What is the etiology of homosexuality?

>>9076018
I am going to talk from the side of male homosexuals, though parallels for female homosexuals can be made:

The thing is that women are pieces of shit. They are entitled bitches and many men simply do not want to deal with that crap. This combined with the fact that we can literally have orgasms from being anally pleasured by cocks created the first rounds of homosexuals: Men who wanted sex with other men.

This first generation of homosexuals is actually present all throughout history. However back then it was not seen as an identity. It was basically a top tier fetish because of how niche it was back then, like MLP porn today.

The second wave of homosexuality starts with the gay rights movement. As women keep being fucking disgusting sluts men decided: Hey, why should I keep this a simple fetish? I like John, why can't I marry him and get the marriage tax cuts while living a happy life? This is bullshit. Lets campaign!

And that is a totally noble cause in my opinion. Marriage tax cuts should be for anyone. No one should be forced to put up with fucking women for tax cuts. Heck if anything they should give tax cuts for how many women you have killed because one less cunt in the world makes it better for everyone, but I digress.

The problem with this generation of vocal homosexuals was that it put them in the news and in TV. Because of this impressionable teens (who perhaps were into homosexuality as a fetish already) saw their homosexuality now as a political identity and after a couple of generations it became an actual personal identity. Now you have 12 year old kids who have never been inside a pussy but have had cocks up their ass who say that they are absolutely gay. Why? Because being gay is even trendy now. We hear about it all the time. How everyone "cool" has a gay friends and how gay friends are the best and shit.

It is pretty gay if you ask me.

>>9076028
Yeah, very nice. Now please answer the actual question.

>>9076076
I just did though. The origin of homosexuality was that women are fucking cunts.

>>9076085
Somewhat reasonable but not scientific. How about genetics?

>>9076099
>How about genetics?
Well, women are genetically inferior to men but yet they develop such a fucking entitled personality. That is the main cause of homosexuality.

>>9076101
I'm talking about the gay gene in males.

My personal guess is some individuals are born with the potential to be homosexual and then the environment pushes them to develop such behavior.

>>9076018
Society

>>9076018

Homosexuals tend to be below average in appearance, and gay men are shorter than average. Thus, they have limited prospects for reproduction anyway, which may prime them to butt fucking. Queers also DO contribute to the survival of their genepool, by helping to raise the children of their normal siblings.

>>9076106
An attribute as varied as homosexual tendencies is not likely to have one cause. It is very likely that genetics only play a role in part of the cases around the world.

>>9076106
>Gay gene

Please stop this meme. Even if there was a gay gene a) there would be no point of it b) it would have died out long ago.

Men turn gay because they have no strong father figure role model and they look to other men to fill that role. Same as lesbians except with mothers. No-one is born gay, its all choice.

>>9076106

modern environment combined with genetic susceptibility. i don't think that genetics are the whole story, for obvious reasons.

I read a small exert from O Rotten Gotham that talked about a study learning the effects from overpopulation. In it a colony of mice within a fairly large multi-roomed cage were they were allowed to grow without hindrance or threats to their population. Over time, the alpha rats stayed in one of the far end rooms, while the other rooms were much more densely populated. In these overpopulated areas the rats began experiencing several oddities, including disease (possibly due to a weaker immune system), cannibalism, and several accounts of homosexual relations among each other.
Homosexuality could potentially be a natural occurrence in species that are left unchecked and allowed to overpopulate.
*disclaimer: I don't have anything against homosexuals.

>>9078413
>Men turn gay because they have no strong father figure role model and they look to other men to fill that role. Same as lesbians except with mothers. No-one is born gay, its all choice.

it probably has a lot to do with environmental toxins too. the "it's the new normal" explanation is unsatisfying.

>>9076018
Fraternal birth order effect. Something like the mother develops an anti-male immune response over successive pregnancies and her youngest sons are more likely to be developmentally abnormal.

>>9076106
theres a high rate of instances of men being molested by men as children and later becoming homosexuals.

>>9076018
>>>/lgbt/

>>9078413
People turn gay because contaminants cause a failure in brain development while in the womb. It's the same deal with the huge spike in autism and childhood cancers.

>>9079628
They wouldn't give you a single unbiased answer.

>>9078413
homosexuality is observed in many animal species. It has a role, although we don't know yet. What I am arguing for though is that it is certainly not dead and although not all gay humans are not gay due to biological reasons, there are some that are.

>>9078413
>Men turn gay because they have no strong father figure role model and they look to other men to fill that role. Same as lesbians except with mothers. No-one is born gay, its all choice.
You're talking out of your ass here. This might be an ok hypothesis for those daddy-lover type of gays, other than thank you're a Freud-tier scientific.

>>9076018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsX2vfFNPak

>>9080021
Men look to women to be carers of their young

Women look to Men as providers and protectors of their young.

Gay blokes adopt feminine personas because they want the security of a man, that their fathers didn't provide for them.

Lesbians on the other hand with an absent or neglectful mother is devoid of care, so they adopt masculine tendencies in order to protect themselves.

>>9080357

What about bears? Or lipstick lesbians

File: 1501509388065.png (389KB, 428x645px) Image search: [Google]

389KB, 428x645px

>>9076101

>>9076028
>t was basically a top tier fetish because of how niche it was back then, like MLP porn today.
kek'd, but I think it's true. There is literally no reason to give yourself a label just because you fuck men's asses. But if you take it up the ass you are definitely a faggot who needs to be made fun of.

>>9076106
>gay gene
>scientific explanation
lul'd, it's just a fetish like anything else. You can be more prone to being a fag but really anyone can become gay with enough practice and immersion.

>>9079617
actually this true, but most people will discard it as nonsense since no one in the media other than maybe Fox would dare talk about it
it's not just a fraction of cases, it's well over half of homosexual men

>>9076018
>>>/lgbt/

>>>/lgbt/

>>>/lgbt/

>>>/lgbt/

>>>/lgbt/

Etiology is a complete psuedoscientific term.

There is no "meaning" to the universe, and evolution is no "guided" or "purposed".

It is the random survival of living things and traits.

The "it's not random cuz some are just elite dude!" is nonsense.

Some species and traits die off because their environments change, but adaptation is mostly a lie.

Nothing "just adapts" biologically overnight.

Some traits just happened to help some survive.

Etiological biology is complete bullshit and there is nothing to support it other than confirmation bias, begging the question fallacies and circular logic.

>>9076018
Epigenetics may explain it.

File: IMG_0523.jpg (19KB, 275x183px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 275x183px

>>9078413
>pointless genes die out
>kek

>>9080489
Nice thumbnail.

Gayness/faggotry leads to homosexuality.

As the west gradually became more accepting of degeneracy/weakness and made it easier for modern men/guys to live out their lives with minimal responsibilities and expectations, homosexuality boomed.

>>9080447
How could someone this retarded solve the captcha?

>>9080438
>lgtb
>unbiased opinions and views of homosexuality

Desire or conditioning.
Quite an interesting question that despite its rising prevalence in society, few are willing to answer:

Quite a few people are searching for a "Gay gene" A pursuit which is largely in vain, as while an unpopular opinion, all evidence to date suggests that one does not exist. Studies on twins raised in different environments have statistically random outcomes on sexuality all other factors taken into account. There are current "Rare gene" hypothesis in medicine that try to overcome the nature of homosexuality being genetically terminal due to lack of ability to reproduce, these leverage an assumption that homosexuals were always socially prosecuted and were more intelligent than their prosecutors and reproduced in secret. (Lmao right?) Other rare gene theories have any potential gene existing at a similar rate as albinism ( ~1/17000 in the population) far less that the 1-3% in surveys. (~3% are bisexual, making 6% overall, 10% is exaggerated)

What causes it then?
Homosexuality is correlated in children from single parent families. This certainly suggests it is a nurture, less nature phenomenon, which makes sense, as you would expect children to follow parental role models even in their sexual preferences when genders differ.
My honest opinion is that it is just a common fetish that has a community built up behind it that takes it far too seriously. (Gay people don't talk with those drawls because they were born with it either, it's something adopted to fit into the community). If you're conditioned as a child to like certain things, your mind can be re-wired quite easily without any other input, similar to other habits, these just become entrenched over the years. (Start worrying about your anal porn fetishes =p)
I'd like to collect more data, but it's socially sensitive at the moment, any data scientist that published this material would be excommunicated, not a wise career choice. Most data available is from board sources like the census

If you believe that the brain is the basis for behavior, well homosexuals appear to have an intersexual brain. So in certain sex diamorphic features there is a shift in the feminine direction. Probably that might "explain" why. Also homosexuality might run along a continuum or be divided into distinct types (etiological or phenomenological). So some homosexuals are conventionally masculine and others are feminine, and a very small number develop a feminine gender identity (you know extreme-end effeminate homosexuals). Etc. So there may in fact be no single explanation.

A mental disease pushed through different agenda to be socially accepted because these people - mostly - are socially functional.

However it is a sad case overall.

I believe something kind of crazy, that its a pathogen of some kind. Just hear me out.

Firstly, most personality traits are 50% genetic. Thats just how things turn out in personality studies. The other 50% is mostly noise and luck, and not conditioning or environmental stuff. That stuff measures close to 0% of the influence.

Homosexuality, surprisingly is not that heritable, about 24%. Other aspects of our sexual preferences are clearly heritable, its not a coincidence that most everyone is straight. Since genes dont play a big role, and social environment plays an even smaller role, what else is at work? The answer will be in the category of non-genetic biological forces.

Pathogens, in theory, should want their hosts to have sex and exchange bodily fluids. In the same way that evolution selects for microbes that cause their host to cough, it would also select for hosts that kiss other members species, or have sex with others members of its species, in order to spread farther. Can microbes alter our behavior? Yeah, absolutely. There are lots of infectious diseases that can alter peoples behavior, and its so understudied, theres really nothing to say that the normal human neurology isnt a symbiosis with a few microbes. Maybe all sexual preferences among all people are due to microbes altering our behavior. Individual humans, and microbes, have evolutionary reason for the human body to have sex. The 24% genetic influence could just be genetic differences in our immune systems.

>>9076106
Homosexuality is surprisingly un-heritable. Genes play the primary role in most every human variation, but homosexuality is unusually low at 25% heritable.

>>9079617
Im skeptical, but also, that just reeks with statistical confounding. For example, if there was a gay gene, dont you think people with the gene would have greater exposure to kids who also have the gene?

>>9082414
it's understandable why big brother is so desperate to impose "regulations" on the internet. people talking to each other directly like this compromises their power over the flow of information

>>9082414

>Quite a few people are searching for a "Gay gene"

Name even one.

> Homosexuality is correlated in children from single parent families. This certainly suggests it is a nurture, less nature phenomenon,

No it doesnt. It suggests theres a genetic correlation between people in single parent families and whatever genetics might be associated with homosexuality. Heres an equally fallacious line of reasoning. Single parent households cause black poverty in the US. You know that genes arent randomly distributed in society. Whatever genes that cause poverty and black skin co-exist with whatever genes cause single parenting.

File: 18527640_10209343510006649_53406267451113115_n.jpg (9KB, 300x205px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 300x205px

>>9083104
>Name even one.
Mustanski et al. (2005)
Though the majority of people I've seen searching for the gene are Homosexuals funding studies as a form of soul searching. Most get coverage on news or documentaries.

> No it doesn't. It suggests theres a....
You blindly assume the involvement of genetics, even under the assumption of genetics you've failed to take into account my first statement. Single parent families are not genetically homogeneous, or even similar. Given the extremely low prevalence of a gene if it did exist, the majority of cases would draw correlation from environmental factors, one of which being single parenthood.

>>9084084

>You blindly assume the involvement of genetics, even under the assumption of genetics you've failed to take into account my first statement

I dont blindly assume genetics plays a role, I assume it because genes play a role in all traits. The very machinery of human anatomy is made from genes. Genetics play some role, however small, in all traits. The question is degree.

>Single parent families are not genetically homogeneous, or even similar.

I never said they were homogenous, but they arent random, and they arent representative of the population as a whole. Since they arent, correlations show up even when they dont mean anything.