you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (12 children)

true. But all of the letters are degenerate, it is a race to the bottom to see who can have the weirder fetish. None of it should be allowed. After T next we will be adding pedophilia and beastiality.

[–]Elvira95 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

Yeah, because the fact I'm exclusivity attracted to the same sex is basically the same as wanting to rape children or animals or being a man who want the world to pretend he is a woman. The amount of insane bigots in this sub is giving me a good laugh.

[–]WhiteZealot 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (10 children)

There are degrees of unhealthiness.

Homosexual activity is unhealthy because it 1) is wasted time and energy that should be going toward the advancement of your genetic interests (i.e. increasing the number or power of those who resemble you, genetically, or the extent to which their group average resembles you), 2) creates an association in the brain between homosexual activity and pleasure, thus making it more likely that you will do said activity again, and has other harmful psychological effects (e.g. creates a self-loathing, affects ability to have a healthy relationship with both men and women), and 3) inflicts these harms on another person.

Furthermore, being an open homosexual is unhealthy because it 1) sets a bad example to children, and makes it more likely they will partake in homosexual activity, and 2) alienates you from your community, because people have a natural disgust for homosexuality and do not want homos near their children.

[–]MyLongestJourney 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (9 children)

Being an open lesbian is unhealthy because it 1) sets a bad example to children, and makes it more likely that children will have a sexual disorder and/or be open about said disorder

Evidence?

[–]WhiteZealot 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (8 children)

Children are molded by the characteristics and behavior of those they interact with. A society in which there are no homos and no homo-friendly rhetoric is going to produce the least number of homos in the next generation. As you increase the exposure of children to homos (whether closeted or open) or homo-friendly rhetoric or raise the status of homos within society, you will get more homos in the next generation, up to a certain limit. If you need evidence beyond this reasoning, see this pic.

[–]MyLongestJourney 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

Your initial hypothesis is that children will turn gay just by looking at gay people. Instead of providing evidence for this you attempt to argue that the more open homos exist,the more open homos will be in the next generation which is a totally different thing that your initial claim.The number of homosexual people stays the same,you just see more in the open. That does not mean that the population of homosexual people increases because young children see gay people and turn gay by imitation.

I would also like to add that today a lot of perfectly heterosexual kids claim the queer label for clout and oppression points.

[–]WhiteZealot 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

I've edited my comment above to make it more precise.

The number of homosexual people stays the same

This is the crux of your argument. Do you have any evidence to support this claim?

In light of the fact that the percentage of the population that is openly "trans" has been increasing during the same period that the percentage of the population that is openly homo has been increasing, don't you think it's more plausible that the percentage of the population that is homo has been increasing? Would you say that the percentage of the population that is "trans" is constant? If not, why is one constant but not the other?

[–]Elvira95 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

Because a man who is porn obsessed and wants so much being in a lesbian porn fantasy or is an incel can turn trans just by saying he is trans and taking hormones. You cannot turn homosexual, the sexual and romantic attraction/orientation is something totally out of your control. Otherwise I would have not decided to be such a small minority,making life hard. That's why the trans population, which is today mostly het men with a fetish, is increasing, while the homo cannot possibly increase.

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

You cannot turn homosexual, the sexual and romantic attraction/orientation is something totally out of your control.

Say "my", because I haven't found that to be the case at all. You really have no control or influence over your own wants and desires? That sounds pretty rough.

[–]Elvira95 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

No I don't have control on what arouse me nobody does, I cannot decide to get aroused or attracted physically or emotionally by males, even if I wanted to, my brain and physiology cannot. Nobody control their sexual attraction

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

1.Surveys that put the number of homosexual women around 2% or less.Homosexual men are a bit higher.

(No,I won't dig them up for you).

2.The notion that people turn gay because they see gay people display their homosexuality is ridiculous.

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

A society in which there are no homos and no homo-friendly rhetoric is going to produce the least number of homos in the next generation.

No, they'll just be forced to hide their sexuality to survive.