Heterosexuality is a gender construct

no they aren't. they are both found in nature in species that cannot socially construct things.

...

Dicks are gross ew

I agree, but I am still suspicious that exclusive homosexuality may be pathological.

How did you get that ID?
No, homosexual and heterosexual behaivior is found in nature but there are no examples of exclusive homosexuality exept for Alex Jones's gay frogs.

Some now so well know studies found a correlation between the number of older siblings and the odds of homosexuality in males(more older brothers or sisters = gayer), which implies that the exposure to the mother's estrogen can be a very strong factor. With the increasing amount of soy-based and GMOs in our food, that is probably the reason. SJWs are Monsanto's fault.

fuck off

thanks

Homosexuals will always be 3% or less of the population because of their shorter lifespans, greater incidence of drug abuse, suicide, disease and mental illness.

That's illogical.

I'll believe the other user who argued that specialities have been co-oped by identity politics and that most people are somewhere between gay and straight. I wouldn't through the whole thing out the window though

Human sexuality existed before there was a society created to construct them. QED you're a dipshit and your post isn't even funny.

...

Sex is made for reproduction and pleasure is an incentive.
By having sex with a man or by masturbating you're cheating the reward system and you'll inevitably fuck up something in your brain.

No wonder most fags are mentally ill.

I'm against everything "I identify as" including "gay" and "straight". I suppose it's possible put people on arbirary scales of preference but my main point is that they are arbitrary. The SJWs create new "genders" and "sexualies" because they don't feel confortable with any existing label and their cultural dinamycs, but those labels are all meaningless.

Yes, but before society no one was aware of the concept of "gay" and "lesbian" either. We can speculate they their sexuality was similar to those of wild animals and if that is the case those concepts wouldn't apply either. In the wilderness, deers fight for the females, the winner copulates with her, the rest of the males fuck each other for releasing sexual tension.

Dunce

not an argoument.

Err err what are bonobos err

Beasts.

And sex forms a critical social component in Bonobos and Humans.

This is not to mention the erotic spiritual element in Humans, but you are the worst of Holla Forumsniggers so this is lost on you.

Don't use the "critical social component" when the only thing homosexuality does is destroy the human social net in the macro vision of its state.

For a simple society like bonobos there's no wonder hyper-promisquity makes every individual happy, but with a trascendent society full ideals and beauty like the human one, promisquity would only lead to weakness of the strongest human form of bond: family.

Witouth family a human society is bound to two roads:
1) complete child care from an extremely controlled society (brave new world style)
2) extinction, due to decrease of birthrates, increase of hedonism and invasion from other cultures with a stronger will to live, reproduce and build towards greatness.

i'll add, with complete child care i mean controlled and surveilled reproduction rates and giving the burdeon of raising children to the state.

The worst thing about Homosexuality is you KNOW you are mentally ill, unlike crazy people who think they are perfectly sane.

There could be private institutions that raise kids like human farms. Their profit would come from selling genically altered babies, human traficking, stem cells and others. In fact that society is the most suitable for cat girls so I actually want that.
With proper but simple regulation there would be problems of super population.

there would no* problems

Why can't we breed like we want to?

Anything's a social construct if you're autistic enough.

Ambiguous. You are not distinguishing between exclusive homosexuality, which I admit is likely pathological, and occasional homosexuality. You do know that ~35% of men have done something like sucked their mate off, right?

>but with a trascendent society full ideals and beauty like the human one, promisquity would only lead to weakness of the strongest human form of bond: family.

On the other hand you aren't recognizing the harmful effects of depriving someone of secure sexual relationships. Celibacy for men until they have the wealth to court (25) will also foment individual and societal disorders.

Then why does the alt right including Holla Forums on 95% of occasions obsess over negative tactics to engender strong families? The attitude is to bog gays and adulterers, make individuals non-citizens, and enforce total extramarital celibacy. These negative tactics tell me that the discussion isn't about birthrates, but is simply misfit rightist men kvetching about ways to secure access to women.

You could achieve strong families using an authoritarian state to fundamentally change the cultural and erotic perception of falling in love and marrying. You could show movie scenes depicting the erotic bliss a mother experiences when her child feeds from her breasts. Warm soft skin contact between bodies. But of course this would be viewed as incestuous and pedophilic.

...

Because it's a statistical fact.

No point in arguing, fuckoff back to leftypol or any other bullshit place you came from, newfag.

If the alt right was required to choose one of two following films to air prime time so as to promote families:

The alt right would choose the second one.

I'm not from leftypol, dunce.

That's the point, you're not from Holla Forums which makes you even a more cancerous newfag spouting shit that's been debated already millions of times with usual conclusion that faggotry and all the other bullshit you're spouting only leads to decay.

In any case fuckoff back from any place you came from, you're cleary here just to shit up the website.

Also you cleary are not from here, and what you say makes me think you're a shill. There are no alt right individuals in this place.

Holla Forums is part of your identity and you are emotionally invested into it. Pathetic and intellectually feeble.

I'm not invested in protecting Holla Forums as i identify with it.

I'm interested in protecting whatever last ideals of truth are left in this world, and so is everyone else at Holla Forums.

Even if Holla Forums dies truth won't, and it will always reveal itself in any other form.

Mr. Shill, you're dealing with a different problem than 4chan here, every single user from this place is ready to leave it and burn it down at the slight sign of corruption, you're no longer dealing with savage idiots spouting "white pride" or "kill niggers" that will just get along with the shilling.

Having discussion with shills like is only an instruction for legit newfriends that want to learn more about the place, and lessone number #1, this is one of the places of the internet with the highest shill concentration.

8ch.net/pol/res/993439.html

Have a read about their tactics.

as i don't identify with it*

Name something that could be better about the Holla Forums's worldview, or the Holla Forums community, shills notwithstanding.

lolo there is like a fifteen point list of silly mandatory groupthought values that has seen 130+ IQs ding dong banned

I read that tactics document in 2009-10 well before Holla Forums discovered it.