>The available science analyzing the human genome clearly says there is no genetic basis for a homosexual identity. A large-scale study of the human genome concluded there is certainly no single genetic determinant of same-sex sexual behavior. The study concluded that “all tested genetic variants accounted for 8% to 25% of variation in same-sex sexual behavior … and do not allow meaningful prediction of an individual’s sexual behavior.” The lead author of the study told The New York Times that it is “basically impossible to predict one’s person’s sexual activity or orientation just from genetics.” Ruth Institute senior research associate Father Paul Sullins, professor emeritus of sociology at The Catholic University of America, summarized the results of this very technical paper as follows: “The study found that a person’s developmental environment — the influence of diet, family, friends, neighborhood, religion, and a host of other life conditions — was twice as influential as genetics on the probability of adopting same-sex behavior or orientation. […] Not only did the study fail to find some controlling gene for gay identity, it also established that gay persons are not genetically distinct from all other human beings in any meaningful sense. Gay persons, we might say, have a perfectly normal human genome.”>Numerous studies of identical twins are inconsistent with the idea that being “gay” is genetically determined. If it were, we would expect 100% “concordance” between identical twins: that is, if one twin is “gay,” the other should be, as well. The actual concordance is closer to 1/3, according to a study that reviewed research conducted about this issue and stated as follows: “Despite the fact that identical twins share 100% of their genes, gay/gay twins are less common than gay/straight twin pairs.”https://www.ncregister.com/commentaries/the-born-gay-myth-when-ideology-masquerades-as-science
>>526297479You lost, tranny.
FECALOIDS WILL NEVER BE HUMAN!!
>>526297479How much did that retard spend on that fucking arm tattoo?
The internet makes you gay.
>>526297479However. What man would willingly take cock up his butthole without being born that way?
A lesbian or trans man is a girl who got fucked too many times in kindergarten. A trans woman is a man who had his ass finessed years prior.FAGGOTS are not normal and they reproduce through rape, either physical rape or mental and ideological rape when some faggot gets a teaching and gender studies degree
>>526297602Porn addicts
>>526297479gays reproduce by fucking kids
>>526297479roback is a jewish namewhy would I trust a jew ?
>>526297641I agree that they seem to be way more homos today than ever in history but they have always existed to some degree, no?
>>526297766She's going against the jewish narrative.
>>526297767>they have always existed to some degreeEasily explicable by social pressure. Look at Ancient Greece; it was an institutionalized practice in which boys had to participate to advance in society. And of course the tops did not consider themselves gay
>>526297479All women are a bisexual/pansexual mess
>>526297479i knew that nobody could really be gay and that gay people are just evil
>>526297479what happened to being "born that way"
>>526297479Yeah it proves it's a choice, no matter how much they lie and say it isn't. It's a fetish.
>>526297931Sneed's Feed & Seed (formerly Chuck's). Also, "Bart's Fart & Shart" doesn't make any sense because the store wasn't called "Feed & Sheed" under Sneed's ownership so stop posting it.
>>526297479Bornthisway bros…
>>526297479Oh wow, it's almost like the systemic poisoning of the entire earth's biosphere environment with estrogenic mimickers via microplastic, pesticides, and other pollutants (which the mother is exposing herself to and bioaccumulation ever second of her life, which, you know, is going to epigenetically fuck up her ovaries eggs that she is carrying from birth till death, and getting more genetic and cellularly damaged by these 21st century micro-pollutants as she ages), and exposing zygotes to them continuously and since their first seconds of cellular development in womb, might just fuck up the life of that organism and cause their cranial nervous system development in the womb to go haywire and for a bunch of males to now develop female like brain development depending on their duration of exposure and concentration of said estrogenic mimickers in their mother's bloodstream.Opps can't think like that, that's too fucking common sense like, so you better automatically dismiss it because I don't have a fucking pharma and biotech cartel industry sponsored lab coat and half a million dollar "degree", and I don't have a years long non-replicable study that was purposely ran unscientifically and in such a way that I can conveniently fudge the end results so that it supports the system and agenda that gave me my 21-st century high-priest position.Nope, lets just look at one very very tiny aspect of a wider situation to say: "there's no way to say that 'gayness' comes from one source, nope no 'gay gene' found"; when it is multifaceted puzzle that has many moving parts and causes.You disingenuous fucks deserve the coming targeted assassinations in your university parking lots and labs; especially after signing off on all the COVID and "vaccine" related travesties.
>>526297479Yes I'm going to ignore my lying eyes and the fact that most people can tell someone is gay by their fucking face.https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25550146/Facial Structure Predicts Sexual Orientation in Both Men and Women https://osf.io/zn79k/overview And that AI can predict Sexual Orentation from facial structure with a 87% accuracy. So the fact that they didn't find the gay gene honestly just means they didn't try hard enough. If a face doesn't have genetic markers I don't know what does.
>>526297479Now look up studies where the identical twins shared an emnyonic sac and they both are gay 100% if one is gay.Because being homosexual is caused by an error when building the Brain, most likely due to wrong hormones being present causing parts of the brain to be constructed different.Gays are just built wrong
>>526297479>The available science analyzing the human genome clearly says there is no genetic basis for a homosexual identity.Nobody believes this. Every facet of human behavior is based on genetics.
>>526297602Some peoope derive pleasure from the feeling of pooping.
>>526298731Except for intelligence, right?
>>526297479I think about 85% of the population will be normal no matter what, and about 1/2% of the population will be gay no matter what. It's that 15% in the middle that can be "converted" either way.My theory, is that for those 15%, their sexual orientation can be "influence" by their first few PHYSICALLY pleasurable sexual experiences. Emotions play no direct role (good, bad, boring, terrifying) whatsoever. Hence the old saying, "fags reproduce by touching kids".Note that societies that are religiously repressed and keep males / females apart (especially near puberty) have way more closeted homos that more open societies that allow young kids to "make out" or "dry hump" at least a little when young.Archive this post, because in 100 years it will be common for parents to have LIMITED "make out parties" for young boy and girls, which will be jokingly called "heterosexual training".The very few edgy fags who exist then wear shirts that say "I survived heterosexual training", and think they are witty (also a prediction).
>>526297479Of course it isn't genetic. It's a malfunction somewhere in the brain.
>>526297479That should have been obvious from the start. So much time has been wasted on this bullshit, just for political correctness sake.If homoing was genetic behavior we wouldn't see homo behavior explode when it was normalized. But that's exactly what we saw. Studies put the percentage of fags in soiciety at 2% in the 80s. Now it's almost 50% of zoomzooms self-reporting some sort of homosexual behavior. And then we have several historical cultures where homo behavior was the norm. What happened there according to the "genetic homo" theory proponents? Suddenly all the homos bred to the exclusivity of normal people?And then you have all the other thousands of weird fetishes. People who are sexually stimulated by looking at feet, or people who want to fuck animals, or people who fall in love with inanimate objects, I saw a video once of a woman who was in a relationship with a bridge. It's blatantly obvious to any objective observer that the human sexuality is in fact extremely plastic, and people can veer into all sorts of strange fetish behavior/obsessions. Social acceptance, porn, fetish themes in entertainment, it all makes more of those fetishists.And that's why homos and their proponents have been zealously demanding that homoing is a biological thing, even if that's not what the science indicates at all, it's not what history indicates, it's not what social observation indicates. Normalizing a fetish, propagandizing and exposing people to a fetish... creates more fetishists. So the people who said homos being normalized was going to be an influence on children and the weak willed were right.Homos reproduce by molesting children.
>>526298598That's not what twin studies show at all. If the twins are separated the percentage drops to almost zero.
>>526299024I get you and after reading Brave New World I actually thought the dystopian regime was correct in letting kids get hetero training early on and not let the religious faggots scare them/contrarian flip them into being faggots through repression of anything sexual (unless they're good looking then christcucks give them a pass).
>>526297605this and the most important taboo is here that this has been scientifically proven by the likes of freudthis is about the developmental phases of the human individualsensory impulses and its effects on the developing brain developmental stages arethe oral phase, from birth to ~year 1 of age the anal phase, from ~year 1 to ~year 3 of agethe phallic phase, from ~year 3 to ~year 6 of agethe latency phase, from ~year 6 to ~year 12 / onset of pubertythe genital phase, from ~puberty to ~deathduring the early phases, but especially before and during puberty,the human which is still in development of becoming a "ripe" animal ( think of egg laying hens, chicks from eggs and development to a fully adult chicken ) it is highly susceptible to external influences that shape its behavioral groundwork this is why you see these amounts of "mental illness" in people so increasingly since civilization has adapted media like television, or systemic changes like giving your kids away to strangers in school, kindergarden etc. if you understand this you realize how bad it is to have homosexual parents ( inbalance of role model socialization/stimulations) , or only half of a pair of parents (lack of socialization, attention/focus) , or even being a sole child (overfocus/overstimulation by parents) this is taboo for a reasonpeople who know this are usually spciologists and psychologistsand very many of them they make a living from maniulating people to the will of the highest bidder, working at media corporations creating and "readjusting" tv shows (programming), web content ( influencers ), government assessment centers, etc.taboo.don't talk about thisif you know you know, but dont tell others, that would be "a danger to our democracy" or whatever
>>526298536If you read the actual article on science.org it explicitly says,"Same-sex sexual behavior is influenced by not one or a few genes but many. Overlap with genetic influences on other traits provides insights into the underlying biology of same-sex sexual behavior, and analysis of different aspects of sexual preference underscore its complexity and call into question the validity of bipolar continuum measures such as the Kinsey scale. Nevertheless, many uncertainties remain to be explored, including how sociocultural influences on sexual preference might interact with genetic influences. To help communicate our study to the broader public, we organized workshops in which representatives of the public, activists, and researchers discussed the rationale, results, and implications of our study."https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aat7693So they're saying outright, it's not just 1 or 2 genes, it's many genes. The devil is in the details. So yes, it's not just a specific singular identifying gene, but it's a combo of a bunch of genes combining in just the right way, with room for environmental/social factors.
>>526297479How come AI can detect gayface then?
>>526297479It's not a gene that makes you gay. Faggotry in men and some women is caused by hormonal imbalances in utero. The rest of the women are just traumatized and effectively settle for other women. Lots of trannies and faggots are born where endocrine disruptive chemicals are used regularly like certain pesticides. If there's acid rain in that area, there's gonna be trannyfags as well, look up machiladoras in Mexico
Cool. What are you going to do about it though? It makes sense just like 80% of the people in the autism spectrum just comes from uncaring parents.
>>526297479>no single genetic determinantYeah no shit it's from a variety of genes, many conditions are the result of a combination of genes and not a single one>identical twins are inconsistent with the idea that being “gay” is genetically determined. If it were, we would expect 100% “concordance” between identical twinsIdentical twins don't actually have the exact same geneshttps://www.livescience.com/identical-twins-dont-share-all-dna.html
>>526300042Explain ancient Greece by your pesticide theory please. No, homo behavior is a socially learned behavior. It's that simple. If being a homo is normal in your culture, and pushed as something good and interesting, lots of people are going to start engaging with this fetish behavior and become homos.If foot fetishism was pushed on every TV show as cool and the porn sites were flooded with foot fetishist content... then a substantial percentage of the population would become footfags.
>>526298536fake picture, i've sen the real one and there's only a very subtle difference
>>526297479There is no gay gene. The purpose of life is to reproduce. The purpose of genes are to be passed on. If the purpose of life is to reproduce, there would be no gene against reproducing. A gene against reproducing would not pass on because it would require reproduction. The entire idea behind gay being natural or genetic is such a farce. Nature can't be against reproduction, we can't have genes that didn't pass on.
>>526300283Correct. If "gay genes" existed (which they don't) then it would be a genetic defect.
>>526300283You're retarded as genetic mutation is a common occurrence which is why you get people born with genetic defects that can be as severe as causing death which is obviously antithetical to life and reproducing and having healthy offspring that survive to further reproduce
>>526297479molesting kids is how being gay spreads
>>526300623Have you figured out what genetic mutation you have yet?
>>526297479Nobody is born homosexual.Homosexuality comes from behaviour altering parasites.
>>526300746That's how homosexuality parasites spread to other hosts.
>>526300283>Nature can't be against reproduction, we can't have genes that didn't pass on.Actually, it is possible for evolution to select for genes that decrease an individual organism's chance of reproduction. It is called kin selection. If that organism's behaviors promote the welfare of other organisms that share many of its genes, its "kin", then groups that tend to produce such an organism will fare better than other groups.Evolution did not ever need to develop perfect heterosexuality.
>>526300760I likely have lots of genetic mutations that are bad but you tend to need multiple copies, have no copies of the gene or have other genes or environmental factors that activate them for symptoms to physically manifest in someone
>>526300831>Drinking turpentine cured me from the gay>https://rumble.com/embed/ucfsd.v45f9dc/
>>526297479There's like a small minority of people who naturally developed some sort of same-sex sexual instinct, either through fixations/fetishizations, early sexual experiences, and the like. The rest are either prison gay, narcissists who want to fuck people as similar to them as possible, or traumatized people with some kind of misandry/mysogyny. And then of course, there's the cocktail of mental problems these people all have, all of them without a hit, the most normal gays you see are still narcissists.
>>526297479>catholic propagandaI hate this gay church so much.
>>526297479Its a hormonal defect which makes men/women not have enough estrogen/testosterone.And its pretty obviously too because homosexual all tend to have similar facial and body structure and cant arise solely from lifestyle.
>>526300772>molesting kids is how being gay spreads>Homosexuality comes from behaviour altering parasites.How does that account for people who didn't even know they were gay until later in life, and those with strong memories who were never abused?>>526297479So OP admits in his post that genetics have an extremely strong influence on the chance a person will turn out gay (twin studies), yet claims also that you cannot be born gay. How does that make sense? He also does not mention hormones in the womb, or even more invisible factors.>The study found that a person’s developmental environment [...] was twice as influential as genetics on the probability of adopting same-sex behavior or orientation.>same-sex behaviorNo shit. If you punish someone for their behavior, they will be less likely to actually do it, regardless of what they desire. Plenty of gay guys married women and only fucked them to produce children and keep up appearances.
>>526300945A better term for "kin selection" is "genetic altruism".If you don't reproduce but you help your nieces and nephews survive and reproduce they you have "passed on your genes" as much as if you had children of your own.In the past non-reproducing (but otherwise healthy) members of a family would help out the breeders.>extra women for taking care of children>extra men for working a farm>men who are vital to the community but also expendable (like soldiers), who will not leave behind widows and orphans>men who can send money home in niche jobs (like court eunuchs).>men and women who can be "encouraged" to reproduce if there were some catastrophe the killed most of the population, but otherwise would not, and would help their families.
>>526301300>How does that account for people who didn't even know they were gay until later in life, and those with strong memories who were never abused?Exposure to homoerotic propaganda, which is everywhere today. That homosexuality is a learned social behavior is completely obvious to any objective observer, and has been known for thousands of years. Explain ancient Greece by a "biological homo" theory.
>>526301300Homosexual women have pretty much always had children too. That's 50% of all homosexuals having children throughout human history.Another factor worth mentioning is pure mimicry. If you're gay and born into some tribe somewhere, and everyone is fucking women, surely you will try it out too. Everyone else is doing it, and it's easier to find out about this than the existence of homosexuality.
>>526297931>still believes the gayreeks lieSeriously?
>>526297602Men who got interfered with by adult gay men while they were children often become gays too.That's how gays reproduce.For women, lesbians are just a form of extreme man hatred mixed with mental illness. Usually brought on by bad treatment by a man or men. And yes some women are silly enough to let their seething at one or some men colour their view of men in general and then re-write their sexual identity.
>>526302142>Exposure to homoerotic propaganda, which is everywhere today.I'm willing to buy this for same-sex sexual behavior, though not desire itself.For example, if you have never heard of the idea of being gay before but you are only/mostly attracted to men you will probably go with the flow and have sex with women just like everyone around you. They will socially reward you for doing it, and maybe if you're a little bisexual it will feel okay.And if you actually acted on your homosexuality you would be punished. It's also just harder to do when the pool of other homosexuals is smaller and harder to find than the opposite sex.These days there are few to no punishments for same-sex sexual behaviors. The social punishment for these behaviors has been greatly weakened and dwindles every year.It is really easy to find out that same-sex sexual behavior "is a thing" now, whereas before you might not have even known it, despite having the attraction yourself.Women have rights now so you are much less likely to just automatically sail through your life into a relationship with a woman. You have to put in effort to have sex with a woman now, and a gay guy doesn't care to do so.Since the punishments for same sex sexual behavior are so low now, and with technology, it is really easy to find partners to engage in that behavior with, whereas it was pretty hard before.
>>526297479I don't believe you though.
>>526297605Dogshit Republicans are pure repulsive nasty smelly waste.
>>526302380>Men who got interfered with by adult gay men while they were children often become gays too.>That's how gays reproduce.It is likely the other way around. Most sexual assault of minors involves the minor trying to get sex from an adult.>12 yo boy tries to get sex from older woman. Fails.>12 yo boy tries to get sex from female peer. Usually fails>12 yo girl tries to get sex from older man. Often succeeds>12 yo girl tries to get sex from peer. Almost always succeeds>12 yo boy can't even find gay peers>12 yo boy tries to get sex from older male stranger. Often succeedsCombine this with the fact that most non-consensual sexual experiences are preceded by consensual experiences--that is, the abuser takes it further than the abused person wants it to go--and there is no mystery here.
>>526302469Ok, let's experiment with that thought. So by your theory people are born with the desire for all the other weird fetishes as well then I guess? Like, people are born footfags, or people who are into people shitting on their chest, or fucking dolls of cartoon horses etc.And then a person with the innate biological trait of being attracted to cartoon horses will just never realize their biological desire until some jew makes a cartoon of horses for him to look at?Isn't it more likely that the human sexuality is simply extremely plastic and conscious and subconscious pressures can steer the human sexuality into all sorts of weird fetishes?
All white men are born gay. Some are socialized to be straight.
>>526297479>>526297535>>526297550>>526297553>>526297566Sexual orientation is formed mostly by prenatal hormones, not genes. This still makes it an inborn trait. The dogshit website OP linked is dedicated to spreading Catholic dogma, so they can't acknowledge this and must instead construct a strawman argument to attack.
>>526302631It seems unlikely that heterosexuality and homosexuality are on the same level of fetishes, do you think you could back up such a thing? It is not even clear what the character of fetishes is.We clearly see, even in the OP post, that some people are biased strongly by genetics into being homosexual or bisexual.In the past the only way to derive the conventional wisdom you are talking about would be through behavior. I think I proposed quite a few reasonable mechanisms by which people with same-sex attraction may have the capability to act on their attractions or even speak about them significantly reduced. Those modified actions and words are the source that informs such wisdoms.
>>526297479How will you get the Bible thumping flat earth people that don't believe in science to accept this
>>526297479No shit, it's always been a perversion. Most gay men have fucked women before. Lesbians aren't real at all.
>>526302844Heterosexuality is the norm. It's the one sexual act we know has a biological imperative. Heterosexuality is not a fetish. Everything else is a fetish. Supposedly except homosexuality for some reason, according to you.But I have no reason to think of homosexuality in any other fashion than all the other weird and abnormal fetishes people engage in.The reason why homosexuality isn't viewed in the same light as foot fetishism or bronies, isn't for any scientific, historical, sociological reason or anything like that... it's for purely political reasons. Because just like there is nothing to indicate that there is a gene complex for bronies, there is nothing to indicate there is a gene complex for homos either.Just two socially learned behaviors and manifestations of abnormal human sexuality (which is obviously plastic) from various exposures, conscious and subconscious.
>>526297566I can actually believe that
>>526299743There are different types of twins, those in separate amniotic sacs and with separate placentas and those that share one sac and one placentas.And identical twins that share a sac and placenta are both straight or gay 100% of the time because they share the environment their bodies and brains were built in. So if there is a hormone problem they both get affected by it.Homosexuality is an error in construction, not design
>>526303159When the alternate (and more plausible) thesis is that homosexuality is a socially induced behavior, you have to separate the twins and have them grow up in different environments to know for sure. It's meaningless otherwise.
>>526297479No shit. I can only interpret gayness being a thing through trauma, socialization and astrology, not through genetics.
>>526303010>Everything else is a fetish.Do you have a definition of fetish that comes from some kind of scientific model that has predictive powers, or are you just defining it in the way you want to?It is a well established fact that genetics can strongly influence an individual into being attracted to the same or both sexes. No amount of "what about [X]" will make this not true.I don't know of any such genetic basis for cartoon pony attraction, but if you want to talk about people finding my little pony or feet attractive, study it.If you want to make the word 'fetish' into a useful tool instead of something arbitrary, pair it up with an actual working model of sexual fetishes, explain that model to us and how strong its predictions are, and explain why [behavior] fits the definition of fetish under that model.>Heterosexuality is the normIt is certainly the majority, but arguably the presence of same-sex attracted individuals is the norm too. That is to say, they consistently manifest everywhere, but pony lovers do not.
>>526297479Then why are their index fingers longer than their ring fingers? Must be something developmental and therefore preventable.
>>526297479>Your diet can make you gayWow.
>>526302380Well someone had to be the original faggot.
>>526303289>It is a well established fact that genetics can strongly influence an individual into being attracted to the same or both sexes.No, that's not an established fact at all. You just saying it is doesn't make it true.>It is certainly the majority, but arguably the presence of same-sex attracted individuals is the norm too. That is to say, they consistently manifest everywhereNot at all. When homosexuality is accepted and promoted behavior, yes, then you get a lot of homos. Like in ancient Greece, or today, where 50% of zoomers self-report homo behavior.But in societies where homosexuality is shamed and repressed, then almost no one has homosexual behaviors or impulses. We know this from a vast body of historical data.
>>526303310You fell for the memes. Again. L2critical thinking, mutt.
>>526298536Bullshit. Top left is definitely gay
>>526303221Its the only explanation that explains why homosexuality has been documented in every culture. If it was social there should be some cultures that are super gay and some that have no gayness at all.It also explains why animals can be Gay, why bisexuals are a thing and why some people are only slightly gay and some are mega giga gay, it depends on what time and which phase of brain construction was the hormone mistake made and thus how many stem cells got the wrong message and then differentiated into brain cells
>>526297479>Despite the fact that identical twins share 100% of their genes, gay/gay twins are less common than gay/straight twin pairs.Did they count twins masturbating together looking at each other as still acceptably straight? Or did they base their analysis on self identification?
>>526303406It's anecdotal, but I've noticed the trend irl. I live in homo central in CA so there's plenty of samples.
>>526303474>If it was social there should be some cultures that are super gay and some that have no gayness at all.That's exactly what we see in history.>It also explains why animals can be GayThere are no gay animals. This is just made up and completely false. You sometimes see deviant homosexual behavior in animals living in poor conditions in zoos, but that's it.
>>526297479>no one is born gaytell that to my ANUS!
>>526303289Another point in favor of homosexuality not being "socially learned" is that, despite the increased rate at which pop culture and politicians talk about LGBT, and despite increased rates of identification with such labels, the increases in same-sex sexual behaviors have been very small.>>526303394>No, that's not an established fact at all. You just saying it is doesn't make it true.That is the scientific consensus. Even the OP, who claims no one can be born gay, admits in his post that genetics strongly influence sexuality in this way. Twin studies show this, but you can read the OP as wellIf there is no genetic basis for homosexuality, then why would genetics account for any of it at all, let alone such a significant amount of it, as that study shows?If you want to contradict the consensus, go ahead.>or today, where 50% of zoomers self-report homo behavior.Completely false. It is hardly even 1/5th of that number.
>>526297479so gays multiply by molestation and by what mother's body exposes the fetus toI think /pol/ figured that out years ago
>>526303537>It's anecdotal, but I've noticed the trend irl. I live in homo central in CA so there's plenty of samples.I highly doubt it. You read it online, believed it and fell victim to confimation bias. It happens often with Americans. It's about as believable as the old wisdom that gays can't whistle.
>>526303610>That is the scientific consensus.There is no such thing.Kinda funny pol is so emotionally invested in this subject doe, wonder why haha. Brown people problems.
>But in societies where homosexuality is shamed and repressed,Go one>then almost no one has homosexual behaviors Not true, but the rate is significantly reduced. Makes sense>or impulses.How would you know this?>We know this from a vast body of historical data.Not even the people alive at the time had the capability to collect such information. Do tell.
>>526303610>That is the scientific consensus.That doesn't mean much at all. The scientific consensus at any given time is characterized by being wrong. That's the history of science, the common consensus being wrong until (hopefully) the scientific method creates a reproducible experiment that is sound enough to progress beyond the wrongness. Academicians have always been wrong, since the age of Enlightenment. Even the hard sciences like physics are generally wrong, the physics of 50 years ago is considered wrong by every physicist today.So there being a consensus in academia about something doesn't mean much at all. They're usually wrong, and IF that's the common consensus today (never seen any proper census of scientists saying this) then that consensus is wrong too.>If you want to contradict the consensus, go ahead.Everyone should do that. Academia often veers into very strange and obviously wrong paths. It's not even two generations ago electroshock therapy was thought to be the "cure" for homosexuality. Now that was obviously wrong, you can't cure homosexuality like that.But you can cure it with therapy, that has been done many times, reproducibly so, until the practice was outlawed.
>>526303657Post hand. I bet you're a gay. Also stop obsessing over Americans. I don't care that your an autistic shit fetishizing electrical addicted kraut. Lay off.
>>526303779Oops. Phone corrected electronica. What'reyagonnado, yaknowwutimean?
>>526303755Why did you spout off that number about 50% of zoomers engaging in same-sex sexual behaviors despite lacking any evidence for it? That would be half of them all, which is very different from roughly a tenth. You shouldn't just throw crap at the wall and hope no one notices when it fails to stick.I don't have the info on hand, but I'm pretty sure bisexuals outnumber gays almost 2:1. For a long time there was a great stigma, even laws, deterring them from having sex with men, making it harder for them to find men to have sex with, and they already had a far greater pool of women to have sex with, so it makes sense that many of them would just have sex with women and never try anything else.You stop punishing it, that pocket of the population will do it.Anyway, the consensus is always technically "wrong", but that doesn't mean that its inverse must be true. I'm just pointing out that all of the evidence available, even the evidence presented in OP, shows that genetics can influence someone into being more likely to be gay. If you have something that suggests otherwise, go ahead and show it--but you haven't done so.
>>526303987Don't forget shitskins are more likely to be gay. Less whites, more gayness.
>>526297566>deflecting for the kikesno, faggotry is cause by kikery and abrahamic crap
>>526303987>Anyway, the consensus is always technically "wrong", but that doesn't mean that its inverse must be trueCorrect. But the fact of the matter is that we have a vast amount of indications that homo behavior is a socially learned behavior, we have extremely little data to show that it is biological, and the little we have is also tenuous and usually biased. Like your beloved twin studies, which is REALLY shaky statistical science.Your problem is that you are not objective. You have a bias you want confirmed, you are not approaching this with an open mind. This is the problem most of your compatriots share, because it's a political neccessity today to make homosexuality into something natural. So then your methods are biased, your results are biased, you are suffering from bias.Notice that you, or any other "bio homo" proponent have still not engaged with any of my points at all. The explosion of homo behavior after homo acceptance, the ancient cultures with large or low amounts of homo behavior, all the other weird fetishes indicating human sexual plasticity.All you do is split hairs over numbers and form, divert and pilpul about definitions, do appeals to authority and in general act like the biased person you are.
>>526297479As an incel chud, I actually do not believe for a second that being gay is a choice. I have tried so hard to become gay because I hate women so much. I indoctrinated myself with hours upon hours of gay porn. I have no gotten an erection once. Best I could do was femboy porn and tranny porn. And even that is a struggle when I look at balls and dick. Jerking off to pussy and tits just feels natural. There is no way anyone would choose to get fucked in the ass or jerk off to hairy men's assholes.
>>526304181>But the fact of the matter is that we have a vast amount of indications that homo behavior is a socially learned behavior,Claimed several times. Where is it?>we have extremely little data to show that it is biological, and the little we have is also tenuous and usually biased.How do you figure?>Like your beloved twin studies, which is REALLY shaky statistical science.Okay, but there is another study in the OP that supports my conclusion and doesn't rely on twin studies. What about that one?>>526304181>BiasedIf you have evidence that homosexuality does not arise naturally, go ahead.If anything, I think you are the biased one here. You are really interested in making natural homosexual attraction vanish from existence, perhaps because it makes you uncomfortable or makes human nature less 'cool' or something, to the point where you will even throw absurdly false stats around to support it and then meekly whistle and pretend you didn't when you realize it was fake and gay, and is that not the epitome of bias?The point is that I don't think it is useful to vanish homosexuality. According to what we know so far in 2026, fact is, there's gonna be some dudes attracted to dudes. Most are gonna also like women, but some only men.If we think this is causing a problem somehow and we gotta establish a new order where no gay behavior is allowed, it's useful to acknowledge this and just punish gay sex, attempts to access it, and to figure out how to reward those people into having straight sex.
>>526304181>>526304470Btw, the reason I say my model is more useful is because it sidesteps this bullshit of "it's not natural".You could just say, hey man, I think that these behaviors are wrong for society, and society should be organized like this. Yeah some of you have these attractions but that's ok, we'll set up institutions to make use of you in some other way, or you can just force yourself into a marriage with a women or something.We can do this transparently. Just acknowledge some people are gonna have the attraction, make a strong argument as to why they should not act on it and should do something else, and if the argument is good, we can have the superior society without the gay behavior (if such a thing is superior).There is no point in trying so hard to deny it, in fact I think it's an inferior strategy. Because it makes your new society vulnerable, because if you're wrong about how gay people are, and you lie about it or suppress the information, then they will say you are suppressing us, fuck off we want rights, etc etcWe just need a very strong argument for why they should not engage in behavior. The way the facts work out, it seems like we cannot rely on dismissing homosexuality. That didn't fucking work, now everybody's hella gay lol. Noble lies are over.
>>526304681Explain ancient Greece with your model then.
>>526297479>>526297602GAYS REPRODUCE BY TOUCHING CHILDREN
>>526302823So, your mom turned you gay?I was under the impression that, more often than not, it was the father.
>>526299024>>526299855>Note that societies that are religiously repressed and keep males / females apart (especially near puberty) have way more closeted homos that more open societies that allow young kids to "make out" or "dry hump" at least a little when young.This is a theory, but what societies are you basing this off of. Religious societies have more straight people they marry more and when younger. Men can also be affectionate with each other without it feeling or thinking it's gay because of this, as you often get the problem of more liberal societies having people who equate friendship with eventual sex, and lonely people from hypergamy who go gay.
>>526297479>a third of twins to gays are also gayThis is very strong evidence of genetic influence.>no single determinantNo one said it was single gene.I see a lot of weasel words trying to avoid the truth.
>>526304707Lol what about ancient greece? Like how gay people are? I don't think there is much credible information about this, but I'm no expert on ancient greece.Look, I just think the strategy of "we will kill all fags because God says so" or "it's unnatural" is really weak because what happens when God dies? Or when industrial revolution happens and all sorts of liberal societies are possible that protect gays from vigilante justice, allow free speech that accomplishes minority rights, and the new generations have no motivation to oppress fags?I think the old-school non-transparent way of banning ideas is just broken. It's a failure. It's a failure because it makes no coherent argument. If you want an alternative to democracy, to peoples' rights, or you want to repurpose people into certain roles and stop them from doing certain other roles, why not just make a really strong argument for why the roles should be that way? Then you can construct a social contract that promises to give people a good like if they obey those roles, and you make good on the contract then people stop complaining.When there's no good argument, when your social contract has no serious philosophical underpinnings, what do you do in times of strife, or when many people complain at once? People do this self-discovery thing, they figure out their interests, they communicate about it, they plot to rewrite the social contract to make your social contract gay or something. It's better to just acknowledge there's gonna be some fags--ALWAYS--and just set up a pipeline for channeling them into some role(s) that meet their interests while maintaining your vision for the rest of society. Just openly tell people, if you have ANY attraction to girls, you are obligated to take a wife. Tell the fags this specifically. Then the ones that admit they don't have it, maybe we put them in army, or we tax them, or we have them work some job or something idk.
>>526298981destroyed that kraut cuck
>>526305098No, I didn't ask for your blogpost about the morality of faggotry.I asked for you "biological homo" proponents to explain ancient Greece in your theoretical "bio homo" framework.
>>526300157everyone was a faggot in ancient greek you nordic retard? as he said its due to that but also due to sexual libertines
>>526305172>No, I didn't ask for your blogpost about the morality of faggotry.It's relevant, because if there is no utility in denying biologically caused homosexuality, then there is no point in denying it.>I asked for you "biological homo" proponents to explain ancient Greece in your theoretical "bio homo" framework.Explain what about it? Do we even know that much about the sexual behaviors of ordinary people in ancient greece? The only stuff I personally know is that some scholars groomed some 14 year olds sometimes. Like, pederasty happened. How prevalent was it, I dunno.
>>526305294>here is no utility in denying biologically caused homosexuality, then there is no point in denying it.Except that it isn't true.I don't give a shit about homos either way. As a straight man homos are no problem for me, that's less competition.I just care about the truth, and we've now been searching, spending endless manhours on trying to find some sort of biological basis for homo behavior. Nothing concrete can be found. The level of evidence behind the "biological homo" is ridiculous. Tenuous and extremely biased statistical studies, reproducibility crisis retardation.Meanwhile there's an overwhelming evidence of human fetish behavior being socially learned behavior around a highly plastic sexuality. There is just so much that makes sense when you allow yourself to see it that way.The only reason why it's gatekept is for political reasons. And I get that, fags don't want to defend their abnormal sexuality, they want to larp like they're normal.But they aren't.
>>526300157I'm pointing out that it's much more prevalent in modern times, imbecile. Before it was a handful of faggots here and there 1 because endocrine imbalances just exist in humans and 2 Phytoestrogens and shit like that are naturally occurring, and ancient people couldn't have imagined that it would affect their unborn children
>>526297479This is a tactical retreat because now we have the means, through CRISPR and RNA vaccines, to cure genetic homosexuality.Therefore, the infected defend themselves by pretending to not exist.
>>526297479No one is born a pedo either, oids will die on this hill though
>>526297479The idea of same sex behavior only being possible cause of genetics was always fuckin insane to me. There are dudes who get off to balloons popping cause of some random shit they witnessed when they were probably 3 years old that later formed into a sexual fetish. That the same thing cant be true of same sex attraction is ridiculous
>>526305838>Meanwhile there's an overwhelming evidence of human fetish behavior being socially learned behavior around a highly plastic sexuality. There is just so much that makes sense when you allow yourself to see it that way.I addressed the term "fetish" earlier. What is your model for how fetishes are defined, how they work? You didn't do anything to justify calling homosexuality a fetish. You just stated it and figured others would accept it as truth.>I just care about the truth, and we've now been searching, spending endless manhours on trying to find some sort of biological basis for homo behavior. Nothing concrete can be found. There was the study in OP and various twin studies, but you never acknowledged the one in the OP and never specified why the twin studies are biased. You just stated it and figured others would accept it as truth.Furthermore, you claimed many times to have evidence that homosexuality is socially learned, but never provided evidence.
>>526306134>What is your model for how fetishes are defined, how they work?A fetish is sexually stimulating thoughts around abnormal sexual behavior, i.e. everything that is not heterosexual sex, the only type of sex that has a biological function.>You didn't do anything to justify calling homosexuality a fetish. You didn't do anything to justify not classing homosexuality with all the other abnormal sex obsessions. Like footfags, furries, people who get horny thinking about eating shit, etc. All those have in common with homosexuality that they're sexual acts without any biological purpose.So it makes sense to think of them as a set of behaviors.Why not? What makes homos so special that they're a "natural biological" sexual orientation but footfags are not?
>>526305294Pederasty was a part of many cultures. Romans, Greeks, Iranics, Arabs, Chinese, Japanese, and some American cultures all practiced it that's just a shortlist from memory. The word for fag in many languages is literally pederast. We have more surviving love poetry about boys and men than about women from Golden Age of Islam. The Japanese only stopped practicing boy love in the 1800s with the Meiji restoration to appeal to western values. Afghanis (iranic people) still famously fuck little boys to this day. It's an oddly universal practice
>>526306314>A fetish is sexually stimulating thoughts around abnormal sexual behavior, i.e. everything that is not heterosexual sex, the only type of sex that has a biological function.Where did you get this definition though? It seems to have been generated from your brain.I didn't ask for that type of definition. I asked you for a model of fetishes. A scientist who studies sexuality, specifically fetishes, might have a definition of a fetish the corresponds to a model which possesses predictive power. By predictive power I mean that given some information about a subject's experiences, they might predict the likelihood the subject has a fetish based only on the subject's experiences.Does your definition correspond to such a model of a fetish? If so, which one? Does that model explain how homosexuality fits its definition of "fetish", and demonstrate that homosexuality emerges similarly to that "fetish"?If your definition does not correspond to a model with predictive power, it is arbitrary, and you are just using it because you find it amusing to apply the social stigma of the term fetish, to homosexuality. Bias, effectively.>You didn't do anything to justify not classing homosexuality with all the other abnormal sex obsessions.Ah, but I did. I pointed out the study in OP (not a twin study) which suggests that genetics can account for homosexuality to some extent. As for twin studies, I pointed out that you never actually discredited them. You called them biased, called them statistically flawed, but never backed it up.
>>526297605That does seem to be it
>>526306504Yes, we have many examples from history of homo cultures. Where homo behavior is promoted and accepted, homo behavior increases in society.>>526306535>A scientist who studies sexuality, specifically fetishes, might have a definition of a fetish the corresponds to a model which possesses predictive power.I'm just going to stop responding to you now, you utter faggot. Come back when you can argue like an adult in good faith instead of just constantly moving goalposts, do childish ad hominems, pilpul over definitions like a fag, and constantly appeal to authority.This is why you fags are losing the culture war, your intellectual dishonesty is constantly on blatant display.
>>526299913fascinating. nature is real weird
Is this honestly true? Is this how the trans and gays are conceived?
>>526306609At least once in this thread, you spouted a totally bogus statistic right out of your ass without thinking about it. I pointed out that it was wrong, and you never acknowledged it even once.Every single time I asked you to explain your reasoning for why twin studies are flawed--which you claimed many times--you failed to respond. You failed to respond even in this final post which I am replying to.Many times you claimed to have evidence that homosexuality is a sexually learned behavior, but not once have you demonstrated this.Several times, you arbitrarily applied the word fetish to homosexuality and all non-procreative sexual behaviors. Presumably even blowjobs with women are a fetish on the same level as otakus attracted to cartoon ponies? LOL.I pointed out that there is no legitimate reason for such a definition unless it has a use. A scientist who studies fetishes will define them a certain way, and using that definition he will study the fetish, and measure how fetishes are born.If you want to prove that homosexuality is a fetish, then you need to justify that definition of fetish. Show me how homosexuality develops, show me using real, cold hard evidence why the emergence of homosexuality is similar to a "fetish" like a man being attracted to balloons or something. PROVE IT.If you cannot prove why these things are similar, then it seems like you are just defining homosexuality as a fetish because you like applying the stigma to it.You consistently ignore requests to elaborate on your claims, and whenever your claims are proven wrong, you immediately stop talking about them out of embarrassment. You are the face of intellectual dishonesty.
>>526306873>At least once in this thread, you spouted a totally bogus statistic right out of your ass without thinking about it. I pointed out that it was wrong, and you never acknowledged it even once.>Every single time I asked you to explain your reasoning for why twin studies are flawed--which you claimed many times--you failed to respond. You failed to respond even in this final post which I am replying to.>Many times you claimed to have evidence that homosexuality is a sexually learned behavior, but not once have you demonstrated this.>Several times, you arbitrarily applied the word fetish to homosexuality and all non-procreative sexual behaviors. Presumably even blowjobs with women are a fetish on the same level as otakus attracted to cartoon ponies? LOL.>I pointed out that there is no legitimate reason for such a definition unless it has a use. A scientist who studies fetishes will define them a certain way, and using that definition he will study the fetish, and measure how fetishes are born.>If you want to prove that homosexuality is a fetish, then you need to justify that definition of fetish. Show me how homosexuality develops, show me using real, cold hard evidence why the emergence of homosexuality is similar to a "fetish" like a man being attracted to balloons or something. PROVE IT.>If you cannot prove why these things are similar, then it seems like you are just defining homosexuality as a fetish because you like applying the stigma to it.>You consistently ignore requests to elaborate on your claims, and whenever your claims are proven wrong, you immediately stop talking about them out of embarrassment. You are the face of intellectual dishonesty.
reminder, /pol/ bullies gays because they are jealous we don't have to deal with women
>>526298536what if certain beliefs and behaviours changed our genetic structure in real time and our faces transformed?
how does /pol/ cope that hitler's best buddy for 10 years was a homo?
>>526306934Interestingly, I rarely applied "ad hominem" to you, yet you post some picture of your face yelling at me?. We are even on the same side, effectively, which makes it even stranger. If you had simply realized your mistakes and corrected yourself, there would be no consequences. You would have learned something. You are anonymous here, you know? No one will punish you for being wrong, that's the point of anonymous posting.You call my definition pilpul, appeal to authority, whatever, but you don't seem to really get the purpose of definitions.Like okay, I can call gayness a fetish. I can also call homosexuality DOUBLEPLUSUNGOODFEEL. That can make me chuckle, dunking on the fags, but what does it actually do?If your goal is to prove that faggotry is socially learned, then you might use the term fetish to refer to socially learned sexual behaviors, and try to define faggotry as a fetish. But that seems like a tautology, what's the point of it?More precisely, what you did was effectively like saying "I define fetish as socially learned sexual behavior, and I claim that faggotry is socially learned, therefore faggotry is a fetish, and because it is a fetish, that must mean it's socially learned"This is arbitrary. I'm asking you for a more concrete and useful definition of fetishes, such as one made by a person who actually studies fetishes by measuring real human beings, because their research can actually be used to determine whether faggotry is a fetish or not. Their research will use a specific definition of "fetish", not the one you dreamed up. That means that their research on the mechanics of fetishes will only apply to the kind of thing they defined a fetish as, not however you defined it.Not that you ever provided any evidence of anything at all.
>>526297479Scientifically speaking Darwins natural selection denies gays from passing on their genes so it therefore cannot really be considered something that is genetic. So according to science, it must therefore be something that is passed on through environment.A glow nigger shared with me some information from spying on homosexual facebook/whatsapp private groups told me that homosexual men are all sexually abused as children and this is basically how homosexuals reproduce. As a smoke screen gays set up the gay rights movements which evolved into the LGBTQ movements which was designed to legitimise political protection for their group and get them closer to children.Furthermore since the pedo/gay political block have promoted homosexuality in schools, more children have been self identifying as confused which further supports the idea that homosexuality is environmental and not genetic.But again, i have no idea as I am not an expert in homosexuality, its just something that some glow nigger showed me.
>>526307379>Scientifically speaking Darwins natural selection denies gays from passing on their genes so it therefore cannot really be considered something that is genetic.If a gay person's existence tends to promote the welfare of his kin, then his kin, having similar genes to his, will tend to do better than other tribes, and thus will reproduce genes similar to his.Also, gay and bisexual women (50% of gay people) can just be forced into having sex.Most same-sex attracted guys are also attracted to women, and so they can reproduce directly.Also... if everyone in a guy's tribe is having sex with women, why wouldn't he try it out?>Furthermore since the pedo/gay political block have promoted homosexuality in schools, more children have been self identifying as confused which further supports the idea that homosexuality is environmental and not genetic.There is increased identification, but this does not seem to correlate which a similarly increased amount of LGBT behavior. In other words, it's mostly just trendy virtue signalling.
>>526297479epigenetics disputes this. some people have the wrong instructions.
>>526307379Yes, that is correct. Homos will of course claim that they benefit the social group and thus in some unique and unnatural fashion reproduce their unobservable and undetectable "homo genes" into the genepool.No such genes have ever been found, and as everyone knows homos do more harm than good in a social group.
>>526302609Nonce apologia
It's a parasitic infection.Read your Bible
>>526297479Yes, it's a choice to be gay.
>>526297479Yes, i was groomed n forced in becoming a femboy by an FBI glowie named "Keith", he wanted to bring me to the USA (so how he could rape me), scary stuff:/
>>526309373Many such cases!
>>526297479Homosexuality is trauma based. I'm a guy, I know this because as early as 5 years old I knew I liked girls, I fell in love for the first time with one at Kindergarten. My father is a piece of shit who beat me and never had a conversation, never cared about me, he didn't teach me how to be a man. This really fucked up with my head where I started being sexually attracted to older men, basically daddy issues.
>>526297479Wow yeah we know. Science is so useless.
you guys are 1000% obsessed about my cock going into adult men and I'M the gay one
>>526297479I want to fuck a lesbian.
>>526297816She's not going against the Jewish narratiVe, she is going to the next step of it. All of this degeneration was just encouraged by the Jewish elites to weaken us and strengthen our enemies. Im the end the intention was always to force Jewish law upon the world, and that is pretty clear on faggots.
>>526297479I was talking to my sister about the whole born gay thing. She thinks it exists. She got big mad when I told her >Look, I can get online right now and find some dude to fuck. I make that decision, and that decision would make me a gay. A choice. I've never seen such a breakdown in the conditioning.
>>526309373It is wat it is, dude rlly wanted for me to be w him (i can't even imagine the stuff he would've done);/
>>526307307Yeah, in my experience people can look different over time as they change. A gay lifestyle, destructive and effiminate, woyld definitrly have a large effect on your appearance
>>526297479>there is no genetic basis for a homosexual identitythis is blatantly obvious if you aren't a total retardif being gay was genetic then the "gay gene" would've been filtered out of the human genepool long ago>The study found that a person’s developmental environment — the influence of diet, family, friends, neighborhood, religion, and a host of other life conditions — was twice as influential as genetics on the probability of adopting same-sex behavior or orientationie gay people were likely groomed or sexually abused as a child
>>526309106The bible doesnt say this
>>526297816>one of the good onesNo it just means you haven’t figured out their latest trick yet.I never was a sign tapper but some people are stupid enough to need the sign tapped every now and then. They are not suddenly about to roll over and let goyim win.
I thought it was due to womb conditions.First sons are gay less often than latter sons. So you can still be born gay; you are more than just DNA strands
>>526314090This isn't true because sisters of gay men are more fertile, making it beneficial; the gay male is a side effect.
>>526297479>ncregisterBiased bullshit site with agenda?Hard pass.
You would be lying if you didn't know a gay kid growing up, gay face is real
>>526297479Why are there sooo many lesbians these days? So many men are incels and birth rates are flatlining because women would rather lick snizz than even look at men anymore.
>>526297479>picrelimagine the smell
>>526302823Unafraid truther. What determines which hormones a fetus is exposed to? Mom’s diet?
>>526297479Sorry bud, I knew I was gay when I was like 12yo, I really enjoyed the smell of my jock friends after soccer or school gym.I have never been molested nor have any issue with my father\mother, it's just how it is.I'm a boy and I love boys. Boys like me, too.
>>526298517I personally witnessed a girl become a lesbian at age 15 when lived in Switzerland. She was outgoing and happy, then a brown immigrant sodomized her and bragged about it in her school. She dyed her hair black, stopped smiling, and got herself a butch, dungarees and all. I randomly met her twenty years later, still lesbian.
