Also i would argue paedo (12 and above) is more nature than homosexuality. Due to the various evolutionary ques. The learned behaviour is knowing that is morally wrong.

^and legally

there are hetero paedos too - it's a big bad world out there

.... i was talking the hetero.

OK, I was reading your sentence different from how you meant it... but no, there is a genetic setting that can make someone more prone to love of penis (in females, it makes them prettier, but in men makes them more likely to be gay)

There is no such genetic evidence for child fucking

There is a natural survival element in it.

Because for most of human history the age of maturity was puberty. And propogation is the name of the game in survival as a species.

And no the "gay gene" is still a theory.

This can be seen in many, many becoming homosexual due to environmental factors.

Especially in women.

it's not a "gay gene" but a natural predisposition - more people with it are heterosexual than those that are homosexual

natural survival - when, 10,000 BC? It's a social convention, not a biological one... but yes, once a certain degree of physical development has been achieved by someone, they will naturally have a degree of sexual attraction to others.

this does not excuse their exploitation

In genetics you have to point to the genes. The "natural disposition" based on genes accounts for a tiny, tiny percent of the lgbt community if any tbh. Especially since homosexuality "naturally" goes against the key focus of the "nature" of a creature, propogation.

Again, being sexually attracted to someone who has hit and post puberty is closer to that 'naturally' than homosexuality. Those that are attracted to prepubesent are excluded in this. They are probably as much a mental/environmental issue as the probably overwhelming majority of homosexual and trans.

In my experience, any gay guy who has opened up to me has always been abused as a child... it is very compelling to conclude that has more to do with it than anything else - I'm talking people who wish they were straight, not fashion victims.

...but being attracted to someone is mostly social conditioning, yes

Societal and higher thinking has formed us to think the pubescent child is to not be touched, and i agree with that. But to deny it isnt the nature is wrong.

And yea most lesbians i have met (my wife being bi has lead to meeting more than a few) have all been lesbian post shit hetero abusive relationships, or parental abuses.

Incidentally, I'm hetero myself, I'm not trying to defend gay, trannies etc... but when data points in a direction, you have a choice whether to accept it or not.

The data is mixed

The issue is there are tons of activist groups squalching data as "phobic" and blocking further research

pressure groups - possibly the worst invention in history, LOL

The fact they call it "gay gene" in the first place is very biased too...
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2155810-what-do-the-new-gay-genes-tell-us-about-sexual-orientation/

https://twitter.com/TomlinsonCJ/status/1095005469758967809

That'll be the Tommy Robinson stuff ^^^

Tommy's on notice until he drops his evidence

BBC not liking working people is nothing new. we need something better then that

they already pay for it 🤷🏿

BBC shits out so many long turds even my Grandma complains about it

and they wanna take away her free liocence cus she's over 75

https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1095024730866884611

So White people get caught less?

It's in legal marijuana business, **maybe** on average black people just do more illegal marijuana related stuff. It doesn't say anything about white people doing illegal marijuana business.

yeah that data doesn't really relate

The columns are not labeled

It literally means nothing.

Not a real graph

What are the dates for data collection

But people will see columns that look unequal and buy it

Ask ACLU

Someone linked me one of those before and the argument can change based on a weekly account vs a year

But I guess muh racism right