User Controls
Homosexuality is abnormal and shouldn't be accepted in society
-
2017-07-11 at 12:33 AM UTC
-
2017-07-11 at 12:55 AM UTC
-
2017-07-11 at 1:14 AM UTC
-
2017-07-11 at 1:17 AM UTC
-
2017-07-11 at 1:18 AM UTCinfinitycuck is the very definition of a cucked BIG DICK TRILL NIGGA
-
2017-07-11 at 1:18 AM UTCdamn lanny got that one. THIS MEANS WAR
-
2017-07-11 at 1:31 AM UTCSupposedly I'm infinitys favorite which means he might be straight and just have a lot of anger issues, he may have small man disorder
My dad gave my and my sisters one rule regarding boyfriends.. they have to be at least 6' tall. If they're not then daddy rejects them. Lol -
2017-07-11 at 1:34 AM UTC
-
2017-07-11 at 1:53 AM UTC
-
2017-07-11 at 1:54 AM UTC"Suck my dick, male. What?? No I am NOT gay! Where did you get that idea?!"
-
2017-07-11 at 4:23 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny What, premised on the idea that homosexuality is hereditary? If you think about that for like two second you'll realize there's a bit of an issue with it.
Lanny, by any chance are you familiar, at least loosely, the basic concept, with the "gay uncle" hypothesis, the theory that homosexuals may have played a part throughout history in assisting with other births, another more advanced aspect being that they may have helped maintain an optimal population level?
Well it's complete bullshit, the math doesn't work out at all, and it's relatively basic. Is this what you were referring to? Of course the idea is promoted in large part because it aligns with the leftist narrative, makes homosexuality appear as a natural and beneficial part of human history, the myth of noble savages and acceptance, embrace and valuing, of homosexual members, generally portraying fags positively, evoking an emotion analogous to the vicarious experience of a hub-box.
I'm actually surprised you would believe homosexuality likely isn't hereditary.
No, wait, I committed a misinterpretation. My mind didn't properly process the term "hereditary", it made the mistake of interpreting you as not believing it was genetic in origin, which isn't what I elucidated above at all. Oy, and I'm a strong hereditarian that obsessed to such an extent on this and the multitude of related subjects. Well, minor and random neurological error, a "brain glitch".'
No, of course it isn't hereditary, no one should believe this. It's such an idiotic belief.
But, the above is still of critical importance because, the interesting this is, the prevalence rate is actually far higher than it should be. It's at a rate that undoubtedly would not have occurred due to evolutionary selection, these genes would have been weeded out long ago the prevalence would be around the level of other rare disorders (Asperger's is under 1/1000. For clear reasons, nature doesn't want us. Look at who I am, my life, behavior, even beliefs/mind. Do I seem like I would be beneficial at all to a human social group, that I would likely produce a greater than average number of children, who themselves would have a higher probability of doing so as well?). What causes it then? Speculative, unknown. It really isn't particularly important to me, regardless, not worth the time to research. -
2017-07-11 at 4:26 AM UTC
Originally posted by Malice Lanny, by any chance are you familiar, at least loosely, the basic concept, with the "gay uncle" hypothesis, the theory that homosexuals may have played a part throughout history in assisting with other births, another more advanced aspect being that they may have helped maintain an optimal population level?
Well it's complete bullshit, the math doesn't work out at all, and it's relatively basic. Is this what you were referring to? Of course the idea is promoted in large part because it aligns with the leftist narrative, makes homosexuality appear as a natural and beneficial part of human history, the myth of noble savages and acceptance, embrace and valuing, of homosexual members, generally portraying fags positively, evoking an emotion analogous to the vicarious experience of a hub-box.
I'm actually surprised you would believe homosexuality likely isn't hereditary.
No, wait, I committed a misinterpretation. My mind didn't properly process the term "hereditary", it made the mistake of interpreting you as not believing it was genetic in origin, which isn't what I elucidated above at all. Oy, and I'm a strong hereditarian that obsessed to such an extent on this and the multitude of related subjects. Well, minor and random neurological error, a "brain glitch".'
No, of course it isn't hereditary, no one should believe this. It's such an idiotic belief.
But, the above is still of critical importance because, the interesting this is, the prevalence rate is actually far higher than it should be. It's at a rate that undoubtedly would not have occurred due to evolutionary selection, these genes would have been weeded out long ago the prevalence would be around the level of other rare disorders (Asperger's is under 1/1000. For clear reasons, nature doesn't want us. Look at who I am, my life, behavior, even beliefs/mind. Do I seem like I would be beneficial at all to a human social group, that I would likely produce a greater than average number of children, who themselves would have a higher probability of doing so as well?). What causes it then? Speculative, unknown. It really isn't particularly important to me, regardless, not worth the time to research.
What math do you use for that? -
2017-07-11 at 4:33 AM UTC
Originally posted by Malice Lanny, by any chance are you familiar, at least loosely, the basic concept, with the "gay uncle" hypothesis, the theory that homosexuals may have played a part throughout history in assisting with other births, another more advanced aspect being that they may have helped maintain an optimal population level?
Well it's complete bullshit, the math doesn't work out at all, and it's relatively basic. Is this what you were referring to? Of course the idea is promoted in large part because it aligns with the leftist narrative, makes homosexuality appear as a natural and beneficial part of human history, the myth of noble savages and acceptance, embrace and valuing, of homosexual members, generally portraying fags positively, evoking an emotion analogous to the vicarious experience of a hub-box.
I'm actually surprised you would believe homosexuality likely isn't hereditary.
No, wait, I committed a misinterpretation. My mind didn't properly process the term "hereditary", it made the mistake of interpreting you as not believing it was genetic in origin, which isn't what I elucidated above at all. Oy, and I'm a strong hereditarian that obsessed to such an extent on this and the multitude of related subjects. Well, minor and random neurological error, a "brain glitch".'
No, of course it isn't hereditary, no one should believe this. It's such an idiotic belief.
But, the above is still of critical importance because, the interesting this is, the prevalence rate is actually far higher than it should be. It's at a rate that undoubtedly would not have occurred due to evolutionary selection, these genes would have been weeded out long ago the prevalence would be around the level of other rare disorders (Asperger's is under 1/1000. For clear reasons, nature doesn't want us. Look at who I am, my life, behavior, even beliefs/mind. Do I seem like I would be beneficial at all to a human social group, that I would likely produce a greater than average number of children, who themselves would have a higher probability of doing so as well?). What causes it then? Speculative, unknown. It really isn't particularly important to me, regardless, not worth the time to research.
Didn't read -
2017-07-11 at 4:37 AM UTCkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk
-
2017-07-11 at 4:38 AM UTC
-
2017-07-11 at 4:40 AM UTCAnd you fuckers think driving drunk is ATROCIOUS.
Skewed FUCKS.
Its very akin to the homosex community being rampantly homosexual.
Assume everyone is an extremist to help substantiate your claim.
Knuckle heads. -
2017-07-11 at 4:41 AM UTC
-
2017-07-11 at 4:45 AM UTC
-
2017-07-11 at 4:52 AM UTC
Originally posted by Malice Lanny, by any chance are you familiar, at least loosely, the basic concept, with the "gay uncle" hypothesis, the theory that homosexuals may have played a part throughout history in assisting with other births, another more advanced aspect being that they may have helped maintain an optimal population level?
Not before now. Even if we accepted that hypothesis, it wouldn't support the idea that the lack of children of homosexuals is going to cause a decrease in the prevalence of homosexuality, if anything we should expect socially beneficial traits to be ascendant and the the rates of homosexuality to increase. My point was merely that if lack of childbearing would cause homosexuality to become less prevalent we wouldn't have any means of explaining the current relative commonality of the phenomenon. -
2017-07-11 at 12:44 PM UTC
