Homosexuality and the danger of parasitical thoughts. - A schizo rambling

[Osmosis Jones]

Seethe
Show me the evidence .

>Anime avatar

 

[male pattern malding]

LGBT advocates will readily admit that social pressure can force fags/troons "into the closet", to the point of sometimes even being in denial about their own proclivities. But they refuse to acknowledge that this works in reverse too. Or they might claim that "society is still homo/transphobic so there can't be social pressure to be gay/trans", while ignoring that there are subcultures where being "cishet" is absolutely looked down upon (nevermind that glorification of faggotry is becoming more and more mainstream anyway).

 

[Just A Butt]

Just gonna throw this out there: if you are dumb enough to be “tricked” into being gay then maybe you shouldn’t be breeding anyway.

 

[LikeRivenIRL]

>Anime avatar

So that's a no on the evidence. Thanks.

 

[LikeRivenIRL]

LGBT advocates will readily admit that social pressure can force fags/troons "into the closet", to the point of sometimes even being in denial about their own proclivities. But they refuse to acknowledge that this works in reverse too. Or they might claim that "society is still homo/transphobic so there can't be social pressure to be gay/trans", while ignoring that there are subcultures where being "cishet" is absolutely looked down upon (nevermind that glorification of faggotry is becoming more and more mainstream anyway).

Agreed. I genuinely do feel sorry for kids who have to grow up in that environment. Hyperfixation on sexual orientation should be the last thing a kid has to deal with, but it's so hard to escape these days.

 

[dirtydeanna96]

OP's profile pic is a stupid dog, showing that he was influenced by others.
within the KF environment that dog is a "parasitical thought" or as fucking normal people call it, a meme.

read susan blackmore and richard dawkins, mate

 

[Michael Pemulis]

OP's profile pic is a stupid dog, showing that he was influenced by others.
within the KF environment that dog is a "parasitical thought" or as fucking normal people call it, a meme.

read susan blackmore and richard dawkins, mate

You don't understand what a parasite it.

 

[Ultrapenguin]

To homo-defenders: what makes you think it isn't a mental defect and a genetic abnormality? It's antithetical to life to be homosexual. Just because it's not in the newest DSM doesn't mean it's not a defect.

The fire and brimstone people always know just enough to convince themselves they have all the answers.

I'm assuming what you're saying is based upon a reductionist view of the process of natural selection and genetic inheritance. It is propagation of your associated genes that's what counts, not you personally reproducing.
You personally reproducing then aiding your children in survival and reproduction will be the best way to make that happen, but, say, your siblings are going to share a pretty major portion of your genetic information, around 50% most times.

And a very telling aspect of homosexuality is that fraternal birth order is a significant predictor of homosexuality (so the more older brothers you have the more likely you are to be gay), but that isn't present in women. That would make sense, because men can have many children where as women are limited, meaning if you have a bunch of brothers it would be more genetically efficacious to, rather than engage in mate competition, simply have one of the brothers be gay and in turn help take care of already existing kids to increase their long term survival and outcomes.

To that gay dude, who is going to be younger, less established, and less able to compete, he's going to potentially be better off gay.

Natural selection in social species tends to happen much more on a group basis, so just because one person can't or doesn't want to reproduce, that doesn't suddenly make them an evolutionary non-object.


Anyways, at this point you can't buy a single plank of wood without emptying your bank account and taking out a loan to pay for the gas to drive to get it, why the fuck are people sitting around mulling over gay sex? Shit's creepy, there's something not quite right there.

 

[Michael Pemulis]

The fire and brimstone people always know just enough to convince themselves they have all the answers.

I'm assuming what you're saying is based upon a reductionist view of the process of natural selection and genetic inheritance. It is propagation of your associated genes that's what counts, not you personally reproducing.
You personally reproducing then aiding your children in survival and reproduction will be the best way to make that happen, but, say, your siblings are going to share a pretty major portion of your genetic information, around 50% most times.

And a very telling aspect of homosexuality is that fraternal birth order is a significant predictor of homosexuality (so the more older brothers you have the more likely you are to be gay), but that isn't present in women. That would make sense, because men can have many children where as women are limited, meaning if you have a bunch of brothers it would be more genetically efficacious to, rather than engage in mate competition, simply have one of the brothers be gay and in turn help take care of already existing kids to increase their long term survival and outcomes.

To that gay dude, who is going to be younger, less established, and less able to compete, he's going to potentially be better off gay.

Natural selection in social species tends to happen much more on a group basis, so just because one person can't or doesn't want to reproduce, that doesn't suddenly make them an evolutionary non-object.


Anyways, at this point you can't buy a single plank of wood without emptying your bank account and taking out a loan to pay for the gas to drive to get it, why the fuck are people sitting around mulling over gay sex? Shit's creepy, there's something not quite right there.

I do not agree with the conclusion but you are factually correct.

 

[BiggerChungus]

The deeper our society falls into shit, the more the morality of the Bible makes sense even to irreligious people. With the LGBT movement now being the forerunners of normalized pedophilia in society, I wonder how many people are thinking "you know, maybe the Bible had a point."

 

[Astro Loafo]

The fire and brimstone people always know just enough to convince themselves they have all the answers.

I'm assuming what you're saying is based upon a reductionist view of the process of natural selection and genetic inheritance. It is propagation of your associated genes that's what counts, not you personally reproducing.
You personally reproducing then aiding your children in survival and reproduction will be the best way to make that happen, but, say, your siblings are going to share a pretty major portion of your genetic information, around 50% most times.

And a very telling aspect of homosexuality is that fraternal birth order is a significant predictor of homosexuality (so the more older brothers you have the more likely you are to be gay), but that isn't present in women. That would make sense, because men can have many children where as women are limited, meaning if you have a bunch of brothers it would be more genetically efficacious to, rather than engage in mate competition, simply have one of the brothers be gay and in turn help take care of already existing kids to increase their long term survival and outcomes.

To that gay dude, who is going to be younger, less established, and less able to compete, he's going to potentially be better off gay.

Natural selection in social species tends to happen much more on a group basis, so just because one person can't or doesn't want to reproduce, that doesn't suddenly make them an evolutionary non-object.


Anyways, at this point you can't buy a single plank of wood without emptying your bank account and taking out a loan to pay for the gas to drive to get it, why the fuck are people sitting around mulling over gay sex? Shit's creepy, there's something not quite right there.

Actually no. And the younger brother theory stems from the idea that over time the woman adapts to pregnancy till her hormones feminize the later child. Which is retarded. And regardless of which version of the theory you follow, you can still find single or older child gays.

The only indicator of possible homosexuality that has ever been found is that the child is atypical and socially inept. Now it's not thee indicator the proves a child will turn out gay. But nearly all "naturally born" gays are atypical and have early behavioral problems. This doesn't mean they are mentally impaired either. But this is where queer and queer mannerisms come from.

 

[SomethingProblematic]

OP's profile pic is a stupid dog, showing that he was influenced by others.
within the KF environment that dog is a "parasitical thought" or as fucking normal people call it, a meme.

read susan blackmore and richard dawkins, mate

A parasitical thought, is a thought/idea that changes your personality/being. It uses confusion and emotional stimulation to cloud your rationality. This dog is just a fucking picture of a retard dog, if the retard dog/meme had any correlation to changing my worldview and personality than maybe you would have a point. I agree that memes can potentially become parasitical thoughts, but they would have to be based on something that would constitute a parasitical thought. You are also equating homosexuality to a meme, which is a funny thought in of itself.

 

[Michael Pemulis]

Actually no. And the younger brother theory stems from the idea that over time the woman adapts to pregnancy till her hormones feminize the later child. Which is retarded.

Okay, how?

 

[Wormy]

wrong
deviants should not be tolerated

Then what do you do with those deviants if they are not to be tolerated?

To homo-defenders: what makes you think it isn't a mental defect and a genetic abnormality? It's antithetical to life to be homosexual. Just because it's not in the newest DSM doesn't mean it's not a defect.

It is, but my next statement is simply "So?" What do you do with it?

 

[SomeDingus]

In my own personal experience, being gay hasn't changed my worldview or personality. Being gay is as 'normal' for fags as being straight is for you. People don't just wake up one day and 'realize' they're gay. I know for a fact that this parasitic thought shit isn't real, solely for the fact that if it was, gay people wouldn't exist. Heterosexuality is represented overwhelmingly more than any sort of homosexual representation, so wouldn't it make sense that people born homosexual would suddenly become heterosexual due to the large scale presence of it?

 

[Michael Pemulis]

I know for a fact that this parasitic thought shit isn't real, solely for the fact that if it was, gay people wouldn't exist.

No you don't. You know about your own particular kind of homosexuality, that doesn't mean there aren't others who got there for other reasons. We hear the "I always knew I was gay" line less and less, and I think it's because lots of these people are actually 'converts'.

 

[byuu]

We hear the "I always knew I was gay" line less and less,

But we hear "I always knew I was trans" more and more....

 

[Michael Pemulis]

But we hear "I always knew I was trans" more and more....

Do we? I don't, I hear lines like "porn helped me realize I was trans". But then again, I don't spend a lot of time following this shit.

 

[SomeDingus]

No you don't. You know about your own particular kind of homosexuality, that doesn't mean there aren't others who got there for other reasons. We hear the "I always knew I was gay" line less and less, and I think it's because lots of these people are actually 'converts'.

I do believe that these days there are a lot of people who call themselves gay/trans/whatever for attention. Whether they actually believe it or not is up to how deluded they are.

 

[Osmosis Jones]

The fire and brimstone people always know just enough to convince themselves they have all the answers.

I'm assuming what you're saying is based upon a reductionist view of the process of natural selection and genetic inheritance. It is propagation of your associated genes that's what counts, not you personally reproducing.
You personally reproducing then aiding your children in survival and reproduction will be the best way to make that happen, but, say, your siblings are going to share a pretty major portion of your genetic information, around 50% most times.

And a very telling aspect of homosexuality is that fraternal birth order is a significant predictor of homosexuality (so the more older brothers you have the more likely you are to be gay), but that isn't present in women. That would make sense, because men can have many children where as women are limited, meaning if you have a bunch of brothers it would be more genetically efficacious to, rather than engage in mate competition, simply have one of the brothers be gay and in turn help take care of already existing kids to increase their long term survival and outcomes.

To that gay dude, who is going to be younger, less established, and less able to compete, he's going to potentially be better off gay.

Natural selection in social species tends to happen much more on a group basis, so just because one person can't or doesn't want to reproduce, that doesn't suddenly make them an evolutionary non-object.


Anyways, at this point you can't buy a single plank of wood without emptying your bank account and taking out a loan to pay for the gas to drive to get it, why the fuck are people sitting around mulling over gay sex? Shit's creepy, there's something not quite right there.

But you're also loosely throwing down conclusions based on shaky evidence. I'm not trying to  gotcha by stating this, but there isn't really a lot we have to go off of. There are just many correlations that we can draw and that's about it. It is without question, though, that a species that would breed itself into homosexuality (genetic argument) or a species that would fool itself into homosexuality (environment argument) would inevitably reach a reproductive peak and fall from there. Fortunately there are enough people that this isn't an issue for humans, but it is undeniable that if a significant portion of all men and women were gay, we'd be toast if not for things such as surrogacy and IVF. It is by this notion alone that I believe homosexuality is a negative genomic trait; it hinders the most basic instinct a living being has to reproduce.

Homosexuality is a mental defect, same as trooning. Just because you feel as normal as I do doesn't mean there isn't something inherently flawed inside you.

The issue with sexuality, orientation, and genderspecialization is that these ideas prey on the most vulnerable and take advantage of them. This is where I begin to agree with OP. Society/people have taken these terms and used them to build their identity. Teenagers are often the most fraught with identity issues and having such a strong moral issue to band together on, that also helps to explain away all of your life problems is highly attractive and I would go as far as saying extremely dangerous. We say kids are impressionable and I don't think we stress this enough, especially for boys who finish developing later than women on average, and therefore are more susceptible to toxic thoughts like their identity in regards to their orientation (hint: they aren't connected). Cluster B Disorders are also on the rise which has a foundational hallmark of an underdeveloped ego or sense of self.

When being heckin' special, loving the blacks, and having a snowflake identity is the norm, many more suggestible people fall victim to the idea that they may be something they aren't.

Homosexuals are overrepresented in media. You can't seriously tell me that you've been around that many fags in your life without also being one.