Is homosexuality immoral? thread

I didn’t expect this to be lucid, a very logical treatment.

Right click, open it solo and zoom to 100%.

If x then y style. Get a cup of tea. They don’t teach the controversy, do they?

An interesting read. References are always a sound idea.



When it was considered a mental disorder by the psychiatrists, it was considered such because it was common in pathological populations, especially criminals. If you look at prison populations, many are not homosexual by situation but preference. There are also connections to violence even within intimate relationships of “love”, personally, I don’t consider one woman beating another to be very loving. Evolution is full of errors – infertility, disability, genetic deformity, there is no teleology to evolution as we’ve been mistaught. There is the Darwinian imperative (to reproduce AND nurture said offspring) and if an organism fails that, it is both maladaptive (for its environment) and unfit (as a genome package).

There is a high co-morbid amount of what we’d now call personality disorders (or at least features) – histrionic, narcissistic, borderline, codependent, sadistic. Unusual for such a small population. Indeed, it would be incorrect to label the homosexuality the primary feature of study. It is likely a symptom of a cluster of mental abnormalities (statistical) yet to be discriminated (possibly microbial in trigger). The amount of child abuse suffered in such populations and obsession with youth and youthful cavorting (regressive parties) does point to a personality-induced hypersexuality. If we look clearly.

Those who need alcohol (or drugs) to engage in other debauchery cannot be fully desirous of it.

The fear of women (the root of misogyny) and disdain for femininity (femme women are viewed with hostility, even lesbians) are never commented upon. It used to be common knowledge. It sounds like erotophobia when described, but exclusive to female parts. The love of twinks is based on the simple reason they are supposedly tighter (what’s tighter than a young man?)…

They tend to view themselves as the perfect model of a human being, needing nobody and nothing, complete androgyny in a way to be proud of (narcissism comes in here).

Sadistic personality couldn’t be placed in the DSM because they found the reference populations were un-PC.

Social behaviours can also be anti-social depending on the outcome e.g. adultery results in reduced fitness, as does homosexuality. Child outcome studies bear this out. The promiscuity in common is no coincidence. It is a pre-civilization behaviour when humans rarely encountered one another (selection pressure), much like murder and rape. From time to time, those genes may emerge and become triggered by epigenetics to present (then willfully acted upon, there is always a choice) but the law enforcement system used to cull them without much trouble e.g. the dis-loyalty also punished in deserting soldiers into the last century.

This kept their numbers to the minimum of random variation.

A courtship system closely studied social behaviors and an individual’s reputation was a hallmark of their fitness, recognized by society as healthy for it.

We used to correct the will to “sin” with character-building efforts. The more character a person has, the less hedonic they are and reliant on pleasure-seeking in general. This has been borne out of centuries of psychology findings and you can see the pattern in self help books based off them too.

Present psychologists choose to deny character as an excuse not to study it because, quite simply, almost nobody has it. They study personality, that everyone has and can be read into like tea leaves ad infinitum. They’d hate to connect diseased personalities with a lack of character, an over-arching structure above it (like a roof to a carpet). It’s like the buried finding that stereotypes are often true. They cannot find funding unless they rig it. Replications will show they did.

Looking at homosexuality in a vacuum isn’t quite fair, in my opinion. The fact only bisexuals breed is actually a good thing, keeping the totally erroneous (homosexual) mutations out of the gene pool entirely. Their impulse not to bring children into the world, while selfish, is also correct. Society has acknowledged some people would make unfit parents, literally. Technically, their behaviour harms no one outside the small group, unlike the other forms of degeneracy. It is like ignoring a wolf pack for the easier enemy of a small domestic dog. They were fine when kept out of marriage (confirmed bachelors) circles and underground (no cultural influence). Given what a tiny amount of the population they represent, it is the smallest rock on the beach to turn over. It is one side of the die of hedonism in societies, demonstrated through case study individuals and groups.

They are an effect, not a cause.

1. Be civil. 2. Be logical or fair. 3. Do not bore me.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s