# Where does ‘homosexuality’ come from?



## Masta (May 2, 2019)

I’m constantly going in circles in my head of where being gay comes from. Its either from the experiences as a child being brought up into adolescence, genetics, or just random chance. In a sense homosexuality can be related to fetishes, personal preference, pedophilia, or beastility in where do they all stem from.

Are we meant to be heterosexual and something wrong happen in our genetic makeup, so in a sense it’s mental illness?

Maybe there is no answer.


----------



## Damn Near (May 2, 2019)

in a general sense, it seems like a lot of people are gay from molestation (regardless if they're willing to admit that or not). This of course brings up a 'chicken or the egg' situation, where one has to wonder about the roots of the abuse on the part of the actual molester. Some people have said it's a natural biological response to human overpopulation, which also seems credible


----------



## wellthathappened (May 2, 2019)

I think being gay is some sort of ingrained orientation and folks are probably born that way. I don't view being gay as a mental illness.


----------



## Masta (May 2, 2019)

Damn Near said:


> in a general sense, it seems like a lot of people are gay from molestation (regardless if they're willing to admit that or not). This of course brings up a 'chicken or the egg' situation, where one has to wonder about the roots of the abuse on the part of the actual molester. Some people have said it's a natural biological response to human overpopulation, which also seems credible


I have heard many cases of gays sharing their molestation accounts so I see where that notion comes from but doesn’t explain the ones who aren’t molested.

There are past stories of homosexuality in the past, like with stories of Alexander the Great, so it’s always has been here, but very interesting theory.


----------



## Damn Near (May 2, 2019)

Masta said:


> I have heard many cases of gays sharing their molestation accounts so I see where that notion comes from but doesn’t explain the ones who aren’t molested.
> 
> There are past stories of homosexuality in the past like with stories of Alexander the Great so it’s always been here, but very interesting theory.


Yeah I agree, I think plenty of people are gay from birth. I don't think it's something people will ever fully understand


----------



## 2.D. (May 2, 2019)

i'm a fag myself, and if I had to guess why, it'd probably have to do with the people I spent most of  my time with when I was younger, which just so happened to be a handful of gay friends. Maybe they influenced me, idk.

Addendum: I'm a furry, those friends were furries. Coincidence? I dunno. Although I do think that being in communities that have a bunch of gays in them increases your chance of being gayified.

Addendum 2: yikes, people dont like this. I'm just givin my experience with it and hoping to answer the question.


----------



## ICametoLurk (May 2, 2019)

If it's a choice then it's your fault, if it's not a choice then it can be removed from the Human species.


----------



## wellthathappened (May 2, 2019)

Gays are nothing to be concerned about. They seem to mostly want to marry and adopt. These are socially healthy things.


----------



## Recoil (May 2, 2019)

wellthathappened said:


> Gays are nothing to be concerned about. They seem to mostly want to marry and adopt. These are socially healthy things.


Unfortunately, troons are poisoning the well for them.
At least IMO, tolerance has taken a BIG hit over the past years.


----------



## Masta (May 2, 2019)

ICametoLurk said:


> If it's a choice then it's your fault, if it's not a choice then it can be removed from the Human species.


There are already too many humans, if anything there needs more gay for a population decline.


----------



## wellthathappened (May 2, 2019)

Recon said:


> Unfortunately, troons are poisoning the well for them.
> At least IMO, tolerance has taken a BIG hit over the past years.



Trannies are mentally ill. Gay people are just gay people.


----------



## Recoil (May 2, 2019)

wellthathappened said:


> Trannies are mentally ill. Gay people are just gay people.


Tell that to the collective public opinion of 'alternative lifestyles'. Like as not, proles are gonna group 'em together.


----------



## DDBCAE CBAADCBE (May 2, 2019)

Damn Near said:


> Yeah I agree, I think plenty of people are gay from birth. I don't think it's something people will ever fully understand


I read somewhere that producing a gay child becomes more likely with each baby you have because of some genetic defense mechanism in mammals that live in packs.


----------



## nagant 1895 (May 2, 2019)

Masta said:


> In a sense homosexuality can be related to fetishes, personal preference, pedophilia, or beastility in where do they all stem from.


I think there's a genetic component, but like schizophrenia I don't think it always manifests.
It can't be just a factor of molestation because tons of kids get diddled and don't go gay, so maybe there's just some genetic component that makes someone more like to become gay after a traumatic event like that? the same way people could have the same genetic makeup as their twin but due to different life experience one becomes schizo and the other doesn't?
You bring up the fetish aspect and that's interesting to me.  We can mostly agree that fetishes and kinks begin in puberty right? I'm reminded of the guy who liked to fuck cars. He's never said anything to this effect but I'm pretty sure his fetish began with him looking at hotrod magazines. The girl on the front got his attention and he jerked off to it. As that went on the car became more and more important to his arousal until he reached a point where cars were the source.
Orgasm gives your brain a really powerful pleasure reaction and i think at a certain stage it becomes a self reinforcing cycle.
I'm sure I'm not completely right.


----------



## Masta (May 2, 2019)

DDBCAE CBAADCBE said:


> I read somewhere that producing a gay child becomes more likely with each baby you have because of some genetic defense mechanism in mammals that live in packs.


What do you mean by genetic defense mechanism; Is that some sign to tell us to stop reproducing?


----------



## wellthathappened (May 2, 2019)

Recon said:


> Tell that to the collective public opinion of 'alternative lifestyles'. Like as not, proles are gonna group 'em together.




Not true.


----------



## Recoil (May 2, 2019)

Masta said:


> What do you mean by genetic defense mechanism; Is that some sign to tell us to stop reproducing?


I think the stat is that as you approach a certain number of kids the likelihood of Big Gay approaches 1, but I always thought that goes without saying.


----------



## DDBCAE CBAADCBE (May 2, 2019)

Masta said:


> What do you mean by genetic defense mechanism; Is that some sign to tell us to stop reproducing?


So as I recall it was to create non-reproducing males that would protect the the pack and serve as psuedo den-mothers. Apparently it still happens in wolf packs and such. 
Take it with a grain of salt though, I don't remember where I heard/read this. I want to say it was a documentary or something but I honestly don't recall.


----------



## Masta (May 2, 2019)

DDBCAE CBAADCBE said:


> So as I recall it was to create non-reproducing males that would protect the the pack and serve as psuedo den-mothers. Apparently it still happens in wolf packs and such.
> Take it with a grain of salt though, I don't remember where I heard/read this. I want to say it was a documentary or something but I honestly don't recall.


This is all hypothetical, so.. let’s say this is true, then that means we have a lonely homosexual wolf, does that mean it will mate or molest the Hetero wolves 

I’ll take my autistic rating, thank you.


----------



## DDBCAE CBAADCBE (May 2, 2019)

Masta said:


> This is all hypothetical, so.. let’s say this is true, then that means we have a lonely homosexual wolf, does that mean it will mate or molest the Hetero wolves
> 
> I’ll take my autistic rating, thank you.


Well we have to take into account that a wolf probably can't tell the difference between a hetero wolf and a gay or bisexual wolf. Their brains aren't quite as complex or complicated as ours.


----------



## Recoil (May 2, 2019)

DDBCAE CBAADCBE said:


> Well we have to take into account that a wolf probably can't tell the difference between a hetero wolf and a gay or bisexual wolf. Their brains aren't quite as complex or complicated as ours.


They communicate all that shit silently with body language & smells.


----------



## DDBCAE CBAADCBE (May 3, 2019)

Recon said:


> They communicate all that shit silently with body language & smells.


Do you really think they can be that precise with body language and smells? I personally doubt it's quite as honed as people like to believe.


----------



## Recoil (May 3, 2019)

DDBCAE CBAADCBE said:


> Do you really think they can be that precise with body language and smells? I personally doubt it's quite as honed as people like to believe.


Yeah, absolutely. In a situation like this the submissive one pees a little right off the bat, they smell that. They say loads with their eyes and ears, too.

EDIT - Oh, God - diaperfurs. It's all starting to come together...


----------



## DDBCAE CBAADCBE (May 3, 2019)

Recon said:


> Yeah, absolutely. In a situation like this the submissive one pees a little right off the bat, they smell that. They say loads with their eyes and ears, too.


Pretty sure that's not how dog sex works.


----------



## Recoil (May 3, 2019)

DDBCAE CBAADCBE said:


> Pretty sure that's not how dog sex works.


I'm talking about dominance hierarchies and nonverbal communication, which figure into dog sex, but are not dog sex in and of themselves.
You best believe the pack alpha ain't gettin' mounted.

There's also plenty of homosexuality documented in all kinds of animals & they seem to be getting it on just fine.


----------



## DDBCAE CBAADCBE (May 3, 2019)

Recon said:


> I'm talking about dominance hierarchies and nonverbal communication, which figure into dog sex, but are not dog sex in and of themselves.


From what I've seen male dogs just generally try to fuck anything with a pulse regardless of sex. I mean I'm sure what you said plays into it on some level I honestly think you're giving them way more credit than they deserve.


----------



## Recoil (May 3, 2019)

DDBCAE CBAADCBE said:


> From what I've seen male dogs just generally try to fuck anything with a pulse regardless of sex. I mean I'm sure what you said plays into it on some level I honestly think you're giving them way more credit than they deserve.


I think we're both half right:
https://wolveswolves.tumblr.com/post/82202974001/i-used-to-work-as-a-park-ranger-during-the-summers

Hate to link to a tumblr but the writer does manage to back it up.


Spoiler: Relevant text



QUESTION: I used to work as a park ranger during the summers in a provincial park in Ontario, Canada. We kept track of the major packs in the area. We named them out of habit. One pack in specific, had a breeding pair, Clair and Derek. In one of the last summers I worked there, Clair was pregnant, but unfortunately, Derek had gotten very sick and passed away. Another female, Aria, had taken Derek's place. Is it common for homosexuality in wolves? Are "gay" couples or "lesbian" couples more common?






Asked by Anonymous

Displaying homosexual behavior is very common among wolves, Just like most animals, wolves have been observed engaging sexual behavior such as resembling mating behavior with a wolf of the same sex, sometimes even in preference for opposite sex when options were available. Male wolves often mount each other, but this is in a dominance displaying way. I don’t know whether gay wolves or lesbian wolves are more common.
We can’t tell whether a wolf is actually aware or not that there is a distinction between sexual attraction to it’s own sex and that to the other, but we do call wolves engaging in such behavior homosexual.
If you want, you can read some more about it in Joan Roughgarden’s book _‘Evolution’s rainbow: diversity, gender, and sexuality in nature and people_’, and in addition to that, just by giving it a search online you’ll find lots of interesting stuff!
Also, in your case it depends on what you mean by “she had taken her place”. This is most likely an occurence that stands apart from Aria and Clair being homosexual or not. All wolves love pups and are “programmed” to protect and nurture them, and when one of the parents in a wolf pack dies, another adult member of the pack usually replaces the parent’s leading role. Whether this is a female or male wolf taking over Derek’s place, has nothing to do with their sexuality - unless Aria and Clair are exhibiting sexual behavior.


----------



## 1864897514651 (May 3, 2019)

wellthathappened said:


> [redacted]



There is nothing "socially healthy" about the behaviors that neo-Sodomite aberrosexuals produce. Aberrosexuals should not be marrying or adopting children. There is nothing "socially healthy" about contraception, oral and anal sodomy, masturbation, or any of the host of insane sexual vices that aberrosexuals engage in. If someone is engaging in behavior that is in profound contradiction with the Natural Law, then how can you call any subsequent actions by this person that are not a direct attempt to amend this behavior "socially healthy?" Social health starts with moral health, and moral health begins at the individual level through behavior modification and mediation. Aberrosexuals are not healthy, whether it be socially, mentally, spiritually, or even physically. An extremely disproportionate percentage of homosexual men contract HIV at a higher rate compared to all other demographics. Something about the behavior of aberrosexuals is inherently not "socially healthy" if this is the case.

You should be ashamed. You are lying about a group of people that are afflicted by their own vices and demons, and instead of discerning the truth behind their behavior, you instead spew platitudes about neo-Sodomite "marriage" and that these people should adopt children. Neo-Sodomite aberrosexuals are the last people on earth that should be entrusted with the care of children. I would sooner give an infant to a pack of wolves than two homosexuals, and do not think I am joking or being hyperbolic when I say this. I am completely serious. Neo-Sodomite aberrosexuals cannot even take care of their own bodies, let alone their souls. You seriously expect them to be even remotely adequate when it comes to raising a child? Ridiculous.


----------



## DDBCAE CBAADCBE (May 3, 2019)

"We can’t tell whether a wolf is actually aware or not that there is a distinction between sexual attraction to it’s own sex and that to the other, but we do call wolves engaging in such behavior homosexual." 

This made me laugh so hard. 'That wolf is a faggot!'.

But yeah I've actually enjoyed this conversation. It's refreshing to just talk to someone and not have it turn into a whole thing, y'know.


----------



## Autopsy (May 3, 2019)

Child abuse, probably. CSA metrics are really shit, but reported incidence the gen pop sits pretty at around 6% while reported incidence within the LGB population is more like 30%. It is a consistent assertion that CSA is underreported in the _general_ population, so you do the math. Either being gay makes you an uncle magnet or you've got yourself one hell of a "correlation".
That being said, I appreciate the dual-purpose   has for this thread. Very nice.


----------



## Y2K Baby (May 3, 2019)

They came from the three radiant pools of eternal gay: @Jon-Kacho, @Internet War Criminal, and @bearycool


----------



## DDBCAE CBAADCBE (May 3, 2019)

I always tell people "I love gays but I hate faggots."


----------



## RG 448 (May 3, 2019)

it comes from the sexualization of the anus of males


----------



## Clop (May 3, 2019)

Homosexuality comes from genetics when masculine and feminine traits criss-cross.

If you want to think being gay as being a choice then the troons are right. You do not want troons to be right on this.


----------



## ⠠⠠⠅⠑⠋⠋⠁⠇⠎ ⠠⠠⠊⠎ ⠠⠠⠁ ⠠⠠⠋⠁⠛ (May 3, 2019)

Gregory Cochran suggests that a major cause is likely to be one or more diseases, suggesting a virus is probably involved. He lays this out in a series of blogposts linked from the article below.








						Greg Cochran’s "Gay Germ" Hypothesis – An Exercise in the Power of Germs
					

Updated, 10/17/15. See below! In this post, I will review Gregory Cochran’s “gay germ” hypothesis. I wanted to make an index of Cochran’s posts from his and Henry Harpending’s blog West Hunter that discuss it. These posts don’t seem to all show up under the “Homosexuality” category there, and I...




					www.unz.com
				




To sum it up very very briefly- male homosexuality looks _exactly_ like the sort of behaviour we expect from an infection, especially a viral one, perhaps fungal, bacterial, or otherwise.

Avoiding human reproduction to instead get barebacked by hundreds of guys with AIDS is something that takes a lot of explaining. It looks a lot like the behaviour of rats suffering from a toxoplasmosis attack. It also looks like a lot the other links between viruses and mental illness that have been identified. The selfish gene- in this case perhaps carried by RNA rather than DNA- cares only about the host that the gene itself rides along in, the infectious agent. It doesn't give a fuck about reducing its host's lifespan, or their fecundity.

What it does not resemble is any of the explanations that are politically correct and fundable, from epigenetics, to the absolutely ridiculous 'gay uncle' theory. Anyone suggesting the 'gay uncle' theory is even remotely plausible is clearly fucktarded. If I was a cave-dwelling sodomite (in the prehistoric era, as opposed to now), you had better believe I would not be spending my excess resources allowing my relatives to raise 3-4 more children than they might have otherwise. That meat would be kept back so I could relax more and bribe cavetwinks to give me a handy.

So why aren't more people aware of this, the most plausible explanation for the prevalence of homosexuality in 'civilized' societies such as ours? The reason is simple. If a study provides proof showing a link between something like a viral infection in early childhood and homosexuality, even if the disease is one that is carried in the general population and no more likely to be 'catching' from an adult homosexual than any other adult, there would be an orgy of violence as people throughout the third world executed homosexuals en masse. *There is no possible way that any scientific funding body will risk being associated with a mass homocide*.

Heck, even if the 'eat da poopoo' man could be prevented from learning about such a discovery, Pintrest would spread it throughout the world of white suburban moms who "don't have anything against gays, would be perfectly happy with a gay son, but just want him to be as happy as possible" within days. If there was not already a vaccine for the virus, one would be found, and the company that owned it would make a killing.

But.. at the same time, this would be strongly opposed by adult male homosexuals. This group generates a metric shitton of revenue for those same drug companies that would profit from the gay vaccine, from the umpteen AIDS drugs and all the associated conditions that the virus, and the antiretrovirals cause.

And they would also likely be in a similar position to the deaf people who oppose cochlear implants. Everyone loves children. Deaf people love deaf culture. They love deaf children signing in a cute fashion- reasonable enough. Likewise, male homosexuals love new twinks showing up at their standard fuck parties. Deaf people are a marginalised group but opposition to cochlear implants is a real movement. Would many homosexuals, a group known for having a greater disposable income than sexually well-adjusted people, not pull similar stunts?

Cochran has held several academic positions both within physics and anthropology departments, and is somewhat of a polymath. I invite people to fuck around and find out in his comments.


----------



## Mariposa Electrique (May 3, 2019)

Jung and Freud thought that homosexually was actually an over-identification with the female portion of the psyche. 
LINK


----------



## エリス (May 3, 2019)

Daddy leaves
Male affection is scarce
Scarce things are more valuable
Single mothers are overbearing
Female affection is overabundant
Overabundant things are less valuable

boom, ur gay


----------



## Underestimated Nutria (May 3, 2019)

I can only speak for myself, but I _know _I starting looking at dudes when I was around fifteen or so, three years after getting into (and eventually bored by) ordinary porn.  I stepped off the hedonic treadmill at that point, thank goodness, or God knows what I'd be jerking to these days.

Anyway I doubt the vast majority of Spartans or modern Afghan soldiers with their dancing boys all happen to have struck the lottery with same rare fag gene.


----------



## Masta (May 3, 2019)

3119967d0c said:


> Gregory Cochran suggests that a major cause is likely to be one or more diseases, suggesting a virus is probably involved. He lays this out in a series of blogposts linked from the article below.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This is a very interesting concept, it’s the first time I’ve ever heard of homosexuals being related to a virus.


----------



## Sprig of Parsley (May 3, 2019)

More inclined to think homosexuality or a notable tendency towards it is the result of _in utero _hormonal fuckery resulting from stress on the mother during pregnancy and/or some as-of-yet unknown quirk that tends to crop up in second, third, fourth etc. babies.  That being said I think most gay folks are fairly harmless, though there are dipshits in every demographic.

(I was actually the first child if you don't count the abortion my mother had before me, but I came along pretty late.  Don't recall my mother ever talking about any significant stressors during her pregnancy.)


----------



## Otterly (May 3, 2019)

It’s fairly constant across cultures and time, although how much it’s been ok to express it has obviously varied an awful lot. That hints strongly that it’s inbuilt and perhaps even has some kind of advantage.

The argument that gays don’t have as many kids also doesn’t mean that it won’t get passed down for two reasons.


Historically most people would have bred anyway. If you were a woman you didn’t have much choice.
Remember that genes don’t care who passes them down. So if your sister has ten kids, and you have none, a lot of your genetic material is being passed on anyway. Your sister shares on average half your DNA.
So there could be various mechanisms that mean being gay is not harmful to passing down genes and could even be indirectly beneficial. In various animals, there’s an effect called alloparenting  - aunties etc help out the breeding pair and they breed more successfully. The family genes get passed on and so the survival advantage outweighs the helper not breeding

There’s also some evidence that the siblings of gay men have higher breeding success.

So overall, it seems part of the natural human condition, and has enough benefit, albeit maybe indirectly, to persist in the population.


----------



## Spatula (May 3, 2019)

I remember in my psychology class in school homosexuality was linked to fetishism and was classified as a mild mental illness.


----------



## Lemmingwise (May 3, 2019)

3119967d0c said:


> If a study provides proof showing a link between something like a viral infection in early childhood and homosexuality, even if the disease is one that is carried in the general population and no more likely to be 'catching' from an adult homosexual than any other adult, there would be an orgy of violence as people throughout the third world executed homosexuals en masse



I'm going to press x to doubt. People already get routinely killed for being gay in the third world and it's very common for people in general (in the third world) to think that gay people should just be killed.

I do think that such studies would be suppressed, but not for the reason you're giving here (though that may be the reason that is stated).


----------



## Terminus Est (May 3, 2019)

Satan


----------



## Sprig of Parsley (May 3, 2019)

Spatula said:


> I remember in my psychology class in school homosexuality was linked to fetishism and was classified as a mild mental illness.


I could see calling it maladaptive in a sense (though I don't personally  subscribe to that idea) but mental illness is both a big leap and (considering how immature and prone to retarded bullshit psychiatry is as a medical science, don't get me started on psychology) singularly unhelpful.  Pence memes are still funny though.


----------



## r00 (May 3, 2019)

I think some people are gay because humans have sex for pleasure as well as reproduction. Thats pretty much it. I dont buy the born like it argument, and do not believe its an intrinsic part of anyones being. I lean more towards it being environmental, and see it almost like a fetish. People have "types" for everything which are influenced by experiences we have. 
I dont think its a choice, but at the same time, if you want to fuck another man then go for it but dont act like its anything more than a personal preference.


----------



## Sprig of Parsley (May 3, 2019)

r00 said:


> I think some people are gay because humans have sex for pleasure as well as reproduction. Thats pretty much it. I dont buy the born like it argument, and do not believe its an intrinsic part of anyones being. I lean more towards it being environmental, and see it almost like a fetish. People have "types" for everything which are influenced by experiences we have.
> I dont think its a choice, but at the same time, if you want to fuck another man then go for it but dont act like its anything more than a personal preference.


Yeah I really personally prefer to have people beat the shit out of me for liking guys.  It's definitely a personal preference.  I've always been able to handle the verbal shit pretty well because most people end up bringing waterpistols to a gunfight there, but I can only do so much against a couple jock-ish rednecks and their fists.

You fucking serious right now? Even with all the crap women throw around, I'd honestly rather be straight as a goddamn arrow when it comes right down to it because there's always some stupid shithead out there who thinks you're automatically part of fucking NAMBLA or something because you like cock and while I tend to be an asshole I'm a remarkably conflict-averse person otherwise.  This isn't a choice.  Anyone who tells you it was a choice is fucking retarded and possibly fucking jailhouse.


----------



## chunkygoth (May 3, 2019)

I'm inclined to think being gay can come from many different sources, be it genetic, a deliberate choice, or an unconscious reaction. There probably is a genetic component. Blanchard studied the fraternal birth order affect and it's supposed to be one of the most consistent identifiers of male homosexuality, and even then it only works for about 15% of gay men. It's not the only component. Many gay men have had unwanted sexual contact as children. Did that make them gay? Or were they targeted because they were already different from their peers? I think it's probably the second explanation.


----------



## Ted_Breakfast (May 3, 2019)

Not Uganda.


----------



## r00 (May 3, 2019)

Sprig of Parsley said:


> Yeah I really personally prefer to have people beat the shit out of me for liking guys.  It's definitely a personal preference.  I've always been able to handle the verbal shit pretty well because most people end up bringing waterpistols to a gunfight there, but I can only do so much against a couple jock-ish rednecks and their fists.
> 
> You fucking serious right now? Even with all the crap women throw around, I'd honestly rather be straight as a goddamn arrow when it comes right down to it because there's always some stupid shithead out there who thinks you're automatically part of fucking NAMBLA or something because you like cock and while I tend to be an asshole I'm a remarkably conflict-averse person otherwise.  This isn't a choice.  Anyone who tells you it was a choice is fucking exceptional and possibly fucking jailhouse.



I specifically said i didnt think it was a choice. I think its mostly environmental. I dont believe there is much, if any genetic basis for homosexuality. If you can point me to some good evidence otherwise, ill reconsider. But until they find a gay gene i considet it to be as much a personal preference as any other sexual proclivity. 

Your dick isnt being tricked into thinking you can reproduce if you fuck men. It just enjoys the touch of another man more than it likes women, probably because of learned behaviour. You werent born that way, you grew into it for whatever reason.

Im also firmly of the opinion that extreme homophobes are the way they are because of their own personal learned shame about what gets them off. Most people dont really care what you do with your own jizz and another consenting adult. Gayness isnt a personality or an identity. Its just how you like to get off.


----------



## Sprig of Parsley (May 3, 2019)

r00 said:


> I specifically said i didnt think it was a choice. I think its mostly environmental. I dont believe there is much, if any genetic basis for homosexuality. If you can point me to some good evidence otherwise, ill reconsider. But until they find a gay gene i considet it to be as much a personal preference as any other sexual proclivity.
> 
> Your dick isnt being tricked into thinking you can reproduce if you fuck men. It just enjoys the touch of another man more than it likes women, probably because of learned behaviour. You werent born that way, you grew into it for whatever reason.
> 
> Im also firmly of the opinion that extreme homophobes are the way they are because of their own personal learned shame about what gets them off. Most people dont really care what you do with your own jizz and another consenting adult. Gayness isnt a personality or an identity. Its just how you like to get off.



Everyone grows into their sexuality.  I mean, christ, that's the exact opposite of a profound statement.  This growth is still informed by some sort of biological factor (likely some goddamn thing in the brain, you know, the organ that we still understand grand fuckall about in terms of internal workings).  I think a genetic basis for homosexuality or basically any Kinsey score that isn't "perfectly hetero" is not only likely, it makes the most sense in light of the disparate upbringings, environments etc. that you will see homosexuality present itself in.

What role things like environmental pressures may place upon genes and their expression (epigenetics) is something people are looking into for a number of other things, but I think the field of epigenetics may actually hold at least one of the bigger keys to the reason the Kinsey scale isn't just "Straight" and "Gay".  There's likely to be some degree of psychological priming/conditioning involved with level of preference for one or the other but I doubt that's the only and especially doubt it's the biggest reason for sexual attraction being what it is.


----------



## ToroidalBoat (May 3, 2019)

I was surprised by how fast acceptance of it in the West seemed to be, at least online.

It's like one day it was something sick and wrong, the next it was "bigot!" if you criticized it.


----------



## qt farmer :) (May 3, 2019)

I'll say, as a fag, I don't think I really chose to be one. I believe it's a mix of genetics and environment; I've read of studies that say the youngest male sibling is usually the most common of offspring to be gay, and that's me. I also grew up around a lot of strong and respectful women, and not so many men of that caliber, that I think I maybe internalized a heterosexual woman's sexuality: as in, I am only attracted to heterosexual men. I have rarely ever been attracted to another gay man. I think that's always played some role in my developing sexuality.

but I also remember feeling funny feelings for men before I even understood was sex was, so there's that.


----------



## Sprig of Parsley (May 3, 2019)

ToroidalBoat said:


> I was surprised by how fast acceptance of it in the West seemed to be.
> 
> It's like one day it was something sick and wrong, the next it was "bigot!" if you criticized it.



Kind of surprising, yes.  Though I'm pretty sure there are some real fucking retards out there in the LGB community who are doing their damnedest to roll that back with their actions.  I realize we're never going to get to the point where every LGB person is going to be left in peace but apparently they don't and they're prepared to screw it all to hell in pursuit of something that can't exist.


----------



## r00 (May 3, 2019)

Sprig of Parsley said:


> Yeah I really personally prefer to have people beat the shit out of me for liking guys. It's definitely a personal preference.





Sprig of Parsley said:


> There's likely to be some degree of psychological priming/conditioning involved with level of preference for one or the other



So is it a preference or not? You seem to be mostly agreeing with what i said, but you got caught up on thinking im implying that its a choice.

Until they can find a decent biological explanation im sticking with it being mostly psychological and environmental, because that makes far more sense than it being down to some undiscovered biological function. Its not an insult, its not an attempt to diminish the struggles of the gays. Its just a preference. All non reproductive sexuality is a wide spectrum of proclivities. Being gay is no more an intrinsic aspect of a person than javing a foot fetish is.


----------



## qt farmer :) (May 3, 2019)

r00 said:


> So is it a preference or not? You seem to be mostly agreeing with what i said, but you got caught up on thinking im implying that its a choice.
> 
> Until they can find a decent biological explanation im sticking with it being mostly psychological and environmental, because that makes far more sense than it being down to some undiscovered biological function. Its not an insult, its not an attempt to diminish the struggles of the gays. Its just a preference. All non reproductive sexuality is a wide spectrum of proclivities. Being gay is no more an intrinsic aspect of a person than javing a foot fetish is.



I think it's pretty stupid to lump being gay with a foot fetish. I think it's also pretty stupid to compare non-reproductive sexuality as a fetish, seeing as normal heterosexual sex can include contraceptive measures in order to make it non-reproductive. is it then a fetish to use a condom during sex?

I'll also say that, if male-on-male reproduction was in fact viable and possible, many homosexual men would then have sex in order to reproduce.


----------



## not william stenchever (May 3, 2019)

DDBCAE CBAADCBE said:


> So as I recall it was to create non-reproducing males that would protect the the pack and serve as psuedo den-mothers. Apparently it still happens in wolf packs and such.


sort of like how Bearycool is the queen of movie night?



1864897514651 said:


> There is nothing "socially healthy" about the behaviors that neo-Sodomite aberrosexuals produce. Aberrosexuals should not be marrying or adopting children. There is nothing "socially healthy" about contraception, oral and anal sodomy, masturbation, or any of the host of insane sexual vices that aberrosexuals engage in. If someone is engaging in behavior that is in profound contradiction with the Natural Law, then how can you call any subsequent actions by this person that are not a direct attempt to amend this behavior "socially healthy?" Social health starts with moral health, and moral health begins at the individual level through behavior modification and mediation. Aberrosexuals are not healthy, whether it be socially, mentally, spiritually, or even physically. An extremely disproportionate percentage of homosexual men contract HIV at a higher rate compared to all other demographics. Something about the behavior of aberrosexuals is inherently not "socially healthy" if this is the case.
> 
> You should be ashamed. You are lying about a group of people that are afflicted by their own vices and demons, and instead of discerning the truth behind their behavior, you instead spew platitudes about neo-Sodomite "marriage" and that these people should adopt children. Neo-Sodomite aberrosexuals are the last people on earth that should be entrusted with the care of children. I would sooner give an infant to a pack of wolves than two homosexuals, and do not think I am joking or being hyperbolic when I say this. I am completely serious. Neo-Sodomite aberrosexuals cannot even take care of their own bodies, let alone their souls. You seriously expect them to be even remotely adequate when it comes to raising a child? Ridiculous.



Nowhere in this rant do you make a convincing structural-functionalist argument for _why_ people shouldn't be perverted fucks, just a half-hearted moral argument that they shouldn't and that if they are they should feel ashamed of themselves.

"Gay couples will molest their adopted children" would actually be a rhetorical improvement to your post. For fuck's sake you didn't even mention the white lesbians that murder-suicided themselves and their six brown adopted children just to spite CPS and the neighbors that caught on to their abusive behavior by driving their SUV loaded with drugged children off a cliff and into the ocean


----------



## Sprig of Parsley (May 3, 2019)

r00 said:


> So is it a preference or not? You seem to be mostly agreeing with what i said, but you got caught up on thinking im implying that its a choice.


In retrospect I would have rather called it something else (position on the Kinsey scale comes to mind) but I would maintain that preference for being non-heterosexual has no bearing on whether you are non-heterosexual and only partially affects how one expresses orientation visibly.



> Until they can find a decent biological explanation im sticking with it being mostly psychological and environmental, because that makes far more sense than it being down to some undiscovered biological function. Its not an insult, its not an attempt to diminish the struggles of the gays. Its just a preference. All non reproductive sexuality is a wide spectrum of proclivities. Being gay is no more an intrinsic aspect of a person than javing a foot fetish is.


That is a terrible comparison.  I'm trying to walk back my initial burst of hostility and the more you say on the matter the harder that gets.


----------



## Slimy Time (May 3, 2019)

Notan Alte said:


> i'm a fag myself, and if I had to guess why, it'd probably have to do with the people I spent most of  my time with when I was younger, which just so happened to be a handful of gay friends. Maybe they influenced me, idk.
> 
> Addendum: I'm a furry, those friends were furries. Coincidence? I dunno. Although I do think that being in communities that have a bunch of gays in them increases your chance of being gayified.
> 
> Addendum 2: yikes, people dont like this. I'm just givin my experience with it and hoping to answer the question.


-"I'm gay, here is why I think that is the case" - valued input. 
-"Edit, btw I'm also a furry" - TMI, yiff in hell furfag.


----------



## 1864897514651 (May 3, 2019)

not william stenchever said:


> [redacted]



Why would I waste my time trying to invoke shame or guilt by bringing up claims with tenuous evidence against aberrosexual demographics? There is no possible way for me to compile everything from young adults that masturbate, all the way to unapologetic aberrosexuals that engage in profoundly violent acts of sodomy. Shame and guilt are healthy responses to unnatural, mortally sinful behavior, and this is why I do not bother with bringing up isolated factoids. I merely shared the information about HIV infection among homosexual men because it is extremely well-documented and well-known with no room for error. For the vast majority of aberrosexuals, none of them will change if they ignore the shame and guilt that comes with committing their sexual impurities against God. The whole basis for "why people shouldn't be perverted fucks" is that they should uphold the Law of God, keep the Sixth Commandment, and do all of this out of pure love for God.

I could recommend that you should read _The Pink Swastika_, which goes into great detail about the rampant homosexuality within the ranks of the Nazi Party, but even if I should suggest that homosexuals are prone to collaborating in great works of genocide, how should this translate to a young married couple that is contracepting with birth control? Heterosexuals that contracept are equally damned under aberrosexuality as homosexuals are, although the severity of acts between aberrosexual groups may vary. The Natural Law provides shame and guilt for aberrosexual actions, and it is merely enough for me to claim that they are in opposition with the Sixth Commandment.


----------



## Sprig of Parsley (May 3, 2019)

1864897514651 said:


> Why would I waste my time trying to invoke shame or guilt by bringing up claims with tenuous evidence against aberrosexual demographics? There is no possible way for me to compile everything from young adults that masturbate, all the way to unapologetic aberrosexuals that engage in profoundly violent acts of sodomy. Shame and guilt are healthy responses to unnatural, mortally sinful behavior, and this is why I do not bother with bringing up isolated factoids. I merely shared the information about HIV infection among homosexual men because it is extremely well-documented and well-known with no room for error. For the vast majority of aberrosexuals, none of them will change if they ignore the shame and guilt that comes with committing their sexual impurities against God. The whole basis for "why people shouldn't be perverted fucks" is that they should uphold the Law of God, keep the Sixth Commandment, and do all of this out of pure love for God.
> 
> I could recommend that you should read _The Pink Swastika_, which goes into great detail about the rampant homosexuality within the ranks of the Nazi Party, but even if I should suggest that homosexuals are prone to collaborating in great works of genocide, how should this translate to a young married couple that is contracepting with birth control? Heterosexuals that contracept are equally damned under aberrosexuality as homosexuals are, although the severity of acts between aberrosexual groups may vary. The Natural Law provides shame and guilt for aberrosexual actions, and it is merely enough for me to claim that they are in opposition with the Sixth Commandment.



lol fuck your pathetic desert-goatherd skydaddy


----------



## ProgKing of the North (May 3, 2019)

Homosexuals exist to make people like @1864897514651 mad and I for one salute them for it


----------



## Sprig of Parsley (May 3, 2019)

I love hearing dumb motherfuckers bleat about God and his commandments in the context of homosexuality and so on.  Some things are tic-inducing levels of stupid, but god-bothering pearl clutchers are fucking hilarious.


----------



## ⠠⠠⠅⠑⠋⠋⠁⠇⠎ ⠠⠠⠊⠎ ⠠⠠⠁ ⠠⠠⠋⠁⠛ (May 3, 2019)

Masta said:


> This is a very interesting concept, it’s the first time I’ve ever heard of homosexuals being related to a virus.


I recommend reading all of the Cochran posts referenced. He's one of those acerbic smart physicist types who's able to follow whatever intellectual pursuits he wants because of some highly valuable skill (usually they do financial qaunt stuff, in his case I think it's a mix of that and skills in stuff relevant to the military industrial complex) and settled on evolutionary biology.


Otterly said:


> It’s fairly constant across cultures and time, although how much it’s been ok to express it has obviously varied an awful lot. That hints strongly that it’s inbuilt and perhaps even has some kind of advantage.


Actually, while homosexuality, like dying of cholera, is known to have been present in most large civilizations, it is absent from many tribes. This article documents one _- I believe the Yanomami of the Amazon are another case*_. You know, the kind of people who live on a small scale and lack the diseases of 'civilization'.

For a tendency towards homosexuality to _persist as a trait within humans conveyed by their genes_, it would not just need to 'perhaps even [have] some kind of advantage'. Either it has an advantage that outweighs the loss to reproduction that it causes, or it would have trended to 0 millenia ago. That loss to reproduction doesn't need to be total. If the ancient Sumerian homosexual has two kids instead of four, hell, three kids instead of four, and there is not some compensatory advantage to the reproduction of his own children (or those of his immediate family, at a 50% discount),  then that gene would not exist today.


Lemmingwise said:


> I'm going to press x to doubt. People already get routinely killed for being gay in the third world and it's very common for people in general (in the third world) to think that gay people should just be killed.
> 
> I do think that such studies would be suppressed, but not for the reason you're giving here (though that may be the reason that is stated).


If you look into many of those killings, they're often homosexual advocates, pedophiles, or just made the wrong move on a heterosexual man while under the influence. Rather than everyone suspected of being on the downlow being killed in the street. You better believe that there will be mass deaths when this taboo against doing the research is overcome (probably only possible through revolutionary change in Western societies).

But yes.. obviously drug company profits from selling AIDS drugs and not wanting to be the people who funded the research that made people think 'hey, gays are icky' are part of the story too.

* though with some absolutely retarded conclusions about the cause that could only come from anthropologists and journalists
** Sick pervert Jacques Lizot, who is proven to have paid young Yanomami boys to engage in sex with himself and others for his sexual gratification, claims otherwise. Unfortunately noone chopped his head off at the time he was engaging in these activities


----------



## not william stenchever (May 3, 2019)

1864897514651 said:


> Heterosexuals that contracept are equally damned under aberrosexuality as homosexuals are


So you love muslims, niggers, abbos, and Indians/Pakis, then? They are, after all, the largest collective grouping of people who actively avoid contraception.


----------



## tumblrkek (May 3, 2019)

just like being muslim or a nigger, it's a mental illness


----------



## bearycool (May 3, 2019)

Tard Baby said:


> They came from the three radiant pools of eternal gay: @Jon-Kacho, @Internet War Criminal, and @bearycool



The pool of Eternal Flameboyant Femininity 
The pool of Eternal Repressed Cock-Craving
The pool of Eternal Absolute Faggotry

...Yeah, sounds like that's the essence of a Gay.


----------



## Y2K Baby (May 3, 2019)

bearycool said:


> The pool of Eternal Flameboyant Femininity
> The pool of Eternal Repressed Cock-Craving
> The pool of Eternal Absolute Faggotry
> 
> ...Yeah, sounds like that's the essence of a Gay.


Jon hates me now.


----------



## 2.D. (May 3, 2019)

Slimy Time said:


> -"I'm gay, here is why I think that is the case" - valued input.
> -"Edit, btw I'm also a furry" - TMI, yiff in hell furfag.


I was tryin to explain/exemplify that it may have something to do with associating with really gay fandoms.


----------



## KimCoppolaAficionado (May 4, 2019)

not william stenchever said:


> So you love muslims, niggers, abbos, and Indians/Pakis, then? They are, after all, the largest collective grouping of people who actively avoid contraception.


You're suggesting he loves anyone but Jesus: feeling normal human emotions is blasphemy, and probably abbosexual or whatever.


----------



## IV 445 (May 4, 2019)

You guys make Null cry


----------



## not william stenchever (May 4, 2019)

Senior Lexmechanic said:


> You're suggesting he loves anyone but Jesus: feeling normal human emotions is blasphemy, and probably abbosexual or whatever.


He does seem to harbor some anger inside him


----------



## Marco Fucko (May 5, 2019)

I don't understand the concept of "hard" sexuality on a personal level, since I've never been attracted to someone just because of their gender. There's always been something else there. I imagine the people who are only attracted to one gender have some sort of mental "block" about it. Like homosexuality being a threat to someone's masculinity, or heterosexuality being a lesser level of intimacy or whatever combination that person sees in themselves.

Not that that's a bad thing, or anything.


----------



## Sprig of Parsley (May 5, 2019)

Marco Fucko said:


> I don't understand the concept of "hard" sexuality on a personal level, since I've never been attracted to someone just because of their gender. There's always been something else there. I imagine the people who are only attracted to one gender have some sort of mental "block" about it. Like homosexuality being a threat to someone's masculinity, or heterosexuality being a lesser level of intimacy or whatever combination that person sees in themselves.
> 
> Not that that's a bad thing, or anything.



It's kind of strange to think about, but "hard" sexuality tends to be kind of an expeditious simplification of what I think is a much more granular concept.  I think that's why you have people who say "I'm straight, but I very strongly prefer outgoing athletic chicks" or something like that.  They say "prefer" but I'm inclined to think that it's not a conscious preference at all - it's something a fair amount deeper.  Then again, I haven't exactly made a scholarly study of it all.  In regards to homosexual attraction being a threat to masculinity - in the grand scheme of things this is probably a relatively recent (if widespread) contrivance, because homosexuality and masculinity were definitely not considered in opposition to one another in some places considered to be the root of modern Western society.  My philosophy is that it's fine if it's not your cup of tea but self-denial is something that can turn seriously corrosive if you're not careful.  It's better to say things to yourself like "Homosexual desire is inconvenient because the gay scene is really exceptional right now" or "Homosexual desire is not particularly safe to express because I'm currently in an environment that will not abide it" rather than something more simplistic and valuative (fuck you spellcheck that is a word) like "Homosexuality is bad/evil".


----------



## Marco Fucko (May 5, 2019)

Sprig of Parsley said:


> It's kind of strange to think about, but "hard" sexuality tends to be kind of an expeditious simplification of what I think is a much more granular concept.  I think that's why you have people who say "I'm straight, but I very strongly prefer outgoing athletic chicks" or something like that.  They say "prefer" but I'm inclined to think that it's not a conscious preference at all - it's something a fair amount deeper.  Then again, I haven't exactly made a scholarly study of it all.  In regards to homosexual attraction being a threat to masculinity - in the grand scheme of things this is probably a relatively recent (if widespread) contrivance, because homosexuality and masculinity were definitely not considered in opposition to one another in some places considered to be the root of modern Western society.  My philosophy is that it's fine if it's not your cup of tea but self-denial is something that can turn seriously corrosive if you're not careful.  It's better to say things to yourself like "Homosexual desire is inconvenient because the gay scene is really exceptional right now" or "Homosexual desire is not particularly safe to express because I'm currently in an environment that will not abide it" rather than something more simplistic and valuative (fuck you spellcheck that is a word) like "Homosexuality is bad/evil".



Yeah, I've always tried to be honest with myself. Way I see it is you can only deny a certain aspect of yourself until it boils over, one way or another. 

I was just throwing out hypothetical examples. I've heard lesbians disown other subtypes i.e. lipsticks being "tourists" since they can more easily pass as a "normal" woman.

But yeah I agree that those kind of preferences are probably indicative of something much deeper than just basic preference, like a subconscious seeking out of either a reinforcing or balancing partner.


----------



## Toucan (May 5, 2019)

Every time you see a rainbow a gay is born.


----------



## Zeke Von Genbu (May 5, 2019)

Marco Fucko said:


> I don't understand the concept of "hard" sexuality on a personal level, since I've never been attracted to someone just because of their gender. There's always been something else there. I imagine the people who are only attracted to one gender have some sort of mental "block" about it. Like homosexuality being a threat to someone's masculinity, or heterosexuality being a lesser level of intimacy or whatever combination that person sees in themselves.
> 
> Not that that's a bad thing, or anything.



I think these ideas of homosexuality isn't masculine or hetero sex isn't some peak level of intimacy comes more from people being insecure about themselves. The former is a classic line for someone denying that they're gay and the other is just trying to come off as having some elite sex life or whatever stupid nonsense this hypothetical person wants to tell themselves. Taking a hard stance on your sexuality on a personal level I think is just being realistic so you don't set yourself or other people up for failure when trying to have positive romantic relationships.

I don't think people are only attracted to someone or want a meaningful relationship just because they have the "correct" gender for their preference, people who have a mentally unshakable stance that they only like X gender sexually genuinely believe that is just what they like from a sexual perspective. Most meaningful romantic relationships lead to sex at some point unless both parties are asexual I guess. Even if you want to date someone that isn't aligned with your sexual preference because they're a great and loving partner, and this might sound corny, but if you're being honest you have to know in your heart of hearts that it won't succeed in the end. If you try to convince yourself it will, you're just a naive idiot unless you misunderstood your preferences somehow which might happen, but I personally would never take that kind of gamble.

I believe it is very cruel to try to be in a relationship with someone for a long time, then it just fails immediately when you get to trying to have sex and you know full well that it failing was the likely conclusion. If you know full well that you don't like tits or dick, and you try to date someone with tits or a dick you have to know that you won't just accept that. If you try to delude yourself into thinking you can just close your eyes and accept it, even if you can, you are being blatantly dishonest to the other person and I don't believe that is right or fair to the other person. Taking a hard stance on your sexual preference is a pretty fair thing to do when you want to seek meaningful long term relationships over casual sexual partners.


----------



## ICametoLurk (May 6, 2019)

Real talk

Who would wanna touch this?


Spoiler: NSFW


----------



## DDBCAE CBAADCBE (May 6, 2019)

ICametoLurk said:


> Real talk
> 
> Who would wanna touch this?
> 
> ...


Somehow this isn't the weirdest vagina I've ever seen.


----------



## Slap47 (May 6, 2019)

I start to doubt the existence of sexuality when I see people becoming gay in prison or gay as part of some fad.


----------



## Guardian G.I. (May 6, 2019)

In Russia and many other post-Soviet states, many people think it's possible to become gay through some sort of social contagion, especially during childhood and puberty. Thus we have all that scaremongering about "gay propaganda" and how gays would destroy society by turning children gay. This is a very stupid idea. If people's sexuality had formed only through exposure to "proper" sexual expressions, homosexuality wouldn't have existed in the first place, particularly in big, fanatically anti-gay societies. And since it does exist against all odds, assuming someone can turn gay by looking at gay people or through sexual contact (rape, etc) basically implies that _homosexuality is inherently more attractive than heterosexuality_, which is obvious bullshit indicating someone is deep in the closet. Alternatively, it implies that all people are bisexual, which is also extremely unlikely - if everyone could experience same-sex attraction, empathy would remove most (if not all) homophobia and we would have a completely different society and culture. Furthermore, there are hardwired biological interlocks preventing changing sexual orientation, for example straight men automatically feel disgusted seeing two men kissing, regardless of their altitude to gay people. There would likely be no such things if everyone were bisexual or could simply turn gay on the drop of a hat.



Sprig of Parsley said:


> More inclined to think homosexuality or a notable tendency towards it is the result of _in utero _hormonal fuckery resulting from stress on the mother during pregnancy and/or some as-of-yet unknown quirk that tends to crop up in second, third, fourth etc. babies.


This is the most likely reason.
When my mum was pregnant, she and my dad were practically unemployed (post-Soviet economic collapse and all that). She was extremely worried all the time about how the hell she would feed me and buy all necessary things. I ended up being bi. No absent father, no sexual abuse, no gay relatives or close people, no looking at gay people kissing or whatever.


----------



## HolocaustDenier (May 6, 2019)

A Gay is created when a pedo touches a kid


----------



## Idiotron (May 10, 2019)

Nature isn't perfect, mistakes happen all the time.
I've got bone density slightly below that of an average guy, some other dude wants to get assraped.



Apoth42 said:


> I start to doubt the existence of sexuality when I see people becoming gay in prison or gay as part of some fad.



Those people in prison were probably gay all along and prison made them drop their act.
The fad thing? People ate Tide Pods as part of a fad so a homo-fad isn't that weird.


----------



## Sprig of Parsley (May 10, 2019)

Idiotron said:


> Those people in prison were probably gay all along and prison made them drop their act.
> The fad thing? People ate Tide Pods as part of a fad so a homo-fad isn't that weird.



Jailhouse is a thing.  Whether it happens because they actually weren't 100 percent straight to begin with or whether they're telling themselves "any port in a storm" the whole time, I couldn't say as I thankfully have zero experience with prisons.


----------



## StyrofoamFridge (May 10, 2019)

I believe having a shitty father figure causes homosexuality, mostly. It's something you can be predisposed to genetically. Social hierarchy in schools may play a role as well. There's also the issue of molestation which may cause someone to question their sexuality.


----------



## Professional iPad Hoarder (May 23, 2019)

エリス said:


> Daddy leaves
> Male affection is scarce
> Scarce things are more valuable
> Single mothers are overbearing
> ...


Damn, this describes so many people that I know


----------



## UntimelyDhelmise (May 23, 2019)

I'm inclined to believe at least some aspect of it is genetic. I'm a bisexual with a heavier preference for men, yet I wasn't sexually abused at any point and I have two hetero parents who have a very healthy relationship both with each other and me. Yet a year and a half ago I was diagnosed with Asperger's. And that got me thinking.

It could be possible that being on the autistic spectrum or other similar mental handicaps makes one more susceptible to sexual deviance, like how someone can be more predisposed to alcoholism, specific drug addictions or even food addictions like carbs and sugars. You could go your whole life without knowing you have such things because you've never tried them and therefore triggered the addiction, and a similar principle could be said for homosexuality, which has become far more normalized and accepted which means more exposure.

Now am I saying ALL homosexuals are on the spectrum? Of course not, there's other factors that could cause it as already discussed. But it's nonetheless something of note, especially when you realize a lot of the furry fandom, most of which "just happen" to be gay, also "just happen" to be on the spectrum one way or another.


----------



## QWXXP Surprise! (May 23, 2019)

I always wondered if it was mother nature's way of getting people (or animals) to not overpopulate, so some are born not sexually attracted to the opposite sex.
Like a sort of built-in birth control mechanism.


----------



## Ughubughughughughughghlug (May 23, 2019)

Ways you catch the gay:
1) You're born with a mind like a woman, but not enough to be a tranny.
2) You're born with a hyper-masculine mind where you can't distinguish between valid and invalid sexual targets.
3) You're molested by a man.
4) You're coddled by your mom too much.

A lot of trannies would have just been sodomites in the past.


----------



## An Account (May 25, 2019)

Homosexuality results from the consumption of contaminated tap water. You need to purchase a specialized filtration system to guarantee your sexual safety.


----------



## God of Nothing (May 25, 2019)

External stimulation in childhood relating to men and/or masculinity or brainchemistry, which somewhat relates to the stimulation. I don't think having a gay fetish is that much different from being gay. Think that's where most of my attraction to men comes from. Being surrounded by the women of my family also probably had a hand in it: guys seemed much more appealing and less demanding to be around.

Overall, human sexuality is fucking weird. You have people who want to fuck objects, don't have any sex drive at all, people who want to fuck everything, lesbians who get turned on by gay sex somehow, gays being turned on by lesbian sex, and lesbians who don't like men but are turned on by the thought of being impregnated.


----------



## ⋖ cørdion ⋗ (May 25, 2019)

Notan Alte said:


> i'm a fag myself, and if I had to guess why, it'd probably have to do with the people I spent most of  my time with when I was younger, which just so happened to be a handful of gay friends. Maybe they influenced me, idk.
> 
> Addendum: I'm a furry, those friends were furries. Coincidence? I dunno. Although I do think that being in communities that have a bunch of gays in them increases your chance of being gayified.
> 
> Addendum 2: yikes, people dont like this. I'm just givin my experience with it and hoping to answer the question.


Let me guess; no romantic experience irl, asocial, played games constantly, and the second you started acting gay you got a lot of attention and started jerking it to the idea? People are rating you as such because it's a given to furries. More or less the same case with me, which is why I'm of the belief that I more or less chose to be bi/pan/whatever. I acted like a gay kid in my teens and made friends and fun out of it, and as I realized sex is exhausting and full of human fluids, I got comfortable with the male aspect to that as well.

Since then, every younger furry I've met with a forced lisp and "Orh myu gaaawd~" behavior clearly decided to not be straight the same. Whenever they finally met with a furry friend or got a dildo, there was nothing natural about their reaction or interest herein. It's not "I wanna fit daddy's big tool in me~", it's "well it's how gays have sex so I should get familiar with it". Isn't the whole idea behind sex to be a natural reaction to being attracted to someone, not just deal with it, especially when your personality and your fandom of choice is based on sex and relationships?

Someone on here once wrote that in these fandoms people don't treat each other as friends but the beginning of a full romantic relationship. It can always be rev'd up to flirting and then RPing or sending pics and whatever. This is how furries behave, and no kid is safe from that kind of influence. On one hand it's good that sexuality is discussed and explored instead of assuming you're straight, but this is borderline predatory grooming. Mental 'rape' and the following rape victim rationalization of "guess this is me now".


----------



## Lemmingwise (May 25, 2019)

Ughubughughughughughghlug said:


> 2) You're born with a hyper-masculine mind where you can't distinguish between valid and invalid sexual targets.



Masculine sexuality is more sex prefferential than feminine sexuality.


----------



## 2.D. (May 25, 2019)

Cactus Wings said:


> Let me guess; no romantic experience irl, asocial, played games constantly, and the second you started acting gay you got a lot of attention and started jerking it to the idea?


I've had romantic experience, I'm semi-social, I do play games often, and I never really act(ed) gay.


Cactus Wings said:


> Since then, every younger furry I've met with a forced lisp and "Orh myu gaaawd~" behavior clearly decided to not be straight the same. Whenever they finally met with a furry friend or got a dildo, there was nothing natural about their reaction or interest herein. It's not "I wanna fit daddy's big tool in me~", it's "well it's how gays have sex so I should get familiar with it". Isn't the whole idea behind sex to be a natural reaction to being attracted to someone, not just deal with it, especially when your personality and your fandom of choice is based on sex and relationships?


Not the same for me, really. Furries infected me with the gay, but I didn't and still don't have any regrets or hesitation. Maybe its faggot stockholm syndrome, idk.


Cactus Wings said:


> Someone on here once wrote that in these fandoms people don't treat each other as friends but the beginning of a full romantic relationship. It can always be rev'd up to flirting and then RPing or sending pics and whatever.


That's a fact. Most furries who I became friendly with, just casually friendly with, immediately thought of me as a pseudo-boyfriend. They also have some sort of unspoken rule that if someone's shittalking furries, then you have to sperg about it and defend them. Some furry with a porn avatar went on a tirade about how I wasn't a "real furry" for saying "see you there bud" to a guy who said "yiff in hell furfag" after I killed him in tf2.  Good times. 


Cactus Wings said:


> This is how furries behave, and no kid is safe from that kind of influence. On one hand it's good that sexuality is discussed and explored instead of assuming you're straight, but this is borderline predatory grooming. Mental 'rape' and the following rape victim rationalization of "guess this is me now".


Furries are on a spectrum IMO. The autism spectrum, but also a separate one just based off of degeneracy. On one end, you have people like me who are pretty passive and know that what they do and like is fucking weird, but can play it off as a joke and overall be a bearable person. On the other hand, you have people like the TF2 sperg who set their avatars to degeneracy and try to gatekeep degeneracy.
/powerlevel


----------



## Surf and TERF (May 26, 2019)

I think about this a lot because 1) I'm a fag and 2) I've spent a lot of time trying not to be one.

Research on homosexuality hasn't  been conducted in a professional manner until recent years and even now it is vulnerable to bias. In the past, almost all research available on this topic was limited to corrupted and dehumanizing tests performed on men, with the intention of curing an ailment. Lesbians were never a subject of interest and nobody seemed to comprehend that they existed at all.



Sprig of Parsley said:


> More inclined to think homosexuality or a notable tendency towards it is the result of _in utero _hormonal fuckery resulting from stress on the mother during pregnancy and/or some as-of-yet unknown quirk that tends to crop up in second, third, fourth etc. babies.



I'm taking this as a reference to Günter Dörner's experiements. He created rats with homosexual mating behaviors by manipulating their sex hormones at birth. The females were treated with androgens and the males were castrated.



Spoiler: why that matters



The hypothalamus is associated with sexual behavior, and it is  likely that the hypothalamus is  influenced by prenatal hormones.  The main hormones concerned in this case are androgens (male sex hormones) and estradiol (the primary female sex hormone). There is also an enzyme called aromatase which is responsible for the biosynthesis of estrogens. In regard to fetuses, there is a theory that testosterone (an androgen) typically binds to androgen receptors and triggers male typical development. In order for certain effects of testosterone to work, it must be converted to estradiol. The resulting estradiol will then bind to estrogen receptors, which trigger the hormone’s organizing effects. The importance of aromatase conversion varies among species.



The rats in this test were considered to be a model for human homosexuality because, at birth, they are still at a stage of development that is typical of unborn humans. Homosexual tendencies continued to appear when the experiment was repeated on hamsters, ferrets, pigs, and zebra finches.

I personally think this is one of the most conclusive studies there are. However, I only read about this as a hobby so take it with a grain of salt.


----------



## Guts Gets Some (May 26, 2019)

This is how it started, eons ago:



Spoiler


----------



## The Estatist (May 27, 2019)

Ughubughughughughughghlug said:


> Ways you catch the gay:
> 1) You're born with a mind like a woman, but not enough to be a tranny.
> 2) You're born with a hyper-masculine mind where you can't distinguish between valid and invalid sexual targets.
> 3) You're molested by a man.
> ...



Plenty of trannies are really just overall straight men who just have a fantasy or two about having a female body due to fetishizing it absent of its role in reproduction.

Anyway, the easiest counter to the Born Dis Weigh narrative is to just point that after so many years, there's an absence of fag animals in the wild (read: not just in situational situation ala prison violation).


----------



## Exigent Circumcisions (May 27, 2019)

Probably some as-yet undiscovered virus like toxoplasmosis that you get from leeking the anoos and eating da poo poo of a chomo.


----------



## Surf and TERF (May 27, 2019)

The Estatist said:


> Anyway, the easiest counter to the Born Dis Weigh narrative is to just point that after so many years, there's an absence of fag animals in the wild (read: not just in situational situation ala prison violation).



I’m on board with you about suspecting some mtf trans people of being nothing more than fetishists. (Yaniv comes to mind.) But there’s no absence of homosexuality in the wild. There are written accounts of it  going as far back as ancient Greece.

Biological Exuberance documents instances of homosexuality in over 450 species. This includes wild animals that could choose between male and female partners.

Unless you’re using the word fag to exclusively reference trans people here, then your statement carries a little more weight. The book has examples of that as well, but not nearly as many.


----------



## Feline Supremacist (May 27, 2019)

Surf and TERF said:


> I’m on board with you about suspecting some mtf trans people of being nothing more than fetishists. (Yaniv comes to mind.) But there’s no absence of homosexuality in the wild. There are written accounts of it  going as far back as ancient Greece.
> 
> Biological Exuberance documents instances of homosexuality in over 450 species. This includes wild animals that could choose between male and female partners.
> 
> Unless I’m mistaken and you’re using the word fag to exclusively reference trans people here, then your statement carries a little more weight. The book has examples of that as well, but not nearly as many.



I thought the frogs went gay because they couldn't buy water filters?


----------



## The Estatist (May 28, 2019)

>situational

Having a male deer or whatever mount another male then go mate with a female deer isn't a sign that faggots are born this way.



			https://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality#Prevalence
		







						Homosexuality in animals myth - Conservapedia
					






					www.conservapedia.com


----------



## ProgKing of the North (May 28, 2019)

So say it is a choice. In that case it’s just two people choosing to have sex with each other. 

Why would that be wrong?


----------



## Sprig of Parsley (May 28, 2019)

ProgKing of the North said:


> So say it is a choice. In that case it’s just two people choosing to have sex with each other.
> 
> Why would that be wrong?


Better question.

Why would that be anyone else's business?


----------



## The Estatist (May 28, 2019)

"Homosexuals" are known for their hostility to their societies. Among overall behavioral dysfunction like spreading disease and substance abuse.


----------



## ProgKing of the North (May 28, 2019)

The Estatist said:


> "Homosexuals" are known for their hostility to their societies. Among overall behavioral dysfunction like spreading disease and substance abuse.


If society wanted me dead just because they didn’t approve of my consensual partner, I’d probably be hostile towards it as well


----------



## Sprig of Parsley (May 28, 2019)

The Estatist said:


> "Homosexuals" are known for their hostility to their societies. Among overall behavioral dysfunction like spreading disease and substance abuse.


You straights should probably clean your own room before bitching about anyone else's.



> hostility to their societies


Your societies have repeatedly engaged in brutal crackdowns on homosexual populations at times with no other provocation than "Ew, they're icky and my imaginary best friend doesn't like them!" Assuming you're even RIGHT here (which you aren't), a generalized homosexual hostility towards society would be fairly fucking justifiable.

This is full-on retarded threat-narrative spinning.  If your society could be dismantled by a tiny fraction of the population in such a manner I'm inclined to think it either had bigger issues elsewhere or it deserved to be dismantled for being such a piece of shit.


----------



## Surf and TERF (May 28, 2019)

For what it's worth, Biological Exuberance goes way beyond situational examples and covers long term partnerships as well. It was already mentioned in the book synopsis I linked.

Honestly, I'm not sure if investing time in this conversation will end in anything constructive. The willingness to reject an accumulation of published, peer reviewed research in favor of a subwiki page gives the impression that this is more about asserting an opinion that isn't open to change.


----------



## Sprig of Parsley (May 28, 2019)

Surf and TERF said:


> For what it's worth, Biological Exuberance goes way beyond situational examples and covers long term partnerships as well. It was already mentioned in the book synopsis I linked.
> 
> Honestly, I'm not sure if investing time in this conversation will end in anything constructive. The willingness to reject an accumulation of published, peer reviewed research in favor of a subwiki page gives the impression that this is more about asserting an opinion that isn't open to change.


If you're not having fun you're probably doing it wrong.  That being said, leave it up to just about any Internet forum to have that one guy who looks at a pile of publications written by people who know what the fuck they're talking about and counter unironically with "YEAH WELL MY FAVORITE WIKI SAYS YOU'RE WRONG."

The Goons were right about one thing.  The Internet makes you stupid.


----------



## TerribleIdeas™ (May 28, 2019)

wellthathappened said:


> I think being gay is some sort of ingrained orientation and folks are probably born that way. I don't view being gay as a mental illness.



I've heard there's research indicating that male homosexuality is correlated to lowered in-utero exposure to androgens, and higher exposure to estrogens, in the 2nd trimester . Lesbianism is correlated to higher in-utero exposure to androgens in-utero, and lowered exposure to estrogens, during that same part of gestation. Haven't looked into it, since endocrinology really isn't my bag.

To the OP: gay is definitely a result of your mom.


----------



## The Estatist (May 28, 2019)

ProgKing of the North said:


> If society wanted me dead just because they didn’t approve of my consensual partner, I’d probably be hostile towards it as well



Of course, fags can't be trusted to behave themselves absent of either being told to channel themselves in the closet or get married. 



Sprig of Parsley said:


> >You straights should probably clean your own room before bitching about anyone else's.



I'm sure you get indignant at pointing out Negro and/or Muslim criminality too.

Also:
>straights



ProgKing of the North said:


> Your societies have repeatedly engaged in brutal crackdowns on homosexual populations at times with no other provocation than "Ew, they're icky and my imaginary best friend doesn't like them!"



A fag and a fedora. How appropriate.



ProgKing of the North said:


> Assuming you're even RIGHT here (which you aren't), a generalized homosexual hostility towards society would be fairly fucking justifiable.



The fag cries out as he strikes you. And the LBGRHWOK representation in substance abuse and HIV infections is well recorded. 






						Basic Statistics | HIV Basics | HIV/AIDS | CDC
					

An explanation of the statistics of HIV and AIDS.  This is basic information on HIV statistics and surveillance.




					www.cdc.gov
				






ProgKing of the North said:


> This is full-on exceptional threat-narrative spinning.  If your society could be dismantled by a tiny fraction of the population in such a manner I'm inclined to think it either had bigger issues elsewhere or it deserved to be dismantled for being such a piece of shit.



The homosexual is alienated from society just as the Jew is. Absent of pressure in modernity he will work to subvert it.



Surf and TERF said:


> For what it's worth, Biological Exuberance goes way beyond situational examples and covers long term partnerships as well. It was already mentioned in the book synopsis I linked.
> 
> Honestly, I'm not sure if investing time in this conversation will end in anything constructive. The willingness to reject an accumulation of published, peer reviewed research in favor of a subwiki page gives the impression that this is more about asserting an opinion that isn't open to change.



>homosexual pairbonding in species without heterosexual pairbonding
>the species still has two sexes with them depending on mating to maintain said species

Sure man, totally not Leftie twaddle ala those in "academia" who think Niggers ever were relevant to actual civilization, male dominance was invented at agricultural, and/or insist the Greeks at their peak unconditionally accepted faggotry.


----------



## Sprig of Parsley (May 28, 2019)

Yeah this dumbfuck is a waste of time.

BRB SUBVERTING YOUR SOCIETY LOL.


----------



## ProgKing of the North (May 28, 2019)

Bro, you can just come out of the closet, it’s okay, we’ll all support you


----------



## Surf and TERF (May 28, 2019)

> >homosexual pairbonding in species without heterosexual pairbonding
> >the species still has two sexes with them depending on mating to maintain said species
> 
> Sure man, totally not Leftie twaddle ala those in "academia" who think Niggers ever were relevant to actual civilization, male dominance was invented at agricultural, and/or insist the Greeks at their peak unconditionally accepted faggotry.



It includes homosexual pairbonding in species with heterosexual pairbonding as well. It's not mentioned in the summary because it's not as much of a hook, but I can tell you that it's included because... you know, I read the book.

I personally don't think a lesbian bird that regularly has intercourse with its female mate is suddenly heterosexual if it leaves once or twice to get impregnated by a male. Especially if it still exclusively raises the baby with its female mate. Humans do this too, but we still call them gay.

This is the last bait I'm taking with you. Calm down and stop using greentext format if you expect to be taken seriously. Twitter accounts and religious subwikis are not credible sources.


----------



## ProgKing of the North (May 28, 2019)

The Estatist said:


> Yeah, we established the West has cucked itself to death.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Why so angry, friend?


----------



## The_wandering_nibler (May 28, 2019)

Supposedly from the need to nurture abandoned children


----------



## Varg Did Nothing Wrong (May 28, 2019)

@Poiseon @Sprig of Parsley you guys are both fucking rеtards and should feel ashamed of yourselves for derailing a perfectly OK thread into a fucking slapfight where you each negrate the previous post as if it matters.

Kill yourselves.


----------



## ProgKing of the North (May 28, 2019)

I think this thread is what causes the big gay


----------



## Quid 06 (May 28, 2019)

Homosexuality, without doubt, originated in homosexuals.


----------



## kadoink (Jun 3, 2019)

PauseUnpausePlay said:


> Homosexuality, without doubt, originated in homosexuals.


Yeah, stupid fucking Greeks.


----------



## ES 148 (Jun 3, 2019)

Homosexuality comes from your mum.


----------



## Underestimated Nutria (Jun 3, 2019)

Cactus Wings said:


> Let me guess; no romantic experience irl, asocial, played games constantly, and the second you started acting gay you got a lot of attention and started jerking it to the idea? People are rating you as such because it's a given to furries. More or less the same case with me, which is why I'm of the belief that I more or less chose to be bi/pan/whatever. I acted like a gay kid in my teens and made friends and fun out of it, and as I realized sex is exhausting and full of human fluids, I got comfortable with the male aspect to that as well.
> 
> Since then, every younger furry I've met with a forced lisp and "Orh myu gaaawd~" behavior clearly decided to not be straight the same. Whenever they finally met with a furry friend or got a dildo, there was nothing natural about their reaction or interest herein. It's not "I wanna fit daddy's big tool in me~", it's "well it's how gays have sex so I should get familiar with it". Isn't the whole idea behind sex to be a natural reaction to being attracted to someone, not just deal with it, especially when your personality and your fandom of choice is based on sex and relationships?
> 
> Someone on here once wrote that in these fandoms people don't treat each other as friends but the beginning of a full romantic relationship. It can always be rev'd up to flirting and then RPing or sending pics and whatever. This is how furries behave, and no kid is safe from that kind of influence. On one hand it's good that sexuality is discussed and explored instead of assuming you're straight, but this is borderline predatory grooming. Mental 'rape' and the following rape victim rationalization of "guess this is me now".


I found this post extremely instructive, and I thank you for sharing your experience. If you could give any links or further detail, or suggest where I should look on this site, it would be very much appreciated!!


----------



## Lemmingwise (Jun 3, 2019)

Surf and TERF said:


> I’m on board with you about suspecting some mtf trans people of being nothing more than fetishists. (Yaniv comes to mind.) But there’s no absence of homosexuality in the wild. There are written accounts of it  going as far back as ancient Greece.
> 
> Biological Exuberance documents instances of homosexuality in over 450 species. This includes wild animals that could choose between male and female partners.
> 
> Unless you’re using the word fag to exclusively reference trans people here, then your statement carries a little more weight. The book has examples of that as well, but not nearly as many.



Yes, certainly that is a purely scholarly documentation of homosexuality and not politically motivated (the book was used in the supreme court to end sodomy laws).

Here's a quote from the book.



> The animal world--right now, here on earth--is brimming with countless gender variations and shimmering sexual possibilities:  entire lizard species that consist only of females who reproduce by virgin birth and also have sex with each other; or the multigendered society of the Ruff, with four distinct categories of male birds, some of whom court and mate with one another; or female Spotted Hyenas and Bears who copulate and give birth through their 'penile' clitorides, and male Greater Rheas who possess 'vaginal' phalluses (like females of their species) and raise young in two-father families; or the vibrant transsexualities of coral reef fish, and the dazzling intersexualities of gynandromorphs and chimeras.  In their quest for 'post-modern' patterns of gender and sexuality, human beings are simply catching up with the species that have preceded us in evolving sexual and gender diversity--and the aboriginal cultures that have recognized this.



It will be something interesting to dig into, though. I'll see what I can find in the following month.


----------



## Surf and TERF (Jun 3, 2019)

Lemmingwise said:


> Yes, certainly that is a purely scholarly documentation of homosexuality and not politically motivated (the book was used in the supreme court to end sodomy laws).
> 
> Here's a quote from the book.
> 
> ...



Fair enough. Skepticism in regard to the creators’ motive is deserved, but I felt that the analysis following each study gives fair consideration and rebuttal to most “homophobic” arguments against their conclusions. 

There will always be homosexuality in humans whether we understand it or not. I’ve argued against its validity too. The only thing that changed my mind was actually being gay while not wanting to be and having to deal with those feelings anyway. I gave heterosexuality a fair shot and that is what felt unnatural to me. 

It’s cool if people genuinely believe it’s a real thing, but I can’t act betrayed if they express doubts. The mess that is LGBT pride only makes it look more fake.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Jun 3, 2019)

Surf and TERF said:


> Fair enough. Skepticism in regard to the creators’ motive is deserved, but I felt that the analysis following each study gives fair consideration and rebuttal to most “homophobic” arguments against their conclusions.
> 
> There will always be homosexuality in humans whether we understand it or not. I’ve argued against its validity too. The only thing that changed my mind was actually being gay while not wanting to be and having to deal with those feelings anyway. I gave heterosexuality a fair shot and that is what felt unnatural to me.



There will also always be crimes committed by humans. That doesn't mean we have to be open to committing crimes.
I do think we have an evolved natural aversion to gay men. Considering what vectors of disease they are (which is unsurprising when you know that about half of gay men have over 500 lifetime sex partners) as well as deleterious cultural effects and not to mention how rampant pedophilia is in the gay community (somewhere between 4x and 16x the rate of pedophilia compared to heterosexuals).

Though I also don't think homosexuality is always a choice either and there seem to be some genetic and epigenetic factors that effect homosexuality. Part of the reason for the globohomo groups, even within for example the catholic church, is likely because something that is innate is condemned. Why wouldn't one rebel against any current order that condemns it?

But much like the south african anti-apartheid movement was coopted and taken over by communists, the homosexual lobby seems to be coopted by an anti-fertility cult, set out by the eugenicist society (later named: the population council). The goal there is to push anything that promotes anti-fertility so the political goal of those that funded them (Rockefellers) was not so much gay acceptance as increased homosexuality.

I honestly don't know what position to exactly take. The fact that the common problems of homosexuality can't be discussed in any way besides homosexuality being fabulous makes the current status quo untenable. It is no great surprise that the child stripping for money, whichever one it was, desmond I think, happens in gay clubs.  You would think more people present would raise a stink.

I don't think most gay men choose to be gay, but I do think that sexual abuse can turn someone more gay.

But I really need to read that book and see how well it holds up.


----------



## Surf and TERF (Jun 3, 2019)

Lemmingwise said:


> There will also always be crimes committed by humans. That doesn't mean we have to be open to committing crimes.
> I do think we have an evolved natural aversion to gay men. Considering what vectors of disease they are (which is unsurprising when you know that about half of gay men have over 500 lifetime sex partners) as well as deleterious cultural effects and not to mention how rampant pedophilia is in the gay community (somewhere between 4x and 16x the rate of pedophilia compared to heterosexuals).
> 
> Though I also don't think homosexuality is always a choice either and there seem to be some genetic and epigenetic factors that effect homosexuality. Part of the reason for the globohomo groups, even within for example the catholic church, is likely because something that is innate is condemned. Why wouldn't one rebel against any current order that condemns it?
> ...



The reason for the tendencies toward pedophilia escapes me, but this is an issue that seems more exclusive to gay men.

Promiscuity, on the other hand, is an issue for both gay men and women. I’ve never had a desire for anything but a genuine monogamous relationship, which is something that is frowned upon to express in the general LGBT community. Only “bigots” are so close minded. That’s the popular opinion, anyway.

The thing is, homosexuality may not be the issue. It's just viewed as one because of the assumption that it is the inherent cause of pedophilia and promiscuity. But is it really?

Maybe it’s just the depravity that often comes with being gay, or the consequence of being in a community where a significant number of people tell you, either though actions or words, that you’re a sick degenerate. Things are better now, I won’t deny that. But that doesn’t mean those points of view ceased to exist. They’ve just been getting stifled under the enormous social pressure to be accepting of everyone.

Unfortunately this pressure has made the LGBT community so polarized that you can’t acknowledge the issues that exist within it. I’m going to guess this is the reason why so many gays are hiding out on kiwifarms to talk about them.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Jun 4, 2019)

Surf and TERF said:


> The reason for the tendencies toward pedophilia escapes me, but this is an issue that seems more exclusive to gay men


Well certainly one of the reasons must be the lack of taboo there is on this in the gay world. There are easy to find videos of gay parties where people get interviewed and they'll either say, yes they did it, or yes they've seen it. I have trouble imagining many types of communities where even such an admission doesn't raise hellfire. The only three types I can think of where it doesn't are muslims, gays and certain upper class groups like in hollywood. I'd add the catholic church, but that too is gay groups.



Surf and TERF said:


> I’ve never had a desire for anything but a genuine monogamous relationship, which is something that is frowned upon to express in the general LGBT community. Only “bigots” are so close minded.


Right. You seem to think this is not necessarily innate to gay people. And no wonder, considering you have the personal example where it's different. But why is the consensus on promiscuity? How did that become a goal/virtue in the first place? And why is there a huge difference in the amount of partners gay men have to lesbians (who average somewhere at 12 lifetime sexual partners IIRC)?

I think it says something about male vs female sexuality.

I do think there's something innate there, though not necessarily universal. By that I mean that the trend is not going to go away, even if there are outliers.

And here is just my personal observations rather than anything data driven. When you accept sex as for pleasure rather than reproduction, once you accept sterile forms of sex, it is likely to happen. I think gay sex world is an inevitability when you have a sexual environment without women as selective gatekeepers. Fidelity is rather common for lesbians, even if they say they don't believe in it. It's practically unheard of for gay men.

---

Those are my thoughts on it. You do say some things that make me curious.

You say the depravity that comes with being gay. What do you mean by that, in all its aspects? I'm familiar with the (unpersuasive) claim that it's due to lack of acceptance. I can tell you why I find it unpersuasive if you're interested. But what reasons are there besides that for "the depravity that comes with being gay"?




Surf and TERF said:


> The thing is, homosexuality may not be the issue. It's just viewed as one because of the assumption that it is the inherent cause of pedophilia and promiscuity.



Regardless of the "inherent" cause, there is no doubt that right now they're an identifier where the behaviour is more frequent. Why redirect to a straw man and not focus on the problem itself?




Surf and TERF said:


> They’ve just been getting stifled under the enormous social pressure to be accepting of everyone.
> 
> Unfortunately this pressure has made the LGBT community so polarized that you can’t acknowledge the issues that exist within it.



So the focus has generally been on making people accepting, rather than finding the source of these problems or fixing them. Have you ever asked yourself why? Do you wonder why exactly this view is the dogma?

It's sad but I have to almost give you kudos for even saying that, when that kind of openness should be standard.

Ps. What do you make of Joe Biden praising jewish leaders for having been responsible for creating gay marriage in the US at Jewish American Heritage Month?


----------



## Surf and TERF (Jun 4, 2019)

Lemmingwise said:


> Well certainly one of the reasons must be the lack of taboo there is on this in the gay world. There are easy to find videos of gay parties where people get interviewed and they'll either say, yes they did it, or yes they've seen it. I have trouble imagining many types of communities where even such an admission doesn't raise hellfire. The only three types I can think of where it doesn't are muslims, gays and certain upper class groups like in hollywood. I'd add the catholic church, but that too is gay groups.



That's probably a part of it, yeah. A lot of gay people believe that their identity entails being the antithesis of "heteronormative" culture, which they define as a traditional nuclear family with monogamous couples and sex only within marriage. I think that's the root of the problem. There's still this "us versus them" mindset and in order to be a part of the community, you have to make yourself the opposite image.



Lemmingwise said:


> Right. You seem to think this is not necessarily innate to gay people. And no wonder, considering you have the personal example where it's different. But why is the consensus on promiscuity? How did that become a goal/virtue in the first place? And why is there a huge difference in the amount of partners gay men have to lesbians (who average somewhere at 12 lifetime sexual partners IIRC)?
> 
> I think it says something about male vs female sexuality.
> 
> ...



I agree there is a difference. To be honest, I didn't want to speak for gay men and blame the promiscuity on the difference in sex drive between genders. I felt it might get misconstrued as misandry. There's a stereotype about lesbians hating men, after all.

Lesbians have learned to identify themselves by taking on the butch image, which I personally think is derived from male stereotypes. I don't think gay women are naturally like this. It's just something they've developed as a method of identifying each other in the wild. The same applies for flamboyant gay men. Both identities are actually pretty sexist imo.

I'm curious, if you think it's bad to sterilize sex, does that mean you are against contraception? I don't believe in God, but I do think there is something sacred about it. Not because of its reproductive value, but because of its usefulness as a tool for strengthening emotional bonds. I think it's unhealthy to abuse it for other purposes.


Lemmingwise said:


> Those are my thoughts on it. You do say some things that make me curious.
> 
> You say the depravity that comes with being gay. What do you mean by that, in all its aspects? I'm familiar with the (unpersuasive) claim that it's due to lack of acceptance. I can tell you why I find it unpersuasive if you're interested. But what reasons are there besides that for "the depravity that comes with being gay"?



I'll bite, why do you think the blame on lack of acceptance is unpersuasive? I do think that it plays a role in causing one to repress their sexuality, which in turn makes them more vulnerable to using devious behaviors as an outlet. This conclusion was inspired by Catholic priests.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm getting the impression that your solution for homosexuality is to repress it altogether, meaning that gay people would either have to be alone forever or force themselves into a heterosexual marriage. Both of these solutions seem impossible to me. I don't want to be alone and heterosexual sex is repulsive to me. Assuming you're straight, imagine the same disgust you would feel at forcing yourself to have sex with another man (or woman, if you're female).



Lemmingwise said:


> Regardless of the "inherent" cause, there is no doubt that right now they're an identifier where the behaviour is more frequent. Why redirect to a straw man and not focus on the problem itself?



I'm not sure how this is a strawman. I never denied there was a correlation, I'm just saying that it doesn't equal causation.



Lemmingwise said:


> So the focus has generally been on making people accepting, rather than finding the source of these problems or fixing them. Have you ever asked yourself why? Do you wonder why exactly this view is the dogma?
> 
> It's sad but I have to almost give you kudos for even saying that, when that kind of openness should be standard.



If I understand correctly, you're asking me why the LGBT community won't be critical of itself?

I think LGBT isn't really LGBT anymore. Not that the old community was much better, but its population actually represented its label. However, I haven't lived through that era so I can't comment too much on it. I think the overbearing inclusivity of the LGBT brand has allowed its voice to be hijacked by exhibitionists and kinksters who capitalized on the stereotype that gay = sexual deviancy in every form. A good chunk of them are probably straight as well.

So any gay person who turns to this community for help only gets pressured to comply with that image, even if they weren't originally prone to promiscuous behavior.



Lemmingwise said:


> Ps. What do you make of Joe Biden praising jewish leaders for having been responsible for creating gay marriage in the US at Jewish American Heritage Month?



I don't keep up with this area of politics to have an informed opinion about it.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Jun 4, 2019)

I hope you like text.



Surf and TERF said:


> I'm curious, if you think it's bad to sterilize sex, does that mean you are against contraception?



I identify sterile sex as something unhealthy when viewed in broader cultural context, kinda like not exercising is unhealthy, or eating fast food, only with more serious consequences. I'm not blanket against contraception, but I do think contraception leads to unhealthy relationships towards sex and unhealthy relationships with people as a result.

To give one example of how I arrived at that point of view, girls that are on the pill are attracted to different men than when they're not on the pill. They tend to seek closer connection to genetically same rather than similar (including brother/father and other family). Then when they go off the pill, they don't feel that kind of attraction. Suddenly the partner they chose while on the pill, is no longer attractive when off the pill. Particularly the smell is "off" suddenly, apparently. Yet despite no longer being attracted to that person, they may have built a life with that person. They have emotionally bonded with that person. They've arrived at a unhealthy situation as a result of sterile sex.

I'm not sure if I see it the same for sterile sex when people already have children and are like 40+ or something.

I really do think we're somewhat living in a world described in brave new world, where people are encouraged to early and often engage in sex for recreation and I don't think it's making people happy and I don't think it's building a healthy society.

---



Surf and TERF said:


> I agree there is a difference. To be honest, I didn't want to speak for gay men and blame the promiscuity on the difference in sex drive between genders. I felt it might get misconstrued as misandry. There's a stereotype about lesbians hating men, after all.



Don't you get tired of not speaking your mind for fear of it being misconstrued as a kind of prejudice? You know your heart. You know how you mean it. You are allowed to have your own perspective on gay men. Sometimes some groups aren't completely honest with themselves or others and they need others to point out the flaws. No, I could go further; almost always all groups aren't completely honest with themselves and others.

This is honestly my own experience with gay friends; is that if shit were to hit the fan, as it seems it might in about a decade, I wouldn't really count on them on helping me survive and carve out a sanctuary somewhere. They're kinda weakminded when it comes to conflict. Of course most people are these days, but it seems to be more true for the gay men I know. This despite them being on average more physically built, though those are just small samples of course, just curious if you've observed something similar or the reverse.

Isn't it better to be able to talk about these things openly?




Surf and TERF said:


> I'll bite, why do you think the blame on lack of acceptance is unpersuasive? I do think that it plays a role in causing one to repress their sexuality, which in turn makes them more vulnerable to using devious behaviors as an outlet. This conclusion was inspired by Catholic priests.
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm getting the impression that your solution for homosexuality is to repress it altogether, meaning that gay people would either have to be alone forever or force themselves into a heterosexual marriage. Both of these solutions seem impossible to me. I don't want to be alone and heterosexual sex is repulsive to me. Assuming you're straight, imagine the same disgust you would feel at forcing yourself to have sex with another man (or woman, if you're female).



You bring up two seperate issues worth addressing; first the blame of lack of acceptance, and second my "solution for homosexuality". Let's start with the latter.

I'd like to have a solution, but I don't have one. I just know the current situation is as untenable as was the catholic solution that you describe. I do know that getting to a better solution requires viewing the problem with as much clarity as possible. The fact that many of the societal ills, including STD's and promiscuity are verboten topics in regards to discussion about homosexuality makes it impossible to improve these situations.

----

The other issue is putting the blame on lack of acceptance. It started for me when looking at suicide stats for transgenders. They're so high it's insane. One is driven to ask: why?
The official answer is that it's because people aren't accepting of transgenders. It seems to me that transgenders in general have unrealistic expectations to how they're received. Right now people are bending so far backwards that when a (notable) transgender threatens violence, or doxes someone, even on live TV, they're defended. I had a youtube account that kept getting banned at one point, even when I recreated it. So without doxing myself, I changed the name from let's say "Joe" to "Trans Joe" and photoshopped a mrs pacman style bow on the head and with the exact same content it was the first out of four channels that didn't get banned and is still up.
What is this telling me? Some people are ridiculously accepting of transgenders.

I had a friend that wanted to get a sex change. But he's been a guy that was always jumping from one cult into the other, one time trying to get me into a turkish cult of bible-copiers or something. He said he had started wearing women's clothes sometimes and that people in his life were cheering for him (again- not unaccepting).

I told him: people will get tired of cheering for it in a months time and a lot of people that transition deeply regret making that choice. Do you know the statistics on the amount of people that end up ending their life after making that choice? He got angry with me. Accused me of having low opinion of him, as if he already didn't know that. I told him that he just accused me of not saying it with the best of intentions towards him, which I did. 6 months later I found out he decided not to do it. He seems pretty happy when I see him. I asked him then if he could identify his prime motivation for wanting to transition sex. He said: "I saw how badly they were treated, and I thought I could be a good shield and example for them as a social, well adjusted-person".

I think the reason nobody else warned him, is because people are afraid of not being accepting of transgenders. They go out of their way to be as accepting to the point that if you want a lot of extra positive attention, you can announce you're trans. I don't know if transgenderism really is an innate thing, but if it is, I suspect that transtrenderism is far more common, like 95% of the cases.

Now what does this have to do with homosexuality acceptance? Everything. It's the same script. Heck, Kevin Spacey was able to take some heat off the fact that he abused a kid by "coming out" as gay. Is that really an example of something that is not very accepted? American conservatives often try to show how good they are by being accepting of gays, like with the whole Milo thing. Is that an example of a culture that's unaccepting of gays? Not to shit on the areas where you might run into prejudice; we all do for all parts of our identity, but when speaking about broader culture I'd say it's hard to speak about it like you're a jew in auschwitz.

So with that degree of high acceptance, it makes no sense that transgenderism has as high a suicide rate as ever. The real reason is probably that an underlying cause creates both transgenderism and suicide (and that the sex change operations have horrific results on one's life, with the demands on dilation and the daily pain and mental results of that pain).

If it's used as a lie to promote transgenderism, why wouldn't it be used as a lie to promote homosexuality?

It's the perfect way to push it forward. You focus everyone on eliminating any resistance to its hegemony. It creates a positive feedback loop: People become gay (or trans), they experience friction and some problems result (let's say they get aids), people want to use this to warn others, they get attacked for not being accepting, this makes people less likely to warn people, more people do it, more people cause problems.

Now I don't think everyone that criticizes homosexuality is good intentioned either, but that's beside the point. People that do want to help are made silent. For example; and this is just spitballing, you could do the same things as you do with smoking. There could be a move to have gay shows have a disclaimer that engaging in non-monogamous homosexual sex is dangerous to your sexual health. I don't think I would support that specifically, but it's completely unthinkable in the current pro-homo culture. I think we both know that.



Surf and TERF said:


> If I understand correctly, you're asking me why the LGBT community won't be critical of itself?
> 
> I think LGBT isn't really LGBT anymore. Not that the old community was much better, but its population actually represented its label. However, I haven't lived through that era so I can't comment too much on it. I think the overbearing inclusivity of the LGBT brand has allowed its voice to be hijacked by exhibitionists and kinksters who capitalized on the stereotype that gay = sexual deviancy in every form. A good chunk of them are probably straight as well.
> 
> So any gay person who turns to this community for help only gets pressured to comply with that image, even if they weren't originally prone to promiscuous behavior.



Have you never asked yourself why it became a defense of sexual deviancy in every form? Why did those who lead the charge create a culture of "overbearing inclusivity"?

I like that term, overbearing inclusivity. It's apt.



Surf and TERF said:


> I'm not sure how this is a strawman. I never denied there was a correlation, I'm just saying that it doesn't equal causation.



My point is that it doesn't matter whether it's correlation or causation; it's still a vector through which we identify a very significantly increased level of pedofilia, promiscuity and STDs. The fact whether some people erronously view it may have bearings on your personal experiences, which I'm sure can be dissatisfying, but it doesn't have bearing on understanding the issue.

It is still a datapoint that demands answers. What are your views on why there is correlation and what makes you think that it isn't/ might not be causation?


----------



## Surf and TERF (Jun 5, 2019)

Lemmingwise said:


> Isn't it better to be able to talk about these things openly?



Because people stop listening if they think the speaker belongs to a group that is impossible to reason with. It happens with LGBT people the moment you say something critical about their community, and it happens here the moment people get a whiff of progressive thinking and assume you’re an SJW. I’m already toeing the line by being openly female and gay. All I need is a negative comment about men to tip the scale. It has nothing to do with censoring my thoughts or a fear of conflict. I’m being careful with my word choice for the sake of allowing the conversation to exist.


But ok, I’ll be more open. I think your point about male versus female sexuality could be a factor in almost every problem with the gay community.



Lemmingwise said:


> I think gay sex world is an inevitability when you have a sexual environment without women as selective gatekeepers.



Promiscuity, STDs, infidelity- these are all consequences of an unfettered male sex drive. It's an issue with gay men, not women. This goes for the trans community as well. Have you noticed that almost all of the trans people in rat king are mtf? So many of them are just perverted incels who can’t stand it when women don’t want their feminine penises.

For the record, I don’t get along with most gay people, regardless of their gender. Lesbians have their faults too, but these aren’t the main issues that come to mind when the LGBT community is criticized.  I'll say something negative about them anyway, just to even the score. I hate the tendency that gay women have of letting themselves go, getting edgy piercings/tattoos and keeping goofy hairstyles. However, I’m starting to have doubts about whether a lot of these women are truly gay. As I roll further up in my 20s, I find that the exceptional behavior has been thinning out with my age group. Smaller lesbian communities that aren’t as open to trans people have been the most reasonable.



Lemmingwise said:


> just curious if you've observed something similar or the reverse.



I have two gay friends that I’m in regular contact with. One is a family member and the other is someone that I grew up with. We all live our lives straight-passing and outside of pride, so there’s no consistent stereotype about conflict avoidance that I’ve had the opportunity to pick up on.



Lemmingwise said:


> I don't know if transgenderism really is an innate thing, but if it is, I suspect that transtrenderism is far more common, like 95% of the cases.



I suspect the same thing, but I’d say the number is probably a bit lower. I know a ftm transgender person irl that is an entirely different breed than what you find online. He lays low and just wants to live a normal life. Knowing him before the transition process and seeing how painful it was to change (hormones, surgery, etc.) has made me believe that it's something he wouldn’t have done unless the dysphoria was really that bad.

That being said, I’ve also seen plenty of trans people who I think are bullshitting.



Lemmingwise said:


> Now what does this have to do with homosexuality acceptance? Everything. It's the same script. Heck, Kevin Spacey was able to take some heat off the fact that he abused a kid by "coming out" as gay. Is that really an example of something that is not very accepted? American conservatives often try to show how good they are by being accepting of gays, like with the whole Milo thing. Is that an example of a culture that's unaccepting of gays? Not to shit on the areas where you might run into prejudice; we all do for all parts of our identity, but when speaking about broader culture I'd say it's hard to speak about it like you're a jew in auschwitz.



If homosexuality were truly accepted, then it would be considered normal enough to not warrant a second glance. It wouldn’t be possible to earn pity points with the label and people would be able to talk about LGBT issues without walking on eggshells. The way things are now, the label can abused as a shield for bad behavior. All you have to do is find a way to crawl under the LGBT umbrella (which isn’t hard at all).

This is somewhat unrelated, but I think the label is also abused by people who want to perceive themselves as special or strong. There is a lot to gain just by identifying with a marginalized group that the public can’t openly criticize. This is why so many exceptional individuals are attracted to LGBT.




Lemmingwise said:


> Have you never asked yourself why it became a defense of sexual deviancy in every form? Why did those who lead the charge create a culture of "overbearing inclusivity”?



In part, I pin the blame on the hijacking kinksters and exhibitionsists.

But are there really any leaders here? Or just extremists who drown out the voices of others?

It’s more beneficial to be marginalized nowadays than not. Overbearing inclusivity allows a broader group of people to perceive themselves as victims, which gives them access to the shield that comes with the label. Most people, especially those who weren't truly LGB to start with, find this setup to be more beneficial to their personal desires, so it's more attractive than having a critical conversation and building a healthy LGBT community.




Lemmingwise said:


> What are your views on why there is correlation and what makes you think that it isn't/ might not be causation?



LGBT people haven’t had the opportunity to grow into a healthy community. If it could start over with established, reasonable leaders, I think it would look very different.

What we have now is something that started with the most marginalized members, people who took a contrarian approach with their identity (aka, those who frequented Stonewall Inn and similar bars) and since then, the community has been led by… who, exactly? And were those leaders predominantly male or female? Did the leaders who influenced LGBT laws really have the voice to establish behavioral standards as well?

Most importantly, where does the community’s public image get established now? Twitter? TV shows? These are platforms for cows. The more exceptional you are, the more attention (and consequently, reach) you get.

LGBT is so fractured that it’s not even a community so much as a buzzword. The full acronym is now LGBTQIA+, which is ridiculous because there’s a world of difference in the life experience that comes with every one of those letters. If any of them could be grouped into a functioning community, it would be LGB.

If there are  gay people who act normal, how are we supposed to be aware of them? Their very nature prevents them from having a voice in this environment.

Correlation doesn't equal causation because there are too many environmental factors influencing these issues.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Jun 5, 2019)

Surf and TERF said:


> But are there really any leaders here? Or just extremists who drown out the voices of others?



When it comes to social movements, it's the extremists that gather a following that are the leaders. It means the same thing. If they weren't "extremist" they wouldn't have a message of change and they wouldn't garner a following.



Surf and TERF said:


> LGBT people haven’t had the opportunity to grow into a healthy community. If it could start over with established, reasonable leaders, I think it would look very different.



This is just blue sky thinking. Everything could be healthy if completely torn down and then starting with reasonable leaders, even flat earth or enter your own preffered group to shit on. And they couldn't really be established, otherwise they'd already be there. The leaders you envision were rejected by the status quo and they're the radicals, like you. Not saying that to shit on you. It's just a reality check to who are the established ones and who are outsiders to the established status quo.



Surf and TERF said:


> What we have now is something that started with the most marginalized members, people who took a contrarian approach with their identity (aka, those who frequented Stonewall Inn and similar bars) and since then, the community has been led by… who, exactly? And were those leaders predominantly male or female? Did the leaders who influenced LGBT laws really have the voice to establish behavioral standards as well?



Yes. Joe Biden told you who the leaders were. Don't take it from him or me. Do a little research to confirm that he is right. The same group has a pretty huge influence in establishing behavioral standards by having the ability to blast their ideas into people's minds in various ways. It's not perfect control, it's influence.

Besides I think "LGBT community" is a newspeak kind of concept to begin with, and the image of specific bars like stonewall inn is part of that. LGBT community is no more a community than kiwifarms or any youtube channel is a community. Do they come round to help fix your roof? It's a word to give a nice and homely feeling to a group of political activists and a way to gain new members simply by identity politics of sexuality.

_edit: oh hey you seem to agree that LGBT community is a bullshit buzzword._

To more fully answer your last question; yes, they may not have had full control over behaviour, but they did have the influence to establish behavioral standards (assuming they didn't create too much protest).



Surf and TERF said:


> Most importantly, where does the community’s public image get established now? Twitter? TV shows? These are platforms for cows. The more exceptional you are, the more attention (and consequently, reach) you get.



Without Will and Grace giving an image of a nice gentle gay man, there would never be wide acceptance of homosexual man as there is now. You can argue whether that's a good or bad thing, but that's where it was established, right in the last years where TV still had that influence, before the torch passed to youtube, netflix and HBO.

There are a lot more ways to push a channel or show besides the inherent quality or strangeness of the show itself.



Surf and TERF said:


> If there are gay people who act normal, how are we supposed to be aware of them



Gay people can talk openly about their relationship or sexuality without being exceptional. And there are plenty of people who don't need to advertise it, are pretty normal, but still obviously homosexual, like the two women living together down the street. Neither of them is a butch either.



Surf and TERF said:


> Correlation doesn't equal causation because there are too many environmental factors influencing these issues.



Right, but now you're just dodging any conversation or observation about the topic. This is a way to stop thinking about it rather than produce any sort of clarity. You seem to agree that the results of more STD's is a function of unfettered male sex drive, but not why it's a topic that is not allowed to be discussed. You also did not touch on the pedofilia thing at all.



Surf and TERF said:


> All I need is a negative comment about men to tip the scale. It has nothing to do with censoring my thoughts or a fear of conflict. I’m being careful with my word choice for the sake of allowing the conversation to exist.



I get that. To be honest, I probably wouldn't have gotten into this talk if I had known you were female.


----------



## kadoink (Jun 5, 2019)

Homosexuality comes from the butthole. Heres a 1 minute documentary that gets in depth with this new scientific discovery.






Seriously, between the nature vs Nurture argument I suspect that the answer is in between the two.


----------



## UnbirthOfANation (Jun 5, 2019)

I honestly believe that being homosexual is akin to a fetish. I don't think it has any kind of genetic marker or something as population control. I feel that people who are homosexual probably have same sex experiences at a young age and some people repress it and some people embrace it. You ever see that guy that's SUPER into feet and all he gets off to is feet? Sometimes you have those people who shamefully whack it to feet, and you get the people who are secretly into it but don't acknowledge it, and may even be hostile to people who openly enjoy it. You can apply that to any fetish, and I also believe that fetishes are formed from your early sexual experiences. This explains why some people are so hostile, but some are so into it.

Obviously this isn't a negative conclusion and I do think that you don't choose to be gay much like how a lot of the time you don't get to choose what turns you on. It's just how much people are into boning the same sex. I think the hang ups came from Abrahamic religions and one guy being so insecure about liking dudes, he made it a meme to think it's gross.

tl;dr - You should care about people being homosexual about as much as you'd care about someone being into feet, which is, not much. Because its just a fetish essentially, nothing more.


----------



## Zeke Von Genbu (Jun 5, 2019)

Lemmingwise said:


> The other issue is putting the blame on lack of acceptance. It started for me when looking at suicide stats for transgenders. They're so high it's insane. One is driven to ask: why?
> The official answer is that it's because people aren't accepting of transgenders. It seems to me that transgenders in general have unrealistic expectations to how they're received. Right now people are bending so far backwards that when a (notable) transgender threatens violence, or doxes someone, even on live TV, they're defended. I had a youtube account that kept getting banned at one point, even when I recreated it. So without doxing myself, I changed the name from let's say "Joe" to "Trans Joe" and photoshopped a mrs pacman style bow on the head and with the exact same content it was the first out of four channels that didn't get banned and is still up.
> What is this telling me? Some people are ridiculously accepting of transgenders.
> 
> ...



I'll bite on this one from the transgendered side and try to answer this as someone who isn't transgendered themselves, but has hung around a few different levels of crazy within that sort of circle from somewhat normal and wants to just be themselves to the typical activist you'll see on social media who hates drumpf.

So the thing about the lack of acceptance, is that it isn't the acceptance of the people that you do know are on your side, but the people you don't that spins fear both from that side but from your own. The other side is viewed as the really right wing hill billies who have guns and are willing to shoot, and they're aiming at "you" basically. That is the archetype transgendered people, at least in the US, are afraid of. Now why if murder is illegal and should in theory not cause that to happen unless you really really provoke it? Because there is a case of someone using the excuse of "Well I thought he was a she, so I went into a violent outrage and killed him so it is their fault." and they could have got off because they had a "Trans panic defense" stick. The victim was "Islan Nettles" who was killed because they were found out to be transgendered women. The only reason the defendant got sent to prison to my knowledge was because he pleaded guilty likely in a fit of actual guilt as he wasn't charged with manslaughter despite murdering someone, so he could have got off if he didn't break from his own guilt. That's the basis of the idea.

So we have a case from several years ago where some transgendered woman died and now everyone is more or less whipped into a frenzy in case they'll be next. I've heard it expanded into "many cases", but this was the only one I could find where the defense actual would have possibly stuck instead of failing and they got sent to jail anyway. Now once you transition, well you're stuck, this plus the hormone changes which from what I understand are more erratic in MtF than FtM causes people to just go absolutely mad in paranoia as you're an emotional mess as you get adjusted estrogen as best as you can if you ever do and don't have some other problem to make this worse. So with this theory of not only are you dead or going to die, but maybe you might not get your murderer charged with murder? That is in theory a valid reason to panic and fear that could absolutely destroy someone in a weak state like at the start of your transition, and even with what I think is effectively the overhyped story of these events I still think it is a valid reason to be afraid of the people who aren't on your side. It may not be completely rational as odds are that won't happen anyway and the murderer would be sent to jail, but that is the narrative.

You can have the entire world on your side, but if one random fuck can kill you and it appears as if the law is okay with that, well shit maybe I should just do it myself then. That and the whole erasure of trans thing because things like the law making you use your birth gender for some things to keep things simple for everyone, if you spin it just right well it looks like everyone is out to get you.

That is basically what I've been explained with some of my own thoughts and lightly stated opinions on these matters. I can't say with the greatest certainty how much of this is true, but I think just like with a lot of trans issues that could be discussed, it is a possible problem blown into world end proportions. One thing I do know with good certainty is the community itself creates this level of fear, I've known someone who was absolutely afraid of doing anything because of the stuff this community would tell them, ultimately they chilled out and are going to try to tough it out but ultimately I think they still carry that fear.

Once you act like the sky is falling, well it is hard to bring yourself or have someone else bring you back down. For one reason or another transtrenders people and actual trans people love to blow everything out of proportion and I know someone who did this for literal years to me when we used to be friends before I just got tired of it all. I support actual trans people, not trenders fuck them which I ultimately agree with your rough assessment of the amount that are trenders, but i just couldn't take the constant sky is falling stuff forever.


----------



## Shibaru (Jun 5, 2019)

Personally, I Believe it comes from a Psychological event that happens in your Childhood/Teenage Years, whether it would be seeing a Certain character, Admiring someone who is Male, or even having it just occur in your brain one day, the Person has the opportunity at this stage to stop thinking about it or continue thinking about it, although it eventually leads to more thoughts in the brain and thus. Homosexuality in the Person begins.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Jun 5, 2019)

Zeke Von Genbu said:


> So the thing about the lack of acceptance, is that it isn't the acceptance of the people that you do know are on your side, but the people you don't that spins fear both from that side but from your own. The other side is viewed as the really right wing hill billies who have guns and are willing to shoot, and they're aiming at "you" basically. That is the archetype transgendered people, at least in the US, are afraid of. Now why if murder is illegal and should in theory not cause that to happen unless you really really provoke it? Because there is a case of someone using the excuse of "Well I thought he was a she, so I went into a violent outrage and killed him so it is their fault." and they could have got off because they had a "Trans panic defense" stick. The victim was "Islan Nettles" who was killed because they were found out to be transgendered women. The only reason the defendant got sent to prison to my knowledge was because he pleaded guilty likely in a fit of actual guilt as he wasn't charged with manslaughter despite murdering someone, so he could have got off if he didn't break from his own guilt. That's the basis of the idea.



The trans panic defense is incredibly rare and incredibly rarely granted. I've been through this with someone online before, receiving 30 examples and in the end only 2 or 3 held up as being valid examples. It's one of those things that's used and paraded for an agenda.

If you have any stats to show that this isn't rarer than say, the percentage of abortion that is due to rape, be my guest, but I think you'll be disappointed if you look at the stats with any sort of rigor.



Zeke Von Genbu said:


> That is basically what I've been explained with some of my own thoughts and lightly stated opinions on these matters.



Yes, I've heard it many times before, but after my experiences, studies and observations of trans people, I really don't find it convincing.



Zeke Von Genbu said:


> One thing I do know with good certainty is the community itself creates this level of fear, I've known someone who was absolutely afraid of doing anything because of the stuff this community would tell them, ultimately they chilled out and are going to try to tough it out but ultimately I think they still carry that fear.



By doing anything do you mean sexual encounters or do you mean transitioning?


----

On the whole I'm not sure what you're trying to say. It's like we were discussing some of the nooks and crannies of what the bible meant in specific passages and you came here and gave the basic outline of what's in the bible. I thought we were beyond that in this discussion. I suppose we've veered pretty far from the original topic.

I actually never seen that blowing out of proportion from transgenders I've met, only online. The ones I've met live were usually quite unhinged; either depressed or just -off- somehow. I think I've only met one that seemed vaguely normal in their behaviour (if you call the drag-queen extravagent flirty type normal).

btw you also have not really addressed any of the topics or questions that we were throwing up. This is probably part of the reason why things like pedofilia proliferate. Because when you try to talk about something serious like that, people keep going back to the boilerplates.


----------



## Zeke Von Genbu (Jun 5, 2019)

Lemmingwise said:


> The trans panic defense is incredibly rare and incredibly rarely granted. I've been through this with someone online before, receiving 30 examples and in the end only 2 or 3 held up as being valid examples. It's one of those things that's used and paraded for an agenda.
> 
> If you have any stats to show that this isn't rarer than say, the percentage of abortion that is due to rape, be my guest, but I think you'll be disappointed if you look at the stats with any sort of rigor.
> 
> Yes, I've heard it many times before, but after my experiences, studies and observations of trans people, I really don't find it convincing.



I never disagreed with any of this personally, I merely was explaining what i've seen and been explained from various transgendered people I've talked to over the last decade or so. I'm not saying I agree with that narrative, I'm explaining what I've experienced to offer either you or someone else some insight, even if the summary is basically people blowing things out of proportion. I don't know what you've been explained or told beyond that someone told you that they aren't accepted enough.

My ending statement was me basically saying it was a possible issue worth talking about, because to me anyway, that defense should not be used to murder anyone just because they had sex with you. Just because you were tricked doesn't mean you should murder them. Maybe it was a little too drawn out and rambling, which might be why it seemed confusing or hard to follow.



Lemmingwise said:


> By doing anything do you mean sexual encounters or do you mean transitioning?



Transitioning, they tried basically just being a crossdresser and even tried being basically a trap for years because the trans community, more specifically one person who had already transitioned, kept fear mongering them for half a decade. One of the biggest threats to actual trans people is the community, I know that is kind of a no duh to some people, but I felt I could expand that reason in a different direction with my own experiences. Which is the only reason I posted anything because I have nothing to really offer to the rest of your questions, I just saw one thing I thought I could offer a perspective on so I went for it.


----------



## wrangled tard (Jun 5, 2019)

Damn Near said:


> in a general sense, it seems like a lot of people are gay from molestation (regardless if they're willing to admit that or not). This of course brings up a 'chicken or the egg' situation, where one has to wonder about the roots of the abuse on the part of the actual molester. Some people have said it's a natural biological response to human overpopulation, which also seems credible


I'm not hetero and wasn't molested as a child that I know of at least and there are millions of gay people and highly doubt that even 25% of them were molested, I can't find a specific statistic to back that claim up so it's just an opinion. 

I have my own completely unoriginal theory that homosexuality is a natural form of population control, it's pretty common even in animals so it certainly isn't just a human choice thing. That said, there are very blatant differences between normal gay people and the types that wear socks on their cocks and piss on people in public. The latter just comes down to repulsive human deviance.


----------



## V0dka (Jun 5, 2019)

Surf and TERF said:


> LGBT people haven’t had the opportunity to grow into a healthy community. If it could start over with established, reasonable leaders, I think it would look very different.



Why does their have to be a LGBT "community" exactly?  I mean, straight people don't have the annual big titty chicks with guns riding muscle cars and tanks parade every year.  In fact that would probably be shut down if someone tried it these days.


----------



## Techpriest (Jun 5, 2019)

Homosexual behavior in animals - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Maxliam (Jun 5, 2019)

V0dka said:


> Why does their have to be a LGBT "community" exactly?  I mean, straight people don't have the annual big titty chicks with guns riding muscle cars and tanks parade every year.  In fact that would probably be shut down if someone tried it these days.


We should and honestly it's because being straight is the normal, right way to be. Being a member of the Let's Go Beat Those Queers (LGBTQ) is really an exercise in sucking unless you're like a hot chick who is bi or les. Holy shit that would be so awesome to be born a hot lesbian with big fat tits.


----------



## ProgKing of the North (Jun 5, 2019)

Maxliam said:


> We should and honestly it's because being straight is the normal, right way to be. Being a member of the Let's Go Beat Those Queers (LGBTQ) is really an exercise in sucking unless you're like a hot chick who is bi or les. Holy shit that would be so awesome to be born a hot lesbian with big fat tits.


These days you don't have to be born one, though!


----------



## Jan_Hus (Jun 5, 2019)

1864897514651 said:


> There is nothing "socially healthy" about the behaviors that neo-Sodomite aberrosexuals produce. Aberrosexuals should not be marrying or adopting children. There is nothing "socially healthy" about contraception, oral and anal sodomy, masturbation, or any of the host of insane sexual vices that aberrosexuals engage in. If someone is engaging in behavior that is in profound contradiction with the Natural Law, then how can you call any subsequent actions by this person that are not a direct attempt to amend this behavior "socially healthy?" Social health starts with moral health, and moral health begins at the individual level through behavior modification and mediation. Aberrosexuals are not healthy, whether it be socially, mentally, spiritually, or even physically. An extremely disproportionate percentage of homosexual men contract HIV at a higher rate compared to all other demographics. Something about the behavior of aberrosexuals is inherently not "socially healthy" if this is the case.
> 
> You should be ashamed. You are lying about a group of people that are afflicted by their own vices and demons, and instead of discerning the truth behind their behavior, you instead spew platitudes about neo-Sodomite "marriage" and that these people should adopt children. Neo-Sodomite aberrosexuals are the last people on earth that should be entrusted with the care of children. I would sooner give an infant to a pack of wolves than two homosexuals, and do not think I am joking or being hyperbolic when I say this. I am completely serious. Neo-Sodomite aberrosexuals cannot even take care of their own bodies, let alone their souls. You seriously expect them to be even remotely adequate when it comes to raising a child? Ridiculous.



In your own words and thoughts, where does homosexuality come from?


----------



## Maxliam (Jun 5, 2019)

ProgKing of the North said:


> These days you don't have to be born one, though!


True but I mean hot lesbians are alright. Everyone else is disgusting in the alphabet soup of perversion.


----------



## Varisi na Vienea Cadence (Jun 5, 2019)

It just happens, why do some people like big boobs and others more moderate sizes, it varies from person to person. There are many people from straight christian bible fearing households who have to hide the fact that they are homosexuality out of fear of shame or in some countries their safety. They try to hide it, dating and even marrying someone of the opposite sex but as the years go by they can't hide being who they are and when they come out at last its devastating because the spouse feels like they did something wrong, they are not attractive, that if they tried harder their husband or wife wouldn't have ran off on them. But it isn't their fault at all. If Society would just be more open and accepting, you wouldn't have broken marriages like this. But sadly some people are too busy nosing around in other people's bedrooms instead of minding their own business like they should.  

If What Joe and Greg are doing in their bedroom keeps you up at night,they aren't the problem.


----------



## Surf and TERF (Jun 6, 2019)

@Lemmingwise I'm not ignoring you, btw. I haven't had time to type up another essay length post lately.


----------



## むらさき (Jun 6, 2019)

DDBCAE CBAADCBE said:


> Well we have to take into account that a wolf probably can't tell the difference between a hetero wolf and a gay or bisexual wolf. Their brains aren't quite as complex or complicated as ours.


I sincerely doubt that they would even differentiate, or could truly be labeled "hetero" vs "gay" vs "bisexual". Wolves just want to fuck, what and when they want to. Humans love to label and just stick the "Oh that male wolf stuck his dick in another male wolf, GAY".



Recon said:


> Yeah, absolutely. In a situation like this the submissive one pees a little right off the bat, they smell that. They say loads with their eyes and ears, too.
> 
> EDIT - Oh, God - diaperfurs. It's all starting to come together...


Although you are correct about the urination, you seem to be conflating the concept of homosexual and submissive. 



エリス said:


> Daddy leaves
> Male affection is scarce
> Scarce things are more valuable
> Single mothers are overbearing
> ...


How then do you explain the multitude of gay men whose fathers stayed at home? Or, those whose mothers either neglected or abused them?


----------



## Recoil (Jun 6, 2019)

むらさき said:


> I sincerely doubt that they would even differentiate, or could truly be labeled "hetero" vs "gay" vs "bisexual". Wolves just want to fuck, what and when they want to. Humans love to label and just stick the "Oh that male wolf stuck his dick in another male wolf, GAY".
> 
> 
> Although you are correct about the urination, you seem to be conflating the concept of homosexual and submissive.
> ...


In most any gay couple there's a top and a bottom.
That's a power relation.


----------



## drtoboggan (Jun 6, 2019)

Gayness comes from the anus. Hence "gayness in the anus."


----------



## 1864897514651 (Jun 6, 2019)

Jan_Hus said:


> [redacted]



All temptation comes from the fallen angels. Everything from miserly greed, to vainglory, to aberrosexuality—these mortal sins all have their origin in demonic temptation. The ultimate end of unrepentant homosexuality and all forms of aberrosexuality is the eternal damnation of the human soul, and it is the fallen angels that wish to damn as many human souls as they possibly can out of a pure hatred for the human race. Of course, a human has to freely choose to capitulate to these temptations, but your question only regards their origin.


----------



## TerribleIdeas™ (Jun 6, 2019)

Masta said:


> I’m constantly going in circles in my head of where being gay comes from. Its either from the experiences as a child being brought up into adolescence, genetics, or just random chance. In a sense homosexuality can be related to fetishes, personal preference, pedophilia, or beastility in where do they all stem from.
> 
> Are we meant to be heterosexual and something wrong happen in our genetic makeup, so in a sense it’s mental illness?
> 
> Maybe there is no answer.



I've changed my mind.
Gay is caused by OP's mom.


----------



## AF 802 (Jun 8, 2019)

Autism, a lot of it. That and Europe isn't white.


----------



## ProgKing of the North (Jun 8, 2019)

Give Her The D said:


> Autism, a lot of it. That and Europe isn't white.


It's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve

It's @Give Her The D, not Give Him The D


----------



## Lemmingwise (Jun 9, 2019)

Varisi na Vienea Cadence said:


> But sadly some people are too busy nosing around in other people's bedrooms instead of minding their own business like they should.



This old talking point really doesn't fly anymore; when gay flags are flown everywhere, from political buildings to zebra paths, when gay prides and gay months are held, when people like crowder are being censored for making jokes about a gay guy who has the word gay in his twittername, when hollywood actors try to use a gay coming out to cover for allegations of minor sex abuse, when laws are changed to make it easier for gay people to donate blood when we know that costs additional medical resources than when they're refused to give blood, we're not talking about what someone does in the privacy in their bedroom.

That argument is about 3 decades out of date.


----------



## Surf and TERF (Jun 9, 2019)

Lemmingwise said:


> Gay people can talk openly about their relationship or sexuality without being exceptional. And there are plenty of people who don't need to advertise it, are pretty normal, but still obviously homosexual, like the two women living together down the street. Neither of them is a butch either.



The lesbian couple down the street is not noticed in the same way a cow on twitter is. They act normal, so the news of their existence does not reach as many people.



Lemmingwise said:


> There will also always be crimes committed by humans. That doesn't mean we have to be open to committing crimes.
> I do think we have an evolved natural aversion to gay men. Considering what vectors of disease they are (which is unsurprising when you know that about half of gay men have over 500 lifetime sex partners) as well as deleterious cultural effects and not to mention how rampant pedophilia is in the gay community (somewhere between 4x and 16x the rate of pedophilia compared to heterosexuals).



Old quote, but this is the basis of your stance, right? Promiscuity and the higher rate of pedophilia among gay men are an issue. We agree on this.


Regardless of where anyone stands on the correlation =/= causation argument, both of us are stuck making stances with reasoning that isn’t conclusive. On your end, the assertion that correlation equals causation is a logical fallacy:  https://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/cum-hoc/

On my end, I'm giving explanations and speculations but there has not been any research on these issues so they can't be backed up.

I think you are incorrectly blaming homosexuality for promiscuity and pedophilia, when the real culprit is the unfettered male sex drive. Without female influence, gay men become immersed in a hypersexual echo chamber. Promiscuity and pedophilia are both a consequence of this. Therefore, it would be more effective to shame people for being sluts than to shame them for being homosexuals.

There is a lot miscommunication surrounding this topic. This is partly because people often use the term “homosexuals” in its most general sense, when they are in fact only referring to the men. This leads to heavy-handed statements that inadvertently drag lesbians into the picture. I'm not saying this because I'm about to launch into a lecture about gender politics, I just bring this up because it's a relevant observation.

People also have different definitions of homosexuality. We're not all drawing the same distinction between genuine same-sex attraction and lust when talking about relationships.

This is what I *don't* think homosexuality is: If anyone, heterosexuals included, are pushed into needing sexual release badly enough, then they’ll succumb to fucking just about anything or anyone- including a sex that they wouldn’t initially be attracted to. There is no romance or love in these situations. Only animal instinct. This isn’t real attraction.

This is what I do think it is: Homosexuality is inescapable. Not only is there a clear attraction to the same sex, but bonding with a partner comes with an intense emotional connection that is unique to romantic relationships. At least, I assume that bond is the thing most people are referring to when they talk about feelings of romance or love. A real gay person not only experiences homosexual attraction, but is only capable of experiencing that bond with the same sex.

I’m curious what your definition is.

---
_(*Side note*: My requirement of an emotional bond in the definition of homosexuality could be used to argue against the legitimacy of several instances of homosexuality in animals. This is a fair argument. Analysis of this topic is a rabbit hole because the term “homosexuality” is applied in the context of observed courtship, sexual, pairing, and parenting behaviors. Even when these four things are not always occurring together.) _
--

The problem with MY definition is that I’m not a man. I don’t know if they count emotional connection as a necessity in their relationships. I often get the impression that their “relationships” are just sex with no emotional significance. It also might depend on the individual. I’ve seen evidence of both, so I’m guessing that the higher sex drive makes it more difficult to discern between romance and lust. For this, I’m grateful that I’m not a homosexual man. My dating pool isn’t great, but at least the promiscuity issue isn’t as bad.

This leads into the pedophilia topic. I didn’t mean to avoid it. I should have been clearer about how my previous comments were related.

I think LGBT's ever expanding umbrella, combined with its immunity to criticism creates a shield that is easy for just about anyone to pick up. I think  pedophiles abuse this shield, even when they are not really homosexuals.

This does not mean I don't understand that there is supposedly a higher ratio of pedophilia within the homosexual population. However, the constant between pedophilia in heterosexuals and homosexuals is that it is a crime that is almost exclusive to men. I think the higher ratio in gay men occurs  because heterosexuals with pedophilic tendencies face more pressure to not act on these desires. Still, let's not pretend like their porn doesn't entertain the thought in its most borderline legality.


_(But wait, doesn’t the situation with the Catholic church contradicts this?) _


Yes. Just as too much freedom with sex drive is harmful, total repression is an issue as well.

Sexual abuse is always a problem when religious authorities are given power over children. It happens to both genders (see the mormon church) but many of the homosexual instances occur in boys's institutions- where girls aren't allowed and the clergymen only have access to boys.

Going back to my earlier statement about desperation leading to indiscriminate fucking: What do you think happens when you put prepubescent boys at the disposal of celibate, sexually frustrated men? Does this mean the clergymen  are homosexuals? Or are their actions based on animal instinct?


----------



## Lemmingwise (Jun 9, 2019)

I am going to reply fully later, but I just want to put this illustration here before I lose it.


----------



## Duncan Hills Coffee (Jun 9, 2019)

Lemmingwise said:


> I am going to reply fully later, but I just want to put this illustration here before I lose it.View attachment 793222


I gagged reading this, holy fuck.


----------



## Malagor the dank omen (Jun 10, 2019)

Surf and TERF said:


> The lesbian couple down the street is not noticed in the same way a cow on twitter is. They act normal, so the news of their existence does not reach as many people.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I kinda side with you in the definition and on the whole causality and reason for pedophilia among men due to somehting an old bud of mine told me. He studied philosphy in college and he had to go through ancient Greece in the first couple of years in extreme detail. And as you know, ancient Greece was filled with homosexuals... Or so we are told.

In his words he told me that if you were a commoner and you were openly homosexual you could expect that other commoners would gut you like a pig in a dark alleway of the polis and no one would give a shit. Meanwhile, the aristocracy and the powerful were usually the ones that went full homo because they considered "more free than the plebeians" and therefore were allowed by their morals to engage in all sorts of acts, which many times led to what you described: they let themselves to be overcome with lust or desire to go further into sexual experiences, more or less like Dorian Gray in the novel.

But that's not to say that there weren't relationships like you said, were a man developed feelings for another. In this case, the Spartans were in that side since warrior's camaraderie sometimes led to men bonding to an extremely deep level and then eventually developing a relationship. We got both examples in the same setting and we can see that homosexuality can vary a lot depending on the enviroment and the drive.

Which leads to the emotional component of the relationship and since i'm a man, i can help you with that. In my short and disasterous experience in romance i can say that for men the emotional component in a relationship is not necessary. Physical attraction is usually the main thing that matters for many and what usually drive a lot of men to take the iniciative when approaching a woman. You might now think "What a bunch of shallow pricks" but you can't deny many people judge books by their cover. But still, if you truly want a relationship to last you look for the emotional part, and those who want it that way tend to look hard for it. Reminds me of a quote i read saying "Men use love to get sex and women use sex to get love". Not awfully far from reality imo, but i can only speak from my side.

As for sexual repression, it depends how it is managed. The thing is that most religious people don't engage in any relieving activity for that matters, and therefore they will eventually be unable to control their desire and act upon it. The thing is that catholic clergy think that sexual repression is a good thing following the whole "man has to be stronger than his desires" thing and therefore they consider it a sign of virtue to not act upon it. The bad thing is that you have to act upon it or eventually fuck up big time. Like an old man i met a few days ago told me: I don't understand Catholics because rabbis can marry, imams can marry but priests cannot. And one day one of this 40 year old men will look at a beautiful 23 year old woman in church and think "What have i done denying myself?" and realize that there is something missing in their lives.

Sometimes it only boils down to sex, but some other times it goes beyond that. Maybe the desire for a family, not being alone or want to make someone very important happy. But overall, people are fucking complicated.


----------

