Anyone else think that homosex is a disease? There isn't any evolutionary purpose for it. Also anyone notice how the majority of pedophiles are gays? Also if being gay is a choice then why are so many prisoners raping the same gender who would otherwise be straight? Notice how the majority of gays were abused children?
I think gays are just products of guys imprinting on their mothers due to the lack of a strong fatherly figure. Feminism = increase of gays
it's not a "disease," and neither is it genetic. after all, if it were genetic, then in 100% of the cases, without fail, where one genetically identical twin is gay, the other would be gay as well - necessarily. that is not the case; it's about 70% of the time that both are gay when one is gay.
it has much more to do with early development and the bond (or lack thereof) one forms with the parent of the same sex. of that bond is weak or missing, the child ends up taking on the preferences of the parent of the opposite sex.
it is not a disease - it is a behavior. and, while most of us do not define ourselves and the very core of our identities by our behaviors, homosexuals (generally) do. this itself is very dangerous.
Gays are more likely to be pedophiles than heterosexuals, but the majority of pedophiles are heterosexual by virtue of their being such a greater number of them.
>majority of gays were abused children
you wouldn't happen to be a homosexual, would you?
and, do you think a "hairy stab wound with boogers in it" is somehow LESS disgusting than a man's ass - with literal shit in it?*
*homosexuals actually believe this
You fuck asses too retard. Asses are closed up and there's nothing gross in there if you aren't degenerate about it. We're not all pedophiles. We're not all sick in the head. Why are some animals faggots? Homophobes LOVE gay porn and scat. This is proven. You are conjecture. We can also have our own kids. The Bible regarding this was mistranslated and God approves of surrogates
And that's all this is. Well done beef or a blue steak. Nobody should care. Every time there is nude women or naked men on any board on here, nobody cares about tits as compared to floppy uncut benises and you know this
>Everybody hates their dad.
not true. you are projecting
>Do you like disgusting vaginas because you want to fuck your mom?
no, i like vaginas because i am a man, and that is how reproduction is accomplished. if everyone did what you do, there would be none of us here to have this conversation.
>Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, faggot.
i agree. but, in this case, you fit the profile of what i was saying here:
>Tfw first year famous male became a woman shim won woman of the year
>mfw men are literally better at being women than women
Surrogacy, moron. I already said this. Nobody cares about your reproduction so you can make more problems. Men don't care what other men do with themselves. Just look up studies as to what I'm talking about or anything else because unlike OP and you I did this with yours and I don't just make up mine
Is there any credible scientific source that proves homosexuality is a disease? Or is this just your feelings.
Being gay is a mental disorder.
People are gay because they either associate with their same sex too much (e.g. single parents, divorced parents) and side with them. Only having one parent to look up too the brain will take over that this is their Mom & Dad. Then they will associate their sexuality with that gender.
That, or they are forced into it. Like today in prisons and in the minds of fucktards.
That is my belief, I'll come back with some studies if applicable.
Too bad it's existed for thousands and thousands of years and until you prove that all and every single gay and straight meets your Freudian criteria then go masturbate to traps and furries
>There isn't any evolutionary purpose for it.
I think there's been some evidence found that it has a possible purpose as a means of population control. It could also be the result of unintended interactions between genes, in which case it wouldn't actually need an evolutionary "purpose", nor would it be selected against.
>Also anyone notice how the majority of pedophiles are gays?
No, because that's incorrect.
> Also if being gay is a choice then why are so many prisoners raping the same gender who would otherwise be straight?
Considering they're straight, I think this argument is self-defeating.
>Notice how the majority of gays were abused children?
Almost certainly the result of testosterone levels in the pre-natal environment, actually. Any genetic element found only interacts with it through increasing or decreasing testosterone sensitivity.
>Nobody cares about your reproduction so you can make more problems.
how someone could make this sort of argument, without realizing it cuts the legs out from under EVERY argument they make in addition to this one, is beyond me.
after all, are YOU not the result of normal sexual relations between a man and a woman? and, if so, are YOU not one of the very "problems" you rail against? and, if so, why should i believe there is any relevancy or truth to anything you say??
this is why many people believe homosexuality is a manifestation of misanthropy - a genuine hatred of life itself. you certainly sound like that is where you are coming from.
>think there's been some evidence found that it has a possible purpose as a means of population control
Why the fuck would the human species need a method of population control for itself?
>this is why many people believe homosexuality is a manifestation of misanthropy
Those people are dumb on a level I can't even begin to comprehend. You have to ignore more or less all scientific evidence to reach a conclusion other than "it's probably the result of genes" or "it's probably the result of prenatal hormones".
Because if the resources in a closed system run out, it has a devastating effect on the entire population. It is better never to reach this point.
This isn't the theory I subscribe to personally, by the way, but I don't think it would be the only example of such a mechanism in nature.
Christ wasn't an edgy fedora Synagogue of Satan fascist neckbeard like you
Every culture dies. It's been going on along with gays for a long long time. There is no correlation. It's Zionists' job to destroy
>call someone shlomo
>" edgy fedora Synagogue of Satan fascist neckbeard "
nice buzzwords you fucking moron, you and your garbage country are lower than Australia tier. At the very least Australians aren't beta bitches.
>Every culture dies
No. Culture does not die. People die. Ideas will live on, even if the original source is destroyed.
Gays are a product of the destruction of an empire. They are sick in mind and will not enjoy the fruits of life unless they are treated.
>Almost certainly the result of testosterone levels in the pre-natal environment, actually.
this doesn't at all explain why, in cases of identical twins, there isn't a 100% chance of one twin being homosexual when the other is. after all, they share the same source of nutrition in utero, the same environment, and the same genetic code.
do you believe that bestiality has its genesis in prenatal development as well?
these are behaviors.
Are the hundreds of animal species which display homosexual behaviour undergoing a societal collapse as well then?
>after all, they share the same source of nutrition in utero, the same environment, and the same genetic code.
No they don't. There is no evidence to suggest that twins share the same prenatal hormonal levels whatsoever.
>cultures don't die
>gays bring down cultures
It's not the Mosque of Satan now is it? It's not the Church of Satan now is it? It's not the Temple of Satan now is it? You call me a Muslim but you'd kill me like they do because Jews are fucking crazy
That's not scientific proof, that's an opinion. Give me something better than self proclaimed anecdotal ''evidence'' and ''muh feelings''.
>Are the hundreds of animal species which display homosexual behaviour undergoing a societal collapse as well then?
You know what else is found in nature? Necrophilia, pedophilia, incest, and cannibalism. Let's legalize those as well eh?
>You have to ignore more or less all scientific evidence to reach a conclusion other than "it's probably the result of genes" or "it's probably the result of prenatal hormones".
again, there is a VERY easy way to tell if that's the case or not. it's called GENETIC TWINS.
what you are claiming is falsified by the fact that homosexuality is NOT always present in both twins; sometimes, it is just one. end of story.
>implying i dont want to gas your mudslime ass and the jews
your both subhuman species that refuse to progress in any way past your baser instincts, fuck off retard.
Eating lobster and wearing polyester is also the same abomination. Malakoi and arsenokoitai in Romans doesn't mean homosexuals (a word that didn't exist til much later) or sodomy. It means pagan temple prostitutions of little kids. We just uncovered this linguistic evidence. Sodom fell because they raped angels. Straights talk about fucking asses all the time
He used to win gold medals in decathlons, now he wins gold medals in mental gymnastics.
I agree with this
That's exactly the point, humans are supposed to transcend their animal selves, whores and gays are indeed products of steep and alarming social decline
You didn't answer my question.
As I have already said in this thread, the genes which interact with sexuality do so because they affect sensitivity to testosterone. Identical twins share genes, but do not share their pre-natal environment, which means they are affected by different levels of hormones at different stages. This results in different sexualities.
End of story.
Because people grow up and we're all different and we're all made in the image and likeness of God. We all have our purpose. This is what greedy right wing Jews don't understand. We can NEVER be what they want. Never. It's never happened and it never will happen. Ever
it's ok, bro. we have all been given a cross to bear.
i mention the Bible verses because, quite often, the impressions that homosexuals have of Christians - and ESPECIALLY of Jesus Christ and Christianity - is a very skewed, distorted one.
not that i blame them at all. too often, they are met with hypocritical condemnation, because people like to condemn the (few) sins that they themselves do not have.
i just want to balance it out a bit.
>Why are some animals faggots?
There are no recorded cases of homosexuality in wild animal populations living in their natural habitat.
The only such recorded cases are where the animals sre living in areas polluted by human industrial waste.
>Hundreds of animals that display sexual behavior
Are animals intelligent? What are the odds that the animals themselves did not imprint their mothers completely?
Also, last time I checked that they had cited dragonfly scars, in how some tried to mate with other males. Funnily enough, what are the chances that the animal thought it was a female?
I did not say that. To say that cultures (culminations of ideas central to a society, therefore cultures are ideas) die, is like saying that any form of thought dies. They don't. The people holding the ideas die. One could eradicate a whole people with those ideas, but those ideas would resurface, possibly as an "original thought". Its like saying the idea of a circle wouldn't exist if all people who knew of them were exterminated and all records of the circle destroyed.
Gays are a byproduct of the removal of cultures. In turn, they propagate the removal of the same culture, alienating those who believe in it.
>Gays are a byproduct of the removal of cultures
Yeah ok. Exclusive homosex exists between 400 and 1600 different species. Just like "all gays have shit relations with same sex parent" your theory sounds like it was pulled out of your ass
it has more to do with the level of desire one has for sex. Men have the greatest desire. if more women consented, there's probably be more diseases spread, so it's not much about being gay than it is to be a male with little consideration to suppress his sexual desire.
>There isn't any evolutionary purpose for it.
... that you can see. People who don't have children on their own, so they can devote themselves to working for the tribe, could be very beneficial. But the sex drive still needs a valve.
>Also anyone notice how the majority of pedophiles are gays?
No, I didn't, but surely you have the numbers. Also, that'd be what fraction of gays total?
>Notice how the majority of gays were abused children?
No, I didn't, enlighten me.
Being gay is a deviation from the norm. It's one that's tolerated enough by nature to have survived up to now. It's nothing that'd doom us if people would fucking stop making it the focus of their life. Those people are the problem, and that includes you.
You are not Christian you are a HERETIC and you will rot in hell for eternity for the sodomy you have committed. All over the Bible it talks about God punishing sodomites like you. It says in the Bible that gays need to be executed. So go ahead, do us all a favour.
sociologisy? no? What the fucking fuck do you know about any of this? All you are is an opinion. until you're out on the field, that's all you are. I hate to think of some uneducated shit like you could consider himself an authority of subjects he has no expertise in. you have no credibility.
You don't understand the difference between the biblical "sodomite", as in, "person from the city of Sodom" and the modern meaning of "sodomite", and you expect to be taken seriously?
It's a mental illness.
The short version is that it's caused by a combination of higher than average impulsive behavior (which is mostly hereditary) and something else which makes them attracted to men or simply the lack of women in some cases.
Shitskins (mudslimes) love to fuck men in the ass, shitskins also tend to be much more impulsive than white people.
Criminality is most of the time also caused by impulsive people who like to fuck themselves in the ass in prison.
You're delusional m8, we did, we gave a whole range of answers that imply that modeling society after mindless animals is not a good model for a healthy, functional society
That's even assuming it's as common as you're making it out to be, which others have said it isn't, and that instances of homosexuality in animals are symmetric with instances of necrophilia and other disgusting features
Admit it m8, there's nothing inherently wrong with being gay, it's just a sign that shit's going south
is THAT how Catholics explain the problems with their "priests" these days?
not trying to be a jerk here, i just wonder how they justify having created a profession that is literally custom-made for men who have perverse sexual desires, in contravention of Scripture's warning (1Tim4:1-4) about doing just that, and then sitting back and wondering WHY OH WHY does every single "priest" on EWTN and in the pulpits appear to be more effeminate than the most flamingly open homosexual.
you might as well say its against your religion and be done with it, but that's not good enough for you -you think you must convert the masses to your beliefs. without anything based onlogic, you expect everyone to embrace your worldview. at least gays aren't trying to convert anyone; people like you are. what don't you see? Jesus was right, you have a board in your eye.
Fuck you then. I have really lessened my sexuality a lot these past years. I don't care about this. We're debating age old issues and nobody can ever be the straight white boring Aryans you all want for 7 billion people
They play both sides. I have only one
I've said nothing about how common it is. The one thing I've said is that it's the result of hormonal levels in the womb, and that's something no-one has been able to put up a solid counterpoint against because there's no scientific literature with which to do so.
Anyone who believes that it's a sign of societal collapse must thus also believe that prenatal hormonal levels are the best measure of a society's integrity.
Which would be insane, of course.
Brother/Sisters of homosexuals are more likely to find a good partner, so it can help pass on your genetics indirectly.
Homosexuality is not a disease, it is a belief people have about themselves. This is encouraged by the "scientific" view that people are straight or gay and are born that way. Which is absolute horseshit.
>The one thing I've said is that it's the result of hormonal levels in the womb, and that's something no-one has been able to put up a solid counterpoint against because there's no scientific literature with which to do so.
So in other words, you pulled a point out of your ass, and then claim victory because no one actually knows the truth on the subject.
Sorry m8, that's not how it works.
What's the difference? You may call it the way you want: paraphilia, sexual orientation, disease, degeneracy... But the way you call it doesn't change the fact it doesn't affect you in any way who I decide to fuck with.
Are you afraid of getting infected?
Uh-huh. I suggest you pick up even the most basic textbook on human sexuality and have a read. Fuck, even wikipedia would sort this out for you.
I'd also like to pause briefly here to laugh at the fact that you basically acknowledged that this entire thread is full of people who have no idea what they're talking about, but have passionate opinions on the subject anyway.
If it's not common why the fuck do you use it as an example to normalize homosexuality?
Society is more deeply ingrained in our evolutionary functions than you apparently think
I don't think you have right to call anyone else insane. You seem extremely insecure and will do anything to pull strings and to circumvent perfectly modest arguments to get your neediness satisfied
Same goes for you retard
No, we are afraid of our kids becoming infected, you fuck.
Look at that picture and realize what the world has become. That is a child. Would you want your child to do that? Become some mess of disease and filth from all the people he has fucked, and enjoy it? Do you enjoy corruption of your kids, you cuck?
When you're linking to wikipedia to support your point and even they throw a "may" into the first paragraph to indicate that the whole thing may be bunk, you don't have much to stand on.
>I'd also like to pause briefly here to laugh at the fact that you basically acknowledged that this entire thread is full of people who have no idea what they're talking about, but have passionate opinions on the subject anyway.
I don't see many people having passionate opinions on the cause of homosexuality, just its effects.
It's the acceptance of homosexuality that's indicative of the collapse of traditionally bigoted religious values
I'm well aware of the fear you have of losing your influence and power
>acceptance of something which is the result of uncontrollable factors occuring before you're born is societal collapse
If you don't see the logic of my argument, I don't really know how this can proceed. The inability to answer my question should sort of indicate the fact that my argument has some merit to it - are animals which have homosexual members of their species undergoing societal collapse? The answer is obviously no, and everyone who has replied to me knows that this is the case, and have had to dance around just saying "no" in order to avoid accepting that their argument is total bullshit.
I'm still waiting for anyone to come back with any kind of scientific literature which suggests anything other than genetic or hormonal influences.
I'll be waiting a while, I suspect.
Wikipedia's really dodgy for anything which can't have scientific papers cited - mainly social subjects such as that one. They're trying to get rid of the page for "regressive left" as well, and the talk section was pretty much people saying it hurts their feelings.
It's fine for scientific stuff like this, though.
That wikipedia article's citations are almost entirely scientific papers on the subject, which you can feel free to read if you're interested in the subject.
>I don't see many people having passionate opinions on the cause of homosexuality, just its effects.
You've missed at least half the thread then, might be worth going back to the top. How anyone could say that and then expect to be taken seriously is hilarious to me - we're literally in the thread you're talking about. I can see that you are wrong by just scrolling up.
i don't think i ever got a reply to the question i asked about genetically identical twins and homosexuality. the fact that in cases where one twin is homosexual, the other is also homosexual only about 70% of the time and not 100%, would seem to directly falsify the notion that this has anything to do with homosexuality. after all, they share the same source of nutrition, the same environment, the same life support, and the same genetic code.
this fact alone makes it rather obvious that neither genetics or the natal environment has anything at all to do with homosexuality. it is OBVIOUSLY developmental.
and, when you note that homosexuals generally have had a broken/missing/dysfunctional bond with the parent of the same sex, it gets even MORE obvious that gestational factors have naught to do with it.
not my friends, though i can't speak for all gays, you may encounter those who won't stop flirting with you, but this isn't typical gay behavior, it's typical MALE behavior.
You did get a reply, it's that there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to suggest that twins share a prenatal environment. There is evidence to suggest that their hormonal levels differ during pregnancy.
>That wikipedia article's citations are almost entirely scientific papers on the subject
And as we all know, there are no papers stating the contrary.
We also know that twins always share a sexuality, so that theory must be ironclad. Wait.
>men do this all the time
yes to women, who we are biologically fucking attracted to. not other men you giant fucking raging homosexual fuck. God i wish gay beating was still a fucking thing.
invalid? you deny men do this to women? You're more offended that there are men who do it to other men, maybe even you, but that's your problem if you're going to waste your time in fear of it. it's not conversion, cuz it's not all gays, but you know the saying, "men are pigs."
As I've explained already maybe 5 times in this thread, genes which influence sexuality are those which also influence sensitivity to androgens. There is evidence to suggest that twins do not share the same hormonal environment whilst in the womb, and thus can have different sexualities.
A homosexual is a person with a dangerous mental illness. They molest children at a truly alarming rate--thirty times the rate of heterosexuals according to one of the studies. Their lifespans are shortened by decades due to their behaviors. They spread deadly diseases. They side with the enemies of our race on virtually every issue. Shall I continue?
>it's that there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to suggest that twins share a prenatal environment.
well, THAT'S a real head-scratcher.
i'd like to ask you what you meant by that, but the more i think about it, there really isn't any possible answer. did it somehow escape your notice that genetic twins also share the same uterus of the same woman, in addition to the same exact genetic code?
i'll let you take a crack at it anyway, if you're inclined... what did you mean by this???
This is what Sodom did to kiss God off:
>Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: Therefore I took them away as I saw good
Basically they were lazy, arrogant, and uncharitable. Also they hated foreigners and wanted to rape an angel.
men flirting and trying to get laid is male behavior. it's even more so when two or more men are attracted to each other. You're thinking is selective as opposed to seeing the big picture.
There is no evidence to suggest that twins share the same prenatal environment. Prenatal environment is the term used to refer to things such as the level of hormones delivered, but also to things such as the timing. There is no evidence to suggest that twins share the above, and the fact that they share a uterus is not relevant. Measures of prenatal androgen levels such as the 2d4d ratio suggest that twins do not in fact share the environment.
In other words, there is no evidence that they do share it, and there is evidence that they do not. Whether you accept that evidence is pretty much down to ideology, since this is /pol/, but the evidence exists.
Cucks are also male.
>There is evidence to suggest that twins do not share the same hormonal environment whilst in the womb, and thus can have different sexualities.
and you can cancel my question here:
since this is apparently what you meant by that.
though, i'm not sure why you didn't say something like, "they may share the same ENVIRONMENT, but be subject to hormonal differences" or something like that. the way you phrased it, it was like you were going out of your way to deny the obvious, at the risk of sounding absurd.
i imagine you grew up with your guy friends and in high school, you'd all get together and plan who you were gonna fuck that night. there's not much resistance when both parties are thinking the same thing.
wow - you're a quick typist.
now, i can has source plz?
...because this would have to happen in about 30% of the cases where one at least one twin is homosexual. it sounds to me like you are fighting a losing battle in an effort to prop up your worldview
the internet creates cucks
in fact ALL technology with screens encourages cuck/voyeur behavior
electricity caused the huge rise in cucks and faggots
hell the people who invented half this shit were cucks and faggots
technology == fagotry
Yeah, sorry, "prenatal environment" does not mean the literal physical environment in this case, it is a scientific term used to refer to a whole bunch of things. I should've made that clearer.
Here's your source:
Of course there's a growth of homosexuality stats, you moron. Back then when homosexuality was immoral, nobody would admit being gay in a poll. At the same rate that homosexuality becomes more accepted, more gays leave the closet.
But that has nothing to do with it being contagious or not.
Your argument's pretty confused here. If they spread disease, it is surely only to other homosexual males. If they engage in paedophilia, then how are we even discussing people who are attracted to adult males? That would be paedophiles, not homosexuals, surely?
The perverted behaviour thing reveals the true basis of your argument, which is that you simply don't like it.
A further question for those of you who believe homosexuality is bad because of correlation with risk-taking, paedophilia, etc:
The correlations between those things and being male are far higher than the ones between those things and being gay. Are males a problem?
I mean, just following your logic naturally, you might be better off on Tumblr.
Here's a study faggot: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1556756
"the ratio of homosexual to heterosexual pedophiles was calculated to be approximately 11:1. This suggests that the resulting proportion of true pedophiles among persons with a homosexual erotic development is greater than that in persons who develop heterosexually."
When will this projected "coming out" end?
Increase of homosexuality is still an increase, no matter the causes.
Also, why do you say when it was 'immoral'? It still is.
Used to be Mormon, left the church due to rebellious phase. Don't have a church.
Here's another one, fag: http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=is02e3
"Individuals from the 1 to 3 percent of the population that is sexually attracted to the same sex are committing up to one-third of the sex crimes against children."
How about you go and look up the figures for paedophilia and being male, then come back and actually answer my question. Your opinions suggest that if you were born with a vagina, you'd be one of the HURR ALL MEN ARE RAPISTS plebs on Tumblr.
It's for cultural and spiritual evolution, not physical.
It tests unconditional love.
Some say gays are equally male and female and therefore have an out-of-the-box attitude to social situations and are highly intuitive, being able to offer support to both sexes with ease.
Look into tribal attitudes to it, it's quite interesting.
It's an increase in people *saying* they're homosexual because they are not afraid to. This has been explained in very simple terms for you several times at this point. It is not an increase in homosexuality itself.
>>Used to be Mormon, left the church due to rebellious phase. Don't have a church.
well maybe some of the negativity about sex affected you in some way. not entirely your fault, and i don't ask you to accept it.
Now, you might not like the lifestyle, but while our educational system needs fixing, does it really make sense to contribute to the intellectual decay by spreading intolerance? Not all gays are perverts
Nothing in the research on T Gondii has ever pointed to making someone homosexual. And the rat example equating extraction to cat urine the same as sexual preference (which it is not).
Everything in that image and research is all "correlation doesnt means causation" on homosexuality.
You think gay people are 1% of the population?
Also, men commit around 96% of sex crimes against children. I'll ask again: Are men a problem too? Your argument suggests that they are, yet you're stopping short of admitting it.
Like I said, you'd probably be better off on tumblr.
>expecting /pol/ to accept scientific evidence when it doesn't fit their world view
This is such a stupid argument that I don't even know where to begin taking it apart. The words don't even look as if they're in the right order. "Admission is becoming therefore increase." is not even a valid sentence. You've stumped me. Are you suggesting "Schrodinger's gays"?
Our educational system does need fixing.
I have negative views of it because most gays I have met were disgusting peoples. I honestly expect the trend to continue and from what I see in media they are.
I guess it was terse.
Becoming gay results in Admission of being gay which increases admission along with becoming.
As admission rises, becoming gay rises.
Therefore as admission rises, by default becoming gay rises.
Gay families are raising non-biological kids, or if they are biological they have a surrogate mother. There are cucks abound with gays.
>See this whole thread
>Bunch of closeted faggots getting all buthurt (and not in the good way)
Meh IDK if I'm sick or not OP. I just like dick.¯\_(ツ)_/¯
homo/tranny shit is the first step on the androgynous techno occult agenda
this is what it's really about
technology and anti-human
I'm a computer engineer and I feel complicit and guilty
people don't realize that technology and nerds == faggots they are one and the same
The answer of homosexuality lies in epigenetic, the moment of the building of the fetuses. Wrong lifestyle allied with stress can give wrong hormones to the fetuses; thus, creating wrong commands to the cells that develop the fetuses. Of course it's a matter of chances, not 50/50.
Now, pedophiles, that's a conceptual problem. The impregnation of the conception of "innocence" over the 20 century invention called "child", the brainwashing of the new beauty paradigm that worship silky smooth skin, "angel-like" features, the "sexy cuteness" and at same time the precocious sexualization of children brings a package that teases the sexuality of people. Once you imprint this package into a person's mind, you create a pedophile, and these imprints happens mostly when this person is young, quite young. Sexuality is amoral. It doesn't follow rules, nor understands conscious concepts of "child" and "wrong" and at the same time, sexuality nuances can be built by all kinds of information (audio-visual mostly) imprinted on people's minds dictating what is sexy, what is not.
ITT straight men cry about why gays for being better than them in every way. I bet men get furious when girls hit on gay guys more than they do them. I know this to be true with me, all them insecure men who get jelly of me talking/spending time with their gf and their stupid perception about gay men being super camp.
modern technology and the office job causes epigenetic changes leading to feminized males, you don't even need xenoestrogens
internet use I predict will do the same thing to future generations
computers literally make you gay.
Gay men have, on average, 5 times as much sex as a straight man. People act as if they are disgusted by this promiscuity, but it has been found that the amount of sex gay men generally have is pretty much equivalent to the amount of sex straight men say they would *like* to have.
I'd avoid using the idea of rape against gays. Rape is a much stronger argument that men are degenerates than gays. It's tumblr-tier reasoning.
The evolutionary purpose is obvious.
If there is ever a lack of females, instead of men fighting over women they can just, quite literally, go fuck themselves.
Even heteros are possible to engage in homosexual activity simply because of a lack of females. Look at prisons. Look at The Roman Legions. Etc.
Sex drive trumps sexual orientation for a lot of hetero men.
Also, considering men's role in sexual procreation, being homosexual is extremely beneficial for soceity.
As it is: it only takes a few men to do the deed to thousands of women.
Faggots kept the scales balanced for hetero men. Assuming you have a 10% gay male population, there's at least a surplus of females for the hetero men.
As we all know there's not actually straight up gay females, but bisexual.
How often do you hear about a women who exclusively fucked women and never men? You don't. Not even in Myth I wager. So with homos allowed to homo there are no problems.
Honestly, it's the vilification of homosexuality that causes it to be a problem. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.
>It's fine for scientific stuff like this, though.
What about "scientific racis' "?
Wikipedia is just a very organized pastebin that tends to have leftist shit on it. Nobody is thrustworthy
Sexuality outside reproductive purposes is harmful to society at large. Its a vice like drugs. Accept meth heads as something "normal" and you have a problem.
Nobody wants people having standard fuck parties
I might argue that the female orgasm is unnatural in itself, as is ALL female sexual pleasure even within the marriage, as it doesn't happen from natural intercourse
women are supposed to lie back and suffer the pain, not pleasure
lie back and think of england? that's for the english bro. you can be better than that. sex is best when you make her moan
i never got this either.
>we're eliminating competition for you!
>die in a fire faggot!
>sex with wife
I'm saying, is having sex within the marriage degenerate within itself beyond a set number of times with one orgasm per child wanted?
after you have had all the kids you want it's degenerate to ever have sex again
Chimps literally eat each other and bonobos are a feminist matriarchy. No thanks
I think our adaptation runs towards the homogenization of the genders since we run to the complete control of the environment where we don't need the genetic diversification that once we used to better adapt. As we speak about "genetic diversification" I don't mean the mix of the races but the existence of genders to gather more data from the environment to create better and faster adaptations.
No. Human evolution is highly unpredictable, for all i know its quite possible we go back to being niggers in rhe jungle or we turn into copies of Mohammed. Cultural factors mess a lot with any pattern you could observe
I take it you have fathered many children, or have never had sex?
If you are using this argument against homosexuality, can think of a FAR better one. It is honestly a pathetic argument against homosexuality, since sex for the sake of non reproductive purposes can be applied to the vast majority of people with availability to contraception.
Exactly like the people who hate gays, but wanna have a blow job and do anal with a girl. They are both sodomy.
i thought being gay was a fail safe means to prevent that human from breeding as something in its genes would be terrible to pass on so body decides to switch of lust for opposite sex
The proportion of rapes committed by males is far higher than the proportion of rapes committed by gays.
Actually, the "intelligence and race" article does a good job of covering stuff the media would never touch.
Which is basically everything on the subject science has ever produced, since their studies constantly return controversial results.
Evolution is not a step process. Google >population genetics
Rephrase your sentence wanker
And is this controlled for the ammount each kind makes of the total men? Is it accurate given the chances of a gayrape not being reported?
>Actually, the "intelligence and race" article does a good job of covering stuff the media would never touch
I have to agree, but for how much time?
If you dont look at the sources directly there will be always someone to bullshit you
That is still highly debatable in the scientific community and still doesn't refute that, either genetic or environmental, homosexuality wouldn't persist in the species if harmful.
I sincerely think it is in a way. I think the vaccines they give you around 12 or 13 do. I am straight always have been but after 12 or 13 and I got that shot I kept thinking about men, like how they smell and taste. Thing is I am NOT gay though. This has artificially induced. It is why so many gays are around now but they are weak and give in you have to fight it. If you give in you become a full homosexual
It's a mental disorder like bipolar. This is also why I don't fault people for it since they can't help it. Now there's a big difference between being gay and being a faggot however.
Lol i didnt tried to make a point with it i was to lazy to make a point and gave you shit to do a basic research
Trying to find out wether homosex is harmful through evolution would be a hella complicated becuase evolution doesnt (de)select "harmful" or "good" things. Its what is selected or not that determines it. For all we know gays in western societies could be just the result of some random oscillations along with neutral selection by forced monogamous relationships.if its that youd have a nice argument:
>if you hate fags dont force us to be hetero and we will dissapear in no time