No ‘gay gene’ & no ‘straight gene’. Sexuality is just complex, study confirms

[Syne]

Who said anomalies were a bad thing? I actual said they were more interesting.

Someone's insecurities are showing again.

[Magical Realist]

Who said anomalies were a bad thing? I actual said they were more interesting.

Someone's insecurities are showing again.

The world doesn't revolve around you. I was talking to Leigha.

[Syne]

Who said anomalies were a bad thing? I actual said they were more interesting.

Someone's insecurities are showing again.

The world doesn't revolve around you. I was talking to Leigha.

And? I'm free to comment on any post I want. Or are you trying to be a fascist?

It was a non sequitur, as no one implied that anomalies were bad. So you're preoccupied with your insecurity about people thinking being gay is "a bad thing", in your words. So much so that you bring it up completely unbidden.

[Magical Realist]

It was a non sequitur, as no one implied that anomalies were bad.

Leigha implied it was a bad thing. That's what I was addressing idiot.

[Syne]

It was a non sequitur, as no one implied that anomalies were bad.

Leigha implied it was a bad thing. That's what I was addressing idiot.

No, she only said:

I don't know though if I've ever considered homosexuality to be an ''anomaly.'' Hmm.

That doesn't imply it is a bad thing, but you inferred it was...all on your own.
And again proving that you instigate the name-calling.

[Magical Realist]

That doesn't imply it is a bad thing,

Yes it does. She even put it in quotes to show she wasn't using the term.

[confused2]

If the ignorant masses were just a small group you (we/I?) wouldn't even have to think about them. In reality, on a dark night, simply by virtue of numbers, the chances of bumping into one or more members of the ignorant masses with a god complex and/or psychopathic tendencies isn't negligeable.

[Syne]

That doesn't imply it is a bad thing,

Yes it does. She even put it in quotes to show she wasn't using the term.

Scare quotes may indicate that the author is using someone else's term, similar to preceding a phrase with the expression "so-called";[5] they may imply skepticism or disagreement, belief that the words are misused, or that the writer intends a meaning opposite to the words enclosed in quotes. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scare_quotes

IOW, the usage is not, itself, explicit and can only have it's meaning inferred by the reader. Or:

The scare quotes could indicate that the word is not one the writer would normally use - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scare_quotes#Usage

Which is what she explicitly said....that she never considered, or would have used, that word.
Now if she wants to state she thought it was bad, so be it. But until she does, you are making an inference yourself.


Man, the rabbit holes you go down trying to justify your projection and straw men.

[Magical Realist]

Which is what she explicitly said....that she never considered, or would have used, that word.

Which is why she put it in quotes to indicate she wasn't using it. And she isn't using it because she thinks its bad. The logic here is airtight.

[Syne]

Which is what she explicitly said....that she never considered, or would have used, that word.

Which is why she put it in quotes to indicate she wasn't using it. And she isn't using it because she thinks its bad. The logic here is airtight.

No, just you running away with your own assumptions.
She even said she didn't know:

I don't know though if I've ever considered homosexuality to be an ''anomaly.'' Hmm.

Are you claiming that she "didn't know" if she "ever considered homosexuality to be" bad? O_o
If she could only mean "anomaly" to be bad, that is precisely what you're claiming.
How many people do you intend to insult here?