It's just the latest step in human evolution bro. We're evolving into a non viable life form.

>>16988952
>what causes it
if they treated it like a pathology and researched it with an open mind I'm sure they'd find a solid model. the problem is that it is politically impossible to research this question. homosexuality and other types or protected self-identifications just arise by act of god, are tied purely to a person's immortal immaterial soul and you are a nazi for trying to ascribe a mechanistic explanation to them.

>>16988952
The self regulation of population as seen by the rat utopia experiment, rise in competition or change in preference (hopefully not brought around by an external factor) but completely normal if not unfortunate end to a lineage, but maybe they've dreamt of immoralising them self some other way than the reproduction of life, maybe the generation of art or something else of significance.

>>16988957
>politically impossible
There are scientists in China, Russia and Iran.

>>16988957
>nazi for trying to ascribe a mechanistic explanation to them.
Is mentioning the rat utopia experiment a no no then, since its a precursor to societal collapse or something?

Was the rat utopia experiment even unethical tho?
They were given unlimited food but limited space to see how their soceity would regulate itself, over population caused them to go crazy, what happened afterwards is not important.

>>16988953
>evolving
If there was a gene that caused LGBT, it would have weeded itself out, because they are likely to have fewer kids.

>>16988952
It's like a personality trait or ideology.

>>16988969
Don't snake babies change sex depending upon the temperature they're incubated at?
It could be a combination of environmental & biological factors (mind&body)

>>16988970
Do people possess a biological disposition for preferences? Not purely psychological but psychosomatic.

>>16988957

Yes, and the process of weeding it out would appear to be happening right now.

>>16988976
I can't think of anything. Probably not.

>>16988972
>change sex
They change their actual sex. They don't change their gender, while keeping their biological sex the same. In other words, they still reproduce, unlike LGBT.

Reminder that human tribes that had lgtv members were massively more successful than the ones that didn't, causing the gene/trait to become prevalent in all human tribes all across the planet

>>16988969
There are a lot of genetic disorders that make you less likely to have kids but still persist + it can simply be an epigenetic trait that gets triggered under certain circumstances.

>>16989001
>They change their actual sex. They don't change their gender,
Gender is derogatory, physiology is a product of your biology an inseparable essence that shouldn't conform to a specific behaviour if life is to be experienced.
The notion of a gender is irrelevant to an individual, prejudice & discrimative at large!
I dont belong to a family of 50+ people and think its a damaging ideology.

>>16988961
where they just make shit up.

>>16989020
You have no idea how science works, do you? They'd have to share data, their analysis of it, etc. And if their conclusion was sensitive like "gayness is an infectious disease", a million people would be looking over it to try to disprove them.

>>16988952
The sexual attraction routines in the mind sometimes get confused and get attracted to things that do not lead to procreation. For example, aphids sometimes get confused and try to mate with the pants they get their sap from. Lot's of people have sexual attracted to feet, fishnet stockings, or buttholes even though there's no explanation from a reproductive standpoint.

I've also heard the theory that male homosexuality occurs because the mother's body might treat the male fetus in the womb as parasite and sends antibodies which turn the baby gay.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5777026/

>>16989069
>parasite and sends antibodies which turn the baby gay.
Couldn't this be contributed environment factors aswell, such as certain types of stress?

>>16988952

And may they never cure it. As disgusting as homosexuals can be, nevertheless, I like the idea of the existence of a group of human beings (men) who have absolutely no need of women for gratifying sexual release. A class of persons who really can do an end run around women's bullshit, and who can even take women to task and call them out on their interpersonal bullshit from time to time without caring one whit about the counter-argument: "I will make my holes unavailable". I am of course referring to the genuine, congenital homosexuals, not the prison gays, acquired cases of homosexuality, and so on (in which the sexual attraction to women is present to some degree). They have their own problems, of course, but a bitch ain't one.

>>16988952
it's a mind virus. prove me wrong,
https://www.bitchute.com/video/stKA5m5XrLm1

>>16989091
>women's bullshit
Gay men's bullshit is far worse than women's bullshit.

>>16989069
>feet
Probably because women's feet look different and are smaller. So they are traits of estrogen levels.

>>16988952
>scientists still do not know what causes it
It's literally just a birth defect, so it's caused by a mutation just like any other abnormality.
It's not that complicated.

>>16989069
>>16989378
The part of the brain that recognizes feet is very close to the part that recognizes genitalia, foot fetishes are a common and benign brain deformation.

File: dawkins.jpg (1.05 MB, 1731x2194)

1.05 MB JPG

>>16989069
(WARNING: To understand this comment, you need to have read some books by pic related. Otherwise, it will sound like gibberish, or plain wrong to you.)

Suppose there is a gene in one of the X chromes that causes women to turn some of their male offspring gay.

Then, if we assume that this offspring cared about his siblings' kids as much as he would have cared about his own, such a gene would be merely neutral -- there wouldn't be a selective pressure to wash it out or promote it (under this assumption).

But if there also was a gene that turned the male straight again (counter-acting the effects of mother's gene), there would be a strong selective pressure favoring such a gene.

So, natural selection would favor straightness, even if gays were utterly selfless friends to their siblings (The "kind uncle" hypothesis, or whatever it's called)

it's an epigenetic phenomenon caused by the scientification of bromance

>>16988952
Isn't it just an evolutionary byproduct that didn't get filtered out? Due to hormonal variations, some men are more exposed to estrogen, and due genetic variation they might have more of the traits that makes women like men. Add culture and you get a fag. These mixtures don't get filtered out of the gene pool because gays would still marry & have children and even when they didn't, they would help take care of their sibling's offspring (which might explain why so many pedos are also gay btw).
Source: [spoiler]I made it up.[/spoiler]

>>16988952
Its caused by molesting kids, you stupid jeet.

>>16988957
It's hormonal imbalances during pregnancy and early childhood mostly. It's not so much something you see in the genitals but it causes a dysfunction in sexual conditioning in the responsible parts in the brain. It's why most if not all homosexuals are homosexual before they develop a genuine sex drive. With females, you can judge by the 7th year or so whether or not they turn lesbian. Usually starts with them being tomboys.

>>16990723
>homosexual before they develop a genuine sex drive. With females, you can judge by the 7th year or so whether or not they turn lesbian
This is a prejudice fallacy aligned with genderism, you have the mind of a tranny & a dipshit

>>16988952
No, it could not be caused by an infectious agent- this is nigh impossible, because homosexual behavior does not have epidemic properties.
It is very unlikely that it is caused by early life events which are not more strongly physiological, but it is still theoretically possible.
It is natural and occurs everywhere, homosexual behavior- I think you mean a certain kind of obligate homosxuality, which apparently does not occur everywhere, but it is uncertain.

>>16988969
It would be likelier to weed itself out, but there is no "would". That's not a mathematical calculation.

>>16988959
It's a no-no because you read about it on the internet and connected it to ze West (or whatever else) but ignored how, like most 20th century famous social psychology experiments, it's highly sensitive to conditions and often difficult to replicate, if possible at all.

>>16989382
If this was in itself an explanation, we would expect a similar population occurrence in both males and females, which is not the case.

>>16990724
It's aligned with genderism because gender incogruence is highly heritable (probably more heritable than homosexuality) and decently predictable, and childhood gender nonconformity is also correlated with non-heterosexual behavior. This is not fallacious. Facts don't care about your feelings.

>>16988952
>It could be caused by a mysterious, still undiscovered, infectious agent
this can be ruled out, as there are no universal infections, whereas homosex is pretty much universal in the animal kingdom.

>>16990743
>If this was in itself an explanation, we would expect a similar population occurrence in both males and females, which is not the case.
Men tend to be more visual whereas women tend to be more sensual. So this "brain deformation" as anon called it could manifest in women as the desire to get foot massages, pedicures, and toe sucking.

>>16990743
>homosexual behavior does not have epidemic properties.
wrong. it's a memetic cancer.

>>16988963
you're a fucktard if you think the calhoun experiments are remotely comparable to human culture