Apart from different genitalia in interaction I don't see why you need to create a scale of relevance in this respect. Please, do not come up with the fallacy homosexuality is unnatural because for anybody minimally informed homosexuality is natural. I don't hink I need to bring up the meaning of "natural", do I?
I didn't say it's unnatural. I said it's
biologically flawed (because it ends the propagation of your genetic makeup and thus ends your whole ancestral lineage) and equally repulsive.
I've proven it's repulsive using data from MRI's and studies that looked as physiological responses of disgust in straight men viewing gay acts.
If you can't see how it's biologically flawed, well, you're purposefully obtuse.
Thought experiment: get a group of gay men couples, as many as you want, let's say a few thousand. put them on an isolated island, give them water and food and whatever else they need to survive.
Come back a few generations later. Who's left?
...oh, that's right, nobody.
Counter with: get a group of normal couples, as many as you want, let's say a few thousand. put them on an isolated island, give them water and food and whatever else they need to survive.
Come back a few generations later. Who's left?
...their offspring.
but yeah, keep succumbing to the neo-marxist groupthink, and keep cheering on the degeneration of morals and standards, the disregard of objectivity, truth, and beauty, and all the harm it does to the public consciousness.
(the gay agenda is only one aspect of all that, but it's a poisonous one that is quite easy to isolate and make an example of to give credence to the rest)