To atheist/agnostic alt-righters

submitted by [deleted] from self.debatealtright

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Nasser 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (22 children)

No problem really with it. Homosexuals are a sliver of the population and not necessarily harming anyone. I would allow gay civil unions with marriage being decided by the individual churches. Media wise they will be represented according to their proportion of the population.

[–]Nombre27 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (21 children)

The economic and healthcare costs of HIV runs into the hundreds of millions or billions of dollars, depending on population size. I don't think they should be persecuted for their sexuality but I do think PSAs and special insurance are warranted. I don't think the rest of society should be paying for it like we are. Especially considering they make up nearly 70% of new diagnoses.

Even if they're 5% of the population, if the other 95% of non-gays make up that 31% remaining (about a 0.3 risk), then that would make MSM 70/5 = 14, 14/0.3 = ~47x more likely to get HIV. But IV drug users make up another 10%. So that fold-risk changes to 70/5 = 14, 14/0.2 = 70x greater likelihood.

This calculation is in line with the literature

Men who have sex with men have a 140-fold higher risk for newly diagnosed HIV and syphilis compared with heterosexual men in New York City

MSM are supposedly 2% of the population

While society pays for it, I do wonder how many gay men are aware of these facts. I think with the pro-LGBT trend that not having a PSA campaign about this is causing a lot of harm.

And lets not forget that supposedly the first person to die of HIV in the US was a teen. The grooming thing is another issue that gets little coverage.

[–]GConly 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (20 children)

That's down to male sexual behaviour (high promiscuity drive) not being stalled by females.

This is basically how straight men would behave if women were equally interested in casual sex and promiscuity.

They aren't degenerate, they are just males unleashed by females.

You can't lay the same accusations of disease spread and promiscuity at the door of lesbians either.

Homosexuality is hard wired before birth, we've been making gay animals in labs since the fifties, we've know for decades it's caused by atypical prenatal hormone exposure.

It's not a choice, it's not degenerate.

[–]literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Homosexuality is hard wired before birth, we've been making gay animals in labs since the fifties,

Do these animals eschew mating if given the opportunity or do they simply practice same sex behaviour?

[–]GConly 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Well, you have a bunch of female Guinea pigs trying to mount other female Guinea pigs.

They seem to think they are male. Research from '58, IIRC. Repeated in '92.

[–]literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Dogs mount human legs it doesn't mean they're attracted to humans or or have leg fetishes. They're fucking animals.

Guinea pigs mounting each other or indeed any same sex behaviour which happens a lot in nature without human intervention does not make animals 'gay'. What kind of fucking retard takes that seriously?

The only comparison would be to find animals who actually eschew mating -- aka elective homosexuality like we see especially with male homosexuals -- which you virtually never, ever do and when you do it's just because the animal is defective not because it has some kind of sexual identity which is a total anthropomorphic human imposition upon animals by sad, agenda driven creeps.

[–]GConly 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Dogs hump human legs because canids use mounting as a sign of dominance in their pack. He's basically telling you ' I'm the boss'.

You don't see normal female Guinea pigs attempting to mount females or males. Similar research has found exactly the same response to testosterone bin female monkeys and mice. In fact with the monkey sample they even figured out that the time the extra testosterone manifested was important. If you gave it at point a, you got a lesbian monkey. If you gave it at point b, you got a tomboy who rough housed but still liked males for sex.

And you do see exclusive homosexuality in animals. Anyone who has raised herd animals will tell you every now and then a promising looking sire animal turns out to useless because its only interested in other males.

Plus MRI studies of the brains of homosexual humans show they have abnormal development, effectively having intersex brains. And when you study their genome, the males have abnormal epigenetic based low sensitivity to testosterone. It's why males who are androgen insensitive to any degree are mostly gay.

And AI research has proven that gay men have abnormal testosterone exposure in utero by looking at the difference in their faces. Did you know testosterone in utero affects facial structure? It's how that software learned to tell gay and straight faces apart (look it up).

It's not elective. The part of their brain wired for sexual attraction for reproduction got the wrong programming.

[–]Nombre27 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

I've had a conversation like this before. You're speaking as if homosexuality exists in an STD-free vacuum, unfortunately it does not. Thinking like that is entirely divorced from reality.

HIV and other STD statistics seem to indicate otherwise.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6075729/

Unprotected anal intercourse (UAI) is the main risk factor for HIV among MSM as demonstrated by a 20-fold increased risk of HIV seroconversion over 6 months among MSM who reported UAI compared with those who did not. [22]

Anyway, your logic is failure.

Men are naturally promiscuous.

Women prevent promiscuity in heterosexual men.

Therefore men that are heterosexual suffer less degenerate consequences from their unsuccessful promiscuity.

Men are naturally promiscuous.

Men encourage promiscuity in homosexual men.

Therefore men that are homosexual suffer more degenerate consequences from their successful promiscuity.

Therefore MSM homosexuality is more degenerate than heterosexuality.

[–]GConly 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

You're speaking as if homosexuality exists in an STD-free vacuum,

Nope. I disapprove of all promiscuity purely on the basis of STDs and unwanted pregnancy. This would also include heterosexual men seeing prostitutes, and banging your way through tinder.

suffer more degenerate consequences

How is an std a degenerate consequence?

It's an infection. It's like saying football and boxing are degenerate because they cause head injuries.

If your objection is purely based on promiscuity mediated infections, you are actually anti promiscuity, not anti homosexuality.

What you find if you poll them is that most are having the same level of unprotected sex and numbers if partners as heterosexual men. What's happening is a minority of them are having truly massive numbers of partners, and they are the ones spreading disease.

[–]Nombre27 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

Nope. I disapprove of all promiscuity purely on the basis of STDs and unwanted pregnancy. This would also include heterosexual men seeing prostitutes, and banging your way through tinder.

I can agree with you on that.

How is an std a degenerate consequence?

How is it not? I don't think behavior that increases the prevalence of HIV, syphilis or any other STD should be encouraged.

If your objection is purely based on promiscuity mediated infections, you are actually anti promiscuity, not anti homosexuality.

This is where you're living in a vacuum. I cited CDC statistics showing that MSM are 70% of new infections despite being something like 2% of the population. You see to want to ignore this fact as if all promiscuity results in equal consequences when it demonstrably does not.

What you find if you poll them is that most are having the same level of unprotected sex and numbers if partners as heterosexual men. What's happening is a minority of them are having truly massive numbers of partners, and they are the ones spreading disease.

That could be possible but that doesn't explain that 140-fold increased risk of HIV.

Regardless, my suggestions about a strong PSA campaign and MSM HIV insurance stand.

[–]GConly 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

Actually it does explain the massive increase in HIV. It's like Covid, there are a small number of superspreaders.

https://www.patientcareonline.com/view/hiv-transmission-networks

Most gay men hit around the same average number of partners per year as a straight guy, it's about one more I think. What you have with MSM is a strong shift in the ability of the super-promiscous to get masses of sexual partners, and I mean hundreds/thousands. Which means these individuals are almost guaranteed to catch it and pass it on repeatedly. Whereas a normally sexually active MSM would be massively less likely to catch it, and if they did catch it probably wouldn't infect more than one person.

Some data.

https://ibb.co/WWgKPmm

About 42% of them have none to one sex partners per year, the mode is the same as a straight guy. Where the real difference pops up is the minority hitting 4 plus.

A recent report from the EXPLORE study [7] found that having four or more sex partners within six months was the behavioral factor that contributed most to HIV incidence, with an attributable risk of 32.3%

This basically demonstrates what happens when you get a slight shift in a distribution curve in human behaviour. The extremes become far more extreme and more common while the change to the average isn't that big.

The only female close comparison are prostitutes for numbers of partners. But being female they are more risk averse and more likely to want safe sex.

My point about football causing irreparable damage same as promiscuity is a valid one. Why is one degenerate and the other not?

[–]Nombre27 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Most gay men hit around the same average number of partners per year as a straight guy, it's about one more I think.

That's not what your table shows. +4 partners: nearly 3x as frequent (31%) in MSM than heterosexual men (11%).

Why is one degenerate and the other not?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6075729/

Unprotected anal intercourse (UAI) is the main risk factor for HIV among MSM as demonstrated by a 20-fold increased risk of HIV seroconversion over 6 months among MSM who reported UAI compared with those who did not. [22]

[–]GConly 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

That 31% doesn't make much difference to the average.

And again, a bunch of activities cause damage/infections but why are you only focused on gay men as 'degenerate'?

[–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

activities cause damage/infections but why are you only focused on gay men as 'degenerate'?

We don't only focus on gay men as degenerate. /u/Nombre27 is focusing on it because it's the topic of the thread.

Looks like you also full admit that homosexuality is an 'activity' and not something you're born with. At least we can agree on that.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Some data.

https://ibb.co/WWgKPmm

There's no way the "straight women" category data is accurate. What's the original source?

[–]GConly 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

What about that particular category irks you?

It's from research by Paula England and Eliza Brown, who publish papers on this sort of thing.

https://contexts.org/blog/an-unequal-distribution-of-partners-gays-versus-straights/

Data from the National Survey of Family Growth surveys, collected between 2002 and 2013.

Other by the same.

https://sociology.berkeley.edu/paula-england-increases-sex-same-sex-partners-across-cohorts-how-gender-and-racial-inequality-affect

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

So you want me to believe, that 79% of non-virgin straight women, in their prime carousel years, have had either one or no partners in the last year? Have you seen the world? In actuality, their distribution should probably look a lot like the gay men's distribution (where you would really see a difference is breaking out an extreme category like 10+). What this data really says, though, is that up to 2013, Western women weren't proud of being whores yet.