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

Hep B and babies

It’s been a while since I’ve beaten the immunologist’s pinata.

Spoiler: Literal baby-killers.

Immigration is putting the most vulnerable in society at risk.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-4749024/Babies-protected-against-deadly-hepatitis-B.html

“Babies born from today in England will be given a routine ‘six-in-one vaccine’, health officials have announced.”
So much for consent. Really, 100% now? Who is this protecting?
“The deadly virus is deemed a ‘major global health problem’ and considered to be on the rise due to immigration, Public Health England has previously admitted.”
“Dr Mary Ramsay, the body’s head of immunisation, said: ‘Until today, only children at high risk of hepatitis B would be immunised. ‘All children will now be routinely protected against this serious infection, which is a major cause of cirrhosis and liver cancer in later life.”
Pathogenic cancer. As in, you can still get other pathogens or new strains of that one and get the cancer.
It’s common in homosexuals, hookers and drug abusers. The wages of sin.
“It comes amid serious concerns that the number of cases of the blood-borne virus are soaring, partly due to immigration. In some sub-Saharan African countries, one in seven is a carrier. East Asia and parts of Eastern Europe are also hotspots.”
You know what those have in common? Prostitution and rape. Maybe sort that out than band-aiding the problem.
“At the time it concluded: ‘Long-term infections in migrants are estimated to account for around 96 per cent of all new long-term hepatitis B infections in the UK.'”
So they don’t want to look racist. Great. Why were they let in?
“A quarter of mothers giving birth on the NHS are now foreign-born.” Way more.
“The World Health Organization recommended in 1992 that babies should be given their first dose of a hepatitis B vaccine within 24 hours.”
I bet they did.

I really question why infants without an immune system require sex worker shots.
https://academic.oup.com/ije/article-pdf/45/2/441/7921281/dyv349.pdf

“Fact: It is suggested that infants get the hepatitis B shot before they leave the hospital.”
Prime time to spring important decisions on a drugged-up mother. Assuming they ask.
“It is not required. Fact: You can work out your own vaccination schedule and guidelines with your pediatrician. Fact: Drug companies have certain vaccines with fewer additives and in single doses, consult your pediatrician’s office regarding their ordering. It is your child’s life, it is your right to know. Fact: An infant’s immune system is very weak at birth. The hepatitis B vaccine can cause serious reactions if the system is already compromised.”
http://www.iansvoice.org/

System shock is common in infants, they can’t even handle a cold.

“Perfectly safe”, they lie at Public Health England.
http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/348303
http://www.vaclib.org/pdf/sids/MV%20SIDS%201414_1421.pdf
“Conclusion: A systematic review of neonatal Sudden Infant Death Syndrome and other unexpected infant deaths following the initial dose of hepatitis B vaccination should be undertaken at the international level.”
At this rate, they should rename SIDS to Vaccine Death Syndrome.

It’s hard to find studies again, for some strange reason. Why aren’t they conducted and published?

Especially proper controls, how funny. The scientism crowd doesn’t want to follow accurate method when it might show a result they disagree with.