What do you think of homosexuality? Is it a matter of being born this way or becoming?

What do you think of homosexuality? Is it a matter of being born this way or becoming?

Can it be cured? Do (((they))) want to turn us gay?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=eSfByonziv4
youtube.com/watch?v=VtJFb_P2j48
ibtimes.co.uk/sexual-orientation-uk-half-young-people-say-they-are-not-100-heterosexual-1515690
science.sciencemag.org/content/349/6251/910
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_odour_and_sexual_attraction
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

It's a disorder, but research is not at the point where we can really figure out all of the causes deu to limitations in knowledge and social stigma.

Your country is pretty fucking gay so i think you already know the answer

...

Homosexuality was invented in Italy because their women have hairy nipples.

It is an epidemic affecting Kekistani's due to genetic problems from inbreeding, the same reason Ancapistan is building a wall to keep them away. Yes it is contagious, very contagious, and they do want to turn you gay.

Hard to say. I would guess that for some, it's some kind of genetic mutation. Something that's a natural part of who they are, and they have no control over it.
But I would imagine because of how much the left and the media celebrate it, some people jump on the bandwagon and do it to be trendy or possibly as a way of rebelling against the norm.

And yes, (((they))) definitely want as many of us (Whites) to be gay as possible. Anything that left and the media push for is directly coming from them.The idea being that homosexuality and transgenderism are two of many ways to continue to decrease our birth rates and prevent more and more whites from breeding.

It's unfortunate that so many fascists on pol want to introduce a new tyranny against "decadent" faggotry.

The SJW gender shit has gotten ridiculous but that doesn't turn straight men gay. In a tolerant society there are just more men who are apt to experiment who will openly experiment.

But straight is mostly straight and gay is mostly gay and neither is "decadent." Sexual orientation has little to do with environmental influence, at least after the time someone is a year old (hormones in the womb seem to play a part). So people need to be allowed to live the way they want to live.

As a straight man I find it absurd to think straight men can be "turned" gay. As if I'd go from wanting pussy to wanting dick. Anyone who worries about that is probably not entirely straight.

>What do you think of homosexuality? Is it a matter of being born this way or becoming?
50 50 i would say. It's a defect and i believe it can be caused by enviromrntal influences
>Can it be cured?
Some cases can and some probably can't
>Do (((they))) want to turn us gay?
of course

>What do you think of homosexuality?
I don't think about homosexuality.

>So people need to be allowed to live the way they want to live.

"no"

...

>If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Lev 20:13

Come on, people. There's not really such a thing as "turning" anyone gay. There is gay and straight and a few sexually amorphous people that slide around between both.

Animals are gay. There are gay horses and goats and cows. Search it. You'll find videos of male animals that only mount other males.

So it's not exactly unnatural. The "unnatural" stuff should be put in the garbage with the "sin" stuff. That's just tyranny of the majority.

The idea that it doesn't make evolutionary sense is dumb. We don't evolve strictly as individuals. We evolved in small tribes. Gayness wouldn't necessarily prevent reproduction and gayness might also have advantages that favor certain characteristics benefiting the whole tribe.

For god's sake, bonobo chimps are in a constant orgy of all sorts of homosexual encounters, young and old, male and female, just sex going on all over in every which way.

I personally find male homosexuality disgusting, but I put liberty first. Nobody has a right to force their preferences on their neighbors, unless it involves force (or statutory rape)

People can be attracted to women with plates in their mouths:
youtube.com/watch?v=eSfByonziv4

Evolution gave us the ability to adapt to whatever custom is required for us to survive. This makes us vulnerable to environmental behavioral forces. But this is what the brain is for. It cannot be hardwired in because evolution cannot know what a potential mate will look like with 100% certainty.

So we use our brains, and sometimes we get it wrong!

But also men and women do not look entirely different, and there are many women who "look like men". How do their genes exist if their ancestors who "looked like men" never attracted any men?

Those women who look like men are now butch lesbians and the men who would fuck them are now fags. Our strict standards of societal beauty don't allow them to like each other.

Ancient Greece and Rome were really one big orgy. The beasts the Bible talks about.

Even if homosexual desires are a physiological condition, the acts themselves which characterise homosexuality are entered into voluntarily, which means we are entitled to make the moral judgement about homosexuals being perverts and freaks.

wrong.
gay is an intersex trait op, its pretty well established to be caused by improper levels of hormones in the womb of the mother, caused by the genetics of the mother, the child, or both, but likely the mother. this is underpinned by studies that show gay and transexual peoples brains pick up on pheramones that they should not be able to because theyre for the opposite sex.

We evolve as individuals faster than as tribes.

This "it's hardwired in" shit just fucking ignores all the extreme shit people can be into. It's really just fucking retarded.

Not to mention that the look of modern females is all built on modern beauty products we didn't have while evolving.

The idea that it's hardwired in is just motherfucking stupid, but since it's the official idea, some stupid people (like you) will regurgitate it.

Also, see

If you don't believe in God or Christianity then of course you'll do it

If you believe in God and are Christian it's a sin

The purpose of sex is to beget children. It also brings immense pleasure, and this pleasure is nothing to be ashamed of. However, isolating that pleasure in lieu of sexes intended purpose (sex with wife to make children) is wrong and very shameful. Thus masturbation and homosexuality are sins, and birth control, condoms, pulling out etc are all sort of evil because they lead to sin

Only cure for the homo? Abstinence. The homosexual must pledge sexual abstinence their entire life. Homosexuality is a mental disorder. You are born with it. Just like I have the mental disorder of alcoholism and drug addiction and must abstain my entire life. If I get even a taste of liquor I will be drunk for months on end without control where the common man can have 1 drink and no more. Yes I did compare them because they are both mental diseases that are spiritually decaying. San Francisco is the most open and accepting place on earth for homo's. It also has the highest homosexual suicide rate in the world.

Some people say 'wel straight guys have had homo experiences'. Well men can be affectionate and not gay. I played QB in highschool for 2 years. Before every game I kissed my WR's and linemen on the helmet/ bare forehead to let them know I loved and cared for them and that we are a team. Then I'd go throw for 160-200 yards, maybe run for 40 more, and win or lose, go out with my gf and makeouf at a movie theater. No sex until we got married last year. Kid on the way. Amazed she stayed with me through the alcoholism.

Anyway, what I'm saying is that it is not normal and is a mental disorder. But that does not mean we should treat them any differently. HOWEVER, it also does not mean we should lie to their faces and tell them it's normal and being gay and letting it out will make everything normal. It has in fact made it much worse.

explain to me the high rates of child abuse in gays.

you are wrong to think gays aren't a form of decadence in terms of relationships.
While I am obviously for gay rights, these gay rights must take into account that the factors that women and men look for in a relationship dramatically overshoot when pair bonding with the same sex because we are designed to want these things in quantities to negotiate with the opposite sex, who want different things. this can lead to unhealthy relationships on both sides, which is there hook up culture and domestic violence in gay sex comes from. there must be social pressure to influence gays to behave as if they where straight during courting. not too fast, not too slow.

>wrong.
>gay is an intersex trait op, its pretty well established to be caused by improper levels of hormones in the womb of the mother, caused by the genetics of the mother, the child, or both, but likely the mother. this is underpinned by studies that show gay and transexual peoples brains pick up on pheramones that they should not be able to because theyre for the opposite sex.
People can learn to pick up just about any fetish as sex leads to people associating various things with pleasure. Scientists are shit, in general, and don't think critically about things in general.

Also, see

yeah, you hitler fags want to "help" us all be moral. That has been tried over and over. It's what makes living in almost any time and place a complete misery.

If an elite can force us to not engage in "decadent" behavior they can impose all kinds of bullshit. Like the literal nazis they can tell us what music to listen to (no modern music like jazz cuz negro inspired) and art (no modern art, but modern architecture is okay cuz our master the fuhrer said so). They can tell us how to eat, what drugs we can and can't take, what hours we should be indoors, when and where we can speak, what we are allowed to say in public, and so on. That's not a slippery slope, that's a pretty good description of your precious nazi bullshit.

You fascist cunts are the degenerates, for you literally will usher in a new age of degeneracy. People will live under that tyranny only for so long and then a crude, horrible revolution, or series of revolutions will wreck the nation.

The enlightenment and classical liberalism was meant to resolve all that... and so it did. But you servile faggot Nazis can't wait to put the chains on again.

>durr i dont believe in science because i say so.
okay fag, go ahead and go live innawoods then because you are 300 times more dangerous than any degenerate, people who live in the technological world but refuse to respect and understand the knowledge of what makes it work are the reason its all going to come tumbling down.

>okay fag, go ahead and go live innawoods then because you are 300 times more dangerous than any degenerate, people who live in the technological world but refuse to respect and understand the knowledge of what makes it work are the reason its all going to come tumbling down.
Don't believe in science because it's running on the reputation of proven things like electricity without having any robustness innate to it.

Believe in proven things, not "studies". If you don't, you're a motherfucking retard.

Of course gays, sluts, overly active social justice warriors with poisonous ideologies (fascists, communists, socialists, antics, supremisists, racists, , etc) are very anti religious. When you're a degenerate with tattoos and fucked up hair and piercings and drunk/high all the time, the last thing you want to think about is God. It's very convienient for them that He doesn't exist.

A homo can be a Christian. Every Christian sins. Every PERSON sins. We're imperfect creatures and always will be. But we must strive for perfection and aim for the highest goods in spite of our limitations, because you will eventually hit the mark. A church that says homo's can get married is lying. Christ constantly talks about marriage being between a man and woman as one flesh. Paul mentions in romans how men are now turning to men sexually and how it sickens him. Any church saying it isn't sin is not Christianity.

If one homo would look in their heart they'd know it to be true. The Russian composer tchaikovsky was a homosexual and wrote to his brother (who was also gay) that they were not 'normal' and had a 'serious disease'. Afterwards he would pledge abstinence his entire life. His music is quite ingenious. I wonder if it would have been if he had not disciplined himself?

I think we all fight certain things. I know I do. But in spite of our limitations we must look on our hearts and be honest; the homo knows the truth, no matter how hard they try and cover it up and deny it, and no matter how hard society tries to tell them it's normal, they know it's not. They created the word 'straight' for a man and female couple. Married couples didn't make that word. Gays did, thereby admitting that a man and female couple is normal, 'straight', more pure, more linear and correct.

It is a slippery slope. Most I know are very two-faced and it's a shame because our society is stringing them along. Oh well. No one here will listen to me anyway.

I take it you haven't spent much time around homofags. I spent a few years working in high end retail. I can assure you, those degenerates will try and force homosexual activity on straight men. And by force I mean molestation until you physically stop them

When you trust Science (TM), what you get is Butt Stuff.

Bill Nye the Science Lie is what you get when you worship Science and not provable results.

youtube.com/watch?v=VtJFb_P2j48

You people are dumb as fucking dirt. Do you understand evolution? Being attracted to plates in the lip or curled up chinese feet or a circumcised penis is not "evidence" of how malleable human sexuality is. It has essentially no bearing on homosexuality, as all of these constitute superficial cultural fashions, not a manipulation of the fundamental orientations of gay or straight.

They have found hormonal and differences in the neural structure of homosexuals! They have even found correlations in facial structure. It is not a choice and it is not a sin and it falls into the broad category of natural, as in our sexuality in all its crazy manifestations is natural.

Of course, just because we are sexual apes who use sex for all sorts of reasons, like bonding, pleasure and reproduction, doesn't mean any sexual expression is moral.

For example, its natural for animals to dismiss age when it comes to sex. Primates violate this one all the time, there is no age of consent. But we humans now mostly protect childhood because we understand more about childhood development and sex. We also make all sorts of moral decisions daily about covering ourselves and not trying to fuck at random.

But that doesn't mean sexual mores should be a matter of legislation. Aside from rape or statutory rape what grounds are there for disallowing on the legislative level certain sexual acts people do in private?

Im a tranny that believes in God. AMA

It's a fetish. For most of them at least. You know something about defense mechanisms, right? Repression blocks bad thoughts and urges from your subconsciousness and you don't even realize. But if your ego isn't fortified enough, repression can fail. You'll then know what the fuck's happening in your head and you may be disturbed and straight out deny it, especially if it's morally or socially unacceptable. It's better if you have a strong superego which makes you feel guilty. Restrictions must stem from you, because society is not stable enough. It even encourages people to be gay and yes you can be manipulated due to exposure of various kinds. Spending enough time on Sup Forums makes you non-normal at the very least. Just being curious about the appeal can change you too.

So I doubt there isn't just a tiny fraction of gay people who've been like that since childhood.

gay, becoming, yes, yes

A failure of science is that it gave people the impression that the brain structure is not related to what we learned in life. It develops based on that. So everyone goes around thinking that, for example, OH NO, DRUGS CHANGE YOUR BRAIN.

Literally when you change how you think, that is reflected in the brain. If you pursue a faggy behavior for your whole life, your brain will look different.

>Being attracted to plates in the lip or curled up chinese feet or a circumcised penis is not "evidence" of how malleable human sexuality is. It has essentially no bearing on homosexuality, as all of these constitute superficial cultural fashions, not a manipulation of the fundamental orientations of gay or straight.
Of course it does. It shows that people can be attracted to anything. And evolution CANNOT equip people to know in advance with 100% certainty what a mate looks like or not.

Additionally manly women exist and do so because men found them attractive enough to fuck.

One of the tragedies of the West is Christianity declaring homosexuality a sin. Particularly ridiculous considering the degenerate rape and killing of "enemies" by God's "chosen" people, the incest and taking of sexual slaves, the tacit acceptance of slavery (in both old and new testament), and the general crudeness and of so much of the bible. Not to mention the fact homosexuality and the priesthood have been linked for centuries.

Much that is good to say about Christianity but the Christian view on sexual "sin" is like a rot at its center. It has caused so much unnecessary misery.

animals do it more for dominance ... I would argue for humans it is probably a similar effect of showing dominance over another ... the problem is the result of this in an organism that has alot of sex related nerve ends .... enjoyment leads to pleasure .. and the brain is just looking for what makes it feel good resulting in a disorder as a result ... they are not really at fault ... it would be like a person addicted to gambling or masturbation ... just for gay sex .... I would say its something that could be waned if the person was actually interested in that ... but they would always desire that thrill of that which they are addicted

You my friend. Do not understand the brain and sexuality like you think you do. I don't care to educate you. Nor much of anyone else any more really. This world is fucked.

>Of course it does. It shows that people can be attracted to anything. And evolution CANNOT equip people to know in advance with 100% certainty what a mate looks like or not.

Holy shit you are dumb. We can't be attracted to ANYTHING, aside from the fact that certain humans are deranged and will fuck anything, but those freak instances hardly matter.

For example, being deformed is universally a sign of being less attractive, a constant across time and space.

But more importantly, we don't need to learn to be attracted to the opposite sex! We are sexually dimorphic! We have secondary sexual characteristics that obviously serve as a display for the overwhelming male/female binary that perpetuates the species! The larger cleavage of women, the bigger buts, the higher fat content, the softer facial features - the OVERALL SIZE of women compared to men, the higher muscle content of men, the narrower hips of men, etc.

Seriously, the dumb on this thread is raging like unchecked faggotry

>muh bill nye
bill nye is litterally a manifestation of you and other normies like your ignorance, we shouldnt even need retarded jesters like him to get you fags to read studies or at least peoples reviews of studies in scientific journals.

but since all the traditional right seems to be filled with lawyers, CEOS and hics i guess i cant be surprised that your idea of what SCIENCE is comes from fucking general magazines and mainstream media or even worse, "alternative news."

If you want to learn how science works, read the science or talk to someone who knows how the science works. its not that hard. theres even a site for people too dumb to do it without help called wikipedia, filled with fucking babbies first entry level studies on a topic, and most of them are pretty even handed, especially the stuff about female mental inferiority if you want a redpilled issue to wank over.

I cant wait to hear you come cry to me about how wikipedia is (((them))) when I always get linked to sites that are normally either the fucking family research council or some other shitty geocities atrocity with a link to two (2) whole studies on female inferiority and a bunch of arm chair wizardry on IQ compared to wikipedias 20.

Pol cant even be trusted to read their own shit they shill, like womens happiness overtime declining since the 1970s somehow proves women sure hate having the right to vote and being first class citizens. as though the 1970s where somehow comparable to the 1850s or 1700s.

Stop being a lazy cunt and read a book you nigger

cured how

Kill yourself.

You're not educated, you're just retarded. I used to regurgitate "research", but eventually realized that the vast majority of scientists are really fucking stupid and don't spend any time thinking philosophically, just running like a headless chicken from one "study" to the next.

a study shows that someone proved a thing. repeatability shows its even more provided.
you're a fucking idiot if you think stuff like electricity could even exist as we use it where it not for the nerds doing "worthless studies" on it for hundreds of years prior.

Funny you mention that, because I am a Philosopher first, a Farmer second, a Chemist third.
For you to claim Philosophy and not realize the simple "More than one way to skin a cat." Is rather disheartening. Got into Nietzsche recently then?
I rather like Camus and the simplicity of Watts myself.

Problem with homosexuality as a sin is more so that most people of today view religion with blind faith .... and to live outside the norms apparently are completely non negotiable .... because while I believe it should be a sin and people should try to avoid it .... to declare it completely evil would be an incorrect assortment I would imagine more of an act like lying or other more minor corruptible offenses that can be handled ... of course the bigger offense of the gay individual would be corrupting another instead of with one already corrupted ... which is why the trolls and twinks culture shit and priest problems are a terrible terrible sin ... sometimes though its telling someone they can't do something that makes them most curious

>Holy shit you are dumb. We can't be attracted to ANYTHING, aside from the fact that certain humans are deranged and will fuck anything, but those freak instances hardly matter.
Yeah, let's dismiss examples of people being attracted to just about anything. This allows us to prove that people can't be attracted to just about anything.

I'm sure you've seen all these recent postings on Sup Forums about "white women and animals"?

You don't care that you're contradicted. It's sad, really.

>But more importantly, we don't need to learn to be attracted to the opposite sex! We are sexually dimorphic! We have secondary sexual characteristics that obviously serve as a display for the overwhelming male/female binary that perpetuates the species! The larger cleavage of women, the bigger buts, the higher fat content, the softer facial features - the OVERALL SIZE of women compared to men, the higher muscle content of men, the narrower hips of men, etc.
>Seriously, the dumb on this thread is raging like unchecked faggotry
There's a large overlap between men and women in appearance, and the biggest reason women look different is that they wear makeup and have long hair.

Some women have obviously big hips, but not all do. Many women have relatively small hips and overlap with skinny men.

All your statements ignore the overlap and focus on the extremes. The people in the overlap exist because not only the cartoon extremes had sex.

>bill nye is litterally a manifestation of you and other normies like your ignorance, we shouldnt even need retarded jesters like him to get you fags to read studies or at least peoples reviews of studies in scientific journals.
Studies are shit. I've read perhaps more than 60 and I have an advanced degree.

You don't really think that the masses of people who are passed through are all geniuses, do you? Good science is created by the geniuses, not the majority. The majority nonetheless creates masses of studies.

>durr muh philosophy
yeah you know why? because we test shit
unlike your retarded ancient fags like aristotle who pretty much can only claim to have invented being wrong about everything.

What kind of moron literally things that an objects motion doesnt change no matter what medium it is in? your way of looking at the world is so fucking divorced from reality that a guy who outlasted millions of years of the erosion of history and lived in the fucking ancient past was so removed from the physical world he couldnt even correctly tell you what happens when a leaf falls in a fucking pond. fuck philosophy.

I think you faggots need to relax and realize gayness will never go above a certain level. NEVER. It is far too hardwired.

I honestly think people spouting the kind of weird stuff I'm seeing here either:

>are Godfags who can't see past "but God said...!"

>are Hitler fags who can't see past "but I should force others to not like what I don't like! Reeee!"

>are ACTUAL FAGS.

If you are the latter the only cure for you is cock. Go get some immediately.

As for me. I know exactly what it means to be straight. I am an atheist so god didn't have to teach me. I turned about 12 and suddenly my little pecker was hard 24/7 and pointing at girls. Didn't plan it. Didn't ask for it. But my body had a mind of its own.

That's sex for you.

>Funny you mention that, because I am a Philosopher first, a Farmer second, a Chemist third.
That's nice.
>For you to claim Philosophy and not realize the simple "More than one way to skin a cat." Is rather disheartening. Got into Nietzsche recently then?
Irrelevant.
>I rather like Camus and the simplicity of Watts myself.
That's nice. I think you're one who just likes to sound smart. That is all 99% of academics (people who produce "studies") achieve.

>yeah you know why? because we test shit
>unlike your retarded ancient fags like aristotle who pretty much can only claim to have invented being wrong about everything.
>What kind of moron literally things that an objects motion doesnt change no matter what medium it is in? your way of looking at the world is so fucking divorced from reality that a guy who outlasted millions of years of the erosion of history and lived in the fucking ancient past was so removed from the physical world he couldnt even correctly tell you what happens when a leaf falls in a fucking pond. fuck philosophy.
I'm not talking about reading Aristotle, I'm talking about thinking about things, instead of just pushing through, running tests, and writing a conclusion.

The problem with "tests" is that the people who write crap studies assume the tests are sufficient even if they aren't, and spend not enough time thinking about whether they are.

That is the problem with the mantra of "make a hypothesis, and then test it". You can't know whether the test was sufficient. And though it is claimed that "we never know when something is true, but only when we can rule it out", that is not how "science" is treated in practice, and not how you're treating it, since you are telling me to believe studies, rather than sticking to believing in the proven stuff, like electricity.

>I think you faggots need to relax and realize gayness will never go above a certain level. NEVER. It is far too hardwired.
>I honestly think people spouting the kind of weird stuff I'm seeing here either:
>>are Godfags who can't see past "but God said...!"
>>are Hitler fags who can't see past "but I should force others to not like what I don't like! Reeee!"
>>are ACTUAL FAGS.
>If you are the latter the only cure for you is cock. Go get some immediately.
>As for me. I know exactly what it means to be straight. I am an atheist so god didn't have to teach me. I turned about 12 and suddenly my little pecker was hard 24/7 and pointing at girls. Didn't plan it. Didn't ask for it. But my body had a mind of its own.
>That's sex for you.
ibtimes.co.uk/sexual-orientation-uk-half-young-people-say-they-are-not-100-heterosexual-1515690

Irrelevant? You accused a Philosopher of not thinking Philosophically yet lock yourself into one specific view point, that is contrary to evidence.
The reason I mentioned Philosophers was to see if you'd come back with your influences. I don't think you have any. You act as if I am drenched in ego, yet you dismiss fact for what feels good for your emotional stability.

fun story, dawkins was touched as a boy, and because he was mostly too young for sex at the time, he remembers that it seemed to have fucked up the priest more than him, who crossed the line from hover hand to touching and then ran away leaving him confused.

Compare to most of christian history; oh your daughter is like 12? sure she can marry, the sooner the better. Better not question one word of that bible though or you're a deadman.

With regards to calling something a sin because the bible says it is in modern day, I don't think most christians have a healthy understanding of what their ancestors would do to even some of the most "conservative christians" in this day and age. they would be frothing at the mouth that women ever opened their mouths in church, that they let their kids dress up as heathens on halloween, and that there are witches in existance right now that they could be burning and yet they are not physically doing so, regardless of what the state says on the matter. it doesn pay alliegience to god so its obviously corrupt.

This is important because the kinds of people you guys ignore daily are the exact kinds of people who transcribed your religious books. from their time till now, only very recently has questioning the church ever actually been possible on ANY issue without excommunication on the line.

Goddayyyamit you are one of the dumbest people I have come across in a while.

>There's a large overlap between men and women in appearance, and the biggest reason women look different is that they wear makeup and have long hair.

No, there really isn't! You have been watching way too much gender bending porn. Even there men are taking hormones and doing everything they can to appear female. But they can't hide the adams apple and most cannot hide the size and bone structure, let alone the genitals!

There are hundreds of secondary sex characteristics. Stop jerking it to genderbending porn and go to your local big box store. Actually look at the people. The bigger men and their middle age guts but flat asses. The women and their totally different bodies and fat distribution, with fat asses and huge tits. We are WILDLY different and your insistence on this virtually nonexistent overlap shows your fucked-up obsession with your own sexuality, perhaps.

And you miss my retort to your "humans can be attracted to anything." Humans are apes- we are very sexual. But we are OVERWHELMINGLY straight and oriented to the opposite sex. Your insistence otherwise is as if putting bestiality on TV will have housewives fucking their dogs. Utterly fucking ridiculous and again showing your own mental obsessions.

>Irrelevant? You accused a Philosopher of not thinking Philosophically yet lock yourself into one specific view point, that is contrary to evidence.
>The reason I mentioned Philosophers was to see if you'd come back with your influences. I don't think you have any. You act as if I am drenched in ego, yet you dismiss fact for what feels good for your emotional stability
I didn't contradict any evidence presented.

And I'm not talking about philosophy in general, but rather people spending more time thinking about studies then they currently are.

The philosophers of the past didn't do as much experimentation, but the scientists of the present don't do enough thinking.

It's inherent autism being taken advantage of by a global marxist depopulation agenda.

The susceptibility of those vulnerable to 'becoming gay' is enhanced in families where there's an abusive / pedophile parent, uncle, etc.

A lack of discipline can also cause a child to find more and more egregious ways to act out, which attracts them to the sensationalist LGBT movement. Lack of sexual value in the community can also cause a person to act outrageously, as they are looking for easy acceptance and an excuse not to change themselves for the better.

Exploring the depopulation agenda further, there may also be a chemical element to a change in behaviour. (see: chemicals turning frogs gay)

>The philosophers of the past didn't do as much experimentation, but the scientists of the present don't do enough thinking.
You're correct on this, but that is why it is important to know how the tests were conducted.

>No, there really isn't! You have been watching way too much gender bending porn. Even there men are taking hormones and doing everything they can to appear female. But they can't hide the adams apple and most cannot hide the size and bone structure, let alone the genitals!
>There are hundreds of secondary sex characteristics. Stop jerking it to genderbending porn and go to your local big box store. Actually look at the people. The bigger men and their middle age guts but flat asses. The women and their totally different bodies and fat distribution, with fat asses and huge tits. We are WILDLY different and your insistence on this virtually nonexistent overlap shows your fucked-up obsession with your own sexuality, perhaps.
>And you miss my retort to your "humans can be attracted to anything." Humans are apes- we are very sexual. But we are OVERWHELMINGLY straight and oriented to the opposite sex. Your insistence otherwise is as if putting bestiality on TV will have housewives fucking their dogs. Utterly fucking ridiculous and again showing your own mental obsessions.
Adam's apple isn't that noticeable. It's not like one instantly notices every feature of people.

>The women and their totally different bodies and fat distribution, with fat asses and huge tits.
All women have huge tits.

>And you miss my retort to your "humans can be attracted to anything." Humans are apes- we are very sexual. But we are OVERWHELMINGLY straight and oriented to the opposite sex. Your insistence otherwise is as if putting bestiality on TV will have housewives fucking their dogs. Utterly fucking ridiculous and again showing your own mental obsessions.
People are not hardwired to want sex with animals, they have the capacity to develop the desire to.

You are really stupid.

Yeah, and despite our current technology basically allowing us to videotape the entirety of all experiments, scientists are not doing it.

Yep, you make some solid points. Every generation has its little fascists. Every generation has its moral totalitarians who want to tell their neighbors how to live. Pol is full of these religious and nazi zealots who shit all over the best of the enlightenment tradition.

I want liberty, not a fucking totalitarianism, as if some dumb nazi cunt can decide for us all what is and isn't "decadent." All that does is set up the usual tyranny that hardens into a ruling class (that never abides by its own rules) and a servile populace that will eventually revolt. The whole system is unstable.

We need a proper liberty revolution. WHITE PEOPLE SHOULD ALWAYS LIVE FREE.

you can be a little bit gay when you are born but if raised correctly could grow up to be normal but i think once someone has gone full faggot there isn't a cure... yet.

i think its genetics. animals are gay too. no they dont want to turn u gay, but they would fuck u if u pass away. after all they are still men

>The problem with "tests" is that the people who write crap studies assume the tests are sufficient even if they aren't, and spend not enough time thinking about whether they are.
actually, they do, what you dont seem to understand, is that perfection is hard to achieve, and in any case unlike the retarded headlines of deranged media, they aren't out to prove much, because they know if their study is weak it will be a drop in the bucket anyway, we have review boards responsible for weeding out the stupid studies, and peer reviews and respondant studies repeating tests to check for verification, the whole system is designed with the problem you have in mind.

>we never know if something is true
>so that means i get to ignore all your stupid studies cause i hate gays i hate em waaa
yeah okay dumbass if you hate that we dont bend on the truth so easy why dont you go try and show us how we where wrong about gravity a few times huh? why is it you insist on proving us wrong about gays instead of wrong about the jewish lie that we cant just leave from our 2nd story window to go to work instead of having to build things like stairs.

if you want to prove something we know isnt true you dumbass, you are of course, expected to provide sufficient proof, which most philosophy and religion fags choke on because they seem to think the idea that we wont treat something as wrong when the data we have is predictive *Ie it works to predict the future of something and has some measure of accuracy if not increadible measures*. if your idea is right and ours is wrong, it should at fucking minimum be able to predict better than ours, but you and the creationist fags are never around when that part comes around, you never show up with the home work. you just cry about how its not fair that we act like we are all authoritative or whatever when you are welcome to overturn any science you like if you have sufficient evidence that offers greater measures of accuracy.

Give the rainbow back to the children, you shower of shits.

Actually, you are the freakshow who is turning the exceptions into the rule. If its not the adams apple that gives it away its the hips, or the hands, or the leathery facial skin due to the secondary characteristic of facial hair, or...

And if its not the big tits it is the female ass, or the smaller body and overall shape, or the more female facial features, or how about her PUSSY?

It seems you live in a fantasy world where you willfully tangle gender all up so you can fret about how we're all being propagandized into "the gay."

Get over it. Get over yourself. Your neighbors are almost all straight, and the ones who aren't don't do you any harm. Leave it you little fascist puke.

>i think its genetics. animals are gay too. no they dont want to turn u gay, but they would fuck u if u pass away. after all they are still men
Evolution CANNOT hardwire animals in general to know what exactly their possible mates look like.

The reason is that if it picked a particular look and hardwired it in, the animal could not fuck anything that had a difference, and would be incapable of evolving because it could not mate with anything that evolved.

This is what I mean by spending more time thinking philosophically. ^

We never stole it from them you fucking christnigger
Piracy=!stealing
if you disagree with me
theres your childish rainbow christnigger, and there are many more where it came from.

>actually, they do, what you dont seem to understand, is that perfection is hard to achieve, and in any case unlike the retarded headlines of deranged media, they aren't out to prove much, because they know if their study is weak it will be a drop in the bucket anyway, we have review boards responsible for weeding out the stupid studies, and peer reviews and respondant studies repeating tests to check for verification, the whole system is designed with the problem you have in mind.
No, the "review boards" are not robust. They're ran by unpaid people who don't have much time to think about the study to find errors.

>yeah okay dumbass if you hate that we dont bend on the truth so easy why dont you go try and show us how we where wrong about gravity a few times huh? why is it you insist on proving us wrong about gays instead of wrong about the jewish lie that we cant just leave from our 2nd story window to go to work instead of having to build things like stairs.
Things like gravity do not make things like "gender and sexuality studies" robust. Your opinion that proven science proves unproven science is a philosophical flaw.

>if you want to prove something we know isnt true you dumbass, you are of course, expected to provide sufficient proof, which most philosophy and religion fags choke on because they seem to think the idea that we wont treat something as wrong when the data we have is predictive *Ie it works to predict the future of something and has some measure of accuracy if not increadible measures*. if your idea is right and ours is wrong, it should at fucking minimum be able to predict better than ours, but you and the creationist fags are never around when that part comes around, you never show up with the home work. you just cry about how its not fair that we act like we are all authoritative or whatever when you are welcome to overturn any science you like if you...
science.sciencemag.org/content/349/6251/910

>The reason is that if it picked a particular look and hardwired it in, the animal could not fuck anything that had a difference, and would be incapable of evolving because it could not mate with anything that evolved.
human beings are attracted by a range of mobile in born genetic factors that are measurably able to predict what attracts humanity as a whole, certain demographics, and offers a better predictor of what humans will be attracted to and why than "humans can be attracted to anything because humans evolved and things change when they evolved so obviously there cant be any sort of inbuilt target for sexual selection thats genetic because genes can't change!"

I'll let you sort out whats wrong with your retarded view on your own. it should be pretty obvious after a while.

EVOLUTION OVERWHELMING HARDWIRES MALE AND FEMALE TO ATTRACT. That's why I brought up the secondary sexual characteristics. If these things were culturally conditioned to the degree you think they are nature wouldn't have provided us with these physical triggers. The secondary sex characteristics are intended to trigger internal mechanism that turn us on to sex. We don't choose it. Puberty comes and it hits like a storm.

Only a few folks like you are stuck in the middle wondering about gender.

The fact that sexuality can diverge away from heterosexuality sometimes and a few individuals are oriented completely toward the same sex doesn't mean much. They are a small minority and will ALWAYS BE a small minority. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE to create a mass flipping of sexual orientation.

If you fear otherwise you really need to work out this God thing and learn to accept yourself. And maybe find a loving husband and get some dick.

>if you want to prove something we know isnt true you dumbass, you are of course, expected to provide sufficient proof,
You're saying science is about the masses of retarded academics producing papers and then other people having the burden of proving them not true.

That's exactly opposite of what science is supposed to be, but it is exactly how science is being run.

...

>EVOLUTION OVERWHELMING HARDWIRES MALE AND FEMALE TO ATTRACT. That's why I brought up the secondary sexual characteristics. If these things were culturally conditioned to the degree you think they are nature wouldn't have provided us with these physical triggers. The secondary sex characteristics are intended to trigger internal mechanism that turn us on to sex. We don't choose it. Puberty comes and it hits like a storm.
>Only a few folks like you are stuck in the middle wondering about gender.
>The fact that sexuality can diverge away from heterosexuality sometimes and a few individuals are oriented completely toward the same sex doesn't mean much. They are a small minority and will ALWAYS BE a small minority. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE to create a mass flipping of sexual orientation.
>If you fear otherwise you really need to work out this God thing and learn to accept yourself. And maybe find a loving husband and get some dick.
It may give us a bias, but we're capable of choosing, since if we couldn't it would have to be hardwired it, but if it was, we wouldn't have been able to evolve.

>human beings are attracted by a range of mobile in born genetic factors that are measurably able to predict what attracts humanity as a whole, certain demographics, and offers a better predictor of what humans will be attracted to and why than "humans can be attracted to anything because humans evolved and things change when they evolved so obviously there cant be any sort of inbuilt target for sexual selection thats genetic because genes can't change!"
>I'll let you sort out whats wrong with your retarded view on your own. it should be pretty obvious after a while.
You can't rebut it. If you could you would. Even if there were a flaw with it, you wouldn't be able to figure it out because you're not capable of thinking critically, just capable of going through the motions of the performing arts version of "science".

>No, the "review boards" are not robust. They're ran by unpaid people who don't have much time to think about the study to find errors.
no, theyre ran by paid people, because the review board is what publishes material, and publishing costs money which costs people time and hours to review and print stuff. if you believe review boards dont have enough time you are sorely mistaken, you just dont happen to like their results so you continue to cry about it. there is no need for scam artists to slip past these idiots. plenty of shitty organizations have popped up that will publish anything.

>durr my ideas cant predict shit but that doesn't mean your ideas can
actually the studies show that we can and they work, we even made a fucking robot that can tell how gay someone is based on their fucking bone structure. we have measures of them smelling pheremones straight males CANNOT DETECT.
they are predictively robust yes. far more usefull than your "nut uh youre wrong because it your result doesnt mean i get to kill all the bad gay people baww"

Homosexuality is a modern invention, currently tied with the identity obfustications of cultural Marxism. Homosexuality is but an aspect of sensuality, not an identity.

>no, theyre ran by paid people, because the review board is what publishes material, and publishing costs money which costs people time and hours to review and print stuff. if you believe review boards dont have enough time you are sorely mistaken, you just dont happen to like their results so you continue to cry about it. there is no need for scam artists to slip past these idiots. plenty of shitty organizations have popped up that will publish anything.
You mean "peer review", right? They're unpaid. And they're unpaid because it's for publications that don't want to pay.

>actually the studies show that we can and they work, we even made a fucking robot that can tell how gay someone is based on their fucking bone structure. we have measures of them smelling pheremones straight males CANNOT DETECT.
>they are predictively robust yes. far more usefull than your "nut uh youre wrong because it your result doesnt mean i get to kill all the bad gay people baww"
science.sciencemag.org/content/349/6251/910
Did you try reading that ^

they dont have the burden of providing them not true, they have the burden of looking into their experiment and see if they found any errors in their methadology that are obvious and easily make the study worthless. then they publish it if its worthwhile, IE might be helpful, doesnt even have to be correct, it just has to be technically correct.

what PROVES SOMETHING TRUE isnt that it GETS PUBLISHED, that just proves a study is worth looking at because it wasnt written by a retard like you, what PROVES SCIENCE TRUE IS ITS POWER TO PREDICT. thats why repeat studies are so important. the more predictive power you have, the better the science. it doesnt matter how many peer reviewed papers you get published if you CANNOT PREDICT WHAT HAPPENS.

luckily the science on intersex traits has been in production long before retarded alt right niggers and tumblr feminists got ahold of them and they've been working on it for decades with studies that are now VERY PREDICTIVE AND ESTABLISHED

>[Nature] may give us a bias, but we're capable of choosing, since if we couldn't it would have to be hardwired it, but if it was, we wouldn't have been able to evolve.

THAT'S NOT HOW EVOLUTION WORKS YOU DUMB FUCK.

Your willful manipulation of all data coming at you shows you have a dogmatic mind that simply cannot begin to look at this issue dogmatically. Again, the most likely theory is that you're struggling with your own sexuality. Deal with it and stop being a fascist asshole.

So this would especially apply to papers where (((Christian))) scientists get findings on gay people that disagree with most of the other ones that gays were heavily abused, or fuck up their kids or something, that are almost NEVER replicated.

It's a mental disorder and you're not born with it.
I'm a raging homosexual pedophile myself.
AMA

>actually the studies show that we can and they work, we even made a fucking robot that can tell how gay someone is based on their fucking bone structure. we have measures of them smelling pheremones straight males CANNOT DETECT.
>they are predictively robust yes. far more usefull than your "nut uh youre wrong because it your result doesnt mean i get to kill all the bad gay people baww"
Those results are never 100%, and we know identical twins don't match in sexuality 100%.

If identical twins don't match 100% in sexuality it cannot be either genetic nor "chemicals in the womb".

But you would have to think critically to take those results into account.

I have something that explains your "bone structure" and the twins result:
Certain looks are stereotyped as gay or just plain ugly, they lead to a reaction in women that pushes the men to try sex with men instead.

>I am litterally so stupid i cant figure out whats wrong with my own statment
wow, i didn't know you knew so little about evolution that you didn't realize that genes change over time you fucking idiot.

>my uncle fucked my in the ass when I was 8
>I was born this way

>So this would especially apply to papers where (((Christian))) scientists get findings on gay people that disagree with most of the other ones that gays were heavily abused, or fuck up their kids or something, that are almost NEVER replicated.
It's hard to get data on that because they have an incentive to lie. This possibility is ignored by PC scientists.

>science.sciencemag.org/content/349/6251/910
>study on physiology
>psychology
wow you dont even know what department of science we're in.

>wow, i didn't know you knew so little about evolution that you didn't realize that genes change over time you fucking idiot.
Yes, and according to you people will not be able to fuck anyone with any new feature unless they magically evolve, at the same time, the desire to fuck someone with that feature.

>durr its not 100% accurate so its wrong
see now i really know you don't understand how science works, because in science, that means its correct but not perfect, and until you bring in evidence to show otherwise with better predictive results, thats how its going to stay.

yes you dumbass, thats exactly correct. ever heard of the uncanny valley effect? its why people dont find genetic deformities hot 99% of the time.

>wow you dont even know what department of science we're in.
We are talking about what makes people gay and the psychologists were among those declaring it to be not a psychological disorder.

This is a general problem in science, not just psychology, though.

>durr medicine
its not a disorder you moron, a disorder has to cause the patient distress. gays aren't distressed about who they want to fuck theyre distressed that society doesn't think theyre "cool" or "in"

>yes you dumbass, thats exactly correct. ever heard of the uncanny valley effect? its why people dont find genetic deformities hot 99% of the time.
And your point is?

Obviously it would depends what the deformity is. Your assumption is that people do not come to decide what they like based on using their brain, at all, but have to have it hardwired in. No reason to assume that.

>no reason to assume that
yes there is no reason to assume that, we have data that proves its true.

>its not a disorder you moron, a disorder has to cause the patient distress. gays aren't distressed about who they want to fuck theyre distressed that society doesn't think theyre "cool" or "in"
Many are "distressed" by it, and they obviously should be. What a terrible attempt to define it away.

>yes there is no reason to assume that, we have data that proves its tr
Prove it. Show the data that says people do not use their brains when deciding attractiveness.

Right, so people like women with disks in their mouth, people with flat heads, etc just because it was hardwired in.

>define a medical condition by its effects on the health of the patient
>thats a terrible idea
you prove your stupidity once more
>many are distressed by it
theyre distressed by others reactions to it, not by it. IE, my religion says this is bad, mom wont love me anymore, muh morals. all things informed to you by societal upbringing.

So Christian scientists are incapable of lying or manipulating data to reach anti-gay conclusions.

You haven't cited a single piece of evidence in support of your conclusions.

People in afghanistan like fucking boys because they're all just genetically gay. It's not a cultural thing. And they suddenly stopped being genetically gay when the taliban arrived, and continued being gay when the taliban was kicked out.

Additionally,
ibtimes.co.uk/sexual-orientation-uk-half-young-people-say-they-are-not-100-heterosexual-1515690
They were always that way. Nothing changed. No matter how many people change their identity publicly it all never changed.

humans do use their brains in deciding who to partner up with, but attractiveness? thats easy
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_odour_and_sexual_attraction
here you go dumbass who's too dumb to google, one fascet. I'm sure you're smart enough to click on links though so no need to provide you with more. if you're wondering where the research papers are, click the little numbers, I know that might be confusing for someone so dumb as you but thats how you get to the science part i'm sure you'll spend a great ammount of your time reading instead of just ignoring and masturbating to how right you are about killing all the gays who arent natural at all no way no how.

That's 61 footnotes. The burden is on YOU to explain where in there your point is proven. You wouldn't just cite 61 studies without a single quote or even a page number of where to find your evidence if you were writing a research paper, so why be sloppy here? Nobody is going to look through 61 articles to find your point. Be more specific please.

I'd be surprised if you could find me a number of people who where attracted to those things surpassed the number of transexuals that exist in the united states