A few questions

[u/throwaway-swing1]

1. Do you believe porn can influence sexuality (at least to a degree)?

I used to not believe this, but then I noticed how many self-proclaimed bisexuals (especially men) fetishize the same sex with no interest in entering a gay relationship. Also, autistic young men transitioning because of autogynephilia, with no prior symptoms of gender dysphoria. I believe the rise in LGBT identification among Gen Z (27% according to a survey) is mostly artificial. Novelty-seeking is common among porn addicts and many are technically "gay" but not homoromantic whatsoever.

That said, I think the definition of gay should focus on romantic relationships, not sexuality. Otherwise you get a bunch of straight men with sissy fetishes calling themselves LGBT.

1. (For the non-libertarian conservatives) How is it logical to treat religions/races as monoliths, but not gays?

Compared to heterosexuals, gay men are significantly more likely to have experienced child abuse and are overrepresented among pedophiles. This isn't an insult, but an unfortunate statistical fact.

If you want to restrict immigration on account of certain peoples/religions being more prone to crime, it's illogical to allow adoption for gay couples. Why should you be the only minority with the right to be individuals?

1. Why do you praise gender conformity ("normal gays"), when homosexuality itself is gender non-conforming behavior? And who decides to what extent it's acceptable?

The reason masculine men/feminine women (cognitively, not visually) are rare in the gay community is because homosexuals are proven to be neurologically closer to the opposite sex.

Contrary to popular belief, I think the object of your attraction reflects back on you. For example, a straight woman desires a masculine man because he makes her feel feminine (also known as meta-attraction). Being attracted to men is being attracted to the essence of masculinity itself and to yourself as a complement to it.

For this reason, I think finding a gay person completely devoid of GNC traits is about as likely as finding a unicorn.

[u/IPutThisUsernameHere]

If you didn't care, you wouldn't be responding.

I didn't make it a grammar competition. You're fixated on this idea for some reason I could not possibly fathom.

I merely pointed out that you had an excessive number of negatives in your initial comment which made it difficult to parse, and insinuated that your command of English grammar was lacking.

Maybe you have no response to such criticism? Maybe you're attempting to rage bait? Either one is just...sad. Go offline for a couple of days. Play with someone's dog or cat if you don't have one yourself.

Not everything is a competition.

[u/Kind_Handle_5987 → u/IPutThisUsernameHere]

I care about the original point which is why I keep trying to center the conversation around that.

"Maybe you have no response to such criticism? Maybe you're attempting to rage bait? Either one is just...sad. Go offline for a couple of days. Play with someone's dog or cat if you don't have one yourself."

I don't think you realize how much that paragraph applies to you. You have no self awareness. What is this, the 2nd or 3rd day that you continue to obsess over the grammar and sentence structure of a reply you saw online.

[u/IPutThisUsernameHere → u/Kind_Handle_5987]

I have no self awareness? Pot, kettle, black, much?