https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/04/160412132621.htm
>Around half of all heterosexual men and women potentially carry so-called homosexuality genes that are passed on from one generation to the next. This has helped homosexuality to be present among humans throughout history and in all cultures, even though homosexual men normally do not have many descendants who can directly inherit their genes. This idea is reported by Giorgi Chaladze of the Ilia State University in Georgia, and published in Springer's journal Archives of Sexual Behavior. Chaladze used a computational model that, among others, includes aspects of heredity and the tendency of homosexual men to come from larger families.
> He took into account findings from recent studies that show that homosexual men tend to come from larger families. These suggest that the genes responsible for homosexuality in men increase fecundity (the actual number of children someone has) among their female family members, who also carry the genes.
>computational model
Oh look it's fucking nothing
>>70785037
>Homos tend to come from larger families
>We must twist this to be evidence of a genetic production of homos even though this is clearly a case of environment affecting likelihood of homosexual behavior
>Hello? "Born this way!" crowd? Don't worry. I have an excuse for this studies result. You don't have to question your dogma.
>>70785037
>science
>computational model
Lmfao do plebs actually believe this is science?
>>70785156
>>70785701
>>70785796
itt PhD experts in genetics & computer science share their nuanced opinions on common statistical techniques used all the time in biology
>>70785037
>this idea
>>70785796
>>70786024
It can be valid, but computational models are mystery boxes. If it's not likely to be understood by peers (in a non-programming oriented field especially), it's not easy to prove the variables & algorithms are valid, it's very easy to tweak the model subtly until you get the result you want (definitely so if the system is complex).
And it's extremely easy to dupe biased, politically minded individuals into believing the whole study was scientifically sound.
I'm still keeping an open mind about this topic & I'm sure as shit not gonna trust anyone as the potential for bias is so high given the sensitivity of many regarding identity politics.
>mfw fag genes are a death mechanism to reduce population of large tribes
>tfw no /leftypol/ bf
>>70785037
Not surprised. lots of different monkeys do it. Romans and other groups throughout human history have done it.Seems to be ...a faze among apes I guess. However cutting off your dick and balls and taking in estrogen to pretend your a female is unnatural and wrong. If anything in nature cut its dick and balls off it would simply die.
>>70785037
>Homosex is genetic even though gays don't have many kids
There literally is zero evidence--flatly none--to support that assumption prior to the last century. The idea that "hurp, if genetic would be bred out!" is utterly baseless. Being homosexual has nothing to do with fertility.
>>70787648
This. I can deal with gay, but LGBTQRSTUVWXYZ is bullshit
Wasn't there work done a while back that the same traits that lead to men being gay are desirable in women? Always thought it had made a good deal of sense in explaining the persistence of it.
>>70787648
>unnatural
You need to read a book, anon.
It is literally impossible for human beings to perform unnatural acts.
>>70785037
Soooo does that mean that the more open we are about homosexuality, the more gays will feel comfortable not hiding who they are by marrying women and having children, the quicker the gay gene dies out?
Xq28
>>70787114
>tfw no hot /pol/ bf
Why live?
>>70787714
Let's just disregard all the evidence that has been around for years that points to at least some genetic basis then.
>>70788277
You misspelt XPQ21.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dU9cMzVPlQQ
>>70788416
Why? I have to believe things without evidence to believe things that have evidence?
That's not how that works.
>>70788547
What are you even talking about? There is evidence for it, that's what I'm saying. You're disregarding the evidence there is for it simply because it probably doesn't fit into your narrative. Or are you going to tell me that the evidence that does exist is flawed in some way? Wat are your specific objections to it then?
>>70788744
>What are you even talking about? There is evidence for it, that's what I'm saying.
Did you mis-respond to my post, then? Because there isn't evidence that gay people have fewer children that goes back earlier than the last century.
Which is what my post said.
The fuck are you talking about, retardazoid?
>>70786024
That tweet is satire you know
Identical twin studies prove you wrong OP.
>>70788105
I know what you mean.
>>70788910
Actually, I think I misunderstood what you were trying to say. You only have issue with the idea that the genes responsible for homosexuality may have an effect on fertility, right? If that's the case, then I'm not arguing with you as the evidence there is for it isn't all that convincing. I thought you were denying the genetic basis for homosexuality entirely, which is what my posts have been arguing against.
>>70789351
Fair enough. No: I was not disputing the possibility that homosexuality is genetic. I was disputing the baseless assumption that, if it were genetic, it would not be passed on because "common sense" leads people to assume that homosexuals did not have historically comparable birth-rates to heterosexuals. Because that is an assumption that OP is making and that there is no evidence for.
>>70789030
The "BORN THIS WAY!" fags will just claim one of the identical twins magically had different genes.
>>70789351
When you say genetic basis, do you mean
>Genes produce lifeforms with behavioural & neurological adaptability - including adaptive individual sexuality
or
>Genes produce lifeforms with hardwired, nonadaptive sexuality - including unadaptable straight individuals & unadaptable gay individuals
>>70790006
The first one. Although I do think that sexuality, once determined, is difficult to change if not outright impossible. Genes likely have the effect of making an individual have the possibility of becoming gay, the rest is down to external factors. What they are is unknown. I hope that makes sense.
>>70789782
Alright, I understand now and I actually agree with you. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
>Springsteen certified cuck
>>70785037
>Homosex is genetic even though gays don't have many kids
Biologically, homos can't reproduce.
>>70790006
It is possible for factors in the womb, outside of genetics, to impact sexuality. Some studies have implied that the mother's antibodies may have some impact on it.
Albeit currently the answer is that we're unsure as to the actual cause of same-sex attraction in humans.
>>70789030
>>70790006
Epigenetics
>>70790939
Two men cannot have a child, but a gay male and a women can have children, and it does happen.
>>70787814
>This. I can deal with gay
No fuck that shit, it's fucking disgusting.
That's been the whole fucking point of normalizing homosexuality, so now in 15 years people will say "Yeah I don't mind trannies, but furries have sex with horses is bullshit"
>>70791236
>No fuck that shit, it's fucking disgusting.
That's how I feel when I think about straight sex desu
You're saying I could be 1/4th gay??
>>70791047
Kek, one of the queers has to cheat on the other.
>>70791477
So,you're gay?May I ask why you are on /pol/?
>>70791605
Artificial insemination exists.
>>70791678
Because this place fits vaguely with some of my political views. Being gay doesn't make me some leftist mudshit loving cucklord.
>>70785037
>>70791477
>>70791813
Whatever Milo. Lay of the ketamine and find a woman to marry already.
>>70790449
I think the same thing as you. I think it would require some difficult shit to forcefully change it after being established.
>>70790985
>>70791016
Maybe. Best way to study that is to take numerous readings from babies after birth, including neurological & hormone (endocrine) tests. And then wait till they grow older & find out their sexuality.
Find correlations.
I don't see why people are always searching for proof of predetermined sexuality. What's with that? Why is adaptation, even at a young age, so distasteful to people?
What's the default position to be had here when faced with little evidence of sexuality's origins? Is the onus on predeterminists to prove it's predetermined before birth or is the onus on adaptationists to prove sexuality is adapted after birth?
>>70791916
Milo is a faggot who loves black cock
>>70791813
>Artificial insemination exists.
But the child will likely bare no resemblance to either one of you.Unless, it's your own.But then why not just do and become straight?
>Because this place fits vaguely with some of my political views. Being gay doesn't make me some leftist mudshit loving cucklord.
I'm not quite sure anymore.But, doesn't /pol/ hate gay people?
>>70792027
>What's the default position to be had here when faced with little evidence of sexuality's origins? Is the onus on predeterminists to prove it's predetermined before birth or is the onus on adaptationists to prove sexuality is adapted after birth?
The onus should be on anyone trying to show any cause or range of causes. All I know it's either genetic, pre-natal (maybe hormonal) or somehow else decided when you're incredibly young since I hit puberty around 12 and liked boys from the start.
>>70792027
> I think it would require some difficult shit to forcefully change it after being established.
Yes, it would. This is why the religious camps where they put gay people in to convert them back to being straight have never worked. Wouldn't they, seeing that their families and God hate them, would want to do everything possible to change their own sexuality? Even wanting it to happen as much as they can, most if not all can't seem to get themselves to do it. The thought that someone would deliberately choose to be gay doesn't make any sense, I don't know why anyone would choose to be gay.
>>70792047
>Unless, it's your own.But then why not just do and become straight?
Because I can't love a woman like I can a guy
>I'm not quite sure anymore.But, doesn't /pol/ hate gay people?
This place isn't a complete hugbox for stormfront you know, and it's better for discussing politics than fucking reddit (at least when it's not being flooded with HOW CAN WHITE MEN threads by shitposters).
>>70785037
How does one go about treating this ailment called homosexuality?
>>70785037
Other than there does not actually appear to be any genes that are reliably associated with homosexuality. Even twin concordance is fairly weak and points at least as much to environmental cues as much as anything else.
>>70792317
>This place isn't a complete hugbox for stormfront you know, and it's better for discussing politics than fucking reddit
Honestly, anything is better than shitty reddit.
>(at least when it's not being flooded with HOW CAN WHITE MEN threads by shitposters).
FINALLY, someone else who's sick of this shit.
>>70792614
There's a big difference between fraternal and identical twins though (identical twins being more likely to have the same sexuality), which have the same environment but differing genetics, showing some genetic factor must be relevant.
But some identical twins come out one gay one straight, so it can't be entirely genetic either.
It's complicated
>>70792801
There's one at 75 fucking posts on the catalog now, the mods are fucking shit recently.
>>70785701
I wonder what sort of environment leads you to take dick up the ass
>>70793166
You'd know Sweden, back to your cuckshed.
>>70792162
Yes, anyone who puts forward a reason for it should back it up regardless. At least... when not shitposting on an image board.
My unscientific opinion is that it develops through socialization, especially around the age where the whole concept of intimacy is developing.
So, I think there are precursors to sexual contact, like hugging, grabbing, poking, revealing genitals humorously or looking out of sheer curiosity... and if you by happenstance do these things with members of your own sex, or simply want to experience things because you've witnessed others partaking, you may develop a taste for it.
Then puberty, that non-sexual taste becomes sexual.
>>70792288
I agree. Evidence is pretty tight that it's not something you can consider changeable. At least. Not forcefully.
>>70793385
The eternal anglokike is strong tonight
I ask you a simple question and you respond like this
>>70793385
>My unscientific opinion is that it develops through socialization, especially around the age where the whole concept of intimacy is developing.
Interestingly as a young child (I'm talking age like 4/5) I was best friends with a girl my age next door., so I don't think it's that.
>>70787028
wow isn't life amazing
>>70787648
>>70788105
Related: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=riECZcTK58M
>>70792888
WAKE UP MODS!
>>70787028
You know, this actually makes a lot of sense. Just think about it: throughout the great, huge societies, those being Greece, then Ancient Rome, and now the United States all developed a large population of homosexuals in the society. Perhaps this could be a mechanism in nature to prevent the development of a perfectly stable nation. After all, many scientists think that large populations can lead to an extinction.
>>70794194
Glad I could help bring about the end of humanity, just doing my genetic duty.
Took me 3 seconds to work this shit out
Don't call it the "gay" gene just call it the
>Fuck me in the ass
Gene for want of a better world
Women with this gene can pass it down and with the "liberation" the slutty ones are ficking more = some children. Bingo and checkmate
So if homosexuality is genetic and not a mental disorder, why haven't we found the genetic link yet? Why is there still no solid evidence to this claim?
>>70794736
>why haven't we found the genetic link yet?
Identical twins are far more likely to share the same sexuality than two non-twin siblings or two random guys.
>>70794889
That doesn't prove anything.
>>70794319
Same; I'm a fag as well. It just seems that homosexuality runs rampant in comfortable societies; this is probably used to deprecate such nations and therefore keep the natural order in check. That's my hypothesis, anyway.
>>70787028
Doubt it, the population explosion happened less than hundred years. Think whole race "genetic marker to curb population" would be imprinted that fast? Nah. Probably all the fag behavior that happened centuries(s) ago and on a not so secret scale either.
You know what's more scary than genetic fags? Is what comes after genetic trannies, we actually got a book for that!
>>70793717
I'm not suggesting it's simple enough to even have example anecdotes.
I myself had plenty of experiences I described earlier, with members of the same sex, but I'm not a homo.
Even trying to figure out why individual children like certain objects or actions is ludicrously difficult. Psychological & neurological development is as complex as shit.
>friends with a girl at a young age
Depending or your thoughts during contact with her, you may have developed a distaste for intimacy with girls. Maybe you found her a bit obnoxious. Maybe you preferred to emulate her and not touch her.
Big maybes. That's psychology for you.
I'm bot trying to present answers, I just think that there's a stupidly large number of variables when it comes to why you are the way you are and I don't think it's easy to dismiss the adaptation angle even when no one can't think of a reason why you would be the way you are.
>>70785037
This is total bullshit.
Identical twin concordance for faggotry is less than 20%. Versus height concordance of 95%, IQ concordance of 85%, etc. (And yet bolshies whine that IQ is caused by environment... sigh.)
Faggotry is caused by a microbe. People with identical immune systems may share some susceptibility to similar diseases, but each victim needs to catch the microbe separately.
Why would a virus evolve to cause faggotry? Same reason toxoplasmosis makes it impossible to smell cat odors; to spread the virus.
>>70795053
It heavily hints at a genetic link since fraternal twins share pre-natal conditions and upbringing but differ genetically.
>>70794194
>>70794319
>>70795303
Shitholes like Pakistan and the shittiest bits of Africa have loads of gays too, they just hide it. We're a common occurrence everywhere, what differs is how society deals with it. Native Americans had their two spirit people for example.
>>70794889
And? Identical twins are also more likly to emulate one another. It sucks that this is the case.
It would be great to separate thousands of them at birth & study it. But... you know... morals.
>>70795485
>Identical twin concordance for faggotry is less than 20%
But higher than the concordance for non-identical twins or non-twin brothers. There's something odd going on basically, genetics is a complex subject.
>>70795749
I fucking hate that we can so easily just say "it's complex, don't bother questioning it".
But it is very hard to question such complex things. I mean this no matter what reason is being presented for sexuality.
I'd just love it if there were easy answers. So many people shape their world views on shit like this.
>>70796007
I'd love to see more research but it's hard to develop rigourous and falsifiable tests in this kind of situation
>>70796315
Yup. You got that right.
>>70792027
By and large, there are probably just habit-formed methods of looking at issues of social import, which is why all these issues get the same sort of rhetoric. Here, specifically, I'd guess it's about a naive conception of "natural" - if it's predetermined, then people who dislike it are bigots.
Regarding adaptation, I'd guess that the (lack of) acceptance is contingent on the degree to which it some conveflsomention and the importance of the convention (and associated concepts). Here's an attempt: gay people like their own gender, but people like the opposite gender. How can something that looks like a man really be a woman?
>>70797182
Degree to which it flouts a convention
>>70797182
Yes, I've seen people frame homosexuality as natural & therefore it must be accepted. I can see their attempt to prove it natural as being an attempt to normalize or increase tolerance.
I'm confused about what you said regarding adaption, and I'm afraid I need to go asleep. I'll look at your response (if any) tomorrow.
>>70785037
This is already been proven to not be true.
>>70797806
Still confused. You're a step up from me at writing ability & I'm tired lol
Good night
>>70785037
Guaranteed that the second we find a pill that blocks the "Gay Gene" in women trying to have babies that the gay population will vanish.
Fucking going to be brilliant.
>>70788929
The fact that it's not immediately obvious, says something about the typical leftist position.
>>70785037
>These suggest that
I.E. don't mean shit
If anything, faggotry is epigenetic and a response to mothers living in urban areas and pushing extra estrogen on their sons before birth as a way of keeping them from getting themselves killed in a setting where competition is suppressed by the collective.
Exterminating fags would help get rid of the corrupt cities and therefore wiping those fuckers out and burning their bodies is an ethical solution albeit not one that any of us would want to admit supporting.
>>70787028
You'd be right but its not genes. Population changes are too fast for genetic adaptation. Its epigenetic or developmental adjustment but either way, faggots are blind supporters of corruption and destructive status quos since they can't survive in a world where human ambition isn't destroyed by higher centralized force.
>>70787648
>claims faggotry is genetic
>posts pic of spartans
I'm guessing you're just trolling since Spartans proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that faggotry is NOT genetic or inherent in individuals but rather a coping mechanism that can be activated and deactivated.
>>70788248
>Soooo does that mean that the more open we are about homosexuality, the more gays will feel comfortable not hiding who they are by marrying women and having children, the quicker the gay gene dies out?
No, because the goal of this is to prolong faggotry by claiming its genetic. That way the confused kid will be forced to become a fag because he will be told that his one gay thought is proof that he's 100% a queer for life and better start getting banged by GRID-spreading faggots or risk being considered an "uncle Tom"(fuck that Beacher cunt and her book, she's burning in Hell with John Brown and lincoln right now)
>>70785701
>>70793166
Well if you look at identical twin studies its only about a 50% chance of both twins being fags. So it seems to me that half are born this way and the other half are absolute degenerates who must hang on the day of the rope. SCIENCE
So is there any way of treating gayness?
