Where does ‘homosexuality’ come from?

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.
Click to expand...

lol fuck your pathetic desert-goatherd skydaddy
 
  • Like
  • DRINK!
  • Mad at the Internet
Reactions: DanteAlighieri, ConfederateIrishman, Marco Fucko and 2 others
Masta said:
This is a very interesting concept, it’s the first time I’ve ever heard of homosexuals being related to a virus.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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).
Click to expand...
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
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Exigent Circumcisions, ConfederateIrishman and Underestimated Nutria
1864897514651 said:
Heterosexuals that contracept are equally damned under aberrosexuality as homosexuals are
Click to expand...
So you love muslims, niggers, abbos, and Indians/Pakis, then? They are, after all, the largest collective grouping of people who actively avoid contraception.
 
  • Feels
Reactions: Y2K Baby
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.
Click to expand...
Jon hates me now.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Joan Nyan
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.
Click to expand...
I was tryin to explain/exemplify that it may have something to do with associating with really gay fandoms.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Y2K Baby
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.
Click to expand...
You're suggesting he loves anyone but Jesus: feeling normal human emotions is blasphemy, and probably abbosexual or whatever.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fork Cartel, Marco Fucko and Y2K Baby
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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".
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Marco Fucko
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".
Click to expand...

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.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Sprig of Parsley
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Marco Fucko
Real talk

Who would wanna touch this?
af3e28ae7b3f0f5dbfce54d2c6ffbcc49fe9830164e50c5db8e22919212fbdd3.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back