Fag Facts

oh no not the jaypeg diarrhea

Why do you hate yourself?

...

just hop on tinder OP youll find some brodie to slobber ur knob

Holla Forums regular here. I've been telling these fags they need to quit engaging in such behaviors but they always divert to fee-fees. Sad truth is you can't cure the unwilling. Just look at the jumpy reaction to the idea that their lifestyle might just be wrong.

The answer to these infographics is "So what?"

Step up your game, sodomites.

The time for arguments is over, bucko.

look I can posts graphs about the gays too

...

I don't argue with you people for the same reason I don't argue with flat earthers.
You aren't here to have an honest conversation, and I doubt you looked up even one of those research papers. And furthermore, I bet you'd discount any body of scientific research if it conflicted with your worldview.
Bye now.

Once again, fags can't logic so they run away like the little girls they pretend to be.

OP is what he hates

Soddie's avoiding the question again.

Saved

Makes you think

gallup.com/poll/183383/americans-greatly-overestimate-percent-gay-lesbian.aspx

No one's denying the fact that anal sex is a cause of a shitload of aids, if unprotected. But you imply that nothing is being done about this.
thenationshealth.aphapublications.org/content/42/1/8.1.extract
afao.org.au/article/gay-men-anal-cancer/

Just like any form of unprotected sex, it's going to effect you. Simple solution is education + safe sex

WEW LAD

family.findlaw.com/adoption/gay-and-lesbian-adoptive-parents-issues-and-concerns.html

This can be backed by this source psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html

More relevant was the finding that of the cases involving molestation of a boy by a man, seventy-four percent of the men were or had been in a heterosexual relationship with the boys mother or another female relative. The conclusion was found that "a child's risk of being molested by his or her relative's heterosexual partner is over one hundred times greater than by someone who might be identifiable as being homosexual."

aclu.org/fact-sheet/overview-lesbian-and-gay-parenting-adoption-and-foster-care

1/2

here's another chart proving the evils of homosex

...

medicaldaily.com/gay-marriage-has-no-effect-child-development-study-338344

medicaldaily.com/study-finds-same-sex-couples-make-better-parents-it-because-theyre-more-prepared-291628

There's more to come

you make a sound point OP, but I'm not entirely convinced yet, can you post some youtube links of further redpills?

I agree, sodomites will burn in hell

aclu.org/fact-sheet/overview-lesbian-and-gay-parenting-adoption-and-foster-care

As a result of the increased inclusiveness of modern adoption and foster care policies, thousands of children now have homes with qualified parents.
Myths vs. Facts

Myth: The only acceptable home for a child is one with a mother and father who are married to each other.

Fact: Children without homes do not have the option of choosing between a married mother and father or some other type of parent(s). These children have neither a mother nor a father, married or unmarried. There simply are not enough married mothers and fathers who are interested in adoption and foster care. Last year only 20,000 of the 100,000 foster children in need of adoption were adopted, including children adopted by single people as well as married couples. Our adoption and foster care policies must deal with reality, or these children will never have stable and loving homes.

Myth: Children need a mother and a father to have proper male and female role models.

Fact: Children without homes have neither a mother nor a father as role models. And children get their role models from many places besides their parents. These include grandparents, aunts and uncles, teachers, friends, and neighbors. In a case-by-case evaluation, trained professionals can ensure that the child to be adopted or placed in foster care is moving into an environment with adequate role models of all types.

Myth: Gays and lesbians don't have stable relationships and don't know how to be good parents.

Fact: Like other adults in this country, the majority of lesbians and gay men are in stable committed relationships. Of course some of these relationships have problems, as do some heterosexual relationships. The adoption and foster care screening process is very rigorous, including extensive home visits and interviews of prospective parents. It is designed to screen out those individuals who are not qualified to adopt or be foster parents, for whatever reason. All of the evidence shows that lesbians and gay men can and do make good parents. The American Psychological Association, in a recent report reviewing the research, observed that "not a single study has found children of gay or lesbian parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents," and concluded that "home environments provided by gay and lesbian parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children's psychosocial growth." That is why the Child Welfare League of America, the nation's oldest children's advocacy organization, and the North American Council on Adoptable Children say that gays and lesbians seeking to adopt should be evaluated just like other adoptive applicants.

BUT WAIT THERE'S MORE

This, I also wanna Redpill Myself

If you want more refutations of OP (who's more a faggot than the people he hates, read this pdf)

Not very socialist of you.

That's real fuckin' sp00k, m8

stay BTFO

...

your outdated studies continue to get refuted
here

and

Nothing I said was wrong. If you're going to dismiss the charts without actually addressing them, I can do the same with your sources.

See this is exactly what I said would happen

>family.findlaw.com/adoption/gay-and-lesbian-adoptive-parents-issues-and-concerns.html

This can be backed by this source psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html

More relevant was the finding that of the cases involving molestation of a boy by a man, seventy-four percent of the men were or had been in a heterosexual relationship with the boys mother or another female relative. The conclusion was found that "a child's risk of being molested by his or her relative's heterosexual partner is over one hundred times greater than by someone who might be identifiable as being homosexual."

aclu.org/fact-sheet/overview-lesbian-and-gay-parenting-adoption-and-foster-care

These are non-arguments. You're a faggot OP.

Yeah, that's nice dear, but you still haven't disproven anything the OP presented to you regarding faggotry.

Yeah, they have the same sexual organs. By definition, exclusive homosexuals can never have children of their own. They can adopt some random kid they aren't related to, or they can have their partner's egg/sperm be fertilized/fertilize by sperm/an egg, but that will always leave one partner raising the child of the other partner and some random person. Legal barriers were already destroyed, but the biological ones still remain, at least until the artificial womb is created.

t. faggot OP

Actually, he's imply that there aren't enough.

behaviorismandmentalhealth.com/2011/10/08/homosexuality-the-mental-illness-that-went-away/

psychiatry.org/news-room/apa-blogs/apa-blog/2016/03/homosexuality-as-a-mental-disorder-simply-not-backed-up-by-science

Oh, that's not up for debate. The fact they are actively engaging in sexual (that which pertains in principle to procreation) activities which cannot produce an offspring makes it a mental disease

Put another way, if homosexuality is not a mental illness, mental illness does not exist.

That's because there is another factor added into the mix: child abuse by individuals within the close social circle. You're basically saying "people who are within the social circle abuse kids more so than people outside the social circle". This is true, we already know this. You aren't actually controlling for homosexuals who are within the social circle, too.
That's pretty fallacious. According to: victimsofcrime.org/media/reporting-on-child-sexual-abuse/statistics-on-perpetrators-of-csa
Predators are overwhelmingly male and boys are also the victims, too. It isn't exactly a "99 to 1" divide between male victims and female victims.
According to: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2913705/.
"While estimates vary widely, it is likely that around 1 in 5 girls and 1 in 6 boys are victimized prior to age 18 (Centers for Disease Control, 1997). However, despite evidence that a substantial number of victims are boys, sexual abuse research findings are based disproportionately on female samples. Consequently, the extent to which findings generalize to male victims is unclear."
It's also fallacious to draw an arbitrary line in the sand. A pedophile is defined as a person who is sexually attracted to children. A homosexual is defined as a person who is sexually attracted to people of one's own sex. A heterosexual is defined as a person who is sexually attracted to people of the opposite sex. Nowhere in the definition of homo/heterosexual are age differences mentioned because attraction to age is a separate fetish/sexual attraction. Hebephilia is in regards to sexual attraction towards children of ages 11-14 (on average). It doesn't draw distinction between sex: that's what homo/heterosexual definitions do. One can be a heterosexual hebephile or a homosexual ephebophile, just like how a female can be attracted to male animals (bestiality of the opposite sex) or a female attracted to female animals (bestiality of the same sex). Male victims of female child predators make the female sexually attracted to the younger opposite sex. One definition does not become invalid.

Hitler didn't kill enough of you

this thread

So having sex for pleasure is a mental disease?

WEW LAD

You haven't proven a correlation/ causation. Rather, typical of a Holla Forumsyp you've drawn conclusions in which there are none, even your source says that it's either pedophilia, hebephulia and not entirely homosexuality.

A majority of rape is committed by men against women, are men all of a sudden animals that can't control themselves? No.

Stop being a faggot OP.

Sexual intercourse is not meant to be temporary release or a single-generation fetish: it is supposed to create life. Whether it be due to polygenetic factors, gene interaction, one single "gay gene" (although the first two factors are more likely for the proportion of genetic influence), or cultural/environmental (although the most likely solution is that there is a proportion due to environmental and genetic causes, although not direct 'gay genes'), homosexuality, whenever it manifests itself, will lead to childlessness. At least, it used to. The two individuals cannot have children that are related to the two of them, by definition of being male and female. Now, if a proportion of the cause for homosexuality is environmental, much like most other human traits, then assigning it entirely to genetic factors is willingly dismissing agency, claiming that it is because of some mystic factors that you will never have a child that will be related to you AND your partner. The action of incorrectly explaining away the cause is delusion. In principle, it would be the same if I decided to become a serial smoker AND had genes that predisposed me to become a smoker (remember: predisposition does not guarantee that I will smoke in the future). I decided, out of advertisement or some other external factors, to pick up smoking and I just couldn't quit. When I contracted testicular cancer and could no longer have children, assigning it to factors outside of my control is delusion. If it is entirely genetic, then they are born to never have children that will be related to the person and their partner. Ergo, they are evolutionary dead ends. If it is entirely environmental and they say it is all genetic, then they are appealing to an unknown cause to explain the evolutionary dead end, which is a delusion.

Stopped reading there. Quit being spooked. Some people choose to have kids, others don't. Are women who get abortions mentally ill? Is Chad thundercock not wanting to have kids mentally ill?

No. Stop posting. You got BTFO.

So what? The fact that a high correlation exists and prominent advocates of the LGBT community like Harvey Milk who get praised for their activism to this day is enough evidence to suggest that homosexuality lends itself to pedosexuality.

I wasn't trying to. I was stating a matter of fact. The whole point was not to state that "yet a majority of child abusers identified as heterosexual", so I'm not sure where you are getting that quote from. The point was to show that a majority of predators are male (although there is a proportion of predators who are female, but this pales in comparison to the males). In the first source: "Offenders are overwhelmingly male, ranging from adolescents to the elderly (page 171)."
The second source: "While estimates vary widely, it is likely that around 1 in 5 girls and 1 in 6 boys are victimized prior to age 18 (Centers for Disease Control, 1997). However, despite evidence that a substantial number of victims are boys, sexual abuse research findings are based disproportionately on female samples. Consequently, the extent to which findings generalize to male victims is unclear."
There are a large amount of males who are also sexually abused by predators (who are, for the most part, also male), just as there are many females.
By definition, attraction to a male is defined as homosexuality. That doesn't mean they cannot have other fetishes/attractions. Using this logic, if I am a straight male, I cannot be attracted to any straight female outside of my age category because the introduction of age as a sexual identifier cannot occur in your fantasy world. In reality, like I said in the post, "it [hebephilia] doesn't draw distinction between sex: that's what homo/heterosexual definitions do."
An underage minor who is a boy is still, by definition, a male. Just as little girls are still female. Same-sex attraction (homosexuality) does not, in any where of its definition, draw distinction between age. If you wish to expand on an individual's sexual attraction, you include it as a follow-up. So, if you are a heterosexual female attracted to children who are boys (male children), that makes you a heterosexual individual (because you are a female attracted to males) who is attracted to children (because you are a pedophile).

You are missing my point: the entire sexual drive's purpose is rooted in procreation. Limiting factors are contradictory to this action, as they inhibit the entire purpose of sexual bonding. All your ancestors before you took part in that cycle, and individuals who limit this future or abort the fruit of the romantic bonding are evolutionary dead-ends and, in the context of procreation/creating new life, deluded.
From an evolutionary point-of-view, absolutely. Organisms, like humans, are just genes expressed in environments. We are simply DNA trying to create new DNA, and limiting this is delusion.
See above.

Oscar Wilde was gay and contributed a shitload to the culture scene. This is a literal non-argument and is more feels/ reals. Gays can adopt and are capable of raising healthy offspring.

See

So you haven't proven gays to be mentally diseased. Again, children seem to do fine under parents and not be mentally affected by them.
As seen in

This post kills the polyp

From an evolutionary point of view, you're also prone to violence and rape. Is the women choosing not to have a child because she was raped and it might have consequences on her life seen as a mental disease.

So basically anyone who chooses not have kids= mentally diseased, despite all evidence the contrary. So what we are doing here is arguing through semantics and your arbitrary views as to what counts as mentally diseased despite all evidence to the contrary.
WEW LAD

Not coincidentally, he was also a pedophile.

lmao Yes I did, and that's not even getting into the predatory aspects of homosexuality. See Also, nice liberal sourcing. Guess bourgeoisie is AOK if it suits your narrative?

By your flawed logic, we should kill all men because of this.

To expand on this, it is irrelevant what they 'identify' as. The definition is clear. If the individual is also attracted to male children and female children, they will be bisexual (their own sex is irrelevant, as a male/female predator will still be bisexual if they prey on male/female children).

Where did I state this? From an evolutionary point of view, yes. Not from the point of view of literature. You can write novels without having intercourse; this is an absurd misrepresentation of the point.
That's great for him, but his homosexuality means that he will never have children who are related to him and his partner. That was my original point: organisms who act in this manner are evolutionary dead-ends. That was the context of the point I was making. "Ergo, they are evolutionary dead ends."
Yes, and much like the cuckoo's victim family, they will be raising children that are not related to them. From an evolutionary point, this is suicide. This also applies to straight couples that adopt: you are pouring effort and resources into a child that has no relationship to you, in any way. If you have no kids of your own or any siblings, your family dies with you.
I also never claimed that they can't have families, I said that they cannot create families.

Literally not an argument. At this point you're dismissing actual evidence performed by scientists because it doesn't suit your political views. There is no evidence of tampering with scientific data for an outcome to be """liberal""". At this point your only arguments are your own arbitrary views as to what counts as a mental disease.

lol We already have appropriate measures in place to correct abusive husbands. We don't have appropriate measures to deal with homos. The bourgeois has known for hundreds of years that sex is a very lucrative commodity; reversing mores to enable homosexuality to proliferate has been very profitable for them, consequences to life and culture be damned.

So basically you don't matter unless you breed. You contribute to nothing in society and culture unless you breed.

Really gets the cortex in a vortex.

It's a very good argument, actually, as evidenced by the fact you weren't able to counter it.

It's liberal because it feeds into the populist zeitgeist that "gay is okay", which leads to wrong-headed conclusions like "compulsory feelings of sexual activity that doesn't yield children is mentally stable".

It isn't arbitrary. Ask any biologist and he will tell you the purpose of our reproductive capabilities. Wake up and stop drinking the kool aide.

Competition for females is not equivalent to raping them, unless you can cite a study examining consenting females in Neanderthal tribes. Violence is not mutually exclusive to homo sapiens.
Females refuse rape because it removes any power they have to self-determination and to choose the best mate for their children. Otherwise, it is always beneficial to have children because you will live on through your kids (at least your DNA will). Females don't not choose to have kids, full stop. They choose to avoid rapists in our modern society. Males still compete for women, and they can even get into fights over them, too. Females will still have children. There is a difference between sexual selection and removing yourself from the gene pool entirely
I'll repeat my point, you seem to not be understanding it. "the entire sexual drive's purpose is rooted in procreation". Penis+vagina=baby, even with condoms and birth control, the risk is about one in a few thousand.
When did I mention the Greeks and Romans having mass orgies? I mentioned our entire ancestral lineage, as in all existing life on Earth. The chimp's ancestors had sexual intercourse and their offspring survived to sexual maturity, etc. You are, again, missing the point.
I am not appealing to nature by stating heterosexuality is good because it is seen in nature, I am stating that heterosexuality the cause of all human life, and of all other organisms that have the male/female divide. Obviously, some organisms are hermaphrodites and so on. But for, say, all mammals. An appeal to nature is "cocaine is natural, therefore it is good and we should all use it". It is not appealing to nature by saying "cocaine is natural and it is also bad, therefore we should not use it". I am stating that heterosexuality allows for human life because it is the fusion of the fruits of meiosis, without which, no procreation could occur.
As for genetic determinism, humans, as well as other organisms, are driven precisely because of their basal, natural desires. Chemicals in the brain fuel these inner drives by releasing 'feel-good' boosts. That's why sex feels so good.

You're right, not proper ones.

smh.com.au/nsw/domestic-violence-a-silent-epidemic-in-gay-relationships-20150415-1mm4hg.html

More needs to be done to raise awareness of domestic violence in gay and lesbian relationships, Parkhill says, and more government funding is needed for LGBTI-specific support services.

Matthew Parsons remembers calling a domestic violence hotline only to discover it was run by a Christian organisation.

"They were very unhelpful to say the least and I thought from that experience there wasn't help out there, which isn't true," he says.

aifs.gov.au/cfca/publications/intimate-partner-violence-lgbtiq-communities

This is a problem that must be adressed, but killing gays isn't going to help. Mike "watt watt in the butt" isn't going to solve the problem.

Makes you think.

wew lad.
K.

See above.

Males commit more crime and are more aggressive than women. They aren't animals, full stop, but they are comparatively more aggressive and criminal than women.

From an evolutionary point-of-view, yes. They are dead-ends. If they have no kids and no siblings, their family dies with them.
There is no evidence to the contrary. If you do not have any children, from an evolutionary POV, you have failed. Individuals who die before they can have their own kids, or never have their own kids, are evolutionary failures. We are, like I said, genes expressed in environments attempting to pass down our own genes. Failure to do so is… failure. It's a truism.
I've only presented definitions, to which you have presented no counter-points. You've just decided to skip over the point about multiple sexual attractions existing in one individual, and you've yet to discuss the causes of homosexuality and their implications. If you absolve all agency and engage in behaviours that do not result in children, you are either born defective, from an evolutionary POV, deluding yourself into thinking your evolutionary shortcomings are the fault of some genetic source, or a mixture of both (the most likely explanation).

Nobody has ever stated that homosexuals should be killed. Stop misrepresenting the point.

If attacking the source or appealing to the motivation of the individual/group who makes a claim is not an argument, then here:

You have also committed the same fallacy: "Using studies from 1965, 1979, and 1986 to justify his bigotry"
As well as stating that information that is from an earlier time period is incorrect, right off the bat. In the absence of evidence presenting a newer/updated conclusion, you cannot make a statement affirming a conclusion. Using your logic, all of cell theory must be dismissed because it was written 'x' arbitrary years from when you find your sources to be acceptable.

And yet from a psychological POV (you know stuff that actually deals with mental disease) they're not.

Again, from a psychological POV (which determines what counts as a mental disease or not) they aren't.

This is an appeal to nature fallacy on your part.

Except I did make the conclusion.

See

The only """argument"" you have is """muh evolution" and determinism, despite from a psychological POV they are not mentally ill. This is again, arguing within your own arbitraries.

Again, you misrepresent the point. This is the third time (that I've caught you attacking this strawman), so it can either be put up to deliberate misrepresentation or just incapability to hold honest discussion.
The entire point is that if a proportion of homosexuality can be explained by polygenetic factors or by gene interaction, then using what is true in part and extending it to the whole (thereby committing a fallacy of composition) does not logically follow. From an evolutionary POV, individuals who are in this position are either evolutionary dead-ends (as the adopted children will never be related to the individual and his/her same-sex partner, only neither of the two or the other person if they swap eggs/sperm and use a surrogate) or they are mentally deluding themselves into thinking their condition is entirely genetic. The turd position, that I speculate is the most likely (drawing from a proportion of the cause being genetic and environmental), is that they are evolutionarily defective (for the reasons I explained above) AND they are mentally deluded.
Once again, an individual who absolves agency from him/herself in positions where it has not been demonstrated to be warranted is deluded, especially in the context of procreation and having kids. If you state that "I was just born never to have kids that are related to me/my partner", then you are admitting to being an evolutionary defect and incorrectly assuming the entirety of the condition is genetic. The proportion that is environmental would make it a delusion.

Again

takepart.com/article/2014/09/04/american-scientists-world-homosexuality/

So again, arguing within your own arbitraries what does and DOESN'T count as a mental disease.

That is not what an appeal to nature is. Again, like the sexualities point above, you lack a proper definition: When used as a fallacy, the belief or suggestion that “natural” is always better than “unnatural.” Many people adopt this as a default belief. It is the belief that is what is natural must be good (or any other positive, evaluative judgment) and that which is unnatural must be bad (or any other negative, evaluative judgment).
The evolutionary process of procreation between males/females is not "good" just because it is natural, and claiming that is fallacious. "Look, these male/female animals are having sex, this means that it is automatically good BECAUSE it is natural" is a separate point to "look, these male/female animals are having sex, this is beneficial/positive BECAUSE they have children and their genetic lineage is continued on, compared to organisms that fail to breed". It would be appealing to nature if it is pointed out that is occurs in nature, therefore it is good for this reason alone. Natural selection weeding out organisms lacking in fitness (with respect to the niche they occupy) is 'positive' in the context of the niche/the gene pool, not 'just because' it occurs in nature. Context denial and misrepresentation aren't arguments.
If I wanted to use fallacies incorrectly, I can also accuse you of being fallacious in that you assume "simply because the APA/other authority states 'x' is not a mental illness, then it is true".
Again, you are shifting the topic to an unrelated issue. We are all genes expressed in an environment that want to pass on our DNA. Organisms that state "I am simply not meant to ever take part in this cycle" are defunct, as well as deluding themselves into believing explanations that have not been proven.
You have yet to actually address any of the points I've made. Absolving agency when it is not warranted is delusion of the highest grandeur. None of the sources deal with the points I've made, they never mention the point of procreation, which was my whole premise.
See above, you lack a proper definition. Stating that organisms that are ill-fitted in a niche dying off is beneficial to the gene pool isn't equivalent to stating that organisms ill-fitted in a niche dying off is beneficial just because we observe it in nature. An appeal to nature would be to explain how homosexuality is beneficial/positive simply because lions/penguins/whales are gay. Those organisms die off because they are defective. That's the point. The point is amoral, nobody is saying that they are 'positive/negative', but that they simply are ill-fitted and defective, in the context of procreation.

What makes the human different from an animal is that humans aren't bioligically determinist beings, they are capable of creating their own destiny and what THEY want do with their lives. This is why under capitalism, humans are alienated from the species- essence, as they have the only goal to SURVIVE.

So again, this is an appeal to nature on your part and you're calling people who don't breed mentally diseased, despite the fact that not all people choose to or want to have kids. This is what makes us different from animals, and homosexuality (again, from psychological POV which covers mental diseases) not a mental disease.

Again, appeal to nature.

So again, an appeal to nature. This is your own arbitrary lines, yet again.
Despite evidence saying that gays aren't mentally diseased, the only reason you classify them as such is because they don't have the incentive to breed.

Again, just because you are gay doesn't mean it's the automatic end of the species, as you can easily donate to a sperm bank or freeze your eggs, without having to or wanting to raise kids of your own.

May surprise you, but not all human beings have the same goals focused on """preserving muh lineage"""

None of those sources make reference to my point. They are irrelevant to the discussion. In fact, glossing over the appeals to authority in one of your sources: psychiatry.org/news-room/apa-blogs/apa-blog/2016/03/homosexuality-as-a-mental-disorder-simply-not-backed-up-by-science
Here is the same statement they make backing me up with what I stated here:

"although the most likely solution is that there is a proportion due to environmental and genetic causes, although not direct 'gay genes'"
The quote: The prevailing opinion within the scientific community is that there is a strong biological component to sexual orientation, and that it can be influenced by the interaction of genetic, hormonal and environmental factors. In short, there is no scientific evidence that sexual orientation, be it heterosexual, homosexual or otherwise, is a freewill choice.
Nobody is asserting that it is a 'free will' choice, but a combination of genetic and environmental factors, like most human traits. What IS being done is explaining away the entirety of the causes of homosexuality as being primarily genetic, like those who state "I was just born gay, there is nothing I can do about it". These individuals will never have children of their own if they are exclusively homosexual, by definition, but the issue is that it ISN'T entirely genetic: your own source even refutes this concept. The environmental conditions can be controlled for, and absolving the existence of this factor and claiming "meh, I was just born like this and no confounding factors or environmental explanations exist" is fallacious, not supported by your own sources, and delusion of the highest order. In fact, what is funny is that they are admitting to being defective organisms, from an evolutionary perspective.

This is not an argument. Stating that unfit organisms fail in a setting is 'expected' is perfectly in-line with natural selection and evolutionary theory.
They are defective organisms, yes. Again, your OWN SOURCE states that it is NOT a free will issue, so it isn't a matter of 'personal interest': it is a combination of environmental/genetic factors. Writing one of those off just because you 'feel like it' is fallacious.

Your own sources support my conclusion, yet they are not actually dealing with the discussion from the point-of-view that I am; that is, with respect to the extension of the definition of homosexuality.
None of this is actually a counter-point, you've just made an unfunny quip, followed by a non-sequitur not really dealing with my assertion. I will repeat it again: given that your own sources admit that the cause of homosexuality is a combination of genetic/environmental explanations, individuals who assign away the environmental aspect and claim that they are just 'born homosexual' are admitting to the evolutionary dead-end that is homosexuality, and that they are deluded in dismissing the environmental factors that can be controlled for.

So again, this is more appealing to nature fallacy, in which you say "You don't breed, ur mentally diseased", despite the fact that all evidence to the contrary states that gays are not mentally diseased.

You not having children is your choice, you are not mentally diseased if you decide to have none. Again, you're arguing from a determinist appeal to nature fallacy.

Again, you can donate to a sperm-bank, freeze eggs and adopt children. You conclude that because people have no interest in having children, they are therefore mentally diseased, despite gays choosing to adopt parentless children. By your logic, parents who abandon their kids are an evolutionary dead end, even though they had kids to being with.

It is fallacious, because what you determine as a mental disease is not shared by psychologists who actually STUDY mental diseases and the only definition as to how you determine a mental disease is "those who don't want to breed"

Correction: animals have intercourse because they are within the evolutionary structure/context we are discussing. It isn't beneficial/positive in any context except the one we are concerned with. An organism that is outside of this chain is defective. They don't have sex to 'survive', they have sex because they are driven to do so. They can exist while not having sex, but their genes won't if they have no kids/siblings.
First of all, homo sapiens are, by definition, animals. Second, misrepresenting the evolutionary context into subjective definitions of success/failure is outside of what I am stating. I can choose to become an artist or a NASCAR driver, sure. But from an evolutionary context, I can be a billionaire but if I do not pass down my genes, I have failed in the process and my genes will die with me. The entirety of existence for us/our common ancestors is rooted in this chain; organisms that did not take part in it failed.
If you choose to not have children, from an evolutionary perspective, you are a defective individual. It's really simple. It's a truism, not an appeal to nature. I am not stating that it is 'good' or 'bad' in any other context except the one we are discussing, and it is NOT because it is observed in nature/takes place in a natural setting, it is because of the results and what it means in terms of natural selection.
An appeal to nature is: When used as a fallacy, the belief or suggestion that “natural” is always better than “unnatural.” Things can be natural and be bad, and things can be unnatural and be good. Likewise, things can be natural and be good, and things can be unnatural and be bad. The fallacy is rooted in a weak explanation/justification/generalization. In terms of natural selection, it is 'good' that organisms that are ill-fitted to survive in their niche die off. That is not equivalent to an appeal to nature. Using your logic, observing how mutations leading to ill-fitted organisms within a population that, eventually, die off, is beneficial to the gene pool would be an appeal to nature, despite the fact that the justification was provided. Like I said, context denial is not an argument.
See above.
Not an argument. That is the entire framework from which I derive my conclusions. You making an ill attempt to make natural selection sound 'icky' does not address the points I make on its behalf.
Given the HIV rates for homosexuals, sperm banks refuse gay men. For example: thelinknewspaper.ca/archive/view.php?aid=40272.
Using your own source as an authority, a proportion of homosexuality is caused by genes. The sample will have to put all the information about the subject on the donor list, and couples will have to choose. For couples who do not want their kids to be gay, they will not choose those donors. For those that do, they will.
What actually is arbitrary is the subjective goals of each person. I am not stating that people cannot enjoy art or driving cars: I am stating that even the most subjectively successful person will still be an evolutionary failure if he does not have kids for the same reason that a dead person will be a failure (the genes die with them). That is the context of my point, try and actually address it.

More appeal to nature fallacy. Humans are not biologically determined beings. An animal reacts to its environment in order to garuntee the survival its species but only to a biological extent. A human can create things that are not born out of their genetic determined Biology.

So if a woman chooses to become a sex worker for the sake of profit as opposed to breeding is she therefore mentally diseased?

You do realise you don't have to breed to ensure the survival of your species, again, you can adopt, send your sperm into banks and freeze your eggs.

These are individuals who have chosen NOT to breed, are they therefore mentally diseased?
And again, gay men can adopt, thus helping parentless children and to an extent the survival of the species.

Yeah because all that art and literature that has influenced culture is totally a failure.
So now we're arguing over semantics on your part as to what YOU determine to be successful, and all of those inventors and artists and egineers and economists are all reduced to naught if they don't have kids.

WEW LAD

"An appeal to nature is: When used as a fallacy, the belief or suggestion that “natural” is always better than “unnatural.” If you choose to not have children, from an evolutionary perspective, you are a defective individual. It's really simple. It's a truism, not an appeal to nature. I am not stating that it is 'good' or 'bad' in any other context except the one we are discussing, and it is NOT because it is observed in nature/takes place in a natural setting, it is because of the results and what it means in terms of natural selection. Things can be natural and be bad, and things can be unnatural and be good. Likewise, things can be natural and be good, and things can be unnatural and be bad. The fallacy is rooted in a weak explanation/justification/generalization. In terms of natural selection, it is 'good' that organisms that are ill-fitted to survive in their niche die off. That is not equivalent to an appeal to nature. Using your logic, observing how mutations leading to ill-fitted organisms within a population that, eventually, die off, is beneficial to the gene pool would be an appeal to nature, despite the fact that the justification was provided. Like I said, context denial is not an argument."
You are a weak link, a broken chain, an evolutionary failure.
Natural selection and, by extension, evolutionary processes are not determined by the human mind/its own will. It is a process that occurs over many hundreds/thousands of generations, not during one individual's lifetime/under his will.
That is the whole point. Organisms that fail to breed have failed to pass down their genes (if they have no siblings/children). If you are a single child and you never have kids until you die, the process of natural selection will have weeded your genes out. That is my entire premise. I could not be as clearer, yet you insist on misrepresenting the point using meme arrows. Ironic how, in the same breath, you regard yourself as an 'intellectual', with the sources that… don't actually address the point I just re-iterated for the fifth? time.
If I donate sperm and nobody takes it because they think I am too short, then I fail from an evolutionary POV, yes. You don't actually KNOW when your sample is used. Pretty sure there is a privacy policy or something. Same goes with eggs. Again, I already explained above: adopting children means, if you have no kids, that your genes die with you (if you have no kids/siblings).
Evolutionary defects, yes.
If the gays never swap sperm to procreate with another female (without penetration, in a lab, as procreation is entirely dependent on male sperm/female eggs) or the reverse with two females, then their genes will die with them, yes.
No, their genes survive beyond their lifetime. That's the whole point. If they have kids, then they succeed. You can even have kids if you are killed right after. Couples who have sex right before the male dies in war… still succeeded in passing down their genes. They are both continuing along the tree of life.
None of your sources deal with the evolutionary chain. Dawkins is the only one who makes a good excuse, like the sneaky fucker theory (where gay men care for females, but actually fuck them on the side, making them bisexual males). Therefore, they have kids and so on. That's why bisexual males who have kids with females succeed from an evolutionary perspective because their genes live on through their kid.
It's really simple, yet none of your sources actually deal with the issue: from an evolutionary perspective, if you fail to pass down your genes, you fail. Quite straightforward. You have yet to address this beyond meme arrows, though, which is quite unfortunate.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_sapiens
Again, by definition, humans are animals. I never actually said humans are the same AS animals. I said humans ARE animals, yet you misquote me. Here is my original quote: First of all, homo sapiens are, by definition, animals.
Why do you lie when the quote is right there?
I never said that humans, themselves, were. I said that the processes, like natural selection, exist outside of our will.
What? This sentence does not make sense. If the organism is not as fit as its competition, then the process of natural selection will, over time, weed out the (sometimes) random mutations which lead to the variation, as those genes are inferior to the niche and organisms cannot survive as efficiently as others.
Again, see above. You are missing the point, this sentence doesn't make sense. Evolution still affects humans. I suggest reading "The 10,000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution".
*Genes fail to live on, so in the context, you have failed your purpose as an organism.
Does she have kids? Try and think of better non-sequitur examples. The question is simple: do the genes pass down to the offspring.
Again, stop making shit up. I never said that it is regarding the 'survival of your species'. Natural selection is adaptation to the environment. Here is a definition: the process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring. The theory of its action was first fully expounded by Charles Darwin and is now believed to be the main process that brings about evolution.
If YOU do not pass down your genes, your species will still survive: it will survive without you. It will be better off because of it if you are ill-fitted, as you failed to pass down your genes.
Any individual who does not pass down their genes, regardless of sexual orientation, is an evolutionary failure. They are defective in either life choice or genetic makeup.
Once again, not talking about the species as a whole, but the individuals who opt out of passing down their genes. If you don't have kids, the population will survive without you. Nobody denies this. The point is that your genes will not survive beyond you, thereby making YOU a genetic failure. I am not making a statement towards the species as a whole, but how the species adapts and how naturally selected organisms succeed over inferior ones.
From the perspective of organisms being genes expressed in an environment attempting to pass down their genes, yes.
Strawman, not claiming this. I am stating that, from an evolutionary perspective, Isaac Newton is a failure. His talent and genius would do well to live on beyond his lifetime, through his children. But we're strictly discussing organisms and their genes.
*Naturally selected organisms benefit because they pass down their genes, which is a desired outcome from an evolutionary perspective.
From an evolutionary perspective, they are failures. Their genes die with them. Here's a little challenge to get this non-sequitur to stop popping up: find me the point where I quoted how culturally-defined contexts are inter-connected with the evolutionary context I began referencing? I believe I was strictly discussing organisms and how they succeed if, and only if, they pass down their genes (in an evolutionary perspective). Notice how you've yet to actually address the main point? Your best rebuttals consist of meme arrows, which is telling of your intellectual honesty.

Again, appeal to nature and "if you don't breed ur mentally diseased"

Really makes you think.

I never stated I was. you on the other hand are a pseudo-int making appeals to nature and determinist fallacies while arguing within your own arbitrary lines as to what you consider to be a failure and mentally ill, while rejecting academia.

So your whole existence relies on you breeding. Pathetic, you're pretty much nothing more but an animal.

Again, this keeps in tandem with your appeal to nature fallacies and your "humans being animals".
Shtick

you literally said that success is subjective. This is again, more of an appeal to nature fallacy.

According to you. This is literal feels> reals. You don't give a damn about how the kid is raised, rather only that """muh genes continue"""

Again, we can choose not to have kids, that doesn't determine us to be mentally ill or failures. Human beings are capable of making their own choices, and you continue to argue from a determinist/ appeal to nature form of fallacy.

This is just arguing semantics at this point.

"An appeal to nature is: When used as a fallacy, the belief or suggestion that “natural” is always better than “unnatural.” If you choose to not have children, from an evolutionary perspective, you are a defective individual. It's really simple. It's a truism, not an appeal to nature. I am not stating that it is 'good' or 'bad' in any other context except the one we are discussing, and it is NOT because it is observed in nature/takes place in a natural setting, it is because of the results and what it means in terms of natural selection. Things can be natural and be bad, and things can be unnatural and be good. Likewise, things can be natural and be good, and things can be unnatural and be bad. The fallacy is rooted in a weak explanation/justification/generalization. In terms of natural selection, it is 'good' that organisms that are ill-fitted to survive in their niche die off. That is not equivalent to an appeal to nature. Using your logic, observing how mutations leading to ill-fitted organisms within a population that, eventually, die off, is beneficial to the gene pool would be an appeal to nature, despite the fact that the justification was provided. Like I said, context denial is not an argument."
Not an argument.
Natural selection and, by extension, evolutionary processes are not determined by the human mind/its own will. It is a process that occurs over many hundreds/thousands of generations, not during one individual's lifetime/under his will. Civilization has had a massive effect on the course of human evolution. It is not a one-generation factor bent by the will of a people.
See above, already refuted. You lack an understanding in what an appeal to nature fundamentally IS and how evolution is deterministic. By definition, evolution is outside of a human's will.
Here is a deterministic fallacy: The mistaken assertion that genes control, or determine, behaviour in a manner independent of environmental influences.
Here, I refute this fallacy: We are, like I said, genes expressed in environments attempting to pass down our own genes
Here:
Humans are, by definition, animals. Mammals are animals. Homo sapiens are animals. In an evolutionary sense, if you do not pass down your genes, you fail. Really easy.
See above, natural selection is not an appealing to nature, it is observing it and qualifying the effects it has (with respect to fitness).
Humans are, by definition, animals. Sorry if you are just learning this, but that seems to be the case.
It goes "Animalia, Chordata, Mammalia, Primates, Hominidae, Homo, H. sapiens".
See the posts above, already discussed this. Meme arrows are not arguments, you are only repeating the point, not addressing its central claims within the context it is presented.
Yes, if you think doing 'x' is a personal success. However, the confines of success are much more rigid in terms of evolutionary 'success': do you pass down your genes before you die?
I didn't know natural selection was subjective and malleable by individual emotions. I really thought creationists who denied the processes that determine which genes survive and which genes die off had been educated; I guess I was wrong.
"It's really simple, yet none of your sources actually deal with the issue: from an evolutionary perspective, if you fail to pass down your genes, you fail."
Ironic, given how it is you that cannot properly define your fallacies you accuse me of, even though I have debunked them above. I've even attached the post itself, yet you dance around the evidence. And I'm the pseudo-intellectual…

Part of me wishes the mods would stop bumplocking these threads about spooks, but if they did, would anything else ever get discussed here?

No, animals are biologically determined and do their actions via form of survival. They aren't capable of self-reflection, or creation of culture.

I never said that humans, themselves, were. I said that the processes, like natural selection, exist outside of our will.

So by that logic, we're not genetically determined to constantly breed, but by your logic, if we don't we are mentally diseased, despite psychologists saying otherwise.

Really makes you think.

You clearly haven't read Marx on alienation and species essence.

And I suggest reading Marx on alienation and species essence online.

Again, you think humans are animals that only have one biological function. Organisms mutually aid eachother, they don't have to constantly breed.

So it only matters if people kids to you. Again, this your pseudo-int arbitrary lines that you count as an argument.

you aren't serious now are you?

Yes but unlike an animal, a human can shape the environment to his OWN will and vision as opposed to a biological predisposition like an animal.

Really makes you think.

So if I don't have kids I'm all of a sudden a failure. You said success is subjetive, but all of a sudeen failure is objective. Really gets the noggin joggin.

More appeals to nature.

*Naturally selected organisms benefit because they pass down their genes, which is a desired outcome from an evolutionary perspective.

From an evolutionary perspective, they are failures. Their genes die with them. Here's a little challenge to get this non-sequitur to stop popping up: find me the point where I quoted how culturally-defined contexts are inter-connected with the evolutionary context I began referencing? I believe I was strictly discussing organisms and how they succeed if, and only if, they pass down their genes (in an evolutionary perspective). Notice how you've yet to actually address the main point? Your best rebuttals consist of meme arrows, which is telling of your intellectual honesty.

Top fucking kek.

Again, this is an abitrary agrument as to what YOU consider to be a failure.

meant for

This is a stupid argument, riddled by more appeal to nature fallacies.

You forgot to link the post you're responding to.
On the point of erroneously applying an appeal to nature fallacy to natural selection:
"An appeal to nature is: When used as a fallacy, the belief or suggestion that “natural” is always better than “unnatural.” If you choose to not have children, from an evolutionary perspective, you are a defective individual. It's really simple. It's a truism, not an appeal to nature. I am not stating that it is 'good' or 'bad' in any other context except the one we are discussing, and it is NOT because it is observed in nature/takes place in a natural setting, it is because of the results and what it means in terms of natural selection. Things can be natural and be bad, and things can be unnatural and be good. Likewise, things can be natural and be good, and things can be unnatural and be bad. The fallacy is rooted in a weak explanation/justification/generalization. In terms of natural selection, it is 'good' that organisms that are ill-fitted to survive in their niche die off. That is not equivalent to an appeal to nature. Using your logic, observing how mutations leading to ill-fitted organisms within a population that, eventually, die off, is beneficial to the gene pool would be an appeal to nature, despite the fact that the justification was provided. Like I said, context denial is not an argument."
On humans not being animals: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_sapiens.
Humans are animals. Humans are genes expressed in environments, just like other mammals and animals.
We ARE genetically determined to breed. Organisms that fail to do so don't exist today, or won't exist as natural selection causes species to adapt. It's just that humans aren't the only ones, the processes at-play allow us to adapt.
I've defined natural selection above, feel free to read it. It is not 'malleable'. If you fail to pass down your genes, you are an evolutionary failure.

Well, it doesn't matter if Marx said so or anybody else, the sentence doesn't make sense.
The issue isn't with Marx, it is with your sentence structure.
Where did I say that procreation was the only biological function? I said that it is the most important, but I never made any reference to others that play a role. Homeostasis, for example, is another. Try and "will away" the necessity of various biological functions, see how well it goes for you.
"Mutually aid"? This means nothing, you mean organisms form symbiotic associations? Sure. This doesn't speak to the issue of passing down their genes or not.
Not "to me". It is the simply an observation as to how species adapt to their environments. Genes that don't pass on, die off.
Woah tiger, take it easy. Here's the full quote: I never said that it is regarding the 'survival of your species'. Natural selection is adaptation to the environment. Here is a definition: the process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring. The theory of its action was first fully expounded by Charles Darwin and is now believed to be the main process that brings about evolution.
If YOU do not pass down your genes, your species will still survive: it will survive without you. It will be better off because of it if you are ill-fitted, as you failed to pass down your genes.
From the earlier post:
"If I donate sperm and nobody takes it because they think I am too short, then I fail from an evolutionary POV, yes. You don't actually KNOW when your sample is used. Pretty sure there is a privacy policy or something. Same goes with eggs. Again, I already explained above: adopting children means, if you have no kids, that your genes die with you (if you have no kids/siblings)."
And beavers can build dams, just as birds can build nests. I already stated: organisms are genes expressed in an environment. We DO amend our environments, but this is not mutually exclusive to humanity.
From an evolutionary perspective, yes. Genes didn't live on beyond them. This issue is outside of cultural/scientific achievement, only concerned with natural selection.
I actually said that success in this context is more rigidly defined, but nice strawman. Here: Yes, if you think doing 'x' is a personal success. However, the confines of success are much more rigid in terms of evolutionary 'success': do you pass down your genes before you die?
Post:

See above, already explained the erroneous usage. Observing natural selection is not appealing to nature, it generalizes nothing.

No, the point is concerned with adaptation and natural selection. That isn't "my entire worldview". Also, more meme arrows, still not an argument. You are only repeating my points.

See above, already explained the erroneous usage. Observing natural selection is not appealing to nature, it generalizes nothing.

Which is what you keep on doing. You keep on stating that gays are mentally diseased despite psychological evidence the contrary, and now you've shifted the goals to "If you don't breed ur a failure"

Except we're not. Read Marx's alienation. Again, you're just arguing semantics at this point.

Well then maybe you should read it.

To you, maybe. However, all that breeding goes to fucking naught if you don't have people contributing to society even if it means they themselves can't breed themselves.

Read Kropotkin

So again, how does not having kids constitute as failure, especially when you can still have kids. As unlikely as gays are from donating sperm, if analyzed for more of an individual basis, there is a chance a gay man can pass down his genes.

Hence forth, gays are not mentally diseased because they can't have kids.

And again, despite all evidence to the contray this still doesn't constitute them as failures. Through their contributions they can help the species as a whole as opposed to just themselves.

WEW

So I guess natural selection played a huge part in War? It's almost people are willing to sacrifice themselves so that others may live.

But oh no, to you they're still failures because some of those men and women who died in those wars never had those kids.

This is just getting boring at this point. Stop arguing semantics and actually have a PROPER argument and read some theory and philosophy before posting here next time.

From:
"Yeah, they have the same sexual organs. By definition, exclusive homosexuals can never have children of their own. They can adopt some random kid they aren't related to, or they can have their partner's egg/sperm be fertilized/fertilize by sperm/an egg, but that will always leave one partner raising the child of the other partner and some random person."
The first post I made was concerned with procreation, nothing else. Organisms that are limited in this way will be culled by their own inability to pass down their genes. Nobody shifted any goal posts, you are just incapable of addressing the main points I'm making.
Marx has been proven wrong every day humans exist. We are, by definition, animals. Really, we are glorified primates, sorry to burst your bubble.
I read your sentence, you hasn't changed. You said: A human can create things that are not born out of their genetic determined Biology.
This is irrelevant to the discussion, I never made a statement on behalf of human ingenuity and capability to create. I stated that natural selection determines the gene pool, and organisms adapt to their niche.
Need I remind you, humans are the only ones who put value to these things, because our brains allow us. Literally every other organism refutes this. Humans, without natural selection, would not exist.
I repeat my point, you didn't make an argument: This means nothing, you mean organisms form symbiotic associations? Sure. This doesn't speak to the issue of passing down their genes or not. That is the context of discussion.
Are you related to your adopted children? By definition, an adopted child is another person's child. Not your own. So yes, raising another person's child is an evolutionary disaster, as you are putting effort into another person's DNA, not the continuation of your own.
Already addressed this. You are barred from knowing who/when and if the sample is ever used, and gays are not allowed to donate sperm before being tested. They are a tiny proportion of the population, yet they make up a disproportionate majority of the HIV cases.
Procreation is solely relied on males/females. You are not exclusively homosexual if you indirectly impregnate a female, or fertilize an egg. You are only conveniently gay, but you are willing to bypass your sexual attraction to have kids. Oh, and only one male will have the child with the female. The other male will raise his husband's son, literally.
Lol, you don't even read the non-sequiturs you shit out. Gays are evolutionary defects because they cannot have kids. Your point is inconsistent, you said that they aren't defective because they 'can't' have kids, while your point was talking about all the gay sperm samples just waiting around in labs.
I repeat my point: We DO amend our environments, but this is not mutually exclusive to humanity. Do you know what mutually exclusive is? Here was the point before it that you 'conveniently' left out: And beavers can build dams, just as birds can build nests. I already stated: organisms are genes expressed in an environment. We DO amend our environments, but this is not mutually exclusive to humanity.
I guess you have to resort to quote-mining when you have nothing of substance to add. This is a very one-sided debate, I'll ask that you try a little harder to be intellectually consistent/honest.

Sure, I never claimed otherwise. I've never made a statement in that context. Turing was a genius, just like many other homosexuals before him (almost all male, though…). But just like Newton, from an evolutionary perspective, he was a failure. He did not pass down his genes, so they died with him. His genius could not live on. Organisms that do not pass down their genes have failed to compete in the marketplace of procreation.
Which war? WW1/WW2? All war? How do you think natural selection works, m8. It isn't some magical 'zap' from the sky, it takes time. Human lifespan limits generations to around 60-70 years, on average. Humanity hasn't been in a state of perpetual war, and you're literally side-stepping the entire female population, as they are not 'adapting' to the climate of death and killing. War CAN have major impacts; for example, by means of genetic drift, although that requires some examination.
That's not what war is. War isn't sacrifice, it isn't something noble. You are killing the enemy, you aren't protecting anybody but yourself. War is about primal instinct. Humans are instinctual and will fight to protect themselves, they aren't fighting for Sally down the street. Nobody butchers people in the name of children, it runs deeper than that.
Yes. From an evolutionary perspective, we are all just genes. Either they continue down the line, or they don't. If they do, they succeed. If they are left behind, they fail.
I feel like you're just trying to tug at the heartstrings, which is funny coming from the guy erroneously using the appeal to nature fallacy. Nice logical consistency, there.
That's the problem, it isn't some moral conundrum, the theory has already been presented by Darwin, but creationists or emotionally-fuelled individuals, like yourself, seem to have a hard time grasping the fact that we are all merely DNA that will either succeed or fail at continuing along the lines.