I've told you multiple times what I'm saying.

Zombieguy1987

ethang5 said:

@Zombieguy1987 ;

>But simply because I say that gays aren't the problem for population....

They are a problem. The reason you can't admit they are a problem is because you are trapped by liberal PC dogma that forbids you from pointing out any negative traits to homosexuality.

You've yet to show actual proof of this...

>(Water shortages, food shortages, war etc are bigger issues)

Bigger issues does not mean homosexuality is not an issue. The thread was about homosexuality, not food or war.

If you're going to complain about gays being a population issue, actually research to see if it's an actual issue. The population growth is doing just fine last I heard. You treat it as if the small part of the population who can reproduce will lead to our extinction, instead of actually focusing on real population issues (mainly the fact overpopulation is an issue)   

>.....means I'm a liberal

You aren't even aware that the PC zeitgeist has corrupted your ability to think. In our short time interacting, you have towed the liberal line on every issue we've discussed.

Oh, people have tried to corrupt me with political correctness. If it did work, why would I put a debate with my argument criticizing it?  If I was an "SJW" I would be say how good it is!

It hasn't worked AT ALL

And like a liberal, you don't debate. You don't argue points. 

I did argue a post, with links to show that the population is growing at very steady pace even with gays living on the earth. You haven't given me a lick of proof that they're a serious problem

You assume you're right, post a .gif or a mime, and, tadaa! You think your point is proven.

I put that gif there because I found your claim ignorant, but wasn't going to waste my time, because something like this going to happen, especially with your failure of arguments with religion. 

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news kid, but you sir, are a typical PC libtard snowflake.

You've yet to also prove that, and I've shown multiple debates of me criticizing SJWs, their ideology and political correctness.