Homosexuality discussion thread

[El Hamidah]

It's still a far more reasonable and realistic position to hold than literally believing that homosexuals have a biologically hardwired, natural instinct compelling them to act as contrarian as possible. It's a fucking ludicrous idea; we are no different than anyone else. No matter what some people might believe, having slightly different preferences for a sexual partner doesn't make you a radically different person who's naturally driven to act as abnormal as possible.

People tend to forget heterosexuals can also be sexually deviant. I don't remember the last time I heard a gay person go on a raping spree.....just saying. Food for thought to people assuming homosexuality is any worse than heterosexual deviance.

Promiscuous and sexually flamboyant heterosexuals are just as insufferable.

All around the trait is just an obnoxious sign of insecurity.

[Oil exporting People]

Hopefully gene editing means we can get rid of dipshit rednecks on the internet and cure the planet of ingrates like your's misbegotten existence

Hurr durr I masturbate to anime. Gay men are degenerates

[Fascist Russian Empire]

People tend to forget heterosexuals can also be sexually deviant. I don't remember the last time I heard a gay person go on a raping spree.....just saying. Food for thought to people assuming homosexuality is any worse than heterosexual deviance.

Of course; the difference is that some people claim that sexual deviance is something homosexuals are naturally compelled and culturally obligated to perform, unlike heterosexuals. In fact, there are people here who think it's only natural for homosexuals to act like that way.

[Potenco]

Honestly heterosexual sex is pretty gay and effeminate The manliest sex ive ever had was with men

[Senkaku]

[
You yourself were just talking about some evidence that genetics may be involved. Just because people are being careful not to jump to definitive conclusions without lots more data doesn't mean there aren't suggestions that it could be a factor.

I stated they've found one gene in about 30 years of research that appeared in about 70% of Homosexuals, but the study authors definitively said there is no evidence it causes Homosexuality. This is a far cry from your patently false claim genetics play a major role in it.

If you'll be kind enough to re-read my post, that wasn't my claim- my claim was simply that you are incorrect in saying that "no evidence whatsoever" exists for genetics playing a factor. That's different than asserting, without a solid scientific footing, that it absolutely does play a major factor. Find the nuance.

Gay uncle theory, my dude, have ya heard of it? Apparently my sister's gonna be able to pump out kiddos like nobody's business thanks to the genes we ended up with.

Unlikely, to say the least; Homosexuality and associated support for it correlates pretty strongly with lack of religion while opposition to the same correlates pretty strong with it. One group has sub-replacement fertility rates, the other doesn't. Simple math tells us how this ends up in the long run.

And now we've transitioned from genetics and biology to religion and society- fascinating how people change the topic when their arguments start to dissolve.

Being gay does not inherently make you more susceptible to HIV. Gay and bisexual men (let's just say MSM in general, since incompletely transitioned MtF trans and transitioned FtM trans and "straight" guys are also all in the mix) are at a higher risk for HIV because the disease was able to spread widely in the community thanks to a really dreadful public health response when it first came on the scene.

That would be a valid argument to make if we were living in the 80s, but we're not; CDC figures clearly show that 62% of those with HIV remain Homosexuals to the present. Matter of fact, being Gay means you're 700 too 800 times more likely to contract HIV while the chance of a straight male catching the disease is essentially non-existent. You'll also find rates of other STDs, such as syphilis occurring at much higher rates among Homosexuals.

Increased rates of exposure and increased susceptibility are not the same thing. Yes, HIV and other STDs are prevalent in much of the gay community thanks to historic marginalization, socioeconomic factors, public health failures, a lack of effective treatment options until more recently, and the disease's initial proliferation and establishment, and that leads to more exposure- but you initially stated gays were more susceptible, not more likely to contract it. One implies some sort of biological inferiority, one implies that there's simply a community facing a public health issue.

:roll: Better start stitching some pink triangles.

You brought it up clearly expecting this response, let's not pretend otherwise.

...yeah, and then you gave me the exact response, so I'm really not sure how your fascist eugenics bullshit is now somehow my fault.

Well, isn't that magnanimous. "Genocide might not be necessary to wipe you out, so let's look into less invasive eugenics policies!"

Yes, and I'll gladly carry such out myself for the record.

The world has such an awesome track record with eugenics programs, ya know. I'm sure it'll go great.

There are almost an infinite number of them, so I would hardly say the jury's in-

And yet, studies have failed to find any definitive ones in at least 30 years of research that I'm aware of; at this point, we're entering "No True Scotsman" territory.

No, we're entering "there's a huge amount of information on this topic we still haven't discovered or adequately investigated, and much more experimentation and study is required" territory. Don't be ridiculous.

"The science isn't in on two other possible factors, so let me assume that my narrative is correct!"

das bayud sighunce

So we have no proof of genetics or environmental factors causing it, and we know there is no "Gay Virus" going around, so that obviously leaves mental condition as the only valid answer.

Pretty sure that isn't how the scientific method works.

Oh, maybe you've been confused, sweetie- gay means homosexual, not sterile.

By all means, tell me when Gay men grew wombs.

So now everyone who can't self-fertilize is sterile? Goodness. Shall we start a eugenics programs to select only for hermaphrodites?

Pretty sure if I wanted to knock up a chick, my boys have the operational capacity to do so.

[many citations needed]

Sorta already covered it, but I can link studies and such if you want.

"sorta" is a stretch lol

:roll:

Again, let's not pretend this wasn't your intention.

Again- I'm not the one to blame for you being an unironic supporter of eugenics.

Namely, genocide. You might as well be upfront about it, tbh, your hints aren't at all subtle.

No, I actually mainly meant mental reconditioning.

So torture.

If you want to be thrown into a camp,

I mean, if you're going to torture millions of people, you will presumably need to incarcerate them in secure locations so they can't get away or make trouble. Doesn't have to be a death camp, but you'll need some kind of camp.

Would you prefer "special social rehabilitation facility" as a nicer phrase to make you more comfortable with it? Or maybe "arbeitslager"?

[Oil exporting People]

Here some proof for you: https://www.bu.edu/today/2013/gay-paren ... ight-ones/
https://qz.com/438469/the-science-is-cl ... advantage/
Both are studies showing no effect on the child whatsoever and the LGBT couples are just as capable parents as you.

> Not even being discussed

Plus giving real world examples is evidence just as much as those studies are.

No, it's not; one is valid evidence and the other isn't.

Editing genes is a route we should not go down under any circumstance

Not your choice individually to make.

What demographic profile are you talking about?

Essentially, support for Homosexuality is largely tied with little or no religious influence in life; this group isn't making babies, to be blunt.

[The Black Forrest]

But it's only natural that people do that stupid bullshit. Just ask Ifreann; apparently it's "self-evident" that homosexuals are naturally compelled to do it.

Stupid bullshit? Like people who take up Religion? There is a difference between the two. One is a choice and the other isn't.

Self-restraint isn't part of "straight-acting."

There's no such fucking thing as acting "straight." Straight is not a culture, gay is not a culture; sexuality has nothing to do with your individual behavior. Stop acting like there's any kind of connection between who you want to fuck and how you act as a person. Sexuality is natural and inherent; culture and behavior are artificial choices that you consciously choose to make.

Actually it is. Straight-acting (if that's what's it called now) used to be called living in the closet. Gays were forced into the closet by good Christians who would fire them, expel them, beat them, kill them, etc., etc.

But it's better they have self-restraint right? That way they can marry our mothers, daughters, and sisters.

[USS Monitor]

OP toes the line between acceptable debate and trolling. There have been some warnings in this thread already. Recent posts suggest the thread is continuing to have problems with rudeness and demeaning comments about homosexuals. For these reasons, the thread is locked.

[USS Monitor]

And after trawling the last couple of pages...

Personally I consider Homosexuality a plague to be eliminated with extreme prejudice, but I do believe some nuance is in order since the means of doing that in gentler way is now possible.

You've been posting a lot of stuff that the gay rights folks might find troublesome. Most of it managed to stay on the right side of the line, but this bit slips over into trolling. With your warning record, this could be a warning or a short ban. Since you were engaging in debate, not hit-and-run posting or just bloggishly repeating yourself, I'll go with a warning.

*** Warned for trolling ***

Yeah, but they’re still human, so it’s just as reprehensible to *ahem* “exterminate” them.

He's one of them Odinists, don't think you'll be able to convince him that's reprehensible.

This makes some unflattering assumptions about Odinists. Let's not do that.

Religious solitude should only be between a male and a female.

Anything else is but a degeneracy brought up by western society to cause inhuman nature.

But they're not people so it's okay.

In what way are they not considered "people"? I see them as sexual deviants and offenders.

*** Warned for trolling ***

Kannap was being ironic when he said homosexuals aren't people. I don't see any evidence that you were being ironic in calling them "sexual deviants and offenders" or accusing them of "degeneracy" and "inhuman nature."

You might want to take a look at the forum rules.

Hurr durr I masturbate to anime. Gay men are degenerates

Hopefully gene editing means we can get rid of dipshit rednecks on the internet and cure the planet of ingrates like your's misbegotten existence

*** Warned for trolling ***

This warning should be self-explanatory.

Yeah, but they’re still human, so it’s just as reprehensible to *ahem* “exterminate” them.

Yet, again, that doesn't make sense; seeing as, technically speaking, Genocide is a component in extermination, and if there is no gay-gene set or developmental hurdle for the human brain to become homosexual in a way that could be hereditary enough to warrant even "attempted" genocide by a political power or nation-state. How do you "Wipe out" or commit genocide on a group that doesn't support it's own population base? Genocide is supposed to be a one time thing, consult Al-Timur's victims' ghosts in northern india for evidence of this, the tribal situation there used to be alot more diverse.


Just seems like a pointless thing to get offended over, or constantly worry about seeing as apparently homosexuality just happens willy-nilly, take heart, it means you are part of a nigh-inextinguishable demographic.

Given the history of eugenicists killing gays for being gay, this, "Why are you offended? There's nothing to worry about," schtick comes across as trying to diminish the seriousness of such crimes. Arguing that it's somehow not offensive because it doesn't result in homosexuality being permanently eliminated from the population is basically excusing mass murder. You've previously lost a nation for trolling, so I don't see any reason to give you the benefit of the doubt about the intent behind these highly insensitive comments.

*** Warned for trolling ***