The mental illness of being a faggot - "Why are you Gay?" - Black preacher man

[Taylor Swift's Ghostwrite]

Deviations from the norm aren't inherently mental illness. There's a huge range of things that don't cross into dysfunction, and sometimes you're seeing symptoms of mental illness in people that have nothing to do with their sexuality. A high amount of lesbians beating their partners for example implies that a lot of lesbians have an issue with feeling powerless thus exercise that power over the person closet to them who they are able retake the power they lack elsewhere. Thus, in that scenario, the mental illness is not being a lesbian but rather the victim is being acted upon because of her proximity to someone who has a secondary issue that is independent of her sexual orientation. You're boiling all the dysfunction you're seeing among homosexuals as coming from their sexual orientation as opposed to something that perhaps is influenced by the position they occupy in society as a result.

Additionally, I'd argue we tend to take closer notes on people who deviate than the heteros because the stats on abuse among M/F couples are pretty fucking bad, and 100% of lesbians are women so its a skewed stat in that particular context. Do men get beat? Of course. Do gay men hit their partners? Sure. Are women more likely to be hit regardless of their partner? Yes. We don't have the clearest stats on the amount of heterosexual predators out there as far as pedos go especially since that is a horrifically under-documented crime. But we've taken note of every single gay who has done it. This is a form of confirmation bias as far as I'm concerned tbh.

 

[Noir drag freak]

Lastly, if you believe people ARE born gay, not choosing it, the last thing to keep your noggin joggin' is this: Being gay has been considered a mental illness in the U.S. for years, and was listed as one in the early DSMs, but was later removed, as psychologically, the determining factor on if it is or not boils down to one key point: social acceptance. Pedophilia is only considered a mental illness because of the lack of social acceptance. Same is true for many other disorders. This is why many forms of autism are now no longer being classified as mental disorders, as very high functioning forms (not chris) are socially accepted as just a little weird. With that said, some mental illness are more accepted then others, and just because you have a mental illness doesn't mean you are a bad or evil person, but the first step is simply accepting that you are mentally ill if you are a faggot.

You do have a point that homosexuality could be a mental illness since it doesn't serve an objective goal. As a person who is a homosexual, I don't think that it negatively influenced my life. I really don't like how people act like if you're a homosexual, you'll live a sad depressing life like some pulp fiction character..

That's a good example because it's a demonstration that people's choices clearly do impact those around them and the necessity for community rather than shallow hedonistic pursuits.
Homosexual relationships being non-reproductive are hedonistic do not serve the linear continuation (not necessarily population growth) of stable and healthy nuclear families. Any creative writing project you may embark on to paint an image of a healthy homosexual "family" belongs with the fictions that pedophiles talk about with "virtuous pedophiles" in similarity with subject and likelihood.

I think the conversation comes down to values. The basis of your arguments have to do with loyalty to humanity, respect to tradition, and sexual purity. My view is more individualistic. I don't see why adults that pull their own weight in society should have to justify their relations. Personally, I don't see a problem with homosexual relationships being non-reproductive and hedonistic. Hedonism isn't harmful to individual in itself.

Yeah things staying behind closed doors would undoubtably be great for everyone, hence why the discussion tends to be centered around effects and problems outside of those doors.

The State and culture will always interfere with sexual relations, because of it's consequences. Something that you're quite aware of from your in this thread.

 

[Horton Hears A Whoreson]

Faggots and faggotnesses are mentally ill, a slight mutation of the human genome that they did not choose for at birth, that will inevitably lead to a society that fosters less children than faggotless ones. I can look past their illness due to unlucky genetic lottery if they could just keep their duck sucking tendencies to themselves, find a woman, raise a family.

The reason why troons are under alot more scrutiny is owing to the fact that they have willingly chosen sexual deviancy and nuture their pedophilic penchants, as well as corrupting the next generation with degeneracy by force through threats of being cancelled.

 

[Hellbound Hellhound]

That's a good example because it's a demonstration that people's choices clearly do impact those around them and the necessity for community rather than shallow hedonistic pursuits.


Homosexual relationships being non-reproductive are hedonistic do not serve the linear continuation (not necessarily population growth) of stable and healthy nuclear families. Any creative writing project you may embark on to paint an image of a healthy homosexual "family" belongs with the fictions that pedophiles talk about with "virtuous pedophiles" in similarity with subject and likelihood.

Once again, you're demonstrating apparently no understanding of marginal utility, and it would appear that you have little grasp of the concept of specialization as well.

There are plenty of people who are absolutely essential for civilization's maintenance: medical doctors for example; yet if everyone was a medical doctor, society would collapse. The world still needs engineers, and refuse workers, law enforcement personnel, and school teachers, mathematicians, and scientists. I would also argue that journalists, writers, and artists are an important barometer for civilization, even if they are not "essential" to our species' survival.

By the same token, just because gay people tend not to reproduce doesn't mean that they cannot contribute to civilization in other, more important ways, and if their sexual preference provides them with happiness and allows them to become more functional people as a result then I fail to see what could be negative about it.

I have never tried to argue that reproduction isn't absolutely essential for civilization, because of course it is; what I'm trying to do is get you to understand that this essentiality doesn't translate to individuals. Again, marginal utility: all the water in the world being far more valuable to us than all the diamonds in the world doesn't in any way negate the fact that a vial filled with diamonds is far more valuable than a vial filled with water. On a collective level, reproduction is essential; on an individual level, it is not.

 

[Real Gay Autist]

Wasted opportunity for a thread. It would be really interesting to criticize current thinking on the aetiology and possible pathology of homosexuality. Unfortunately OP has nothing interesting to say and, I venture, secretly just wants to suck some Real Gay Autistic cock.

First, it's dumb to discuss homosexual behavior and any associated identities as 'mental illness'. It's not a category that is very useful in this discussion because, as others have noted, it is usually related to normativity so in the end we just end up fighting about what we think is 'good' or 'normal' or end up making posts like OP because we feel bad about how much we love cock. From a psychiatric standpoint, 'mental disorder' is a better term but, of course, this makes the discussion much more complex and individualized. In short, homosexuality could be a disordered behavioral/psychological syndrome/pattern in some patients but that requires psychiatric assessment.

Spoiler: Working definition of mental disorder based on critique of DSM-IV

Features​ A a behavioral or psychological syndrome or pattern that occurs in an individual B the consequences of which are clinically significant distress (e.g., a painful symptom) or disability (i.e., impairment in one or more important areas of functioning) C must not be merely an expectable response to common stressors and losses (for example, the loss of a loved one) or a culturally sanctioned response to a particular event (for example, trance states in religious rituals) D that reflects an underlying psychobiological dysfunction E that is not solely a result of social deviance or conflicts with society F that has diagnostic validity using one or more sets of diagnostic validators (e.g., prognostic significance, psychobiological disruption, response to treatment) G that has clinical utility (for example, contributes to better conceptualization of diagnoses, or to better assessment and treatment)

Other Considerations​ H no definition perfectly specifies precise boundaries for the concept of either “medical disorder” or “mental/psychiatric disorder” I diagnostic validators and clinical utility should help differentiate a disorder from diagnostic “nearest neighbors” J when considering whether to add a psychiatric condition to the nomenclature, or delete a psychiatric condition from the nomenclature, potential benefits (for example, provide better patient care, stimulate new research) should outweigh potential harms (for example, hurt particular individuals, be subject to misuse) See Stein et al. 2010, Psychol Med.

Second, people's understanding of evolution is fucked: elementary science class at best, creationist leaflet at worst (except for @Hellbound Hellhole). Duhhh gays can't have babies is not a recognizable argument from the perspective of evolutionary biology or anthropology. There are good, interesting evolutionary takes on homosexuality as a evolutionary-adaptive trait, where it can be viewed as an (epi)phenomenon of e.g. kin selection adaptations. For example: if a subset of the group are not reproducing, this (1) favors the offspring of group members who are reproducing. This is because those offspring now have extra in-group members to fend and defend for them. Also, (2), since opposite-sex copulation is designed for reproduction, amongst social species where sex has pleasurable/social features, it's beneficial to have some members of the in-group who do not reproduce when they fuck due to the existential risks of overpopulation (e.g. resource scarcity, fewer adults per offspring, etc.). These two factors might suggest that having a small but significant minority of homosexual members of the in-group can support its long-term survival and competition with out-groups.

It's obviously not all genetics, though. You just need to look at the Kinsey Scale and differing sexual behaviors across time and space to prove that. There are very interesting takes from psychoanalysis and child psychology on the origins of homosexuality, which make the Born This Way crowd look like idiots. That kind of stuff would be really interesting to discuss, since you cannot touch it at all nowadays.

TL;DR OP is a faggot.

 

[Xx_Retard Faggot 1488_xX]

Wasted opportunity for a thread. It would be really interesting to criticize current thinking on the aetiology and possible pathology of homosexuality. Unfortunately OP has nothing interesting to say and, I venture, secretly just wants to suck some Real Gay Autistic cock.

First, it's dumb to discuss homosexual behavior and any associated identities as 'mental illness'. It's not a category that is very useful in this discussion because, as others have noted, it is usually related to normativity so in the end we just end up fighting about what we think is 'good' or 'normal' or end up making posts like OP because we feel bad about how much we love cock. From a psychiatric standpoint, 'mental disorder' is a better term but, of course, this makes the discussion much more complex and individualized. In short, homosexuality could be a disordered behavioral/psychological syndrome/pattern in some patients but that requires psychiatric assessment.

Spoiler: Working definition of mental disorder based on critique of DSM-IV

Features​ A a behavioral or psychological syndrome or pattern that occurs in an individual B the consequences of which are clinically significant distress (e.g., a painful symptom) or disability (i.e., impairment in one or more important areas of functioning) C must not be merely an expectable response to common stressors and losses (for example, the loss of a loved one) or a culturally sanctioned response to a particular event (for example, trance states in religious rituals) D that reflects an underlying psychobiological dysfunction E that is not solely a result of social deviance or conflicts with society F that has diagnostic validity using one or more sets of diagnostic validators (e.g., prognostic significance, psychobiological disruption, response to treatment) G that has clinical utility (for example, contributes to better conceptualization of diagnoses, or to better assessment and treatment)

Other Considerations​ H no definition perfectly specifies precise boundaries for the concept of either “medical disorder” or “mental/psychiatric disorder” I diagnostic validators and clinical utility should help differentiate a disorder from diagnostic “nearest neighbors” J when considering whether to add a psychiatric condition to the nomenclature, or delete a psychiatric condition from the nomenclature, potential benefits (for example, provide better patient care, stimulate new research) should outweigh potential harms (for example, hurt particular individuals, be subject to misuse) See Stein et al. 2010, Psychol Med.

Second, people's understanding of evolution is fucked: elementary science class at best, creationist leaflet at worst (except for @Hellbound Hellhole). Duhhh gays can't have babies is not a recognizable argument from the perspective of evolutionary biology or anthropology. There are good, interesting evolutionary takes on homosexuality as a evolutionary-adaptive trait, where it can be viewed as an (epi)phenomenon of e.g. kin selection adaptations. For example: if a subset of the group are not reproducing, this (1) favors the offspring of group members who are reproducing. This is because those offspring now have extra in-group members to fend and defend for them. Also, (2), since opposite-sex copulation is designed for reproduction, amongst social species where sex has pleasurable/social features, it's beneficial to have some members of the in-group who do not reproduce when they fuck due to the existential risks of overpopulation (e.g. resource scarcity, fewer adults per offspring, etc.). These two factors might suggest that having a small but significant minority of homosexual members of the in-group can support its long-term survival and competition with out-groups.

It's obviously not all genetics, though. You just need to look at the Kinsey Scale and differing sexual behaviors across time and space to prove that. There are very interesting takes from psychoanalysis and child psychology on the origins of homosexuality, which make the Born This Way crowd look like idiots. That kind of stuff would be really interesting to discuss, since you cannot touch it at all nowadays.

TL;DR OP is a faggot.

You say its a wasted opportunity but everything after is shit I mentioned in the OP. I talk about about how mental illness is based on social norms, I talk about the DSM and I talk about how this isn't a "I hate gays, they are crazies that need to be executed, good thing I'm not one too right? *sweats*".

Spoiler: Big Brain Time

I really hate niggers, does that mean I'm black?

You are just proving you didn't read half the shit I said.

If you want to be autistic enough to compare mental illness vs mental disorder, go ahead, its semantics to me at that point. I honestly have a hard time believing any form of de-population evolution is taking place at this point because even to this day, human overpopulation is artificial, its that we CHOOSE to live cramped with majority of land unoccupied, and at the rate people are no longer having kids in white and asian cultures (2 which make up a LOT of gay people), there really is no "evolutionary incentive" for something like that.

End of the day, If you wanna steer this thread into that direction, feel free, just cause I started it does not mean I can dictate where it goes nor would I want to, I simply wanted to start a conversation that many her are too autistic to have. and rather just call me the big gay, sigh.

 

[Syaoran Li]

That's a good example because it's a demonstration that people's choices clearly do impact those around them and the necessity for community rather than shallow hedonistic pursuits.



Homosexual relationships being non-reproductive are hedonistic do not serve the linear continuation (not necessarily population growth) of stable and healthy nuclear families. Any creative writing project you may embark on to paint an image of a healthy homosexual "family" belongs with the fictions that pedophiles talk about with "virtuous pedophiles" in similarity with subject and likelihood.



As wild of an example that is, it at least hits upon the important point, the overincidence of abuse within homosexual relationships compared to normal ones.



Literally all classifications of any type can be classified that way if one wants to. Thats a pond vs puddle argument.



Or taken off. see gender dysphoria and homosexuality.

OK Redneck

You say its a wasted opportunity but everything after is shit I mentioned in the OP. I talk about about how mental illness is based on social norms, I talk about the DSM and I talk about how this isn't a "I hate gays, they are crazies that need to be executed, good thing I'm not one too right? *sweats*".

Spoiler: Big Brain Time

I really hate niggers, does that mean I'm black?

You are just proving you didn't read half the shit I said.

If you want to be autistic enough to compare mental illness vs mental disorder, go ahead, its semantics to me at that point. I honestly have a hard time believing any form of de-population evolution is taking place at this point because even to this day, human overpopulation is artificial, its that we CHOOSE to live cramped with majority of land unoccupied, and at the rate people are no longer having kids in white and asian cultures (2 which make up a LOT of gay people), there really is no "evolutionary incentive" for something like that.

End of the day, If you wanna steer this thread into that direction, feel free, just cause I started it does not mean I can dictate where it goes nor would I want to, I simply wanted to start a conversation that many her are too autistic to have. and rather just call me the big gay, sigh.

Appalachia Delenda Est

 

[KateHikes14]

So it would make more sense of you to spend your energies combating domestic violence, rape, pedophilia, or whatever qualms you have with same-sex couples.

Given that incidence of this issues is higher within homosexuals perhaps more concern should be given within the community rather than trying to cover it up or deflect.

No. A broken bone is a broken bone, whether a doctor agrees it is or not. "Mental illness" has no definitive etiological origin, and two psychiatrists can easily degree on diagnoses for the same patient. I'm talking about the subjectivity of "mental illness" as a category.

Then if you partake in strenuous physical activity you may have broken bones which you are ignoring given that microfractures exist. All to say that as far as classifications exist and are useful, even if there are various degrees to blurred lines or cases where two or more trained professionals disagree on the same issue.

Deviations from the norm aren't inherently mental illness. There's a huge range of things that don't cross into dysfunction, and sometimes you're seeing symptoms of mental illness in people that have nothing to do with their sexuality. A high amount of lesbians beating their partners for example implies that a lot of lesbians have an issue with feeling powerless thus exercise that power over the person closet to them who they are able retake the power they lack elsewhere. Thus, in that scenario, the mental illness is not being a lesbian but rather the victim is being acted upon because of her proximity to someone who has a secondary issue that is independent of her sexual orientation. You're boiling all the dysfunction you're seeing among homosexuals as coming from their sexual orientation as opposed to something that perhaps is influenced by the position they occupy in society as a result.

"Be nice to me or I'll keep beating my wife" the abusive behavior continues, tessellating outwards towards people outside of those groups.

Additionally, I'd argue we tend to take closer notes on people who deviate than the heteros because the stats on abuse among M/F couples are pretty fucking bad, and 100% of lesbians are women so its a skewed stat in that particular context. Do men get beat? Of course. Do gay men hit their partners? Sure. Are women more likely to be hit regardless of their partner? Yes. We don't have the clearest stats on the amount of heterosexual predators out there as far as pedos go especially since that is a horrifically under-documented crime. But we've taken note of every single gay who has done it. This is a form of confirmation bias as far as I'm concerned tbh.

How do you imagine every single homosexual issue is reported, but many normal people's issues are unreported especially given the power that various organizations like GLAAD.

Once again, you're demonstrating apparently no understanding of marginal utility, and it would appear that you have little grasp of the concept of specialization as well.

There are plenty of people who are absolutely essential for civilization's maintenance: medical doctors for example; yet if everyone was a medical doctor, society would collapse. The world still needs engineers, and refuse workers, law enforcement personnel, and school teachers, mathematicians, and scientists. I would also argue that journalists, writers, and artists are an important barometer for civilization, even if they are not "essential" to our species' survival.

By the same token, just because gay people tend not to reproduce doesn't mean that they cannot contribute to civilization in other, more important ways, and if their sexual preference provides them with happiness and allows them to become more functional people as a result then I fail to see what could be negative about it.

The lack of understanding exists only on your end, I care little for what can happen, more for what is happening. The closer a homosexual can get towards normal and functional the better, It would go without saying but you insist on sharing fictions with varying likelihood as if the stories could take the place of the big picture in a discussion of the aspects affecting it.

Second, people's understanding of evolution is fucked: elementary science class at best, creationist leaflet at worst (except for @Hellbound Hellhole). Duhhh gays can't have babies is not a recognizable argument from the perspective of evolutionary biology or anthropology. There are good, interesting evolutionary takes on homosexuality as a evolutionary-adaptive trait, where it can be viewed as an (epi)phenomenon of e.g. kin selection adaptations. For example: if a subset of the group are not reproducing, this (1) favors the offspring of group members who are reproducing. This is because those offspring now have extra in-group members to fend and defend for them. Also, (2), since opposite-sex copulation is designed for reproduction, amongst social species where sex has pleasurable/social features, it's beneficial to have some members of the in-group who do not reproduce when they fuck due to the existential risks of overpopulation (e.g. resource scarcity, fewer adults per offspring, etc.). These two factors might suggest that having a small but significant minority of homosexual members of the in-group can support its long-term survival and competition with out-groups.

It's obviously not all genetics, though. You just need to look at the Kinsey Scale and differing sexual behaviors across time and space to prove that. There are very interesting takes from psychoanalysis and child psychology on the origins of homosexuality, which make the Born This Way crowd look like idiots. That kind of stuff would be really interesting to discuss, since you cannot touch it at all nowadays.

You can't spell cope without the gay uncle theory.
Politics do wreak havoc upon it's discussion though, you can all but guarantee that any valuable research or studies in the near future will not be written in English or any other European language.

I really hate niggers, does that mean I'm black?

Post thumb Jamal.

I think the conversation comes down to values. The basis of your arguments have to do with loyalty to humanity, respect to tradition, and sexual purity. My view is more individualistic. I don't see why adults that pull their own weight in society should have to justify their relations. Personally, I don't see a problem with homosexual relationships being non-reproductive and hedonistic. Hedonism isn't harmful to individual in itself.

The only important disagreement there is the use of hedonism rather than pleasure. Hedonism implies at least the doing of an act which is displacing a positive one, pleasure would not.

 

[Vulva Gape]

Given that incidence of this issues is higher within homosexuals perhaps more concern should be given within the community rather than trying to cover it up or deflect.

That's a whole another debate to be had. I'm not talking about the gay community, which I agree has a lot of problems, but being gay in itself. Your argument that the higher prevalence of pedophilia and violence among same-sex couples means that being gay is "immoral", "unnatural", or whatever loosely defined cultural adjective you want to attach to it, does not hold up. In simpler terms, if A and B are two groups, with all B is A but not all A is B, targeting A to combat B isn't logical.

 

[Shroom King]

Another big redpill.

View attachment 1918046

https://archive.md/LRe05

Really makes you think.

Between 24% and 90% of lesbians report being psychologically abused by their partners.

That is quite a spread in probability. Either the abuse happened or it didn't. How can they fuck up the math so badly on this one?

 

[KateHikes14]

That's a whole another debate to be had. I'm not talking about the gay community, which I agree has a lot of problems, but being gay in itself. Your argument that the higher prevalence of pedophilia and violence among same-sex couples means that being gay is "immoral", "unnatural", or whatever loosely defined cultural adjective you want to attach to it, does not hold up. In simpler terms, if A and B are two groups, with all B is A but not all A is B, targeting A to combat B isn't logical.

Any community is a product of the people who make it up, ergo the problems with the community are in some way a problem with the constituency. A and B are within the same group as well, so A covering for B because of said association is a problem.

That is quite a spread in probability. Either the abuse happened or it didn't. How can they fuck up the math so badly on this one?

That one made me too, a margin of error of 33 is pretty insane.

 

[Vulva Gape]

Any community is a product of the people who make it up, ergo the problems with the community are in some way a problem with the constituency.

Qtards are all Republicans. That must mean Republicans are all retarded.
Antifa are all leftists. That means Joe Biden literally wants to burn down all small businesses.

There will ALWAYS be a minority of extremists or degenerates in any group. Your argument is shit. It's clear that you're not going into this debate open-minded, you're just hear to say "gays are pedophiles" over and over again.

A and B are within the same group as well, so A covering for B because of said association is a problem.

Great strawman there. If you genuinely think the average gay person who just wants to marry their partner and leave people alone is covering for pedophiles and domestic abusers please neck yourself.

 

[TFT-A9]

Qtards are all Republicans. That must mean Republicans are all retarded.
Antifa are all leftists. That means Joe Biden literally wants to burn down all small businesses.

There will ALWAYS be a minority of extremists or degenerates in any group. Your argument is shit. It's clear that you're not going into this debate open-minded, you're just hear to say "gays are pedophiles" over and over again.

Great strawman there. If you genuinely think the average gay person who just wants to marry their partner and leave people alone is covering for pedophiles and domestic abusers please neck yourself.

"If we just get rid of all X, then Y problem will stop!"

lol

 

[KateHikes14]

Qtards are all Republicans. That must mean Republicans are all retarded.
Antifa are all leftists. That means Joe Biden literally wants to burn down all small businesses.

There will ALWAYS be a minority of extremists or degenerates in any group. Your argument is shit. It's clear that you're not going into this debate open-minded, you're just hear to say "gays are pedophiles" over and over again.

It's natural to object to people covering for the fringe group.

Great strawman there. If you genuinely think the average gay person who just wants to marry their partner and leave people alone is covering for pedophiles and domestic abusers please neck yourself.

"There's more pedophiles within your community than normal, somethings clearly wrong. Get rid of pedophiles within your community." "Fuck you for bringing that up, KYS." wow who could think you're covering for them?

 

[TFT-A9]

"There's more pedophiles within your community than normal, somethings clearly wrong. Get rid of pedophiles within your community." "Fuck you for bringing that up, KYS." wow who could think you're covering for them?

So what have you done to correct the hetero community's pedo issues lately champ

 

[yipyaps]

The problem with homosexuality is it's inherent unhealthy causes and effects. Sure, a minority of homosexuals' might be "better off" than some speculative alternative, but most aren't. No reason to be punitive.

• 79% of homosexual men say over half of their sex partners are strangers. Source: http://www.amazon.com/Unequal-Opportunity-Disparities-Affecting-Bisexual/dp/0195301536
• 99.8% of lesbian, gay and bisexual teens will change their sexual orientation within 13 years. Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26048483
• Two-thirds of men and women who were homosexual change their orientation to heterosexual five years later. Source: http://psycnet.apa.org/books/11261/004
• 1/4 gay men in America have had over 1000 sex partners. Source: http://www.amazon.com/Homosexualities-Study-Diversity-Among-Women/dp/0671251503
• 43% of gay men have over 500 partners. Source: http://www.amazon.com/Homosexualities-Study-Diversity-Among-Women/dp/0671251503
• 10 to 15 percent of older homosexuals have more than 1000 sex partners. Source: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3813477
  • Gay men, who are 1.65% of the US population, account for 63% of the country’s syphilis cases. Source: http://takimag.com/article/the_straight_dope_on_homosexuality_elizabeth_mccaw/print
  • In 2010, homosexuals were about 200 times more likely than everyone else to be diagnosed with HIV. Source: http://takimag.com/article/the_straight_dope_on_homosexuality_elizabeth_mccaw/print
  • Monogamy is not a central feature of most homosexual relationships. Source: http://takimag.com/article/the_straight_dope_on_homosexuality_elizabeth_mccaw/print

 

[Gig Bucking Fun]

I think a lot of people realize it's wrong but just let them do as they please because they're too lazy to actually think of a real solution. It's no surprise that most homosexuals are that way because of some trauma early on in their lives or an abnormal upbringing.

It's the same way with trannies: they suffered some sort of trauma (rape, physical abuse, abnormal upbringing) that caused them to think their really the opposite sex, or exacerbated some form of genetic deformity such as gender dysphoria. The people who celebrate their 'individuality' don't celebrate their dysphoria, but they don't really care about the individual to help find an actual solution to their psychiatric issue.

In my case, the only gay person I know is a product of a single-parent home. The other person of a single-parent home I know isn't gay, but is a druggie who's done nothing with their life after high school. If you begin to think about the people you know who are homosexual, a lot of troubling issues from their past will start to pop up: a single parent in the home, a molestation, physical abuse, etc. This is not a coincidence, rather direct causation.

These practices society celebrates are products of deep traumatic issues that have negatively afflicted the individual for the entirety of their lives. Rather than look for an answer to the problem that caused this sort of behavior in the first place, or even the outcome, society decides to paint the negative outcome as a positive that those suffering from should have pride in, thus exaserbating the origin of trauma by not labeling it an issue and investigating the cause of this mentality.

Outside of trolling or bullshitting, I don't dislike homosexuals. I'm sympathetic for them because I know behind their degeneracy lies deep-rooted issues they've opted to (in a misguided attempt) cope with by sucking cock, which I don't understand, but whatever.

 

[Samson Pumpkin Jr.]

The gays aren’t being annoying right now
The troons are

they're annoying when abusing kids

 

[Noir drag freak]

I think a lot of people realize it's wrong but just let them do as they please because they're too lazy to actually think of a real solution. It's no surprise that most homosexuals are that way because of some trauma early on in their lives or an abnormal upbringing.

In my case, the only gay person I know is a product of a single-parent home. The other person of a single-parent home I know isn't gay, but is a druggie who's done nothing with their life after high school. If you begin to think about the people you know who are homosexual, a lot of troubling issues from their past will start to pop up: a single parent in the home, a molestation, physical abuse, etc. This is not a coincidence, rather direct causation.

These practices society celebrates are products of deep traumatic issues that have negatively afflicted the individual for the entirety of their lives. Rather than look for an answer to the problem that caused this sort of behavior in the first place, or even the outcome, society decides to paint the negative outcome as a positive that those suffering from should have pride in, thus exaserbating the origin of trauma by not labeling it an issue and investigating the cause of this mentality.

Outside of trolling or bullshitting, I don't dislike homosexuals. I'm sympathetic for them because I know behind their degeneracy lies deep-rooted issues they've opted to (in a misguided attempt) cope with by sucking cock, which I don't understand, but whatever.

Why should you feel sympathy for homosexuals? Homosexuals don't you need your pity. I rather be a degenerate than some poor trauma victim. Better a monster than a ...

The only important disagreement there is the use of hedonism rather than pleasure. Hedonism implies at least the doing of an act which is displacing a positive one, pleasure would not.

Okay? But does that change my argument?

 

[Real Gay Autist]

In my case, the only gay person I know is a product of a single-parent home. The other person of a single-parent home I know isn't gay, but is a druggie who's done nothing with their life after high school. If you begin to think about the people you know who are homosexual, a lot of troubling issues from their past will start to pop up: a single parent in the home, a molestation, physical abuse, etc. This is not a coincidence, rather direct causation.

Gah, I got so excited about your comment until this paragraph. I mean you literally wrote "the only gay person I know" and then went on to make massive claims on the basis of that. I have met/worked with people who have been molested, raised by single parent families, beaten as kids, etc. Some are straight, some are gay. Some are nuts, some are well-adapted. What does this mean? Nothing, really. My anecdotes are not data and I cannot infer causation from them. Child psychology 101: childhood experience shapes personality structures and behaviors to differing extents depending on individual factors.

Just because the idea of a dude taking it up the poop shoot makes you feel icky, does it mean that behavior is somehow pathological/unnatural/weird/whatever? That's a massive logic leap. All it means is that you need to look more carefully about why you in particular have such a marked disgust reaction that you defend against it by posting random takes here. By the same token, just because some evidence suggests that homosexual behavior is shaped by childhood experience, does that mean that you need to start the crusade for the Gay Gene™ and silence anyone who dare disagree? No, that's another massive leap. It means you need to think carefully about why you are so attached to the idea of being Born This Way™. In both cases, the conversation that needs to happen starts with saying 'this makes me uncomfortable and I'm not sure why but I'm curious' and then, from there, we can have an actual conversation informed by evidence. Luckily that doesn't happen otherwise people wouldn't sperg out and shit would be way less funny.

TL;DR thread is gay uwu OP DM me for dick pics.