Whites least likely homosexual

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2220120/White-people-likely-gay-Huge-study-reveals-highest-proportion-homosexual-people-African-American-community.html

“The survey – based on interviews with more than 121,000 people – contradicts the perception that lesbians and gays are mostly white, urban and affluent, said lead author Gary Gates.”
“‘But this data reveals that relative to the general population, the LGBT population has a larger proportion of non-white people and clearly is not overly wealthy.’”

In evolutionary terms, you don’t have to raise children you can’t make.

I cannot find survey data on what percentage of mixed race people aren’t straight.
That is weird.

It’s basic demographics, why is that buried?

You would think they’d shout it from the rooftops.
But parents want grandkids, don’t they? Or their own investment is worthless.

Very little research has been done into which races are more likely to be homosexual.”

That sounds likely.

“Estimates of the proportion of the population who are lesbian or gay range from 2 per cent to 10 per cent, although recent US surveys have put it at around 4 per cent.
In 2010, a survey by the Office for National Statistics concluded that 1.5 per cent of Britons identified themselves as gay or bisexual, although a 2008 poll put the proportion at 6 per cent.”

If you sample urban gay areas, your data will be skewed.

This is interesting but twists things.

http://www.mixedracestudies.org/wordpress/?tag=journal-of-the-history-of-sexuality

“The concept of continuity was harnessed to growing attention to miscegenation, or “amalgamation,” in social science writing in the first decades of the twentieth century. Edward Byron Reuter’s The Mulatto in the United States, for instance, pursued an exhaustive quantitative and comparative study of the mulatto population and its achievements in relation to those of “pure” white or African ancestry.”

That bias isn’t science, it’s propaganda.

How little he turned up is great negative evidence though.

Spot the frauds.

“Xavier Mayne, for example, one of the earliest American advocates of homosexual rights, wrote, “Between whitest of men and the blackest negro stretches out a vast line of intermediary races as to their colours: brown, olive, red tawny, yellow.” He then invoked this model of race to envision a continuous spectrum of gender and sexuality: “Nature abhors the absolute, delights in the fractional. . . . Intersexes express the half-steps, the between-beings ”

Most hermaphrodites are infertile.

We evolve FOR one thing and AGAINST another.

Nature loves the absolute, bears can’t breathe underwater.

You evolve for ONE ecosystem at the EXCLUSION of all else.

This is Origin of the Species tier, old biology. This guy’s anti-evolution.

“In this analogy, Mayne reversed dominant cultural hierarchies that privileged purity over mixture. Drawing upon irrefutable evidence of the “natural” existence of biracial people,”

What about the evidence of their fertility issues?

And there’s no such thing as irrefutable in biology on the level of individuals.

Real identity problem, huh?

If race doesn’t matter, why pretend you have one?

Miscellaneous is not a category, that’s a category error.

Why have racial pride if that’s the root of evil to you?
And how can atheists believe pride is a sin?

“Mayne posited a direct analogy to a similarly mixed body, the intersex, which he positioned as a necessary presence within the natural order.”

False equivalence. Naturalistic fallacy.

You can see the slow creep of genocidal rhetoric.

Pure races have a human birthright to exist in their homeland, invader.

If you want the whites kicked out of Africa but not the blacks from America, you’re a massive hypocrite.

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.

source

http://img.4plebs.org/

boards/pol/image/1469/80/1469803738587.png

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.

Why was homosexuality illegal?

The public health hazard, just show them this video.

Womb envy + Pregnancy fetish = HIV craving.

Trigger warning, even I was like

fuck you, jim boy

fuck you with a used condom from your dad

So we’re clear, you can’t be a rapist if you’re

a – brown

b – Muslim

c – homosexual

because no judge will prosecute you.

If you aren’t taken down, does it really count?

https://www.healthline.com/health-news/why-are-drug-resistant-hiv-strains-more-prevalent

Why Are Drug-Resistant HIV Strains Becoming More Prevalent?

It’s a fucking mystery, children.

HIV subtypes are so genetically distant from each other that we might as well be talking about a different species of virus per subtype.”

Salvaña says that needle sharing can create drug-resistant strains because “HIV subtypes can mix and the mixed HIV strains will combine with other subtypes as well.”

Evolution?

These are the gay guys that make gay guys look bad.

You don’t see lesbians pulling this shit. Lesbianism was never illegal.

Homosexuality may be developmental error

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2012/12/homosexuality-may-start-womb
They’re claiming 8% of the population now, the number keeps going up!

“Although epigenetic changes are usually temporary, they involve alterations in the proteins that bind together the long strands of DNA. Thus, they can sometimes be handed down to offspring. According to the hypothesis, homosexuality may be a carry-over from one’s parents’ own prenatal resistance to the hormones of the opposite sex.”

Explains Goethe.

Great man, unusual number of homosexual offspring.

“The initial benefit to the parents may explain why the trait of homosexuality persists throughout evolution, he says.”

Evolution presumes the fit ones will breed more (reducing the downside loss to zero as 52:48 female to male birth ratio) and there’s no parasitism between high and low fitness.
There are other studies along these lines e.g. a review

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3296090/
“More recent research suggests that 2-6% of men in the United States, France and Great Britain have had homosexual experience”

It’s always the men being the most degenerate, generic finding of sexology.
And they wonder why they die sooner.

Big winners, bigger losers.

“This article reviews the evidence regarding prenatal influences of gonadal steroids on human sexual orientation, as well as sex-typed childhood behaviors that predict subsequent sexual orientation.”

But it doesn’t work the other way around, parent forcing a Barbie on your son.
And it isn’t 1:1, kids will play with most things if allowed.

“The evidence supports a role for prenatal testosterone exposure in the development of sex-typed interests in childhood, as well as in sexual orientation in later life, at least for some individuals.”

Yay, we can blame men! – feminists, if they had any balls

“It appears, however, that other factors,”

Pathogens.

in addition to hormones, play an important role in determining sexual orientation.”

Pathogens.

“These factors have not been well-characterized,”

Pathogens, billions of pathogens.

“but possibilities include direct genetic effects, and effects of maternal factors during pregnancy. “

You can try blaming the woman but you’d be wrong. If women were responsible, nobody would be straight because everyone has a mother, and therefore a cause. We wrongly assume anything “wrong” with a baby is the mother’s fault. This is like blaming your food poisoning on the oven rather than the handling before that stage (paternal factors, research the other half too, paternal factors!) or once it comes out.

Paternal degeneracy would be an interesting factor. A very interesting factor.
Are promiscuous men* likelier to have gay sons, easy observational study.

You’d essentially be testing for r-selection. Homosexual men are extreme sexual r-types: high volume, low discrimination, nomadic patterning…

“Although a role for hormones during early development has been established, it also appears that there may be multiple pathways to a given sexual orientation outcome and some of these pathways may not involve hormones.”

….Pathogens?

Where’s the science, right?

How would it occur from father to germline like an STD, mother to child or both?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertically_transmitted_infection

Have we seen pathogens change things about babies in other cases?

http://www.dw.com/en/five-pathogens-that-can-harm-an-unborn-child/a-19014487

Wouldn’t there be a genetic brake on that?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21767812

A gene that can be compromised in mothers and lead to increased infection risk for the infant. Too little compromise and the mother suffers from carrying the foetus.

Start with the pathogens it encourages?

But where’s the science, I know, I know…

If only we had a clear-cut sign of societal sexual selection.
Say, weaker men sexually preferring masculinized women.

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/women-muscles-attraction-more-thin-bodies-image-study-men-a8179481.html

That’ll do.

Should women be uber-feminine then? No, older women are hormonally and it causes pregnancy failure.

http://home.bt.com/news/science-news/male-sex-hormones-help-towards-a-successful-pregnancy-11364036745307

*we know there’s already a link with mothers, fathers constantly go under-studied, especially in terms of promiscuity outcomes.

https://www.livescience.com/7056-mom-genetics-produce-gay-sons.html

But gay penguins adopt!

Why do you think this makes homosexuals look less like predators?

If you look them up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad%C3%A9lie_penguin#Reproduction

Young Adélie penguins which have no experience in social interaction may react to false cues when the penguins gather to breed. They may, for instance, attempt to mate with other males, with young chicks, or with dead females.

On account of the birds’ relatively human-like appearance and behavior, human observers have interpreted this behavior anthropomorphically as sexual deviance. The first to record such behavior was Dr Levick, in 1911 and 1912, but his notes were deemed too indecent for publication at the time; they were rediscovered and published in 2012.[17][n 1] “The pamphlet, declined for publication with the official Scott expedition reports, commented on the frequency of sexual activity, auto-erotic behaviour, and seemingly aberrant behaviour of young unpaired males and females, including necrophilia, sexual coercion, sexual and physical abuse of chicks and homosexual behaviour,” states the analysis written by Douglas Russell and colleagues William Sladen and David Ainley. “His observations were, however, accurate, valid and, with the benefit of hindsight, deserving of publication.”

They blame global warming.

It makes frogs gay too?

unpaired = r-selected

Reminder: compulsive masturbation is a paraphilia-related disorder.

(keyword: auto-erotic)

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00926239908404008

The subgroup of males with both PAs and lifetime PRDs (n = 123) self-reported the greatest number of lifetime SIDs, the highest incidence of physical and sexual abuse, the fewest years of completed education, and the highest likelihood of current unemployment or disability.

Oh look, a male promiscuity study – the promiscuous are losers!

no experience in social interaction” – in humans, that is abuse experience
a strangely common prevalence in homosexual adult males

Why not test IQ too?
Impulse control is tied to it.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-012-9900-3

Why is this relevant?

Well, pedophilia has already been claimed as NOT a paraphilia.

Like homosexuality before it. I guess it’s just a coincidence most pedophiles are homosexually-oriented men.

The present article examined the question instead by comparing the major correlates and other features of homosexuality and of the paraphilias, including prevalence, sex ratio, onset and course, fraternal birth order, physical height, handedness, IQ and cognitive neuropsychological profile, and neuroanatomy.

You could just study it directly.

e.g.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3769077/

Various ‘preferences’ and sexual interests have fallen in and out of being defined as paraphilic, for example, up until 1973 homosexuality was classified as paraphilic under the DSM (diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders)-II. Its subsequent removal led to some arguing that if homosexual orientation is not in itself abnormal, then the inclusion of other sexual behaviors classified as paraphilic cannot be justified as a concept and should be removed entirely from future editions

Paraphilia essentially means anti-Darwin, that was the purpose of the concept.

http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2009-03599-001

 Besides homosexuality, the DSM also listed sadism, masochism, exhibitionism, voyeurism, pedophilia, and fetishes as mental disorders.

Yah.

Members of the activist committee believed that the law and psychiatric diagnosis were and should be independent.

Nay.

Our hope was that one day the entire group of sexual disorders would be dropped from DSM, at least those currently listed as the paraphilias.

Thanks, Silverstein!

I’m resting my case gently so you can do your own research.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gynophobia