Homosexuality and Population Groups - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Provision of the two UN HDI indicators other than GNP.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14959792
As far as I know, homosexuality is weakly heritable, so there's probably some genetic involvement although less than many other traits. That doesn't mean that there isn't a strong biological basis which we haven't identified yet. Genes are not the only factor in determining human behaviour and a weak genetic predisposition doesn't mean that it is a choice or purely cultural.

That said, I'm leaning towards an at least partially cultural explanation for recent developments in western countries, because homosexual identity seems to have become kind of trendy and perhaps even a status marker among a subgroup of teenagers and young adults. This will probably continue as long as we elevate identifying with it as special, brave or even heroic.

ThirdTerm wrote:
The 2017 study showed that childhood separation anxiety as a culturally universal correlate of androphilia in men. Homosexual men tend to recall higher levels of separation anxiety, resulting from being separated from major attachment figures, such as one’s primary caregiver or close family members. Research in Samoa has similarly demonstrated that individuals who are feminine in appearance and biologically male also recall greater childhood separation. Probably there are more gay men in Western society because children are often left alone by their working mothers, while stay-at-home mothers take better care of their children in non-Western society, which is more culturally conservative.

Will we ever stop with nonsense like this I wonder. Anxiety almost certainly has a significant genetic component as well and parents' behaviour is at least as much influenced by a child's personality as the other way around. Overall, parenting, unless it is genuinely abusive, doesn't have much influence on how a child turns out to be.
#14959797
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:That said, I'm leaning towards an at least partially cultural explanation for recent developments in western countries, because homosexual identity seems to have become kind of trendy and perhaps even a status marker among a subgroup of teenagers and young adults. This will probably continue as long as we elevate identifying with it as special, brave or even heroic.


There is that and also some other reasons or a combination. I think the most important reason is sexual opportunity, men find it harder and harder to score with women and turning towards men seems like the easiest option to get laid. I do not think that they find it harder because women have made it harder for them but mainly because a lot lack the confidence and skills to pursue women and in the age of instant gratification if a woman don't open her legs and give them an official invitation everything else is just too much trouble, while they can get laid with their best friends and not have to deal with any female psychology and put any extra effort. It seems that unless a boy is either extremely attracted to females(to the point of having relentless patience and persistence) or from a conservative/religious background, then that boy will most definitely try out men and if he reaches sexual climax then he will stick with it because as you said it's trendy, easier and also less headache.

As a person that has always been going out clubbing, I recall having competition in a club by other males, but as years go by the competition is getting less and less in that I can flirt with women without having any other potential suitor around. There are nights in bars that I am the only real male in the proximity. This is actually getting quite scary.
#14959807
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:Will we ever stop with nonsense like this I wonder. Anxiety almost certainly has a significant genetic component as well and parents' behaviour is at least as much influenced by a child's personality as the other way around. Overall, parenting, unless it is genuinely abusive, doesn't have much influence on how a child turns out to be.
I think it is also not recognized that cultural factors play a significant role in development of children. Currently the culture has been hijacked by people who promote homosexuality as norm, so you have children growing up who might believe into this even though their parents might tell them otherwise.

This is why it very important to keep culture in line with good morals as otherwise this can dissuade children from a good path. So when the people use the famous argument of "how does homosexuality effect you". They are missing a significant point, that allowing homosexuality to be seen as normal you open so many other people to indulge in the behaviour.

Political Interest wrote:So then why are 18-24 year olds in the UK now reporting to be minority exclusively heterosexual?

What is the cause of all of this?

Wow, just looked it up.
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/08/16/ha ... erosexual/

If this study is accurate then we are in some deep trouble.

Edit: Hey just looked up the study, it is misleading. When asked: "If they ever had sex with a person of the same sex?"; 74% of 18-25 said no, that is more then people of 25-39 bracket of whom 71% no.

Perhaps this shows maybe attitudes have changed and people are more open to homosexuality but it does not seem to translate into practice. I would also like to see the gender divide in younger people, as common perception is that women tend to be more liberal sexually.

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/c ... uality.pdf
#14959834
pugsville wrote:Your continuing to claim stuff for which you have nothing backing it up, while claiming the authority of evidence you are unwilling to share. Yeah you have the convincing evidence buyt it;s all too much trouble.

You have nothing., be honest about rather than these false claims to authority,


There is no proof that homosexuality is genetic. Therefore, the default is emotional trauma as has always been sciences position. There is no need for proof of this because there is no reason to believe it is not true and it is common knowledge. Common knowledge does not require proof. It must be proven incorrect. The burden of proof is on it’s genetic supporters.

@Kaiserschmarrn said...


Will we ever stop with nonsense like this I wonder. Anxiety almost certainly has a significant genetic component as well and parents' behaviour is at least as much influenced by a child's personality as the other way around. Overall, parenting, unless it is genuinely abusive, doesn't have much influence on how a child turns out to be.


I find this dubious. We know something as simple as a child seeing his parents reading has a strong influence on their educational achievement. Their behavior is strongly influenced from learning social skills from watching their parents. We know parents with untraditional sex lives can dramatically traumatize children with sexual identity problems. We know problems with poverty, crime, education etc. all are based upon their parents behavior. We become our parents.
#14959837
One Degree wrote:There is no proof that homosexuality is genetic. Therefore, the default is emotional trauma as has always been sciences position. There is no need for proof of this because there is no reason to believe it is not true and it is common knowledge. Common knowledge does not require proof. It must be proven incorrect. The burden of proof is on it’s genetic supporters.


No just logically bad. You are not imbued with some internet debate god liek power that you can declare your pet beliefs "common knowledge" and there for have to be proven wrong.

As always in debate the burden of proof lies with those making claims.

I reject your sophistry that your clams do not (unlike others) require some sort of evidence or proof.

"There is no need for proof because there is no reason to believe is not true and it's common knowledge"

really how can this not be cliamed by anyone anbout almost anything in almost any debate.

It;s sophistry finding reasons why You don;t actually have to mount any sort of defense for your claims.

Are they really that weak?
#14959849
noemon wrote:
There is that and also some other reasons or a combination. I think the most important reason is sexual opportunity, men find it harder and harder to score with women and turning towards men seems like the easiest option to get laid. I do not think that they find it harder because women have made it harder for them but mainly because a lot lack the confidence and skills to pursue women and in the age of instant gratification if a woman don't open her legs and give them an official invitation everything else is just too much trouble, while they can get laid with their best friends and not have to deal with any female psychology and put any extra effort. It seems that unless a boy is either extremely attracted to females(to the point of having relentless patience and persistence) or from a conservative/religious background, then that boy will most definitely try out men and if he reaches sexual climax then he will stick with it because as you said it's trendy, easier and also less headache.

As a person that has always been going out clubbing, I recall having competition in a club by other males, but as years go by the competition is getting less and less in that I can flirt with women without having any other potential suitor around. There are nights in bars that I am the only real male in the proximity. This is actually getting quite scary.

When I wrote my post it was under the premise that people might identify with being homosexual but not necessarily act on it, so that's an interesting angle. I certainly wouldn't discount that opportunity matters, although I'm not sure that this would necessarily lead to identification as homosexual. There's the stereotypical boarding school experience which didn't have that result as far as I know. It might be that, as you say, there's a combination of the two factors. I don't know which polls @Political Interest is referring to and if they have asked whether people have actually had sexual experiences or relationships with the same sex rather than just how they identify.

Girls seem to be much more ambivalent on the matter in that they are less likely to have a strong aversion to same sex experiences, although again I'm not sure how many actually follow through on it as opposed to just being more open to the abstract idea.

The above has also reminded me of reports of lower testosterone levels in western men. Not entirely sure how that fits into PI's OP, but it might help explain some of the behaviours you describe.

Albert wrote: I think it is also not recognized that cultural factors play a significant role in development of children. Currently the culture has been hijacked by people who promote homosexuality as norm, so you have children growing up who might believe into this even though their parents might tell them otherwise.

This is why it very important to keep culture in line with good morals as otherwise this can dissuade children from a good path. So when the people use the famous argument of "how does homosexuality effect you". They are missing a significant point, that allowing homosexuality to be seen as normal you open so many other people to indulge in the behaviour.

I think it's quite well recognised, although people may not be consistently intellectually honest about it or they may operate more on an intuitive level. For instance, I think it's obvious that people believe - or at least hope - that curricula changes or "gender-neutral" education/parenting and the like will have an effect.

There's also the age old conventional wisdom that children are receptive to propaganda and the earlier you start brainwashing them the better. I don't think that's entirely wrong, although I'm not sure how straightforward it is to translate this into adulthood.

How it all works is poorly understood though. At this point I'm leaning towards it being necessary to consistently keeping up whatever message you want to convey if people are not naturally inclined towards it. It probably needs to be pretty much all-encompassing to work.

One Degree wrote:I find this dubious. We know something as simple as a child seeing his parents reading has a strong influence on their educational achievement. Their behavior is strongly influenced from learning social skills from watching their parents.

That's what it looks like if you ignore genetics. However, pretty much every trait is heritable and this is also true for educational achievement and reading ability. Once you control for genetics, there's not much parenting influence left, although there's substantial influence from the environment which is poorly understood. As far as the evidence goes, nurture as commonly understood doesn't seem to matter much, unless - as mentioned - there's genuine abuse or deprivation. Here's an article which explains this in a bit more detail if you are interested.

One Degree wrote:We know parents with untraditional sex lives can dramatically traumatize children with sexual identity problems. We know problems with poverty, crime, education etc. all are based upon their parents behavior. We become our parents.

We mostly become a combination of our parents because of inheritance. We mostly look like a combination of our parents for the same reason. There are definitely environmental influences, but nurture isn't a particularly strong one.

On the upside, if a child is messed up, parents shouldn't beat themselves up about it, as their parenting was probably not the reason.
#14959856
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:I think it's quite well recognised, although people may not be consistently intellectually honest about it or they may operate more on an intuitive level. For instance, I think it's obvious that people believe - or at least hope - that curricula changes or "gender-neutral" education/parenting and the like will have an effect.

There's also the age old conventional wisdom that children are receptive to propaganda and the earlier you start brainwashing them the better. I don't think that's entirely wrong, although I'm not sure how straightforward it is to translate this into adulthood.

How it all works is poorly understood though. At this point I'm leaning towards it being necessary to consistently keeping up whatever message you want to convey if people are not naturally inclined towards it. It needs to be pretty much all-encompassing to work.
I believe some people understand pretty well how culture functions. Think of artists, their work may grab us in a deep manner without even us understanding as to why. Also think of Maiji period of Japan for example; I believe people in power knew pretty well what they were doing when they were industrializing Japan on western standards. It was not just a change that brought great technological innovation to society that was otherwise agrarian and feudal in nature. It was also a significant cultural change in Japanese society. Japanese society actually succeeded pretty well in this transition even though struggle between Westernisers and Traditionalist did erupted into armed conflict. Yet it never destabilized the nation unlike what happened in China when going through the same process that ended up in a protracted civil war.

Although I agree with you, there are some unanswerable perplexities about culture. For how, for example Muslims who are so strict with their women yet act in such bad manner to them. As can unfortunately be seen what is happening in Europe today. Should not their virtues doctrine commit them to good and honourable acts towards women? So it is a paradox. Theocracies do not seem to improve moral virtues of society but perhaps keep them even worse.
#14959874
I do enjoy reading opinions that have no basis of evidence or support and the only thing they can back up their claim is "common knowledge". That is definately not evidence One Degree. In fact it is common knowledge in PoFo that your common knowledge is bollocks.

As there have been no studies with a conclusion on what causes Homosexuality (that I am aware of. If there is provide it), any explanation for it has to be subjective. But you can rule things out. It isn't genetic as it isn't hereditary. It isn't cultural as we all are part of this culture regardless of sexual ordination. If there is an increase in people defining themselves as Homosexual today, I would suggest the more open and accepting people in society are to this, the more likely people will be honest with themselves and declare themselves as such. Hence the increase today.

So what causes Homosexuality in my opinion? I think it is simply a mental preference that you are born with. The same as when people prefer a certain colour or they enjoy music over say football. What hobbies they like or clothIng styles we like to wear or hair style we will don. There is nothing mysterious about sexual orientation. It is simply something that makes us unique from the person next to us. And when people understand that every single person is unique, we will stop trying to understand why we are unique and just embrace it.
#14959885
@Kaiserschmarrn
Yes, the first thing I thought of was the ‘twin studies’ when reading your comments. This article doesn’t influence me much. I also thought of the studies on adopted children which this article doesn’t mention.
I would think those studies would be a lot harder to dismiss by simply saying “we don’t think so”.
This seems to be science biased by culture imo. I don’t believe they know that much about genetics to begin with to dismiss so many studies saying the opposite, and it simply does not fit with my observations of humans.
I am sure I am not the only one who totally changed who they were by changing my day to day decisions. All rehabilitation is based upon this. If our behavior is genetic then why can I change it with a thought?
Their bringing up spanking intensified my belief their research is culturally biased. These arguments totally ignore everyone spanked until recently. It did not result in wholesale trauma.
I realize these are just my opinions but genetic science about social behavior that does not match our observations of social behavior should be met with skepticism especially when they so conveniently match new cultural beliefs.
I have 4 brothers and sisters and between us have 17 offspring. One was homosexual and a child predator. His parents were ‘swingers’. I understand their genetics were not identical, but these instances are common and fly in the face of a genetics argument when the environmental causes are readily apparent, documented by psychiatrists, and often corrected with therapy.
I would also dismiss these studies on the unscientific basis that they deny freewill and lead to excusing all antisocial behavior as unavoidable. On these basis, they should be rejected even if true because they destroy our social fabric.

Edit: In summary, when science follows new cultural beliefs instead of leading it, we should be very skeptical of the science.
#14959888
noemon wrote:
There is that and also some other reasons or a combination. I think the most important reason is sexual opportunity, men find it harder and harder to score with women and turning towards men seems like the easiest option to get laid. I do not think that they find it harder because women have made it harder for them but mainly because a lot lack the confidence and skills to pursue women and in the age of instant gratification if a woman don't open her legs and give them an official invitation everything else is just too much trouble, while they can get laid with their best friends and not have to deal with any female psychology and put any extra effort. It seems that unless a boy is either extremely attracted to females(to the point of having relentless patience and persistence) or from a conservative/religious background, then that boy will most definitely try out men and if he reaches sexual climax then he will stick with it because as you said it's trendy, easier and also less headache.

As a person that has always been going out clubbing, I recall having competition in a club by other males, but as years go by the competition is getting less and less in that I can flirt with women without having any other potential suitor around. There are nights in bars that I am the only real male in the proximity. This is actually getting quite scary.


I don't think it is so much a choice for these men to have this same gender attraction, which makes it even more peculiar and surprising. But as you state it is not merely a few people, it seems to a be a lot of men. I suppose the ultimate question is where will this end.

Kaiserschmarrn wrote:That said, I'm leaning towards an at least partially cultural explanation for recent developments in western countries, because homosexual identity seems to have become kind of trendy and perhaps even a status marker among a subgroup of teenagers and young adults. This will probably continue as long as we elevate identifying with it as special, brave or even heroic.


What is the situation in the German speaking world?
#14959901
pugsville wrote:No just logically bad. You are not imbued with some internet debate god liek power that you can declare your pet beliefs "common knowledge" and there for have to be proven wrong.

As always in debate the burden of proof lies with those making claims.

I reject your sophistry that your clams do not (unlike others) require some sort of evidence or proof.

"There is no need for proof because there is no reason to believe is not true and it's common knowledge"

really how can this not be cliamed by anyone anbout almost anything in almost any debate.

It;s sophistry finding reasons why You don;t actually have to mount any sort of defense for your claims.

Are they really that weak?


Yes, I avoid getting into “my source is better than your source” on controversial issues. Obviously there are ‘experts’ on both sides or it would not be controversial. I assume the posters on here are already familiar with the basic literature. This is where we should rely on our own reasoning to argue. Scientific ‘experts’ are routinely found to be totally off track because that is their whole purpose. They do not reveal truth. They reveal current findings by mere humans.
#14959903
One Degree wrote:Yes, I avoid getting into “my source is better than your source” on controversial issues. Obviously there are ‘experts’ on both sides or it would not be controversial. I assume the posters on here are already familiar with the basic literature. This is where we should rely on our own reasoning to argue. Scientific ‘experts’ are routinely found to be totally off track because that is their whole purpose. They do not reveal truth. They reveal current findings by mere humans.


meaningless sophistry of the classic ground shiftier. You you actually believed that you would not be demanding proof from others.

really is there no weaseling you will not snoop to?
#14959906
pugsville wrote:meaningless sophistry of the classic ground shiftier. You you actually believed that you would not be demanding proof from others.

really is there no weaseling you will not snoop to?


You will rarely see me do so. Only when I believe their claim is outrageous. This is exactly why many posters find my posts an intrusion. They are use to and prefer arguing on theory where the opinions of others can be substituted for their own. This can then be used to ignore that reality is determined by what we choose to perceive and not by past thoughts and events. Reality is commonly accepted opinion (propaganda). We can choose whatever we want the world to be. After all, we have survived a very long time doing exactly that no matter what the ‘experts’ believed or do believe today.

Edit: @pugsville
To bring my comments back on topic. If the institutionalized opinion is they want homosexuality to be genetic then it is very likely science will find that proof and it will last until it can no longer be denied the findings were faulty.
#14959909
One Degree wrote:Yes, I avoid getting into “my source is better than your source” on controversial issues. Obviously there are ‘experts’ on both sides or it would not be controversial.


Is this debate controversial?

Perhaps address your source and link it to your argument otherwise your so called "common knowledge" is speculation and personal opinion.
#14959918
Red_Army wrote:There are homosexual animals, but people think it's entirely cultural. Smart people!

Richard Dawkins was once asked how homosexuality could survive from one generation to the next since it is a behavior that actually reduces reproductive potential so natural selection should select against it pretty aggressively. This question assumes a genetic basis to homosexuality.

Dawkins admitted it was an interesting question and then cites the example of elephant walruses. EWs are highly polygamous, one bull alpha male will get like a dozen females and all the beta males will get nothing. The betas reproductive potential is basically zero just from polygamy. If they try to approach any of a bull's females the bull will go nuts and smash face. Apparently what has been observed is that some betas will act up all gay bumming each other until the bull thinks they are no threat to his vagina hoard. Then they creep up on a female and give her a sneak bonk! The irony is that gay betas actually have a better reproductive potential than non-gay betas just from better access.

It made me think about skinny blokes acting up as flamboyantly gay and then spending a pretty good portion of their time hanging out with women as just one of the girls...
#14960000
One Degree wrote:@Kaiserschmarrn
Yes, the first thing I thought of was the ‘twin studies’ when reading your comments. This article doesn’t influence me much. I also thought of the studies on adopted children which this article doesn’t mention.
I would think those studies would be a lot harder to dismiss by simply saying “we don’t think so”.
This seems to be science biased by culture imo. I don’t believe they know that much about genetics to begin with to dismiss so many studies saying the opposite, and it simply does not fit with my observations of humans.
I am sure I am not the only one who totally changed who they were by changing my day to day decisions. All rehabilitation is based upon this. If our behavior is genetic then why can I change it with a thought?
Their bringing up spanking intensified my belief their research is culturally biased. These arguments totally ignore everyone spanked until recently. It did not result in wholesale trauma.
I realize these are just my opinions but genetic science about social behavior that does not match our observations of social behavior should be met with skepticism especially when they so conveniently match new cultural beliefs.
I have 4 brothers and sisters and between us have 17 offspring. One was homosexual and a child predator. His parents were ‘swingers’. I understand their genetics were not identical, but these instances are common and fly in the face of a genetics argument when the environmental causes are readily apparent, documented by psychiatrists, and often corrected with therapy.
I would also dismiss these studies on the unscientific basis that they deny freewill and lead to excusing all antisocial behavior as unavoidable. On these basis, they should be rejected even if true because they destroy our social fabric.

Edit: In summary, when science follows new cultural beliefs instead of leading it, we should be very skeptical of the science.

Genes are not destiny or deterministic. However, when we look at averages in populations, the data shows what I've and the article described. There are substantial environmental influences, but they don't seem to be of the type most people assume or like to believe. One way to think about this is that genetic influences on behaviour are probabilistic constraints that nudge us to stay within a certain range at every stage of our lives. We might temporarily go outside those bounds, but over time it's highly likely that we revert back to our typical behavioural range, and this is especially true if we are free to choose. Think about an introvert child and how unlikely it is that its personality will change so that it will become the life of every party.

Free will, as we perceive it, almost certainly doesn't exist, although nature has made us in such a way that we are convinced that we are in charge. The problem here is that accepting what the data tells us is contrary to how we experience ourselves, but you can apply the above probabilistic constraint model to decisions as well. At any given time there's a range of possible decisions you can make, but you are much more likely to make some than others. That allows for outliers where people might be able to drastically and permanently change course, but to make it even more complicated the ability to do this is probably itself partly influenced by genes (and other biological mechanisms).

Note also that when people manage to "turn their lives around" it is usually a once in a lifetime event and with respect to a limited number of behaviours. We praise them for this precisely because we know from experience that this is very uncommon and they also stay the same in terms of all other aspects of their personality. That alone should tell us something about the extent to which we are actually in charge of our destiny, and the answer is obviously far less than we'd like to imagine.

As far as psychiatrists and doctors documenting and treating environmental causes, there are just too many cases where they have been dramatically wrong yet convinced they were right. The list of conditions and behaviours that were wrongly declared to be down to adverse childhood experiences, emotional trauma or even simply people having erroneous thoughts and which were purportedly responsive to therapeutic (and often more invasive) interventions over the decades is shockingly long. It really beggars belief that after being wrong so many times and causing so much suffering, that even today only a minority of experts is actually questioning this paradigm. It starts with, as you mentioned, researchers confidently claiming that a certain number of books in a household significantly raises a child's educational achievement without controlling for genetic influences, and goes all the way to invoking psychological explanations for any illness or condition for which we haven't yet found a physical or biological cause.

There are on the one hand ideological reasons (from the left and right) for this failure and on the other hand our natural inclination to feel that we have complete agency is also working against us.

Political Interest wrote:What is the situation in the German speaking world?

I can't find anything recent, but according to the German Wiki, there was a reduction in male teenagers who said they've had a homosexual experience from 18% in 1970 to 2% twenty years later, while female teenagers apparently stayed the same at 6%. Another study which asked this question in 1980 and 1996 showed a reduction for boys from 10% to 5%, and in 2001 and 2005 an increase for girls from 8% to 13%. The don't seem to have asked whether these people identified as homosexual or not, but responses to that will in part depend on how you ask the question. If the surveys you've seen use the Kinsey scale, then you can be pretty sure that the numbers are inflated.
#14960012
'SEX' is nature's 'Trick-or-Treat'.
The object is to reproduce accordingly, giving a male-female couple a 'treat'(pleasure in copulation)enables evolution to proceed by creating more generations.
Were there no 'treat' or excitement in male-female sexual activity, two things would happen, firstly, there would be no interest in sex, therefore no reproduction.
Secondly there would be no need for sex that requires a male-female model to reproduce & we would disappear from the tree-of-life as a result.
We see that nature gives a male or female a 'treat' through pleasure in sex, in so doing, nature has 'tricked' both sides into doing what evolution has evolved us into doing in order to survive as a species.

The 'alternative', that of 'cloning' is rejected by nature through evolution & human tampering with creating, through interference in nature, is full of negative consequences in the long term.

To place 'homosexuality' in the context of human culture as a species, it plays a definite role.

That role is one of curtailing population levels through birth control, because being truly 'gay', as opposed to being a homophile, is just mas functional in evolutionary terms as is limited resources such as available food sustenance.

It is just one of many factors that exerts a braking effect on human population levels & only recently has it become more prominent through educational brainwashing of children, who are taught such things when they are pre-pubescent in age.

Society needs to question whether that is the right way to go in our children's educational process?

Against that positive aspect, national government's in Europe, of the 'elitist' Liberal type, have offset those effects by allowing unrestricted migration into Europe.

It stands to reason that without mass, uncontrolled migration, our populations & therefore our impact on earth's resources would be more limited.

Allowing mass, uncontrolled migration, encourages more breeding in both the host countries to which these migrants migrate to, but also in their home country, the population will further expand, due to the migrants alleviating a degree of the former pressure on the limited resources available.

We heterosexuals that have reproduced, know that we also produce offspring that, for whatever reason, have no interest in continuing the status quo that evolution gas given us in which to leave a 'legacy' by allowing our genes to survive.

That is really a matter of choice, not just proclivity, to say that one is born 'gay', is not truthful, to say that certain 'emotional' feelings have influenced those choices, is probably more believable, but, as Shakespeare demonstrates, the real question is, "To be, or NOT to be," that is the question.

So-called 'free-will' is just the option, that 'choice' allows, hence the Shakespeare quotation & to say that there is no 'choice' is just an expression of lack of 'free-will' or choice through not having the personal resolution to make defining decisions on the direction in life that one wishes to travel along.

Being 'gay' , is just one point along the human cultural-sexual spectrum, it's relevance to the continuity to human culture is that it reinforces the default position of evolution & the survival of the fittest.

ONLY heterosexual genes survive, for any 'gay', man or woman, to pro-create by any means, even using one's own genes, is a triumph, NOT for 'gay' culture, but for nature itself & the reproductive process that evolution has produced in the male-female model.

That model is species specific in general throughout the natural world with few exceptions.
#14960015
This thread if full of the usual hilarious right-wing nonsense:
- Men now fuck men because it's cool.
- Men fuck other men because they're too lazy to pursue women.
- Men pretend to fuck men to pursue women (like beta-Walruses!)

You can't make this shit up. :lol:

Not even @wat0n denies that the IDF and Israeli[…]

^ Wouldn't happen though, since the Israelis are n[…]

I was actually unaware :lol: Before he was […]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

Every accusation is a confession Why sexual v[…]