[–] BlackSheepBrouhaha 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
So what's the Voat consensus on the cause of male homosexuality? Is it genetic, prenatal hormones, neurological abnormalities similar to fetishes, early childhood sexual contact or abuse, or are gay men attracted to women but sleep with men because they're moral degenerates brainwashed by zionist media?
The cause of it is important. I don't think the Greeks were brainwashed by jews, and they exhibited a lot of homosexual behavior. Even pederasty, which is disgusting.
What do you think?
Right, Life is genes expressed in an environment. All organisms neglected by their environment die.
[–] Master_Foo 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
The cause of it is important.
In my mind it's not. But I'm a classical liberal. So, in my way of thinking, it doesn't matter the reasons someone does something. What matters is liberty. There are a lot of things I do that would probably piss off a homogay. But, I don't even have to spend one minute justifying my reasons for it for one second to him because, regardless of whether it's a compulsion or a choice, it's my liberty to do so.
And to be consistant and to have integrity with myself, I have to allow the same liberty to the homofag. He doesn't need to justify why he's a homofag, because, it doesn't fucking matter.
The question is about propaganda. It's important if one can be persuaded into being gay, and you are opposed to it. You're for classical liberty, but I don't know any parents that treat their kids like libertarians. It's a monarchy, aristocracy at best. People censor their children to limit exposure to corrupting ideas. The question broadly asked, does mere exposure to homosexual characters on television make a person more likely to be homosexual? Or is it just more likely to realize they're homosexual? Or is it something else entirely and the media merely reflects the people in the culture we live in?
[–] AceToMouth 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
I think the latest research from one of the Scandinavian countries pointed to a 33% genetic component and the rest was due to specific environmental factors.
So you can be genetically susceptible to being gay but without specific environmental factors you will still be straight.
[–] SonOfSnowden 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
These are the same countries that refuse to admit that biological sex creates differences in men and women... I'd take their "studies" with the same weight as any other propaganda.
[–] shrink 0 points 4 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago
Biologyfag here (not attempting to make any argument from authority, simply stating I have some background experience in biological fields)
Given everything I've seen and read about the subject over the years, it can be either or both. Genetically, a male can be born with the genetic abnormality that makes them attracted to males, a quality that should only be present in female brains. Being born with this defect, they can't change it. However, there is also a very high percentage of people in the "gay community" who were abused as a child, almost always sexually, and usually from an older family member of the same sex. These instances occur far too frequently in the personal pasts of gay people to simply discount as correlation without causation; sexual impropriety towards children has terrible, drastic effects on their emotional and sexual development. I have also seen, firsthand, some select individuals who make the active decision that 'they're gay now' or otherwise make it clear that it's a choice they made, even if they claim otherwise.
So in conclusion, I've seen a great deal of evidence that both nature and nurture are responsible for someone being gay; overwhelmingly, it is one or the other that is responsible for one's gay sexuality, rarely both together. On the note of the "nurture" homosexuality subject, homosexuals, as their homosexuality is derived from a literal genetic or emotional aberration, in many instances continue a cycle of abuse. Many homosexuals who were abused as children grow up to have a sexual fascination with doing the same things to children that were done to them; look around enough and you'll see a number of examples in which two gay men try whatever means necessary to gain custody of a little boy or two, rarely will it be a young girl.
[–] SonOfSnowden ago
Aaaand the disproportionately high rate of homosexuality that arises from single mother homes. Good luck getting your hands on that data though... it's possibly the most fiercely covered up stat in all of psychology.
[–] BlackSheepBrouhaha 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Thanks for sharing that.
If we prevent child child abuse, so many problems will fade into obscurity.
[–] OnlyAPseudonym 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
what is the purpose of this gay propaganda then?
[–] SonOfSnowden ago
Sexuality has a very large nurture component. Put men in prison and eventually they'll not only fuck each-other but most will actually start preferring it to straight sex.
In the old days, when the gay lobby was fighting anti-gay laws, they claimed that sexuality was something you're born with. Now they're claiming that you can be "gender fluid", "non binary" etc. (which are elaborate ways of claiming various degrees of bisexuality) The only thing that's absolutely clear is that they are totally full of shit.
Gay propaganda and normalization does indeed correlate positively to higher rates of homosexuality. This should be obvious by the overwhelming increase in faggotry among millennials.
[–] OnlyAPseudonym ago
Even if that is true (not saying it isn't), what does anyone get out of there being more homosexual people?
[–] Master_Foo 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
what is the purpose of this gay propaganda then?
It's to piss off people without any real problems. I'm really jealous of the people who have time to complain about stupid shit. Here I am, with the weight and responsible of my entire household and family on my hands. Working, paying bills, making sure my mom has a reliable car to drive around in, making investments, feeding everyone, etc. And these people have the luxury about caring about a stupid TV show they don't even want to watch.
I'd absolutely love to have your problems people.
[–] thrushlimberger ago
The last time I watched TV was while my mother was dying of a work related lung condition. She said one of the nice things about being dead would be never having to watch TV again.
[–] KILLtheRATS 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
Any kid with parents stupid enough to let them watch this shit is already fucker
[–] basedputin 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
oy vey who could have predicted this jpg
[–] Master_Foo 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago (edited ago)
OK, let's say for the sake of conversation this is 100% true. Hell, maybe it is I just don't care enough to verify.
There is a really fucking easy solution... Stop being a lazy parent, take personal responsibility for yourself, and turn off the damn TV. If the damn TV is such a dangerous thing to have in your house, why do you even have one?
Man the fuck up, stop complaining about stupid shit YOU control, and remove your lord and savior, Disney Fucking Christ, from your house.
Pretty fucking simple.
[–] SonOfSnowden ago
They'll just indoctrinate them at school anyway.
[–] Master_Foo ago
That's just more excuses bad parents make. Teach your kid not to be an impressionable idiot and you won't have this problem. But, no, we can't ever admit we are bad parents, so, instead of taking responsibility for our kids, we need to blame Disney and the schools. In the eyes of an irresponsible person it is always someone else who is the problem.