Serious LGBT Discussion

[Paper Machete]

The idea that you need gays to watch over children is a fucking insane argument. The sexual drive is a drive to reproduce so of course regardless of what you're fucking that is there to an extent even if you life a lifestyle that is bad to bring kids into or not. So that isn't the question. But also:

1. Humans evolved for women to be the main caretakers of infants and small children. Ditto for infants because they literally need to feed from the mother for a while. It's just plain retarded to want the male to be a main caretaker for any reason, let alone a collection of deviants to be given the job. And males are more likely to be gay than women are to be lesbian.
2. Humans evolved in small tribes, not in highly industrialized societies, so all of the women and older children and the elderly would all be living among each other constantly and that is where the extended support for raising children would come from, largely mothers didn't need to outsource child care the way many do today because all of her duties and all of her jobs could be done with her babies swaddled to her and with children around. It's a modern, industrialized way of life that makes this impossible. Basically, humans evolved where "who's going to babysit" was not even a concern.
3. Humans live long beyond our reproductive years. This is so we can continue to help raise our grand children and mentor adults in our family younger than us.
4. Humans evolved when overpopulation was most definitely never a concern or selection pressure. We do not need infertile or non-reproducing pairs to help with anything. Areas that were overpopulated would just have people compete for resources, migrate somewhere else, or die from starvation if the land was overused and they couldn't go elsewhere.

Arguments are raised around these points for as to why gayness might be some evolutionary thing. But it's just all retarded. And sorry if these thoughts aren't organized well, it's off the cuff. I do think some people are just born wired that way. But it's a completely neutral thing from an evolutionary stand point. There is no benefit to it and if an individual falls into the worse aspects that many in the LGBT seem to than they're actively self-destructive and self-harming and really it's their behavior and lifestyle choices that need help. No less so and perhaps in some ways more so than someone straight who was a nympho. People just repeat slogans to the contrary because it's what they've been fed to be comfortable with the status quo. Everyone treats any criticism of LGBT as wanting a gayocaust so that's why a lot of people end up either choosing to (or being perceived as) reactively for or against.

 

[weirdMcGee]

There is definitely evidence that children who are either, 1) raised by LGB are more likely to be LGB, and 2) molested by same-sex adults are more likely to be LGB

There's more straight kids in these arrangements than there are gay ones, but even if they were, maybe being raised by two loving same sex parents shown them being gay is normal and not the end of the world.

Of course there is. Murder isn't the same as stealing a candy bar. Why would we not discuss sins and their harms to society?

Having sex with a man isn't the same as murder. Sin in this case is just referring to normal reality that is nature. It's indifferent towards activities like sex compared to civilization and their need to pathologlize sexual desires as carnal needs that ought to be erased for the greater good of "society". So as long as gays and lesbians are casted out for their basal human needs for affection and intimacy, it will forever be a sin.

supports the same-sex attraction being a choice or an unnatural proclivity since it's overriding the innate desire to rear young.

People do not choose their race, their sex, nor where they grew up in. And we especially don't choose our sexuality. There might be a few bumps along that way, but many kids have a innate interest in their preferred sex as young as eight. Also, not everyone has that so called parental instinct informing their existence. Some just hate kids or don't believe they're sane enough to rear some of their own. It's no coincidence that childfree people are just as marginalized as queer people. Anyone who doesn't play the nuclear heteronormative family game always gets the boot.

Why would ADHD be a mental disorder but men boning dudes only isn't?

Because being gay doesn't change your brain chemistry like ADHD does. Not too long ago people who had it were just called lazy or worthless until science figured out what it was and now there's meds for it. You can't get meds for being gay?

The more I listen to arguments from gays, the more I kind of think they're mostly a bunch of narcissistic, entitled assholes.

It's on you for assuming being gay is inherently a narcissist thing and not a natural reality of the world. The reason gays feel entitled is their entire lives were centered around being low on the radar, never getting too comfortable, or ostracized for the way they loved. All gays want is be seen as human? But since straights wanna hyper-fixate in the few trouble makers among dozens upon dozens of gays, we don't get that. What we instead get is a walking back of our rights in favor of crazy people and a world becoming worse by the day just for us existing.

So, I want to ask. If being gay is unnatural, why hasn't there been a means to make gay people straight? Not bisexuals pretending to be gay, actual gays? Why does every human in earth need to breed when that only leads to overpopulation and increased mental illness?

 

[Twix Eatr]

There's more straight kids in these arrangements than there are gay ones, but even if they were, maybe being raised by two loving same sex parents shown them being gay is normal and not the end of the world.

This doesn't address the salient point.

Having sex with a man isn't the same as murder.

Agreed. Do you see how you weighed these sins into a hierarchy?

Sin in this case is just referring to normal reality that is nature.

You are again simply stating that something is normal or natural, but not evidencing it. It's begging the question again.

So as long as gays and lesbians are casted out for their basal human needs for affection and intimacy, it will forever be a sin.

Gays and lesbians are not living a life of sin; they're only sinful when acting on these perversions.

Because being gay doesn't change your brain chemistry like ADHD does. Not too long ago people who had it were just called lazy or worthless until science figured out what it was and now there's meds for it. You can't get meds for being gay?

You've got things backwards, bud. The disordered neurochemistry comes first, which we then name ADHD and diagnose. Whether brain chemistry is altered is irrelevant to DSM listing. There wasn't any new science that disproved homosexuality/same-sex attraction or shifted our medical understanding of it, by the way. You also didn't answer my question again.

People do not choose their race, their sex, nor where they grew up in. And we especially don't choose our sexuality. There might be a few bumps along that way, but many kids have a innate interest in their preferred sex as young as eight. Also, not everyone has that so called parental instinct informing their existence. Some just hate kids or don't believe they're sane enough to rear some of their own. It's no coincidence that childfree people are just as marginalized as queer people. Anyone who doesn't play the nuclear heteronormative family game always gets the boot.

I'm beginning to think you're incapable of having an honest discussion about this. You don't actually address anything I've said, really ever.

It's on you for assuming being gay is inherently a narcissist thing and not a natural reality of the world. The reason gays feel entitled is their entire lives were centered around being low on the radar, never getting too comfortable, or ostracized for the way they loved. All gays want is be seen as human? But since straights wanna hyper-fixate in the few trouble makers among dozens upon dozens of gays, we don't get that. What we instead get is a walking back of our rights in favor of crazy people and a world becoming worse by the day just for us existing.

You are again reversing the order of operations here, demanding rights to things without precedence. I will use marriage an example; marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman, always and forever. Why do you think gays have a right to say, "Nuh-uh. We want it to now mean something else entirely?"

Nobody is seeing you as subhuman for this, just entitled and narcissistic.

So, I want to ask. If being gay is unnatural, why hasn't there been a means to make gay people straight? Not bisexuals pretending to be gay, actual gays? Why does every human in earth need to breed when that only leads to overpopulation and increased mental illness?

What? This doesn't prove something is or isn't unnatural. I don't even care that we define it as such. I just don't think there's evidence that kids are "born gay" just like there's not necessary evidence they're "born straight." But given sexually dimorphic pairings are oriented towards procreation, it should be assumed the default. Similarly, neurotypical brains should be seen as the default, despite ADHD being a naturally occurring disorder. It's still a disordered brain, though.

 

[California Newt]

I'm not gonna get in the middle of this evopsych (caveman fanfiction) fight. A of what @Paper Machete is saying is probably true in a sense and I like the spirit, but if you're gonna go that route you'll get countered by Bohemian Grove types who'd see the conscience as a vestigial organ.

Even if you assume that evolution is (a) real and (b) that you can prove we didn't evolve to be gay, they can just say they're the "next step".

Its not a coincidence that the category of the "homosexual" was invented shortly after Darwinianism popped off. It spawned a schizophrenic, unstable understanding of the human being.

 

[Paper Machete]

you'll get countered by Bohemian Grove types who'd see the conscience as a vestigial organ.

Can't we just bully these people like we use to? for fuck's sake.

 

[Aero the Alcoholic Bat]

If you turn to nature, many same sex pairings kidnap young as a pathetic cry for help

Fixed it for you.

 

[weirdMcGee]

What? This doesn't prove something is or isn't unnatural. I don't even care that we define it as such. I just don't think there's evidence that kids are "born gay" just like there's not necessary evidence they're "born straight." But given sexually dimorphic pairings are oriented towards procreation, it should be assumed the default. Similarly, neurotypical brains should be seen as the default, despite ADHD being a naturally occurring disorder. It's still a disordered brain, though.

gaining a sexuality is like having a bomb strapped to your chest since birth. You start life very asexual but during puberty, that's when boys and girls start seeming cute. Does that mean the teen choose to be bi? No, the bisexuality was innate this whole time and only came out as their sexual interest started to burgeon. The reason the born this way movement gained so much traction is because it's true. We are born this way regardless of our orientation but since babies aren't sucking dick or eating pussy, we aren't for sure who they're gonna like when they're older. There is however scientific evidence that cross gender behavior is a early indication of queerness. Not always ofc, but some gays I know had very GNC vibes.

Which then leads to me asking again, if the issue is being gay, then why hasn't their been clinical trials curing gayness? We do have meds that let people with ADHD live normal lives and there's even plans to introduce one for ASD people. So if it's possible then why has no one tried yet? I may agree with the idea but surely some homophobes on here could chime in?

 

[HootersMcBoobies]

Agreed. Using a faith that ruined people lives to justify being mean to gays is frankly retarded.

Oh no, it can only ever be based upon those dusty old religious books, and not reason, logic, observable reality, and common sense. They're only opposed to [degenerate behavior that you enjoy or approve of] because they're a bunch of wrinkly old religious poopyheads.

People dismiss faith without understanding it evolved to serve a purpose in society. It provides a means to shape behavior over large groups of people, and those behaviors can help a society flourish or be destroyed. They don't even have to know why the behaviors themselves are helpful. You can have religious beliefs around hygiene help prevent disease long before germ theory was discovered. You can also have traits like human sacrifice that tend not to survive. You can have vestigial beliefs like not eating pork (maybe it prevented the spread of some food-born diseases, or maybe not?) that may not help or hurt; but just are.

If multiple civilizations all start building out the same moral beliefs and all their societies grow, you have to ask why that particular belief or habit came about. If you just dismiss it as "some stupid god/religion/book," it's like removing Chesterton's Fence. Sure maybe that fence did nothing and you could remove it, or maybe it was a retaining wall that prevented a mudslide and you don't notice until the next big rainfall.

The literal CEO of Firefox was an eceleb?

Besides, why should I pity a tech CEO? He resigned despite other board members telling him not to and just launched a new company and cryptocurrency. It was a literal promotion.

Brendan Eich's only sin was creating Javascript, and I hope one day he apologizes to the world for it. But him stepping down from Mozilla was the start of their death spiral.

There is definitely evidence that children who are either, 1) raised by LGB are more likely to be LGB, and 2) molested by same-sex adults are more likely to be LGB.

The idea that babies are born gay or straight is nonsensical to me, though I do believe at some point "sexual orientation" becomes fixed, so to speak. You don't think there's a chance that something sexual done to someone at a young age can affect their sexuality?

I think it's likely 90%+ of gays had to be exposed to some kind of male-on-male sexuality before the age of 12. Most of what I've read leans towards the idea that if you're a man and not attracted to other males by adolescence, you never will be (which is different than women, many tend to be attracted to specific people rather than general genders). Men develop their preferences in their youth.

This doesn't have to be sexual abuse by adults though. It could be exposure by other boys their age (who may or may not have been abused) or by exposure to gay porn. The rise in gay youth could be a result of children having easier access to such material at younger ages.

 

[weirdMcGee]

So I basically developed a fetish for women? Then if it's a fetish then why do I desire a romantic connection along with the sexual?

 

[RybenZ999]

The more I listen to arguments from gays, the more I kind of think they're mostly a bunch of narcissistic, entitled assholes. I also don't think actual homosexuality is seen in the animal kingdom as much as people pretend. I think it was something only like goats that they'd observed actually having some sort of true gay relationships.

Yeah that is true. Even wikipedia admits it.

>10% of males
Does that mean exclusively lesbian relationships don't exist in any animal species?

 

[California Newt]

So I basically developed a fetish for women? Then if it's a fetish then why do I desire a romantic connection along with the sexual?

What does the phrase "romantic connection" mean to you?

 

[RybenZ999]

Which then leads to me asking again, if the issue is being gay, then why hasn't their been clinical trials curing gayness? We do have meds that let people with ADHD live normal lives and there's even plans to introduce one for ASD people. So if it's possible then why has no one tried yet? I may agree with the idea but surely some homophobes on here could chime in?

So, I want to ask. If being gay is unnatural, why hasn't there been a means to make gay people straight? Not bisexuals pretending to be gay, actual gays? Why does every human in earth need to breed when that only leads to overpopulation and increased mental illness?

There have been though. It's pretty controversial to say anything positive about conversion/reparative therapy these days but it doesn't have a zero percent success rate either. Especially the ones that are less Jesus-ey and more psychotherapeutic. Listen I'm not saying homosexuality is curable. I'd say that I don't think all homosexuals can be cured, maybe not even the majority, but at the same time neither do I think no homosexual can ever be cured. Even the most liberal studies on this give it at least a 90% failure rate, which entails a 10% success rate, as low as that may be.

But your argument really doesn't make much sense. Cuz if we were to follow your logic, pedophilia isn't unnatural either. You do realize no cure for pedophilia exists either, right? Most non-offending pedophiles willingly castrate themselves and go about their lives quietly.

 

[weirdMcGee]

There have been though. It's pretty controversial to say anything positive about conversion/reparative therapy these days but it doesn't have a zero percent success rate either. Especially the ones that are less Jesus-ey and more psychotherapeutic. Listen I'm not saying homosexuality is curable. I'd say that I don't think all homosexuals can be cured, maybe not even the majority, but at the same time neither do I think no homosexual can ever be cured. Even the most liberal studies on this give it at least a 90% failure rate, which entails a 10% success rate, as low as that may be.

But your argument really doesn't make much sense. Cuz if we were to follow your logic, pedophilia isn't unnatural either. You do realize no cure for pedophilia exists either, right? Most non-offending pedophiles willingly castrate themselves and go about their lives quietly.

But then why cure it to begin with? Not everyone needs to breed but they can offer their hand in other ways not centered on having children. I'd even argue sex reduces the amount of time to do what you want in life especially as a woman. Notice how all the most famous leaders in progress were either celibate or gay? Isaac newton didn't have kids but discovered gravity. A literal monk discovered genetics. Temple gradian had zero interest in sex but revolutionized cow rearing. Simple fact of the matter is it's nobody's business whether gays do with their time when they have more to invest in themselves and others.

 

[Mukhrani]

Arguments are raised around these points for as to why gayness might be some evolutionary thing. But it's just all retarded. And sorry if these thoughts aren't organized well, it's off the cuff. I do think some people are just born wired that way. But it's a completely neutral thing from an evolutionary stand point. There is no benefit to it and if an individual falls into the worse aspects that many in the LGBT seem to than they're actively self-destructive and self-harming and really it's their behavior and lifestyle choices that need help.

I always thought that whatever congenital element of it exists was more likely vestigial. Early hominids were likely hyper-polygamous, but were also forming nascent tribes and competing with one another. One tribe having men who would constantly compete for top positions would probably be at a collective disadvantage. This is also the only explanation that makes sense to me along with the fact that the more sons a women has the more likely the younger ones are to be gay. It's basically a way to stop them from stirring up too much shit in a polygamous society where there are large amount of excess males. You have a core of men who compete for leadership roles and then an expendable pool of men who probably will be used as soldiers and will live brutal, short lives. You're either a gigachad or a prison gay, and the existing pressures favor gigachads who produce a certain portion of gay sons among his multiple wives. They weren't 'raising kids', lol, they were probably fucking each other and then being sent to die in a border skirmish with some other tribe at the age of 28.

In a monogamous society it serves no purpose and becomes stigmatized. It's also why I think downlow shit is so common in formally polygamous societies like Islamic ones and informal ones like American blacks.

 

[California Newt]

Most non-offending pedophiles willingly castrate themselves and go about their lives quietly.

Notably, many of the offending ones castrate themselves too.

 

[Paper Machete]

I always thought that whatever congenital element of it exists was more likely vestigial. Early hominids were likely hyper-polygamous, but were also forming nascent tribes and competing with one another. One tribe having men who would constantly compete for top positions would probably be at a collective disadvantage. This is also the only explanation that makes sense to me along with the fact that the more sons a women has the more likely the younger ones are to be gay. It's basically a way to stop them from stirring up too much shit in a polygamous society where there are large amount of excess males. You have a core of men who compete for leadership roles and then an expendable pool of men who probably will be used as soldiers and will live brutal, short lives. You're either a gigachad or a prison gay, and the existing pressures favor gigachads who produce a certain portion of gay sons among his multiple wives. They weren't 'raising kids', lol, they were probably fucking each other and then being sent to die in a border skirmish with some other tribe at the age of 28.

In a monogamous society it serves no purpose and becomes stigmatized. It's also why I think downlow shit is so common in formally polygamous societies like Islamic ones and informal ones like American blacks.

Having multiple wives wasn't as common as many people think. Commoners were pairing off with each other just the same throughout history. Many of the largest harems werent women from the same tribe/nation but taken from others as well as gifts, political alliance, etc. There were very few who could afford it. Additionally if many men did die during hunts or fights that left their women to fend for themselves, making them more likely to settle for getting picked up, as it were.

Certainly a lot of more primitive social structures are, uh, loose. But they still do not result in large numbers of sexless males. That's a newer phenomenon for a variety of reasons. Women were not treated well in these societies and could just be taken as wives or used for sex and then not much ever came of it if they weren't connected to a family with status.

Again, any attempt to explain it away as anything other than something that just happens randomly in a small number of people if you're to believe it's innate at all just sounds dumb.

Really, in most of these societies that practiced it only kings/princes had harems or a shitload of wives. Maybe wealthy men had more than one wife but certainly not enough to take all of them from more common men (and to add those royal/noble/wealthy men would likely get their wives from each other's families and outside their tribe/nation as conquests, they weren't stealing common/poor women from common/poor men). Especially when birth control wasn't really a thing. This wasn't because of natural selection but because women were viewed as something which could be owned--it was about status. No different than having a warehouse full of your private car collection.

This is just no different than thinking swathes of people were getting married off in their teens. They weren't. It was a practice for the noble for political reasons and they were a very small percentage of the population.

 

[BIG SHOT Autos]

You don't think there's a chance that something sexual done to someone at a young age can affect their sexuality?

I'm fully convinced that trauma in general can contribute to sexuality. Most people assume that only sexuality related issues manifest into sexual quirks and fetishes, but it's much more complicated than that.

You start life very asexual but during puberty, that's when boys and girls start seeming cute. Does that mean the teen choose to be bi? No, the bisexuality was innate this whole time and only came out as their sexual interest started to burgeon.

When a child hits puberty they aren't a blank slate. They have more than a decade of complex, crucial development that intertwines with sexuality, because sexuality isn't a detached entity that just sleeps within and then wakes up in a body with zero context in relation to what's going on in said body.

Which then leads to me asking again, if the issue is being gay, then why hasn't their been clinical trials curing gayness?

It's an extremely complex thing. There are way too many reasons I know of which made people switch sexualities that don't and shouldn't, due to complexity of the nature, work 100% of time, like brain tumors, hormones, and so on. I personally saw many lesbians starting to be attracted to men after going on T, meanwhile others didn't. Likewise, most people with brain tumors don't switch sexualities, but there's enough googleable data on tumors in specific brain areas twisting people's sexualities in ways that don't make sense even to them. (Funnily enough, I went to check and the first article I found is about a guy suddenly getting hyperfixated on pedophilia)

There's just way too many reasons that overlap and intertwine, complex psychological issues, or maybe something else, including some people truly being born this way in a sense that something affected their development in the womb, not that there's some gay gene. That hasn't been proven though.

This sort of medical approach also kind of reminds me of schizophrenia. It's a disorder that is so well known and stereotypical in its pattern, there's a common misconception among some people that it has been proven to be real in a sense that there's a specific cause and biological proof. There's none. Vitamin B12 deficiency causes literal textbook schizo psychosis and it goes away with getting a few shots of the vitamin. But that's obviously not a cure that covers all cases of schizophrenia.

Same with homosexuality. It's extremely diverse in its development pattern and there aren't going to be any "cures". Some will, like with B12 deficiency, find a cause that they can fix literally overnight. Some will develop bisexual desires instead. Some will never develop heterosexual desires at all, ever. The list goes on.

Also there were "clinical trials", and quite horrific ones at that, in the form of conversion therapy. But just because barbaric methods and literal torture was implemented for "curing" people, that doesn't change the fact that maybe something is off about homosexual desire and behavior. One side being wrong doesn't automatically make the other one right.

Besides, why "cure" something that initially starts as an urge? It can be controlled, just like any other urge. There are many things we desperately want but can't or shouldn't have, not just sexual desires.

Then if it's a fetish then why do I desire a romantic connection along with the sexual?

Considering that reasons why people may be attracted to the same sex are extremely varied, I can't answer why do you personally want that, but as for myself, it too turned out to be a result of serious issues that I refused to address for decades. I never lied about what I felt. Everyone who reacted to me with disbelief or an assumption that I was "never actually born this way" or that I intentionally larped were just in denial and didn't want the convenient narrative they have built up in their heads to fall apart. (This includes me in the past as well.)

Since religion was brought up multiple times, sin is essentially corruption of something good, evil is not a standalone thing in Christianity. Lust, which homosexuality is usually classified as, can be described in two ways, either it's a right desire for a wrong reason, or a wrong desire for a right reason. The word "perversion" also implies something has been ruined. So at the core of the attraction, there is something good and with alignment with God. However, it got twisted along the way (natural causes are included, our world is considered to be fallen and polluted as a whole) and misfired into something ungodly.
This goes in line with secular psychotherapy that often does identify "good cores" in the most abhorrent behavior.

I think it's obvious where I go with this. No matter how "valid" it seemed and no matter how genuine and honest I was, it was still a result of my upbringing with various issues I have been dealing with getting manifested this way. I guess that somewhat answers the question.

Not everyone needs to breed but they can offer their hand in other ways not centered on having children.

Ironically, this is a relatively major Christian point.

 

[Mukhrani]

Having multiple wives wasn't as common as many people think. Commoners were pairing off with each other just the same throughout history. Many of the largest harems werent women from the same tribe/nation but taken from others as well as gifts, political alliance, etc. There were very few who could afford it. Additionally if many men did die during hunts or fights that left their women to fend for themselves, making them more likely to settle for getting picked up, as it were.

I said 'early hominids', so we're talking pre-agriculture, pre-history, pre-nation, several million years ago, in some senses pre-human. Prehistory was much, much longer than recorded history and would have had much more of a genetic impact on humans even in the present day. The reduction of sexual dimorphism in the fossil record indicates a move from polygyny to monogamy a few million years ago.

 

[Hooked on phobics]

Most non-offending pedophiles willingly castrate themselves and go about their lives quietly.

I've honestly seen 0 stuff on any non offending pedos seeking help NOR do I know of any help available for them. So I'm not sure how true this is.

I also think it might be forbidden to seek in the usa under the "conversion therapy ban" if that's still in effect.

 

[weirdMcGee]

I think it's obvious where I go with this. No matter how "valid" it seemed and no matter how genuine and honest I was, it was still a result of my upbringing with various issues I have been dealing with getting manifested this way. I guess that somewhat answers the question.

Who in the hell hurt you? So many gay "Christians" agonize over their attractions to people whether it be due to trauma under a religious household or trauma from other people. I can't understand a gay person staying in a cult that preaches acceptance as a sin of pride than a admittance we're human with the free will to be flawed but to also improve. The former implies a never ending treadmill of suffering, which turns off some from ever wanting to be religious let alone "Christian".

But for what it's worth, I'm agonistic, maybe a bit pantheist on a good day, but I don't ascribe to a god in the image of man. Mother nature, the universe, and death do not need faces to feel tangible yet your god is depicted as a man, even a harp back to beings like zeus who gave birth to the sky father idea. If God in this case made man, why are some humans gay to begin with? Or bisexual? Is he testing me to ignore all my attractions to women in favor of becoming some tradwife baby factory for some shitty moid to walk over? I rather say fuck off to that lifestyle and run off to some queer commune off the grid where people raised kids the good ole fashion way, as a village not as an atomized nuclear family unit.

edit: this is gonna be my last post on this thread.