It's political correctness.
If you look at the cold hard facts, it's easy to logically deduce that heterosexuals are superior to homosexuals in every way.
Comparing a sexual desire to black people was pretty funny tho. "Yo, we are oppressed like the blacks under Jim Crow laws".
Erm, no. Blacks and whites originated from different continents and had very different cultures in the USA due to slavery. You are not a race or even a heritage, nor were you ever slaves. The lgbtqs+ whatever is just a community of overgrown children, imo.
Ironically, the most advocates against the community are homosexual males who think it's been usurped by transgenders and SJW.
It's only a matter of time before some fat spoild trans woman lesbian trans black talks about not getting respect because of no privilege.
Originally posted by It's xyz!
1% of humans are not breeders = anomaly
1 generation out of millions of evolution where no one breeds = what anomaly?Dope.
Originally posted by Slayive mentioned it in posts previous to his. Hence, context.
That's not at all what he said though, that's something of your own device that you've just added. Raisen simply stated that if the whole world was homosexual it would be an anomaly by definition. You people need to start realising that words mean things.
Originally posted by Raisen✅ the red pill is sweet.
is it a mental disease
Originally posted by It's xyz!
It's political correctness.If you look at the cold hard facts, it's easy to logically deduce that heterosexuals are superior to homosexuals in every way.
Comparing a sexual desire to black people was pretty funny tho. "Yo, we are oppressed like the blacks under Jim Crow laws".
Erm, no. Blacks and whites originated from different continents and had very different cultures in the USA due to slavery. You are not a race or even a heritage, nor were you ever slaves. The lgbtqs+ whatever is just a community of overgrown children, imo.
Ironically, the most advocates against the community are homosexual males who think it's been usurped by transgenders and SJW.
It's only a matter of time before some fat spoild trans woman lesbian trans black talks about not getting respect because of no privilege.
Ebin troll +1 xDDd upvoted
*tips fedora*
Originally posted by It's xyz!I don't see people walking naked in public and expecting to get away with it because 'that's normal for me!!'
homosexuality is illness in an evolutionary context. Normality is not a good word to use. Everyone has a different idea of normal.Being attracted to your own biological sex and not the opposite is a mental disorder.
It's not that there's anything wrong with that. Everyone has their quirks and fetishes, but homosexuals do not wish to reproduce with the other sex. I'm pretty sure most people in the world, a huge percentage would want to find a member of the opposite sex and raise a family. That's normal. It's understandable, even on a scientific level.
Homosexuality, is very abnormal. It's a mental disorder. It's illness.
I guess using anticonceptive methods is something only a mentally ill would do. Heterosexual people who actively don't want kids should be locked up or medicated too.
Originally posted by RaisenRampant spread of HIV is gay's fault? Enlighten me bro.
never heard that joke. there is plenty of evidence that homosexual males are promiscuous. you don't want to believe it but it's true. not all. but more promiscuous than heterosexuals. the rampant spread of hiv and bath houses say enough bro. sometimes the truth hurts but we shouldn't deny it
Originally posted by Adam Grimesyou do realise that most stereotypes have elements of truth into them and are actually exaggerations, rather than myths.
Lol now the stereotypes. How long till you start with the less than brilliant 'two gays on a bus...' jokes?
Take the stereotypical australian, for example.
Drunk, racist and yolo, but even the Australian members of this board would admit it before lolling about these bigots who should tell the joke about the Australian and the emu.
Originally posted by It's xyz!
ive mentioned it in posts previous to his. Hence, context.
Either way, there's no point in arguing semantics with you, as you've proven to not care about the actual meaning of words and just give them whatever meaning you want.
Besides the whole semantics side of this, what's the point of even proposing that hypothesis? It's so far removed from reality that it really serves no purpose in this discussion.
I think most people would be willing to accept that homosexuality is an abnormality or a deviation of the norm. But as Surtur said, this isn't inherently negative. Your whole argument is centered around homosexuals' inability to reproduce and presenting it as if it's actually some sort of unwillingness to contribute to the growth of the human population, i.e. your own definition of 'degenerate behaviour'. This isn't the case and even if it were, the world is currently overpopulated as it is so it definitely would not be causing humanity any issues.
Originally posted by Adam Grimeslocked up and medicated?
I don't see people walking naked in public and expecting to get away with it because 'that's normal for me!!'I guess using anticonceptive methods is something only a mentally ill would do. Heterosexual people who actively don't want kids should be locked up or medicated too.
Dude, I have a serious problem with what you've just said. Is this the mental illness stigma? Because I've said from page one that mental illness is its own problem in itself.
I've had issues with mental illness, let me tell you, it ain't crazy people they're locking ping up and medicating.
Originally posted by It's xyz!
whyvdoes it sound like something trump would support?this opens up the door of what we consider a "mental illness".
If most of them are preconceived notions of being against normality, then you are absolutely right that homosexuality was considered mental illness because it went against the norm.
My understanding of normality might differ to some people, but I personally feel that given the biological record of heterosexual activity reproducing all mammalian species on the ****ing planet (some of which have proven to be useful, horses for example) vs. the degeneracy of homosexuality, it's no contest as to which one is normal, or at the very least, rational.
There is a clear argument as to why homosexuality is an illness based on this evolutionary fact.
Originally posted by It's xyz!
given the fact that it's essential for our survival, I find it pretty important.I don't know how many couples are reproducing, but I'm glad we're reproducing as a species.
Originally posted by It's xyz!
I feel that normality is subjective, and usually based on ones upbringing. It's a poor word to use, imo.What I was getting at was reproduction is generally good for the survival of the species, and acts that don't reproduce are degenerate. This is from an objective biological perspective. I then focuses on illness, which we know to be something that inhibits survival. The logic is, heterosexuality creates reproduction and survival, homosexuality does not, and is therefore, illness.
Originally posted by It's xyz!
A black man in the Jim Crow era had a problem, that problem was white Americans. This was a matter of race and economics, however. Homosexuality is not a race. It's not like two homosexuals have sex and create another homosexual. Homosexuality is responsible for being ostracised because it is they who ostracise themselves. Most people are social, straight and generally pleasant. Homosexuals do not wish to partake in social norms so have their own night clubs because they want their own night clubs. Straight people did not segregate homosexuals and gave them their own bar because they originated from a different continent. Homosexuals create their own bars. Homosexuals make their own consensual sex as free individuals. Their lack of reproduction and subsequent difficulties in life are not the fault of straight people.sure, ok. But homosexuality does slow the species down from reproduction. I guess a more appropriate word is disease? It is detrimental to survival though.
it it isn't relevant to biological reproduction. Two dykes rubbing their ***** together sounds pretty homosexual to me. It doesn't bother me in the slightest.
Originally posted by It's xyz!
I don't think it's irrational to disapprove of homosexuality. It's pretty disgusting to a lot of people. But it's still not comparable to Jim Crow laws. One is segregation of race, the other is a group of people who share a common interest that the majority do not like. End up finding a bar just for people who like such a thing.A gay club is more like a goth club or tumblr.
I said wish, not choose.
And no. It's not the bigots. It's not the discriminators. The problem with homosexuals is the very culture itself. Men or women trying to flirt with members of their own sex when usually the other person isn't interested is why homosexuals made their own night club so they knew that everyone there was gay and therefore, more inclined. I understand that men and women can harass members of the opposite sex too, but this is usually forgiven. People who flirt with their own sex is usually repulsive. Again, I'll point to heterosexuality being the main cause of evolution and homosexuality as against reproduction.
it very much is the reality. If consensual sex between a man and a woman is not required for a child, why is it the most common way children are made, and the one practised over millions of years? Probably because it's the most effective and pleasurable. Any other form of creating a child is used as a last resort because of some biological defect, usually. I am of course talking about straight couples here. I don't know how many gay people raise children.
people are not a resource! They are a species we are a part of and for millions of years have survived through breeding. Millions of years of evolution and we have a focused group of people who are not attracted to the opposite sex. Sounds like a mental illness to me.
But this depends on the definition of mental illness, as I have stated before.
Originally posted by It's xyz!Slay, here are all my posts where I've mentioned evolutionary context. Practically all leading up to raisen's post.
homosexuality is illness in an evolutionary context. Normality is not a good word to use. Everyone has a different idea of normal.Being attracted to your own biological sex and not the opposite is a mental disorder.
It's not that there's anything wrong with that. Everyone has their quirks and fetishes, but homosexuals do not wish to reproduce with the other sex. I'm pretty sure most people in the world, a huge percentage would want to find a member of the opposite sex and raise a family. That's normal. It's understandable, even on a scientific level.
Homosexuality, is very abnormal. It's a mental disorder. It's illness.
But, I'm not one to speak for another person who is scared to debate, it was just my opinion.
Originally posted by Slayalso, you're denying reality in that post.
Not within this thread.Either way, there's no point in arguing semantics with you, as you've proven to not care about the actual meaning of words and just give them whatever meaning you want.
Besides the whole semantics side of this, what's the point of even proposing that hypothesis? It's so far removed from reality that it really serves no purpose in this discussion.
I think most people would be willing to accept that homosexuality is an abnormality or a deviation of the norm. But as Surtur said, this isn't inherently negative. Your whole argument is centered around homosexuals' inability to reproduce and presenting it as if it's actually some sort of unwillingness to contribute to the growth of the human population, i.e. your own definition of 'degenerate behaviour'. This isn't the case and even if it were, the world is currently overpopulated as it is so it definitely would not be causing humanity any issues.