How come there is a "gay gene"?

I have been thinking lately, and one of the questions that popped up is the absurd idea of a genetic predisposition towards homosexuality. Think about it. Let's say for purpose of this hypothetical there is 10 out of 100 people gay. Now 8 of those gay people won't ever procreate, they will just have homosexual relationships their whole lives, maybe date a girl once. 2 out of those 100 will procreate and make maybe 3 new gay people. Going by the same logic, only 20% of those 3 will procreate, aka let's say 1 person. I mean, within 2 generations of people procreating and "spreading the gay gene" the gay gene dies out, completely. Meaning that homosexuality isn't predominantly determined with genetics but rather with environmental and psychological factors. For instance how come in prison people start to lash out their sexual frustrations as a form of male on male rapes? And how come this form of homosexuality is completely disregarded? Is it because it's antisocial? If it were up to me, I couldn't rape another man, even if I was extremely sexually frustrated and antisocial. I don't think it would get hard if a mans butt was willing to take it and I "had to let go". So I wonder, what do you guys think is the real reason for homosexuality?

>>71728 Ok, I'll bite. Your assumpions on how genetics and etology works are flawed. There is no homosexuality gene because there is no X gene for anything 95% of the time. The 5% exeptions are unfortunately the most well known among non biologists because they are very illustrative and we're nessesary to prove the general theory, but there is levels upon levels of complexity in actual physiological basis of how it functions. We don't know that much, but human body is not a black box you can study only by observing it's behaviour and using statistics, we know a lot about how the "machinery" works now. With that said, there probably isn't any real homosexual gene because there is almost no complete homosexuality in nature for the reasons you described, unless the males are stuck together like in the situations of domestication and high density of population. There is, however, plenty of bisexual behaviour, especially in birds. Black swans are a good example, 2 males either mate with the female or steal the nest with eggs and defend it together while performing courting behaviour with each other. The survival rate of the offspring with this situation is higher than if it's a usual male and female pair. That's why the behaviour stuck. That can clue us in that the question is not in the existence of the urge to mate with males, but the urge to mate so strong there is not that much differentiation or if the mechanism of differentiation is altered. In reality almost any biological phenomena in the body is affected by a lot of genes, probably more that we can trace at the moment of you include second hand interactions. From the moment that the gene is in confirmation that prevents transcription till the protein it encoded is degraded by enzymes there is a lot of control mechanisms that are activated at every stage. The rate of translation, the way the exons and introns are spliced, the localisation within the cells cytoplasmand membranes or outside the cell altogether, there is a lot of things happening. And we have not even got to the humoral and nervous systems a level above that molecular complexity. Current AI has billions of parameters and is paling in comparison with the actual human brain. It's the most complex system we know of at the moment and it's also self replicating with very little resource requirements and a huge capacity to integrate information and adapt to environments. There are no genes of X. There are genes that are implicated in affecting the X, and they are one among many. Moving to the historical context, as was discussed in one of the threads, the current paradigm of hetero and homosexual wa invented in the 19th century. People did not view the human sexuality in that way, instead there was the penetrator and the penetrated with implications of power play. With the advent of Christianity male to male was considered sodomy but it was seen as the act along the lines of rape, that is a conscious act of cruel satisfaction of your desires, not a sexuality you prefer. In ancient times people were more accepting that some people preferred women, some young boys and some liked both. Most people practicing this were of high status because they could afford it and so they usually married and procreated as the means of political leverage. Loving your wife and being faithful to her was ridiculed since the mighty penetrator is supposed to spread his seed as much as he can without breaking the law. The Romans and Greeks differed on this, but there was an understanding that both ways of living were valid and that was just a cultural thing. The same can be applied to Persia, India and China, although I'm not as knowledgeable on this subject in those countries.

Lainchan won't let me post the text

>>71740 Are you actually 14 years old?

>>71738 I don't know why this lain denies the existence of a homosexual gene, but today the current consensus is that it's probably a mix of genetics and environment. There might not be a single gene persay, but probably a few that under the right conditions will make someone gay. I really like the "gay uncle" theory, that being having an extra non-child rearing family member is tremendously helpful in childcare, especially if something happens like the mother/father dies and the relative can just slip into that role. >Moving to the historical context, as was discussed in one of the threads, the current paradigm of hetero and homosexual wa invented in the 19th century. People did not view the human sexuality in that way, instead there was the penetrator and the penetrated with implications of power play. You're right about the first part, but the "penetrator vs penetrated" is also just a western cultural concept. There is great diversity on how the rest of the world views sex.

>>71751 I deny the existence of a single homimesexual gene. Even if it's just a figure of speech it is very unhelpful Are there genes implicated in causing same sex courtship and mating? Yes. I'll be delighted if you can share the other historic views on sexuality, I'm only familiar with the greko-roman tradition

>>71753 I also think it's unhelpful to describe homosexuality as being "genetic", but I think people only really do to explain that you can't choose to be gay. Full disclosure, I'm straight. Many Vedic Sutras (most notably the Kama Sutra) are on the subject of sex. It was firm in that not only sex is a moral obligation you have to fulfill for your partner, but that you gotta be good at it too. Pleasure for both sexes was paramount, and the Sutras included guides on how to spice up sex, with some suggesting things that may look a bit like BDSM today. I've heard other societies in Papa New Guinea and such having wildly different sex views, but this is out of my academic domain (Indo-European studies). Sadly, the anthropology of sex has only been started to get written about in the last 30 years and there's still a lot we just don't know.

>>71728 if you ever coded dirty you got a live rendition of how it works - you hack it together and its good enough as long as it does the intended job. The consequence is unforeseen side effects you simply ignore if not too critical because its too expensive and not justifiable to do perfect. The whole thing is the equivalent of consumer drones then going "its not a bug its a feature" trying to find meaning where there was none.

>>71728 >So I wonder, what do you guys think is the real reason for homosexuality? Childhood trauma, neglect, lack of proper affection, sexual assault, crossed wires in the brain, take your pick. I'm of the opinion it's a nurture thing, not a nature one, for the most part. Like the other lainon said, though, the modern concept of "homosexuality" - as in specifically only being attracted to the same sex is only about a hundred years old. I feel like we put more thought than needs to go into what is essentially a sexual perversion just because it's in the political limelight, and as soon as people just start treating it for what it is - a fetish - then people will just stop caring about it. You don't exactly see huge parades in support of or fiery demonstrations against, say, BDSM or fat fetishism.

>>71777 Trips of truth, and nearly a yuge get. These digits just dont lie.

>>71763 >can't choose to be gay I never believed this to be true. You can naturally, at least to an extent shape your preferences based on your rationale. If I,decided that i liked dudes now, deliberately altered my voice and started acting the part, who could doubt that to be the case? What if I really started believing myself to be gay? Would it not be true?

>>71728 I did a meta-study about a decade ago and evidence seems to point toward womb conditions being the primary influence of sexuality. As far as why it didn't die out, there's an old joke that a geneticist would be willing to die for he would willingly die for two brothers or eight cousins. The "fitness" of a creature does not exist in a vacuum. It is more accurate to describe fitness as the relationship between a creature and it's environment.

The whole discussion up to now, including my posts, is a bit narrow-minded, desu. The behaviour where there is a male-male or female-female interaction where they perform acts that resemble sexual behaviour can be a result of a mirriad natural and nurtural factors. As the traditionalists like to say with Fernweh In their eyes, gender roles were different and in many ways stricter in the old days. From the moment you were born you had your class (peasant, priest, aristocrat, merchant etc) and your gender provide a template for how you would lead your life. Of course, the reality on the ground was different in some places, but this was generally the case. Unlike in Asia, the Romans and even the Greeks saw discussing sexual matters in detail in public documents inappropriate (that's why they say the wound to the groin is actually the would to the thigh oand little things like that, they were appalled by Sarmatians cutting their pubic hair in public). A bit similar to the Victorian England, despite the debauchery behind the closed doors, everyone maintained the visage of purity and virtue. That's why there are 2 Romes, so to say. The one strict, virtuous and traditional from which modern conservatives draw inspiration. The image of Rome. The second is the reality of the debauchery brought by the riches of the empire destroying the foundations of the citizen farmers living in the republican city state in austerity. Sulla, Tiberius, Caligula, Nero... After a while the accidental crazy debauched bisexual emperor who's into crazy soykaf becomes as much of a trope as the evil empress. The modern progressives point to that to show that any sufficiently high cultured and prosperous country will have people of different sexualities emerge onto the stage since in poverty there is no time to go on the journey of self discovery. The real Rome. Although the band of soldiers who a also lovers Is a historic precedent in Greece. Anyway, what I'm trying to say is that it's complicated, there are many ways this can manifest and we should study it case by case instead of trying to explain the human sexual experience in a couple of sentences because of what we believe in or a couple of articles and papers we read a year or so ago and don't really remember well. If we stay in that level the discussion will go nowhere. This is a very difficult subject that requires a very high level of humility, open mind and intelectual honesty, and unfortunately it almost never recieves it becouse it's much more rewarding to take a side and farm emotional pleasure by triggering th either side in the constant debate while the powers that be do their thing while we are distracted. Thanks for reading this. I'll appreciate thoughtful responses.

Exposure to the wrong hormones in the womb causes intersex and irregular attraction. (e.g. testosterone/estrogen) Irregularities can also cause the child to automatically generate wrong hormones in the womb and throughout their life, and this can be passed down from parent to child. The nature of entropy is things that are not actively maintained decay.

>>71778 >>71728 For Gods sake this soykaf reads like it belongs on 4chan. Why the fuarrrk are we allowing lainchan to become a satellite for that internet cancer and its zombies?

>>71728 They say it's not cultural, they are born this way. Therefore, it must be genetic. Science!

>>71810 I enjoy your description of 2 Romes. My contention is about calling one the "real" Rome. There is an investment by U.S. conservatives in maintaining an idea: virtue is intertwined with tradition and history. It wouldn't be history without virtue, exceptionalism, patriotism. When maintained, this idea is strong enough to convince many men and women that it's facets are real. The greatness throughout American history, from the Revolution to the global superstate, is constantly distilled into a nebulous truth. The most real result of this distillation is the power of the modern Republican party. It is often the path of least resistance to believe in the truth told by your parents, public school, peers, and media. These are very real forces in the development of the individual. The image of Rome is powerful, because you are quickly made of it's same canvas. My question then, is that isn't this choice easy/logical for most individuals? Until you become the other (born gay, minority, or with an interest in history) then the supposedly-strict virtue will often come to you by birthright. Rejection of this status quo is not informed by choice but instead necessity. Like why the gay "community" has to band together despite being so different. This is probably entry level analysis, I am drunk. To me, people today are not very different from the first agricultural societies, besides our bevy of information and communication. Concerning genes, or by extension nature vs. nurture, I don't think the field / tech is there yet (echoing >>71738 ) We are better off nurturing metacognition & social skills at an early age.

>>71823 You shouldn't be allowed to talk, your post is reminiscent of form without function. Pure vitriolic insults through comparison without any constructive criticism is a sign of childish behavior, that by your standards shouldn't be on lainchan either. I will let you reflect on what you stand for, as mindless overbearing and overnurture of discussions is what leads to tyranny.

>>71823 PS I kind of have an inkling you don't believe in God by you using the saying "For Gods sake" but that you really wish you believed in him. For an atheist I find it weird that you use a lot of phrases that include God.

>>72001 That is probably not the best word to describe the 2nd Rome, you're right. I guess we can say the image if Rome and the historic reality of Rome. The problem is that the history of Rome shows us how it's easy to construct a theory of superior virtues and just ignore all violations of it within your ranks as bad apples and temporary misjudgements and not the symptom of the systemic corruption. In that way we can say the is a theoretical Roman like American Republic and the historic United States of America that constantly doesn't live up to the potential and just stumbled into superior position through favourable geography and demographics allowing hem to profit immensely from the collapse of the old order and come out unscathed. before WW1 the us was considered to be a 2nd rate country without any proper military and almost unable to deal with Indians inside it's borders. Apart from kicking the sick man of Europe Spain a bit earlier nobody took their military or industrial base or anything really seriously. That changed after ww1. Then before ww2 the country was seriously struggling for a decade with economic collapse and natural disasters producing famine, which is crazy considering how rich the agricultural potential of the country is. And that's just general economics, we are missing the gender, religion, race and class components. Which were all fully addressed only by the late 70s in the midst of oil crisis if I recall correctly. The way I see it, legalisation of the gay marriage is as far as the general population is really ready to go at this moment. The democrats are pushing it further while the republicans are trying to pull it back and the people don't like any of it. At least that's how I interpret the situation judging by the polls and news of all around admiration for any politician that takes this "let's keep things the way that are on this issue for the time being" position. Historic analysis predicts that unless there is a collapse of the American Empire the trans issue as far as the rights go will be resolved the same way the gay issue was in the next generation. By that point some other marginalized group will emerge and the cycle will continue. Probably people with cyber enhancements and/or genetically modified. Be not surprised when the religious moderates team up with the trans people to fight these guys. There are signs that stuff may collapse before that, but there are plenty of ways of avoiding that that could be taken, not all of them requiring becoming more traditional by decree because the Muslim population is growing on their own and they are not gonna be happy with any of that. Expect Christian fundamentalists Makin a difficult alliance with Muslims to try to claw back everything despite 80% of population being against it.

>>71728 I read the Dead Squared paper by John Calhoun. It seemingly explains that recent increase in NEETs ("beautiful ones" in the paper), aggressive "chads" and gays might be (at least partly) caused by increasing stress in the society. >https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1644264/

>>71823 >full stop. this thread is cancer and you and me are a part of it.

>>71823 Because they CLAMP, vaccinate, and circumcise. They halogenate and irradiate. >>72008 All of those groups are brain-circumcised. Beautiful ones? Externally immaculate, but borderline lobotomites. Empty vessels. Their brains are cLamped and circumcised. Hyper aggressive chads? Voids at the core. Physically and cognitively circumcised. No cover, wants to rub on everything all the time, can conceive of nothing else. Very glans focused. All about soothing the irritation from the rubbing glans and rubbing the glans. Gays? Psychologically castrated, psychosexually circumcised. No discrimination. Just wants to fuarrrk everything that moves. Totally degenerate, wants all of society to see. They want to bare their glans and all will see. Circumcised societies.

>>71728 What I'm more curious about is when did we start describing people with terms like "gay" or "straight" or "homosexual?" And why do we impose these special labels on the past or on other cultures? As if they abide by the same logic. In the Roman, Greek and Renaissance era, same-sex fuarrrking was so common it was assumed to be something all men would engage in. Yet today, it's something only a minority of men would ever consider doing. It was the same in Edo era Japan, yet in modern Japan only a minority of people engage in this behavior. If something is essential and fundamental to the human experience, rooted in our DNA, then surely it would be present in all societies at all points in time with a similar distributions, where men who have sex with women are the majority and men who have sex with men are a minority. In other words, it cannot be determined by biology. There is a tribe in the Amazon where men marry women and have children with them, but they consider sexual intercourse with a woman disgusting and diminishing. There mere sight of a vagina, or thought of one, causes them to gross out and, in one case when a woman flashed in public to humiliate her husband, it caused one of the guys to almost throw up at the sight of her. Nevertheless, they have sex with women out of necessity and to raise children. So how do we describe these people? What explains this behavior? Basically, sexuality is cultural. It's a product of how we're raised and shaped by our environment and how our culture and society program us. If I were raised in ancient Greece, I'd probably think nothing of fuarrrking some twinks while also simultaneously craving a woman's pussy. If I were born and raised in that Amazonian tribe, I'd probably find women equally disgusting. But I was raised in America where we're brainwashed into the following: if you want to have sex with girls you are "heterosexual" B. If you want to have sex with boys you are "homosexual" C. If you don't fit in either box you are "bisexual" D. If you don't fit A, B, C or D, then you should be sent to a doctor and have your skull examined.

I didnt read any of this thread but being gay is just a fetish imo. Its an abnormal sexual desire. I dont think its an abomination, I'm bicurious myself (I like femboys), but it is annoying how kinkshaming harmless fetishes is still allowed in society, but gays get special treatment, because if you openly shame homo soykaf, you'll get the soykaf promptly kicked out of you.

>>72047 > In the Roman, Greek and Renaissance era, same-sex fuarrrking was so common No. Greece only accepted pederasty (it wasn't adult to adult homosexuality most of the time) only when they were decadent. Only libertine people accepted homosexuality in the renaissance. It's like saying nudism is accepted in our society. It sort of is, but they have to go on their corner. And Rome never accepted homosexuality either. >There mere sight of a vagina, or thought of one, causes them to gross out How understandable. >>72049 The problem with LGBT isn't kinkshaming. They print millions of flag, place them all over the town and parade as if they were an army that just conquered a town. That have nothing to do with sexuality at this point.

>>72052 >that last sentence I mean yeah, that's all major liberal cities. They're all infested with antifa and anarchist dipshits that peddle their zines, and graffiti their emblems on buildings and mailposts. Everywhere else outside of those rich liberal frufru coffee shop cities are pretty normal. Are you seriously intimidated by flags?

>>71780 But you're not, because you don't have the desire to fuarrrk a dude. You wouldn't rationally do all that soykaf if you didn't like dudes. Have you ever met someone that "chose to be gay" and then developed the attraction? No, or if you have they're lying.

>>72054 Not that Lain, but you're the guy from the other thread. Slimy, deflecting, always missing the point even though it was made without ambiguity. And finally wrapping it up in a loaded question. Same soykaf-for-brains way of interacting in anything that triggers you, slimy, gross, bad faith to the core.

>>71728 Chemical environment during fetal development. Homosexuality is highly correlated with birth order even in siblings raised separately. Maybe there are genetic components and cultural components, but mostly it's neither genetics nor nurture.

>>72087 forgot the raped boys-> gay pipeline which btw mirrors the raped women -> whoring pipeline seems both genders have a significant % coping by convincing themself they like it

>>72085 You just need a friend and to stop judging people by their looks

>>72101 >You just need a friend I have a long road ahead of me >stop judging people by their looks I don't judge, although obviously I came off as judgy in my post. I'm just kinda frustrated.

>>72060 You're comparing modern gay discourse to the fall of Nazi Germany. What point are you trying to make here? >>72113 >tolerably deviant genes Please elaborate on your studies of genetics and the "deviant" gene. For now I assume you are conflating knowledge in biology with your own confidence in understanding the world.

>>72153 >You're comparing modern gay discourse to the fall of Nazi Germany. What point are you trying to make here? Oh look, the "feign ignorance and "but why why wwhhhyyy", do a bit of penetration testing until I can get something to stick and manufacture some leverage to build my opponent into a narrative, and try to change the subject. Look I'm so cute and clever, they won't notice my deflection." This trait is so prototypically "leftist", and more specifically LGBT, it just makes me laugh. It comes to you appearing non-threatening, disguised as a wounded child that just want to learn and whhyy I don't unndderrstand!! Why why why why, what is your point, I don't get it, I don't get it, I don't understand, you're not making sense, why I don't get it!!! A predator that disguises itself as wounded prey to hijack parental instincts and get the opponent to lower their guard, and act like you're in good faith and engaged when really you're just trying to slowly turn everyone else against the target while not provoking a reaction until it's too late. Act small when you're vulnerable, get them in close, them rip to pieces from the inside bit by bit. Then when you're back, become a tyrant and bring the foot down. It's pathetic. I can't understand on a native level because I was like this a bit as a child, but I grew out of it. In the case of the homosexual fuarrrkwits however, they're eternally quasi-feminine children. They never grow out of it because they're maimed down to the very core and incapable of growth. Disgusting malformed creatures who put their deformity on a pedestal and worship it. They worship ugly and broken things because they are ugly, pathetic, disgusting, and broken, they are a void inside, and it's all they comprehend. Glorification and worship of weak and broken things. Ugly, vile, degenerate creatures. I have pity and contempt for you. May you improve yourself, one day.

>>72156 >If you want people to understand your schizo ramblings you need to elaborate better. He responds doing the exact thing just called out. LGBTs can only deflect, it's so weird and creepy but it's true. They're cluster B as fuarrrk, narcissistic soykaf for brains.

>>72153 >Please elaborate on tolerably deviant genes evidently a tolerably devient gene, if you'd read my post, is a gene which predisposes someone to behaviors which would preclude his having children, but not to the point where they prevent him from having children. Someone who's tempted towards homosexuality but not so much he can't or won't still take a wife and have kids normally, for instance. A baby born with no heart because of genetic problems has intolerably deviant genes, or a gay who was so gay he would never have children of his own.

>>72155 I can see you are very emotional about this "issue." >Why why why why, what is your point, I don't get it, I don't get it, I don't understand, you're not making sense, why I don't get it!!! I was asking you to qualify these thoughts, instead of repeating yourself. You don't have to keep asserting why you hate gay people. But if you have something thoughtful to say about them (besides more emotional flailing) then I'm sure Lain will listen. So far you are just rambling. From what I can glean, your points are that gay men should, instead of being gay, follow heterosexual lifestyles for the good of society and their eventual children. You reached this view from an "understanding" of genetics, and have formed prescriptions for society based on this "understanding." I don't find your prescriptions very human, or very informed by logic. Gay people exist, and society continues to function whether their minority has children or marries. If they share the right to a pursuit of happiness, you need a strong argument to take that right away. >they are pedophiles Pedophilia is a real problem, and worth fighting against. Problems such as these must be approached with thoughtfulness, not panic. What would protect the most children, and inflict the least harm on citizens? Pedophiles are still human (unfortunately) and must be dealt with reasonably. I don't believe that pinning outrage on a minority is the productive path. Historically, this is the path to awful abuse and dehumanization from the State. Child abuse too often comes from within the family, or close community members. These are not a minority we can target effectively, and must instead look for other solutions. It is especially bad for teenage girls, with abuse occurring without them realizing until later in life. Sex education and knowledge of boundaries is essential for a child to protect themselves and report threats. Many actions make sense to protect the children of our society. Raging on the internet about gay people is not, to me, in that group of actions. >>72171 I see, you are using the word "deviant" to establish a binary of pro-reproductive and anti-reproductive genes. A tolerable level of "deviant genes" results in reproduction, while an arbitrary "excess" does not. Am I following? We are firmly in the discussion of eugenics at this point. Most people aren't interested in a society constructed by genetic analysis, much less public policy informed by it. Reproduction is a great miracle, but there are many other miracles for humans to experience. I think you are defending a fantasy society at this point, where we churn out babies and whip those who don't into shape, but we can argue about Utopia if you'd like.

>>72173 >Pedophilia is a real problem, can you articulate why you think so? >Most people aren't interested in a society constructed by genetic analysis, you don't need genetic analysis for most eugenics, an ancient practice that most likely predates written history, and certainly predates genetics

>>72174 Why is pedophilia a real problem? Are you asking me this in good faith? Children can only be protected by their parents so much, there is a certain amount of trust placed in the community, schools, and larger society. Fortifying this trust is always good. Children playing outside, making friends, living free, these are modern and high achievements worth protecting. Most children should not be raised alone on a tablet, or without any community. At the opposite end of fortifying that trust are adults who would attempt to get away with hurting children. If the laws are not enforced, they will generally do it again. For the child the consequences are life-long and create ripples of pain affecting the people around them. This is bad. School and church are where we should place the most scrutiny. This is where trust and responsibility of children is often exchanged. Within the family, the State has less say, but a "creepy uncle" is also an unfortunate reality. Of course I make some assumptions here, namely: >I want my child to be happy >I want my child to succeed in the meatspace >I want my child to be a member of society Personally I do not want my child to live the same life I did, raised by a computer and anime. >the ancient practice of eugenics Many things have changed, many have stayed the same, what exactly are you talking about here? Cavemen killed each other, but also carried their disabled to someday bury them.

>>72184 >You suggest pedophillia is harmful to children, what makes you think this ? Should all things that are harmful be prohibited, or just things that are harmful to children ? Slow down there, Foucault. We're really devil's advocating for pedophilia today, huh? Not everything needs to be reexamined, I think it's pretty well established that children cannot consent and that molesting children is bad. >eugenics >It is a good thing. We out here >Just about all of breeding There is natural selection, there is selective breeding, and there is eugenics. These things are not the same. >You seemed to be conflating eugenics with things which it is not and which it doesn't even imply Consider taking your own advice, eugenics tends amount to some of the more horrific violations of human life and rights in our recorded history. Do not get it confused with anything else.

>>72188 >dubs of Hitler noice ;^} seems we're talking past eachother a lot. I guess when I see the word EU-GENICS I think of the generation of good things. You seem to consider it the socialism of selective breeding, a basically neutral thing that could be good if it wasn't controlled centrally by a hamfisted and misguided organization, pressed sloppily onto a population by force. That's alright, I'll try to use your definition henceforth, but if you want you can reread my previous posts swapping 'eugenics' with 'well managed selective breeding'. >Slow down there, Foucault. IM HOLDING MY HORSES, PARDNER >children cannot consent Alright then, doing things without consent is bad, children cannot consent (to sex, or to anything?), therefore doing things to children is bad. Are you one of those people who thinks having kids is a violation of the NAP or is it like that the parents are the agents of the children until such time as they become adults? >molesting children is bad ok, but molesting people is bad right, is it worse to molest a child than it is to molest an adult? And I hate to play the libertarian but what if the child consents (such as he can), is it still molestation ? I guess if I was trying to define it myself, I'd suggest that there's a corrupting effect of such behaviors, a killing of innocence, which is Bad. This seems to imply that there must be Goodsex and Badsex, and that this is not a mere matter of consent, nor enjoyment nor such thing. This would seem to be a slipperyslope whereby one might declare homosexuality to be Bad just in general, while also considering that exposing children to such things likely also can be Bad, even if the parents and the children both agree to the exposure and agree that nothing is wrong with it. Would you agree ?

>>72194 >when I see the word EU-GENICS I think of the generation of good things You also have to consider the values of the people who coined this term and used it to justify things like forced sterilization of minority groups, often in combination with straight up genocide. What they consider "good things", and what they meant by "good things", cause serious harm to innocent people. >children cannot consent (to sex, or to anything?) Be reasonable, children can consent to being served a glass of chocolate milk because it's something they understand, and the consequences of a child having chocolate milk are relatively harmless (unless they're lactose intolerant i guess?). A child cannot consent to sex, because no matter how much sex education you do, there's no knowing like lived experience, which is best left for just letting the child grow up, unmolested. >ok, but molesting people is bad right, is it worse to molest a child than it is to molest an adult? I think both are abominable and it's ridiculous to try and some sort of moral value assessment between the two. In no sense should we ever be trading one of these things for the other. >this seems to imply that there must be Goodsex and Badsex We actually already have well defined words for that, sex and rape/molestation. >This would seem to be a slipperyslope whereby one might declare homosexuality to be Bad just in general, while also considering that exposing children to such things likely also can be Bad, even if the parents and the children both agree to the exposure and agree that nothing is wrong with it. I don't think the parents and children would agree to the exposure if there were truly a consensus that homosexuality is just Bad in general. I'm not really sure what sort of slipperyslope you're trying to get at here. This is a strange supposition to begin with anyways.

>>72194 What part of "children are not small adults" do you not comprehend? All those television shows, commericials, and brightly colored cereal boxes are also bait from predators.

>>72194 >innocent children being molested is bad >suppose homosexuals are not innocent, it is a corrupting behavior >what if kids see a homosexual!? its a slippery slope! I'm trying to understand where your conclusion comes from besides starting at "homosexuals are bad."

>>72201 >snipped.gif >le media is controlled by circumcisionists oh hey it's circumcision conspiracy guy again.

>>72204 Extremely circumbrained response.

>There is natural selection, there is selective breeding, and there is eugenics. These things are not the same. human hubris putting themself above nature. When you consider people are part of nature it is all the same. If i can convince you to chase bussy i get more pussy. The strategies to get rid of competition arent above nature. Its all part of it. Oh and and if you didnt know many animals including mammals kill weak offspring so the strong ones have better survival chance with the limited resources available. >is it worse to molest a child than it is to molest an adult? Yes. Adults preying on kids is like progamers farming noobs. Its just low. Good behavior is to give beginners protection so they can learn the game before forcing them to compete with the oldtimers.

>>72200 >A child can only consent to something he understands and that does not stand a chance of harming him This is getting a little convoluted buddy. The child was offered a first glass of chocolate milk at some time when he didn't know and didn't understand it, and it was possibly offered by someone who wasn't quite sure if he might be lactose intolerant. He probably was put on a swing for the first time at one point too, didn't understand it, maybe didnt even like it too much at first, and people have absolutely died from swings. Is that child abuse? Is it bad that he continues swinging even without a particularly developed concept of the death or injury he could suffer from a swinging accident? >there's no knowing like lived experience, which is there's a first time for everything, and no one has had 'lived experience' of anything till they've experienced it. Furthermore kids who've been raped have lived experience of sex, that doesn't make it OK if they consent to it later. Experience is irrelevant. >best left for just letting the child grow up, unmolested. This is interesting because it implies that there is a best-practice, a right way to do live. What is the right way to grow up? >both are [equally] abominable OK >We already have words for goodsex and badsex; sex and rape/molestation. maybe significant that you put two different things on the side of bad, only one on the side of good. >I don't think the parents and children would agree to the exposure if there were truly a consensus I dont care about consensus its totally irrelevant to Bad and Good. >idk wot slipperyslope you're trying to get at here. the point I'm trying to suggest is that there may be a Right way to live, perhaps quite a few Wrong ways to live. You've not claimed this but you've nodded towards it with i.e. the rape/molestation vs plain sex division. If there is a Right way to live I'm pretty sure homosexuality is not it. >ps to all u users complaining at me Im asking dumb questions I get it but what I'm trying to do is figure out some basic beliefs and axioms so we can figure out the logical conclusions to derive from them, or at any rate a basic point of disagreement. If you say child molestation is i.e. worse than adult molestation, I'd like to know WHY, so we can figure out the implications of that. >Children are not adults, they're a seperate class deserving special protections, alright thats fine. So how do you determin what is alright to do to a child or infront of a child and what is wrong? >Children are n00bz who dont know the gayme, dont know da RULZ, not fair to compete with them they're also small and easy to physically push around, they're also infertile, just in your previous paragraph you're talking about how its all about competition for pussy but kiddie pussy is not even a valid strategy, no reason to compete for it, you're just being incoherent. That's also irrelevant for eugenics in seperate classes for the most part, spartans arent competing for helot pussy, farmers for cow pussy (I hope not anyway yikes), but they can do selective breeding, which ok fine can be a subclass of natural selection

>just in your previous paragraph because the two points aren't argued on the same basis. What belongs to nature is not a moral argument while good/bad is. Though you could also target the latter from a simply biological standpoint - you want your offspring to not get destroyed by strangers so you make a nap. You dont fuarrrk with my kids and i dont fuarrrk with you. You break the nap its skullbashing time.

>>72208 >I'm asking dumb questions I get it but what I'm trying to do is figure out some basic beliefs and axioms so we can figure out the logical conclusions to derive from them You mean you're spitting up babble instead of defending your thoughts concisely or competently. We've gone from >>72052 delusions of "the pride flag is a militant takeover" to >>72194 "slipperyslope whereby one might declare homosexuality to be Bad just in general." Decide if we are talking about prescriptions for public policy, or continue pretending this is a sound moral philosophy conversation. These are very different. Let's just parse your own words: >the point I'm trying to suggest is that there may be a Right way to live >This is interesting because it implies that there is a best-practice, a right way to do live >I dont care about consensus its totally irrelevant to Bad and Good. >If there is a Right way to live I'm pretty sure homosexuality is not it. Stop writing like a freshman and just defend your points. >Consensus is irrelevant to Bad and Good. >If there is an objective Good, homosexuality is objectively Bad.

>>72242 >Consensus is irrelevant to Bad and Good. >If there is an objective Good, homosexuality is objectively Bad. you're mixing me up a bit with someone else, but thats fine. those two points I agree with, because they are obvious and should not require defence.

I love when people start "discussions" where they aren't interested in actually discussing anything.

>>72248 offer an attack and Ill give a defence user but that doesnt remove the fact that they're obvious to me lol

>>72578 > the self-reported percentage of X has increased > this means that there are more X, and not that X has self-reported more For fuarrrks sake, why do you idiots keep doing this with statistics.

>>71728 Retarded and easily manipulated American underage, they fruaacking soykaf'd your brain so hard you thought homosexuality is natural, it's fraaaucking unnatural and a mental illness. Do research and be rational, never have empathy, and don't follow the crowd, it's democratic, follow the primitiveness.

>>71751 Unnatural and harsh environment may do abnormalities, such as homosexuality and unnatural disires, "gay gene" is nonexistent, and prove it with real science, not theories that yell "you can't deny nor prove, thus believe me crowd", even though most theories people still believe in are already debunked centuries ago (not everything is in English). Anyway. Genes are simply a male and female combination, "why can't homosexuals mate?", it's artificially-made desires via manipulation, why targeting children? They are easily manipulated, why target females? They're created to be more mercy and pity to raise children better, but the issue is they're easily manipulated via pity's vulnerabilities, and there they're able to raise children unnaturally to make males and females make more unnaturalities and why they're doing it? Power, money and control? Who they're? The victims of The Final Solution. A lot of unnatural words.

>>71751 Haven't been "invented" in the 19th century. wikipedia.org/wiki/Lot_in_Islam Read the page, and don't be arrogant about it, nothing shall change a true statement no matter what the other reads/listens/watches.

>>71984 >>71738 >neurosuggesting culture exists separately from nature >>74449 >>74450 >>72171 >neurosuggesting nature is moral >neurosuggesting gay people exist outside of nature because they are culturally different from you >neurosuggesting it is moral to hate what you do not understand >>72040 >be me(you) >incel what's your point? >>72184 you sound like a white supremacist pedophile >>74449 >Do research [consoom propaganda] and be rational [regurgitate propaganda], never have empathy [be antisocial], and don't follow the crowd [be paranoid], it's democratic [be fascist], follow the primitiveness [regress and reject new information]. >>72085 >What if I want to stay feminine? I feel like I look better as a girly boy. take feminizing hormones and boymode >>72155 >>72158 >>72207 >>72167 pic rel. >>74455 read the damn thread.

>>74450 >Who they're? The victims of The Final Solution. Never happened. They're the descendants of the Pharaohs, who themselves go even further back. The Israelites were never slaves in Egypt, they were the rulers. They ransacked and trashed Egypt on the way out, like they always do. They sailed the meditteranean landing in Greece, Scot[a]land, Ireland, and England. What we know as Jews are their mind controlled slaves. That's what the camps were for, behavioral research and brainwashing with safety for the inner circle who wrote the propaganda that would become the official narrative you'll be thrown in jail for questioning in several countries. Why is this? The royal families are one of them, they're all working together. The politicians are also either their programmed slaves or controlled by threat and blackmail. They're just frontmen.

Anyone who stands against gays & trannies simply because of their poor reproductive fitness is wasting their time. The country with the lowest fertility on earth is South Korea, which has no gay marriage or civil unions and restrictions that don't allow trannies to transition until they are in their 20s. The clear and obvious cause for fertility drop is feminism and/or man's unwillingness to go along with feminism. South Korea is filled with chauvinistic misogynists and misandrist feminists and no one can breed because of it. But that's a conversation fraught with political risk so people target the tiny minority of men who have been buttfucking for millennia. It's cowardly. >>71777 >>72049 I loathe fetish discourse. What does it even mean to say homosexuality is a fetish? That it's le bad but you used le bad 'fetish' curse word? That it's temporary or able to be overcome? That it's something that was socialized? People just say "it's a fetish" and expect everyone to treat this as a powerful, meaningful statement.

The answer is obvious. Most individuals who are homosexual, are also heterosexual. Therefore they will reproduce.

Thinking that every human features exists for a logical reason is idealism, ignoring how evolution of an anything works. Not every part has to be a factor of success, chaos theory is wild. However, the inverse is true; maybe disinterest in reproduction allowed a signifiicant part of the population more time for social contribution. Frankly, I don't know and don't care, there are far more interesting and important topics to care about.

Genes that contribute to homosexuality and transsexuality can thrive in part because there are 2 sexes. Consider that a certain genetic profile might increase the likelihood that your daughters turn into butch man-hating dykes, but that same genetic profile might also cause your sons to slay pussy effortlessly. Or on the flip side, that genes that cause your sons to troon out might cause your daughters to have more children or rear them more successfully.

Come on, mods. Is deleting half the posts in the thread really necessary? Makes it impossible to follow, you may as well just delete the whole thing.

>>78174 They do this sh!t all the time. Last time around a mod deleted their reply to me and all subsequent replies.

>>78174 >>78175 they're quick to jump on anything that is not ideologically aligned with them but they leave CP floating about all the time, it's quite funny

If you understand basic genetics, it's quite simple. Any trait often is due to not just a single gene but several. The genes that may be involved in higher rates of homosexuality either are not always active, which epigenetics plays a role in and/or they have other functions tied to them some of which may be beneficial to carrying on genes. Though considering rates of homosexuality are consistent species to species it suggests it may be everyone has some genes relating to homosexuality in them whether they are active genes or not. This isn't to say everyone is gay just that homosexuality is obviously not actually detrimental to a species. Evolution doesn't seek out purpose, but if it did have a purpose the role of homosexuality could be homosexuals helping with childrearing of other's offspring is one theory I've heard before.

>>71740 Better be it that way. Go away, maybe come back in a few years, when youve outgrown this soykaf.

I noticed an article in the paper the other day about some species of whale that was observed for the first time on record having sex. It happened to be two males. Go figure...