But That's None Of My Business

I suppose this is controversial to some people.

Besides, your picture is missing the red, yellow and albino folks.

everybody needs education!

But there are two kinds of melanin though 0_o

Unless you think that makes different "colors" of people, I have no argument.

aka Who cares about different shades? It's the diversity that makes this planet interesting in the first place. ;)

I don't know what you mean by "colors of people." But the ratio of "brown" melanin to "black" melanin is what determines skin tone. It's not just about the amount of it you have, it's about what mixture you have. For example, two populations from different ethnicities may have the same amount of melanin, but still look different in color because one has more of the reddish-brown pigment and the other has more of the grey-black pigment.

Again, as long as you don't want to differentiate between people based on the amount of the exact same pigment they have in their skin you have no argument with me. The ratio of different shades of the same pigment only cause superficial differences.
I have lived most of my life in the Southern US and have found that only shallow, usually ignorant people (of any so called "race"), want to class or group people based on such superficial differences.

Is not getting sunburned a superficial difference? 'Cause it sounds pretty nice to me :(

Good point. It doesn't change anything about our intrinsic humanity.
Plus don't fall asleep outside without sunscreen and a hat.

Lol, some of us are so pale, we're like tanning mirrors to the people around us XD

Less crowdy… ;)

;) +1

Could you kindly stop beating the dead horse...

Watch out the tin foil hats are going to disagree.

lol

;)

Yay my very own seizure

They do exist if you see them in drag! :)

Gender itself doesn't exist.

So now logic is considered retarded?

Because the rest of "her" appears to be completely natural...

#JustKidding

so you have no answer?

Actually, I did answer. If someone says they're something they're not, they're playing make-believe. It's what kids do. When adults do it, they're having mental issues.

The person in that photo...what were they born with? That is what they are.

And before anything is said about it, in the extremely rare cases where a child is born with both sets of organs, then it's up to the parents to choose.

like no matter what doors and hood you put on a Chevy Chevette, its still a Chevette...the VIN number (birth certificate) will tell you

she was born with a dick.... nice of you to think you are in a position to judge...

Those who do not judge will lose all judgment.

Yes, I judge. So does everyone - you're judging me for judging the person in the photo. Judgment is real, you do it yourself all the time even if you think you don't. As soon as you see something or have a thought, you judge it. It's passive, not something that can be avoided.

So, my good compadre, I suggest that you refrain from judging me if you don't want me to judge other people. Yet...you can't. Judgment is part of everyone. It's a part of you.

You're a degenerate

why is that? because you are a simpleton and can not answer the question?

born with a dick yes , but the breasts and makeup were added later in life through hormonal treatments and no spiritual direction in her life.

Doesn't the 'b' in lgbt imply only 2 genders?

Where's the p then? And why is it necessary to put a b in there then? Shouldn't it be something else?

Only the people who are suffering from the incurable mental illness of "post modern Progressive liberalism" define themselves by their sexual preference. They have NO other means of offering value to the world, except expressing where they want to stick their tingly bits, no matter how repulsive to normal folks.

It's not a matter of whether or not other people "like" it. It's a case of something that can medically be defined as a mental disorder.

If it was as simple as two adults wanting to be homosexual in private, no, it's really not my business. Or anyone else's. However it becomes my - and everyone's - business when those engaged in homosexuality and similar behaviors demand that everyone accept and APPROVE their lifestyle as being normal and laudable. It is neither of those things.

Ah. There you hit the nail on the head. Homosexuals, in order to reproduce, must engage in Heterosexual relations. So...which is more natural? Heterosexual relations can sustain themselves. Homosexual ones cannot, without also utilizing heterosexual relations. Homosexuality depends on there still being Heterosexuals out there in order to survive.

My good friend, YOU are the product of heterosexual activity: an egg and a sperm cell. Homosexuals can reproduce, yes...but only by artificial means. Key word there: Artificial. Not natural.

Yes, I've seen two male sheep going at it. You know why? Because there weren't any female sheep around; the two sheep were raised for food, and they (unfortunately) weren't castrated. The sight was...disturbing. Yes, it's unnatural. And disgusting. So aren't we better than animals? You're advocating behaving like animals. Well, if you ever get out in nature and actually watch what happens, nature is a pretty nasty place! Animals kill each other to survive, for food, whatever. Sometimes just because they can. If we are to behave like animals, then yes, homosexuality is fine. But so is cannibalism and murder. And incest. And just about anything else under the sun.

Why would a homosexual be detrimental to evolution? Lol...they wouldn't; if they engaged only in homosexual activity from birth to death, they would breed themselves out of existence in one lifetime. You're speaking of individuals, not as a group. So what if some homosexual dude has great genetics from a physical standpoint? In order to pass those on, they've still got to engage in heterosexual relations at some point. As a group, homosexuals do not benefit Evolution as a whole, nor will they survive more than one lifetime...UNLESS THEY ALSO ENGAGE IN HETEROSEXUAL RELATIONS. Wow. Imagine that.

I will also note that I am only arguing from this viewpoint because you wouldn't accept any Christian argument I could offer. Which, I am a Christian. I believe in Jesus Christ as my lord and savior. Evolution? Well, yes and no; Microevolution, yes. Evolution within a species does take place, and is the reason why there are thousands of dog breeds out there today and not just one. Macroevolution, now, the idea that a dog can evolve into a human given enough time, that concept is laughable. Because, the only instances that support Macroevolution to some degree do an even better job supporting Creationism. Continued...

The "missing links" haven't been found, after 1000 years of searching. Darwin himself said Evolution was a flawed theory; however he couldn't come up with anything better. He was, at that time, disillusioned with God for one reason or another.

No, different doesn't mean bad in and of itself. So that's when it's time to examine something and try to figure out: are the differences in this thing good or bad?

What are the benefits of homosexuality from an evolutionary standpoint? Not on an individual scale - on the group plane. What does homosexuality offer that heterosexuality does not?

Lifestyle - a choice of how one will live their life, what actions they will take, what they will do. It's not a belief; we already covered that. You don't "believe in homosexuality". It's not a religion. You're comparing apples and oranges. One may believe that homosexuality is acceptable or even good, but you are still not believing IN homosexuality itself. Because it is not something to be believed in or not. There is no "Church of Homosexuality". It's not something to have faith in or no.

Christianity isn't a form of mental illness. It has been persecuted throughout the ages, hated and feared. Attempts have been made to exterminate it. Yes, horrible crimes have been committed in the name of "Christianity" by the Catholic Church in particular and by other churches in general. However those crimes were committed by men who twisted Christianity to fit their own desires. Which, anything may be perverted from its original form. In which case it is no longer the original, but a mutated fake.

Why should Christians not keep what they believe to themselves, if homosexuality is not tolerable in public? Christianity isn't a form of mental illness.

Natural. Hmm. If "nature" had intended for homosexuality to be the mainstream, or even a form of mainstream, then...two guys hooking up would be able to make babies. They should've evolved by now. They've had what, 2 billion years? Yet, still, heterosexuality is the only way to reproduce. That, or artificial insemination. Which also involves an egg and a sperm cell, thus it is perforce heterosexual.

Yes, humans are physically animals. However last I checked, animals don't wear clothes (unless people put them on them). Animals may be intelligent, but it's on a completely different scale than humans. If we act like animals, then we're evolving backwards.

Actually, Darwin believed in God before he formed his theory of Evolution. And he actually did become disillusioned with God. I'm simply stating historical facts.

And sorry, but a Wiki or Wikipedia is hardly a sound scientific source for information. If that's the best reference you've got, you better try a little harder.

Okay. Wouldn't you describe heterosexuality as a lifestyle choice? Let's go with that. So then heterosexuality and homosexuality are both lifestyle choices. But they're still not beliefs, because they are not anything that can be believed IN. So you comparing them with Christianity - or any religion - is laughable.

Now, as for what homosexuality "offers" evolution: Nothing. No, it doesn't really matter. But, if you believe in Evolution, then you must perforce believe it's in humanity's best interests to try to discourage those traits which are not beneficial. Neutrality, in Evolution, is never a good thing; those which evolve backwards, or cease to evolve, will in time be outmoded by those which continue to evolve upwards.

Now tell me this, to change things up a little: How do we decide what's right and wrong?

Can always count on you to come up with a bigoted remark against Christians. Do you worship Satan in private or out in the open?

Bad analogy. Being left-handed is something that affects only one's self. Homosexuality affects a minimum of two people.

Homosexuality is something that historically has been repulsed by societies and considered on a similar level with bestiality. Incidentally, when societies in history started accepting homosexuality and similar behaviors as normal, when they started becoming commonplace, the demise of that society and nation was not far behind.

How is it logical or natural to say that one's anatomy does not determine their gender? If it's based off of feelings, then clearly that person's body chemistry is screwed up. Hmm. Well, let's go back to Darwin's "Survival of the Fittest". Under that belief - which you must have since you oppose Christianity - not only would homosexuals breed themselves into extinction within one lifetime, their own bodies are warring against themselves. So you're advocating something that contradicts your own belief in evolution. If you do believe in Evolution, then it is in your best interests to further the human race's evolution as a whole. How is it possibly beneficial to humanity, from the evolutionary standpoint, for homosexuality to exist?

Bear in mind, that argument is the natural and inevitable conclusion of the Evolution theory, when extrapolated out to its ending. But let's take it even further.

So homosexuality runs counter to Evolution. Very well; if homosexuality is not natural under evolution, then what is it? Unnatural...again. Your own belief in the world's history and the origins of mankind decries homosexuality as unnatural.

"Unnatural" has many synonyms. The definition of the word itself is "contrary to the ordinary course of nature; abnormal." Under that definition, which the theory of Evolution demands, homosexuality is therefore abnormal and not normal.

And if it's not normal...again, we are not talking about the freedom to exercise any of this right now. We're merely speaking of whether or not homosexuality is natural, which you claim it to be. Evolution would say otherwise.

Last note, homosexuality is also not comparable with Christianity. Homosexuality is a lifestyle. Christianity is a belief. You don't believe IN homosexuality. You may believe homosexuality is acceptable, but you do not believe in homosexuality as a faith. Christianity, belief in Christ Jesus, is something that creates a lifestyle. One must believe IN Jesus to be a Christian. Big difference.

Well they added q most recently. Bisexual implies only 2 genders.

Nope. Because of that were true there'd be a p, in there.
When will they add a double p and an a for that matter.
I see you guys are already pushing for pedophilia genders.
I wonder when you'll wake up and realize your islamic?

Basically the lgbt community is a hate group, because they discriminate against all, but two genders. :/
Down voting again? :)

And that's fine. You'll have an explanation for everything, no matter how outrageous it is.
That's your freedom. Good day.

Technically, T shouldn't be there. Gender Identity has nothing to do with sexual preferences....
Just get rid of the L and G too since being gay no longer is a thing, just attracted to another being on the gender spectrum.

If they don't discriminate genders then why only imply two?

Lastly, I have a question for you to answer.
If a man who identifies as a woman, gets their p**is sucked. The person who's sucking the p**is is sucking a woman's p**is? Yes or no.

That's all I need to know. :)
Have a good one.

"pansexual, which is often defined as attraction regardless of gender, or attraction to all genders." and by all genders you mean "BOTH"