Gays Rekt

little boys are pre-gender
technicallu they r not homosexuall

...

Qualified psychologists tried to "cure" gays for decades. Thanks to that there is now a load of peer reviewed research showing that it's basically impossible to manipulate human sexuality.
Where's your evidence that they're wrong?

Then why is the current consensus that sexuality, and gender, are both choices?

That isn't the consensus among scientists. Tumblr are not scientists.

rt.com/news/356848-study-sexual-orientation-fixed/
The John Hopkins study argues that sexual orientation is not fixed at birth, so if anything at least it can be said there's dispute about this among scientists.

religion is the opiate of the masses, only the most delusional and fucked people can hold these contradictions in their head.

These scientists are considered to be fringe by most of the psychiatric community. In particular, the reliability and accuracy of their work is heavily disputed.

deep.mastersfamily.org/2016-08/lawrence-mayer-and-paul-mchugh-douchebags-day/

Mind you that RT is basically a mouthpiece of the Russian government, which panders a lot to Orthodox sentiments.

Sure, my point is that we have no way to control it and the experiments to do so would be deeply unethical. Scientists already did a bunch of unethical experiments on adults and got nowhere. You can't advocate doing the same to kids in the hope that you figure out a way to "cure" something which isn't a problem in the first place. It's like experimenting on kids to find out how to prevent them from growing up with ginger hair. At least it could be argued that many of the adults involved in the gay-cure experiments were consenting.

independent.co.uk/news/science/scientific-peer-reviews-are-a-sacred-cow-ready-to-be-slaughtered-says-former-editor-of-bmj-10196077.html

Also wondering how long they're just going to blame "discrimination" on why homosexuals are still far more likely to abuse drugs, act promiscuously, and kill themselves than heterosexuals

You can make the argument for why that is. Can you make the argument that there is a gene for being gay, acting promiscuous, and killing themselves at the same time? Because if that's biological gene therapy me the fuck up

But anyways, what's funny to me is that there is never this demographic breakdown on the internet of people who spend their time at home. Or further, the mentally ill on the internet, as opposed to "the mentally ill" in the public you don't agree with.

Also, there's a really fundamental flaw with this research:
You can't prove that sexuality isn't set at birth because you can't measure the sexuality of very young children. It's abundantly clear from decades of research that adult sexuality is pretty much fixed, and no data can be collected for children. The only valid conclusion is that it's fixed some time at or before puberty. I don't think it matters when exactly it is fixed, because it would be deeply unethical to punish people for their entire lives based on "choices" they made as babies.

As far as I can tell that "research" is just a lot of conjecture and linguistic trickery.

What's your alternative explanation? That they're inherently evil people?

You and this clickbait journalist fuckhead are beyond stupid.

Oh, and if you're going to write a rebuttal, it's better to write about the numerous glaring flaws in the actual research rather than opening with a "douchebag alert" and crying about how horrible the authors are. Leave that as plan B, in case you can't find any obvious flaws in the research.

See below

Well I wouldn't say inherently evil, just possessed by demonic servants of Satan.

Snark aside, there's clearly something that's gone wrong in their personal/social development that's lead them to act in such a fashion, from reckless promiscuity that has resulted in homosexual men contracting never-before-diagnosed-in-human infections, or the predominance of relationships with significant differences in age.

Not an argument.

Dude, men are just naturally promiscuous. When they're attracted to other men, all that changes is that they are able to act on those desires where straight men are unable to because women don't want to fuck as often. Mystery solved.

And the problem is it can't be discussed, because people just don't want to accept that there may be something fundamentally wrong about that behaviour.

theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/22/addicted-to-chemsex-gay-drugs-film

You just stated that peer review is somehow wrong because anyone can publish an academic paper, even though the scientific community at large doesn't give a shit what most of them say anyway because of sheer volume. In reality, the fact that people do like the scientific implications of these two men is why anyone listens to them, not the other way around.

Cherry picking convenient statements and repeating personal feelings ad nauseam is all they have while actual evidence of pathology exists, genetic or not.

What is presented without logic or reason can be refuted without it.

Different person. I posted and .

You can say that about anyone who uses the internet all the time that leads them to make a series of mistakes, like you. But, you don't criticize yourself far enough or that demographic far enough for the engagement of these tactics to be taken that seriously.

If we break down, demographics, you'll find a shockingly large number of people who use the internet all the time who are addicted to one or more prescription drug, or are prescribed a number of psychiatric drugs.

See the language I used there? It's the same dog whistle shit you just did.

And you know what else, I can make a baseless assumption without context afterwards as well.

There might have been something wrong in your personal/social development.

And it can't be discussed.

Yes, there are numerous studies that can attest to the fact that guys want to fuck basically all the time, any time, no matter the circumstances. Imagine what it would be like to be attracted to people who think exactly the same way instead of women.

If VD wasn't a think then gays would probably be purged just because of hetero envy.

Tbh I have a pretty strong sex drive and my gf wants to have sex more then I do. Maybe she's just the anomaly or maybe it has to do with her background idk

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

I wasn't arguing that the NEET life is morally superior, in fact you can and I would happily make exactly the same argument.

The difference is that in one fashion or another society does deem NEETs to be acting in an unhealthy fashion. There's no hagiographies in the mainstream media about how being an anime-watching university drop-out NEET is a perfectly valid lifestyle choice.

Really, I'm not sure what you're arguing - "being a broken, developmentally-stunted individual is okay if there are other groups of broken, developmentally-stunted individuals"?

But we're not, an arguing hypotheticals like that is pointless

Yes, I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess it's something which starts with "C" and ends with "apitalism".

More seriously, most of it can be explained by the different sex drives of men and women. A person's social life is a function of both their own personality and the personality of the people they're sexually attracted to. In the simplest terms it explains why gay men go to gay bars more than straight men, but it also explains increased promiscuity.

Actually, it's worth taking a step back in this debate because I think the two sides are arguing from completely different axioms.

I find it most useful to consider things in terms of solutions. That is to say, it doesn't matter what the situation is - the only thing worth considering is how to make it better.

The most significant consequence of this is that I don't think it matters if there is something inherently "evil" in gay people. Even if the crazy religious people are right and they literally had a demon inside them telling them to do terrible things, that would be a problem without a solution. There is absolutely no ethical way to make things better in that situation.
In the same way, I don't care about aggregate statistics of drug abuse and promiscuity. Even if those were bad things, which is quite a spooky assumption, there would be no way to tackle it without causing massive collateral damage to innocent people. Aggregate statistics simply do not represent individuals.

Now, if you're going to respond, please respond with a proposal for how to make things better rather than a complain about how things are.

Whose really spooked here?

The fact this argument is devolving into what the mainstream media thinks about neets away from the point I was making is really showing off what your purpose here in making this argument.

That you don't put the same energy into looking for why something is the way it is, then labeling anything that is, "it", and leaving it at that and using loaded language while criticizing peer review

Those are all utterly subjective metrics. There is no objectively correct way to live your life. What matters is average long-term happiness.

So what, some people are gross and irresponsible? Have you really never met an unpleasant woman in your life? Something being reprehensible to you does not make it objectively bad: homosexuality is, by currently accepted psychiatric standards, not a mental disorder, and for reasons that should be obvious to anyone who actually researches the matter instead of digging for bias-confirming links. The two figures mentioned earlier openly reject this standard, which means if you agree with them, you disagree with the psychiatric community in general.

Does this make you objectively wrong? Of course not. But as far as actual evidence goes, their contention that homosexuality is a conscious subcultural decision is effectively a straw man of all non-genetic human behavior.

It's not hypotheticals, that's literally what it's like to be gay. Are you autistic?

My god i am exposed!

I'm not a sjw or anything but can we perma this Holla Forumsack allready?

No-one's saying "gays are evil, praise Jebus", just that something may have happened that is linked to both the homosexuality and the reckless behaviour.

blogs.scientificamerican.com/bering-in-mind/something-queer-about-that-face/

The fact that people can reasonably guess by someone's face alone whether that person is homosexual or heterosexual indicates that homosexuality is tied to something in development.

"Yes, these people are acting in a self-destructive and reckless manner, but that's no indication there are underlying behavioural issues. I for one like to get drunk in public places and provoke fights with strangers, don't judge me you spooky bigot"

But again, the fact that exclusive heterosexual relationships still persist in significant numbers even after the massive changes in sexual morality since the '60s indicates its different.

This isn't the '50s, heterosexual men don't need to propose marriage to get a girl to sleep with them

I would point out that you have presented no evidence that most gays act like this, but I think you are aware and don't care about proof.

What are you going to do about it? Alienate them?

Gee, I'm sure that didn't start this process in the first place, and it won't confirm your already existant confirmation biases when it gets worse.

You offer problems with no solution. You just point out problems and say "SEE"

Also, "self-destructive and reckless" is largely arbitrary. It could be used to describe the majority of people in some relevant sense.

What did he mean by this? AIDs is also found in breeders and needle sharing.

What a stupid thread. I was raised in a protestant home. I was homeschooled. I had no friends, no tv, no video games, no music and no books that were not pre-approved by my extremely sheltering parents (no, really, my Dad thought Star Wars and Superheroes were the return of the nephilim).

And you know the crazy thing? Despite not once ever witnessing any homosexuality whatsoever, I still knew from as far back as I can remember I liked boys more than girls. It wasn't until I was 15 and gained internet access that I knew what being gay even was.

Also, AIDS was created by the CIA to destroy communities from within, like crack.

nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/report-lesbian-gay-bi-adults-face-higher-substance-abuse-rates-n671876?cid=sm_tw

I'm offering a problem in the hopes that others can find a solution, unlike most scientists who thanks to their own latent "homophobia" are pretty happy to let homosexuals abuse drugs and contract AIDS so long as they don't have to hear about it at work the next morning

Which is better than "Yes, we know homosexuals are more likely to engage in risky behaviour, but that's just because of discrimination I guess"

No you're not, you're basically offering up problems to be a contrarian.

...

Like I said you're pointing out the problem and hoping the solution will come by pointing out the problem repeatedly. For nothing else but this specific demographic because they butt fuck and you don't like it.

You're being a contrarian because I only see your social activism concentrated in these three identity politics areas: race, sex, and sexuality.

Three divisive things literally everyone and their mother has a tabloid level of understanding about, you seemingly have as well

A. Not mental illness, stop reading 1940's christian propoganda

B. The suicides are from living in a world that hates them. How would you like to hear countless stories of governments executing, imprisoning, maiming and condoning the persecution of people like you? How would you like to turn on the tv and see some religious nut talking about how evil you are, to which the congregation all says words of agreement? How would you like it if you heard countless stories of kids being disowned, abused or sent to brainwashing camps by their parents for being like you? How would you like it if you overheard random people talk about how disgusting and vile your kind is, sometimes right to your face because they don't know you're that kind and they expect you to agree with them?

Can you imagine what that does to the psyche? To be treated like a subhuman enemy of the earth just for loving differently?

Who wouldn't want to kill themselves facing a world like that?

I have a better solution. Haven cities muh safe space are already proven to work, so we just create lgbt communes, then provide transportation to them if they so desire to live where they will always be welcome.

psychologytoday.com/blog/hide-and-seek/201509/when-homosexuality-stopped-being-mental-disorder

yahoo.com/news/american-scientists-world-homosexuality-isn-t-mental-illness-231030468.html?ref=gs

Bet you can't post that on Holla Forums without getting permabanned.

Hard to imagine a more cultural Marxist, p-hacking, fake science study than the one described in this picture.

For the same reason a straight person would.

Eh, found it on leftybooru, along with this gem.

...

Since you do not seem to consider AIDS conspiracy theories beyond the pale, I'd like to gauge what you think about Gearoid's thoughts on the subject:

ahtribune.com/in-depth/1014-homosexuality.html

Well, the cause here isn't the homosexuality, it's clearly radiation poisoning.

You can ignore any drivel written by this man
source: medstudent

Correlation is not causation you retard. Have you ever considered that drug abuse and suicide may be caused by discrimination faced, or experiences with family?
No shit, they are men. As if straight men wouldn't fuck every semi-attractive woman that approached them. Gay men are more sexually promiscuous because they are men, and BECAUSE men have such high libidos, statistically. God damn, you're a retard.

I +1 this.

You know I want to be a good leftist and believe this, I come from a pretty conservative state so I've seen the moral hysteria about this first-hand but then I see shit like this and it kills it for me: archive.is/B8UJv

Gay rights has so obviously become the cause célèbre of liberal humanitarian imperialism that its not even subtle anymore and I'm honestly wondering if there's even anything worth saving about the LGBT movement anymore.

I know we're Holla Forums and we're against idpol for the good of the Left and the vulgar ess jay dubew bashing of the alt-Right–so despite what redditors say about us we're generally accepting of marginalized identities.

The whole ridiculousness of the LGBT is getting to me like the fact that we have a whole political movement based on the kind of sex someone enjoys, e.g. Cletus enjoys playing with his friend Jamal's cock after school, and now they need a political movement.

Is there really anything more idpol then that? At least with the special snowflake spergs and autismos who make being neuro-atypical into an identity and campaign for more NEETbux the majority of the medical establishment recognizes there is something really wrong with them.

The celebration of sexual preference as an identity is idpol, yes.

That sounds like pretty solid evidence that it's genetic and fixed at birth to me.

No, you seem to be offering a "problem" in a pathetic attempt to provoke moral panic and anti-gay sentiments.
The most obvious solution is to legalize drugs and put more funding into AIDS research, but I'm guessing you won't like either of those ideas because they "degenerate" or something.

into the gulag you go you idpol cocksucker

we don't need miserable pile of shits like you bringing down our cause

or do you want to go in the front lines like the cannon fodder that you are??

...

hahaa I like you nigger this a good bread you are causing some butthurt no pun intended

cletus and jamals cockplay party le-mao

interesting

No, just Jewish.

You know that you stick out like a sore thumb right?

Of course they do.

I know but so does that study. Linked to two leftists who hate whitey. Surely nothing could be afoot. Kristof Dhont of Ghent University, Belgium, and Gordon Hodson of Brock University. Here's an actual statistician dismantling their BS "statistical" piece on racism being linked with low Autism Level.

wmbriggs.com/post/5118/

So wait, children who could tell the exact volume of glasses at a glance, hated black people?

You're basically saying racists are more intelligent.

Lmaooooo Holla Forums confirmed for not knowing basic math

That would mean he doesn't know how to read, dumbass.

Forgot to mention Wray Herbert is the one who wrote the article that referenced Hodson's and Kristof's fallacious study.

"Conservation" = Being unable to see that both glasses hold the same water.

No conservation = Being able to see that both glasses hold the same water.

No conservation = more racist.

More racist = Being able to see that both glasses hold the same water.

More racist = more accurate.

Retard.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_(psychology)
Let me explain that for you.
Conservation = being able to see that both glasses hold the same water.
No conservation = being unable to see that both glasses hold the same water
Less conservation -> more racism
Fucking dumbass can't even comprehend basic sentences

No,
"Conservation" = Being able to see that both glasses hold the same water.

Then why are you getting mad at me, this person made the image wrong.

I can comprehend them, but your butt buddy over there seems to lack the ability to WRITE them and express himself.

Scroll down to the last comment in the article, the dude gets BTFO and doesn't even respond to that much more detailed and devastating critique of his critique (but he was perfectly fine to respond to an offhand comment on an image board - I wonder why).

youre not sherlock holmes faggot also sherlock was shit Father Brown way better, infidel. I can call someone a nigger and not be from /pol, nigger

the fucking chutzpah of such an accusation, seriously

anyone that takes part in any kind of "glasss of water" study is a nigger

On the other hand, electrically disabling or weakening the function of the amygdala, the part of the brain used for assessing threats, makes people more likely to support left-wing ideologies, and more accepting of immigrants.

k

just because they aren't born gay doesn't mean they shouldn't have rights too.

women are different from men tbh. he was just saying that in his own religious way.

why would they need to?

oh youre autistic didnt know sorry thank you for your spectrum disorder