You can login if you already have an account or register by clicking the button below.
Registering is free and all you need is a username and password. We never ask you for your e-mail.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
view the rest of the comments →
[–] 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?
[–] 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.
[–] 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.
[–] 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.
[–] 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.
[–] Master_Foo 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
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.
[–] BlackSheepBrouhaha ago
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?
[–] addie89 ago
This is the whole nature vs nurture argument. I don't think it is ever one or the other. It has to be both.
[–] BlackSheepBrouhaha ago
Right, Life is genes expressed in an environment. All organisms neglected by their environment die.