AnonyNymous:

Trust you? Who are you? Lol. There are already gay people serving in the US army. (Since 2010, and they even consider that 'late'). Trannies too (since 2016). You shouldn't misinform people in an attempt to drive your point.

Apparently that's what you get for arguing with ignorants, they don't read.

While we are at it, I know some very religious but unchristian and very radical Islamist will come to curse me and spew hate. Let me just tell you before hand, know case you don't realise, it doesn't matter as it cannot in the least affect me. I do beg you not to let your hate consume you or take away your rational thinking. it's always better to have constructive radical arguments, that is exactly how we make progress.

Like someone once made me realise, Africans should not feel sacred and special for their homophobic views like its unique to them, not at all, Europeans were the pioneers of the homophobia, they've been there and done that; everything homophobic that most Nigerians do today and realised that it wasn't right and all their approaches weren't working. They brought both the Christian and judicial laws that govern our thinking. they have frozen us in a fix and updated everything sadly ensuring that they are ahead of us.

These blind people describe how they knew they were gay
So much of sexual attraction is bound up with the visual and aesthetic in our culture that some people struggle to comprehend how blind people know they are gay.
A thread on Reddit invited blind, gay users to share how they discovered their sexuality.
It offered up a fascinating mix of stories from Redditors who were blind from birth or became blind later in life – as well as input from sighted gay and straight users.

“I’ve been blind since birth and extremely gay,” said hank_scorpio_123.
“You know when you see someone and are attracted to them? It’s kind of like that but I can’t see.”
Which makes sense.
RedzandBluez said: “When I was 11 or 12, I didn’t really understand the difference between boys and girls. To me, they were the same except that men turned me on and women didn’t.
“I did not know about body parts (breasts, vagina, penis, etc.) and yet, I was attracted to my same sex. Because of my unique situation, I can tell you that being gay is not a choice.”
He added: “When I meet someone, what I go by is their voice, their smell, their kindness, and their willingness to help me when needed.”
“I hear the voices of guys and it just sounds attractive to me,” said commanderzilyana.
“Even though I can’t ‘see’ them physically mentally I can picture how they look. I wasn’t blind until I was age 14, but I realized I was gay when I was 18.
easwaran added: “I’m pretty sure it’s a cultural trope that most people (men and women, gay and straight) prefer to close their eyes while kissing and turn the lights down (or even off) during sex.
“We might think we’re all about visuals, but actually when it comes down to it, there’s a lot more going on that we often don’t think about
“Honestly, it’s not all that different from how sighted people know they’re gay. When they think about kissing someone, say around second grade or so, they know if they want to kiss boys or girls.”
rkingett said: “For all of the questions about attractions, I encourage all of you to read the good dates on my blog and that will answer a lot of your questions.
“In all other aspects, this question is stupid to be honest. It’s almost like people have never masturbated or had sexual daydreams before.
“That’s how I knew what sex I was attracted to because I found the idea of a male body, male voice, male hair, sexually arousing.”

First of all lemme say that Nigerians are such sexual perverts in sheep clothing, such hypocrites. Being gay has nothing to do with sexual acts or sex, so all those people shouting about liking manhole/butt/dick rather than pussies you guys are just minds who cannot think above sex. Being gay is about feelings, emotions and attractions. Like I once told a pastor when we argued about the Bible and Homosexuality; even if you stay celibate for years like I once did, you are still gay because being gay is about an emotional attraction to persons of the same sex. All the religious discipline can help you struggle to not act on who you are but you will still leave this world just as gay as the person who acted on it. And do you know why God will not change a person's sexual orientation, it is simply because unlike men, his love his radical and does not understand barriers of sexuality, your spirit which is in his image is neither male nor female nor transgender nor cisgender and it is that which he deals with. It is men that try to subdue other men and women and gays.

The basic conclusion of the argument of “against nature”—as thrown around by Anti-LGBTQIA+ proponents is that non-heterosexual orientations are not natural. Allow me to reiterate that this argument is however fallacious and built up simply to support discrimination against sexual minorities.
But before I start discounting this fallacy, I will briefly discuss the term Natural. Natural is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as:
1. existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind ,
2. in accordance with the nature of or circumstances surrounding someone or something. Dictionary.com defines Natural as:
1. existing or formed by nature
2. based on the state of things in nature; constituted by nature.
It is based on the above definitions and many others which are beyond the length of this write-up that the argument that other minority sexual orientations are unnatural sits: That queer sexual orientations are not found in nature, not formed by nature, and, ultimately, are not part and parcel of the make-up of individuals who identify as queer.
One of the basic tenets of the “against nature” argument is that homosexuality cannot be natural because the basic requirement of nature from sexuality is procreation; so nature could not have created homosexuals because they cannot procreate. A question I once heard asked at a conference which goes thus: “How can you say ‘contrary’ sexual orientations are natural when nature requires heterosexual orientation to prevent humans from going extinct?” exemplifies this belief.
First, there is no such thing as a ‘contrary sexual orientation’ -as evidenced by the absence of this term in any modern scientific journal on the topic of sexual orientation. Indeed there is a common sexual orientation and other less common but equally valid ones. The phrase ‘contrary sexual orientation’ is totally heteronormative—assuming that everyone is/was born heterosexual and everything is about heterosexuality—and connotes a Heterosexual versus Non-Heterosexual war of orientations—the one striving to end the other. This is not so.
Also, Species do not ONLY need to procreate to ensure their survival but must function as a community to transfer genes that are overall favourable onto the next generation. That is procreation is not the ONLY contribution that members of a species have to make to prevent the extinction of the species. This is explained by the concepts of the gene-centered theory of evolution, and the “Helper in the Nest” hypothesis. These theories hold that the genetic contribution to homosexuality has been preserved through time because this helps support other related genes that favour propagation of the human species. My point here is that there is no need for nature to procreate numerous offsprings without favouring them for survival, they will just die off and this is evidenced by the fact that Neanderthal man and other older fossil records of man showed smaller skulls (corresponding to smaller brain size) and were less intelligent.
A study done by Andrea Camperio Ciani and Elena Pellizzari in 2012, [http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0051088.] found that non-parental females (aunts and grandmothers) in the maternal lines of homosexual males were more fertile than those of heterosexual males, suggesting that the genetic contribution to fertility in women was being carried along by nature with male homosexuality. This study agreed with other similar studies (http://www.nytimes.com/1993/07/16/us/report-suggests-homosexuality-is-linked-to-genes.html?pagewanted=all, http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/11/study-gay-brothers-may-confirm-x-chromosome-link-homosexuality, https://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/feb/14/genes-influence-male-sexual-orientation-study) which found out homosexual males were more related on the maternal side and also found similar genetic regions in about 97% of gay men in a locus on the X chromosome(Xq28) which was usually contributed by the mother for genotypic males. The research helps throw some light on the fact that female fertility and homosexual tendencies are relevant to preventing extinction as a pair. It is evident therefore that nature has persistently preserved both heterosexual and other sexual orientations through generations because NATURE REQUIRES HETEROSEXUAL, HOMOSEXUAL, BISEXUAL and OTHER SEXUAL ORIENTATIONS TO PREVENT HUMANS FROM GOING EXTINCT. This is because other orientations obviously contribute to the propagation of the Homo sapiens species and no way results in its extinction because they exist in balance with heterosexual orientation which can still procreate. This, however, doesn’t even mean that people of other sexual orientations are infertile and cannot reproduce. In the US 37% of LGBT people have a child, about 60% of which are biological.
If we know anything about nature and science, it is that history has shown how much of nature science is still yet to uncover. So I can imagine there are many more unknown contributions of the diverse minority sexual orientations in nature that science is even yet to explore.
Another basis of this argument comes from the direction of the anatomical forms of male and female animal species. It states that animals are usually heterosexual male and female in nature and there are no Homosexual or Bisexual animals. Examples of this part of the argument include statements like: “Have you seen two male dogs having sex before?” “Even animals have male and female, and its male lion mating with female lion, not male and male or female and female.” “God made man with penis and woman with vagina for a reason.” This argument has long been refuted by nature itself which has offered more than enough examples of Homosexual and Bisexual behaviours in the animal kingdom. Nature has also fortunately blessed our diverse world with intersex members of species (regarded in certain parlances as haemaphrodites) who have natural anatomical sexual organs conforming to neither Male nor Female strictly (ambiguous Instruments) or having both. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals http://community.lovenature.com/wild/why-do-some-animals-exhibit-homosexual-behaviour
When the Anti-LGBTQIA+ proponents see these scientific facts stacked against them, they say, ‘Just because animals do it doesn’t mean we should adopt animal behaviours.’ Well, the point is: Homosexuals, Bisexuals and Other sexual minorities are not “doing it” because animals do it, they are just being their innate self while referring Anti-LGBTQIA+ proponents to the animal kingdom as a genuine and untampered—at least in this aspect, unless someone is of the opinion that people are converting animals in the wild into gay animals— part of nature.
Finally, scientifically speaking, man is classified under the Kingdom animalia and If the Homo sapiens species were the only member of the kingdom to exhibit non-heterosexual orientations we would have questioned the scientific validity of these orientations being natural but this is not so. What is however impossible to find in the Kingdom Animalia is the hate directed against people of minority sexual orientations.
Heterosexuals always say they “came into” their sexual orientations naturally irrespective of how they first explored sex and they are believed but yet promoters of the “against nature” argument find it hard to believe Homosexuals, Bisexuals and Other sexual minorities when they say they “came into” their attractions not from any learned conscious behaviour and irrespective of what their first sexual explorations were. If heterosexuality is natural and not learned, then other variations of sexuality should be easily understood to be natural and not learnt. The funniest thing is that some Anti LGBTQIA+ supporters say homosexual tendencies are strong desires with genetic predispositions—so are stealing, murder and criminal behaviours. The comparison however, is not apt because it is trying to equate Homosexuality, Bisexuality and Other sexual orientations to behaviours that are harmful to society. The flaws of this argument are exposed below.
1. OTHER SEXUAL ORIENTATIONS (proven genetic contributions); “may indeed be natural”
2. MURDER, THEFT (might have genetic predispositions; “may indeed be natural but are harmful and so are considered immoral’
3. CONCLUSION OF THE ARGUMENT IS, “Other Sexual orientations are harmful and also immoral too” (AN UNTRUE STATEMENT THAT IS INFERRED IN THE ARGUMENT), “so surely you cannot say they are natural if not you are also saying Murder and Theft are natural”.

Again, no orientation is in itself harmful and several studies have shown that Homosexuality, Bisexuality and Other Sexual orientations are no more harmful than Heterosexual orientation. My point here is that, if you can prove that genetics supports predisposition to stealing, murder and other crimes, then those behaviours can be said to be natural but are not acceptable because they are harmful. However, non-heterosexual orientations are both natural and harmless and are not crimes against humanity. Whether they are harmful or harmless is by the way another debate. Bringing it into the argument of “against nature” just shows that the Anti-LGBTQIA+ proponents are in a hurry to get to their real intention of this argument which is to have any reason at all to hate and discriminate minority sexual orientations.
I also hear supporters of the “against nature” argument claim that there is no gay gene and so there is no genetic support for other sexual orientations. Permit me to say that people who say this are just brandishing their ignorance on the subject of genetics and its research. In medicine there are numerous conditions and traits with known genetic predisposition for which there are no pin-point single gene culprits. The absence of a particular gene culprit for all cases in conditions such as Schizophrenia, Down’s syndrome and Parkinson’s disease does not dispute the fact that it has inheritance and genetics as a major contributor in its aetiology. In the area of sexual orientation, research has not been extensive for obvious social reasons but the evidence in support of a genetic predisposition is just as strong as that for other conditions in the science of medicine so this ‘show me the exact gay gene’ argument is as invalid as ‘show me the exact straight gene’. One very common type of genetic research which helps scientist to understand the impact of nature and nurture in a situation is the twin studies. One such study by J. Michael Bailey and Richard Pillard studied male homosexuality among Monozygotic twins (MZ), Dizygotic twins (DZ) and non-related adopted brothers. The study found that 52% of MZ twins both identified as gay, while 22% of DZ twins and only 5% of non-related adopted brothers were so. This showed that the more closely genetically linked people are, the more likely they exhibit the same sexuality. This evidence was repeated by another study and found to be true however not in the same percentages. Obviously, nurture also contributes to what an individual becomes albeit as far as sexuality is concerned nature surely contributes a great quota. This video link gives a rounded view of the genetic theories that support innate homosexual predispositions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pP-yZ9jOVnk.
Perhaps in another discourse, I will debunk the Anti-LGBTQIA+ argument which say that Homosexual, Bisexual and other sexual orientations are learned behaviours from the media and Pro-LGBTQIA+ societies. The shocking truth is, in many extremely homophobic countries like Uganda, Nigeria and many countries in the Middle East where there is almost zero show of Homosexual affection in the media and most representations of any non heterosexual orientation is usually negative, there exist a significant LGBTQIA population. Even in Nazi Germany where homosexuality was punishable by death, love letters were still recently unearthed of two gay veterans from the German army.
In many places, being queer is a cultural taboo and also criminalized. So the big question is, why would so many people ‘choose’ to be hated outcasts? My only plausible answer is NATURE, NATURE, AND NATURE.