>>13078
>Catholic guy here
you heard him; typical Catholic/Christian/theist hatred
>If being a faggot isn't a choice then how do you explain those faggots suddenly becoming straight, vice versa.
There's nothing to explain but confusion to dispel. You don't see the difference between sexual orientation and sexual behaviour.
I'm a heterosexual who refuses to have sexual activity because I know it's just an evolutionary impulse and because I deem it morally inferior, regardless of context or sexual orientation. Does that mean I was born asexual (with no sexual attraction)? Of course not.
Homosexuality hasn't been totally explained yet, but we know for sure that around 10% of the people (and this is true for most sexual animal species) is BORN homosexual (to some degree or another), and they feel an irrational urge to fuck people of the same sex just as the rest of the population feels an irrational urge to fuck people of the opposite sex. We have even identified correlated genes and we know that hormonal changes in the mother's womb during subsequent pregnancies increase the changes of producing a homosexual individual. For instance, monozygotic twins (with the same DNA) become both homosexual or both heterosexual EVEN UNDER DIFFERENT NURTURES.
>It's always a choice to suck dick you faggots.
just as it's always a choice to fuck pussy you bigot. What is not a choice is liking to suck dick or liking to fuck pussy; so why would it be wrong for faggots to suck dicks but not for straights to fuck pussies? What adults consent to do with their genitals in the private isn't causing any harm. It obviously can't be that faggots can't make children what makes them immoral, because making children isn't intrinsically good or bad. We don't say Catholic nuns and priests are immoral because they chose not to produce offspring. On the other hand forcing people to have sex and/or kids is quite wrong. I would argue that in this overpopulated and objectively unsustainable human civilization having children is morally wrong. You are lowering the living standards of everyone else and fucking the shared natural resources, and nobody has a right to do so.
So why would religions like yours insist on condemning homosexuals and denying them equal access to marriage and adoption instead of being rational and ethical like the secular society? I can tell you why:
1) preserving traditions is very appealing to large chunks of the religious population, (even though it's very well known that appealing to tradition is a logical fallacy, but what else can we expect from people who believe in crap already). It's a sort of pseudo-moral compass conveniently crafted so that people can stop being actually moral and thinking about moral issues: it's already done for you, just follow it unquestioning!
The allegedly holly books were very staunch in hating faggots, and their believers naturally will want to keep doing so.
2) Steering ethical judgement is quite a big tool of power: 99% of the time people become part of a religion not by persuasive argument or supportive evidence, but by the dirty, invalid and immoral methods of lying, psychological harassment, military imposition and the most important of all: abuse of young minds. If religious homosexuals stopped having kids in following their true sexual relationships and aspirations the religious population could drop as much as ~10%, and Bergoglio king of the Catholics doesn't want to stop earning that much money! Moreover we know that having big families correlates with poverty which in turn correlates with increased religiosity. Making sure that people reproduce like rabbits and infuse your bullshit ideology during childhood and puberty to all the offspring is the most intelligent business model to keep a religion afloat. It's the same with contraceptives.
>>13107
sage doesn't work like a downvote m8. you use it to post something and prevent bumping the thread, but in your case nothing was posted. sage'ing a thread won't make it die sooner.