Wow, pretty much the most coldly hateful thing that I have ever seen on reddit. Homosexuality is a natural genetic mutation that occurs in nature. You should be aware that sexual reproduction only developed to increase a species' ability to prosper. But now, with human species being the dominant species, and with our developed sense of reasoning and COMPASSION, we can understand that homosexual people are just like everybody else, with their own needs, wants, and beliefs. To say otherwise, is to ignore the voices of millions of people. In fact, the very technology that you are using was built upon the ideas of Alan Turing - a genius of his time who was persecuted for his sexual orientation. And the thing that you are asking for - to "infect our kids environment ot change the way they think [sic]" is to refuse CHILDREN the right to their own voice, their own decisions, and their own interpretation of the world. To do such a thing may be to remove the future of another possible genius while making children feel as if they are not really human. Shame on you OP for your bigotry.

I Know I will likely get downvoted for this but I want to point something out. The genetic basis for homosexuality has not even come close to being proven by researchers. In fact it is more often dismissed out of hand by serious geneticists due to its absurdity. Genes are passed on through reproduction, If the gene in question is one that creates a state that by its nature strays from natural reproduction it will not perpetuate. Given in past days when people subverted their desires in order to blend into societal norms such a gene would have been passed on. However, as living a purely homosexual lifestyle has become more common and acceptable the numbers are increasing. This goes against reason.

Making the argument that it is a spontaneous genetic mutation is completely insane. The probability of the same random genetic mutation occuring all over the world across barriers of distance and race is statistically impossible.

Bottom line is that, without some unknown mutagenic element that results in this single common mutation this cannot happen in nature. I am not proposing that is the case. I am saying that all of the known facts of genetics precludes homosexuality from being a genetic predisposition. I do not say this to disparage anyone or out of some biggotry. I have none. To me people have a right to engage in any unharmfull consenting sexual self identity they so choose. The argument of genetic cause is just a pipe dream to shut up those who would accept no other justification for something the view as abhorent. An attempt to mount an unassailable defense if you will, but without substantial justification beyond the desire of those individuals for it to be so.

All of that asside the OP is a biggoted tool.

Can I ask why he is biggoted? You yourself are pointing out the lack of credible evidence for a genetic cause. He is putting forward a hypothesis not making a value judgment on homosexuality.

Quite simply he could be considdered biggoted as he is implying that homosexuality is a negative condittion resultant of some sort of conspiracy toward depopulation. Implying by his opinion that homosexuality is an afliction of sorts. That is all.

Edit; By the way if depopulation is the goal of some powers that be a world war would be far more efficient. WWII killed just shy of 4% of the world population. Seems like the tried and true method works better.

War could be considered rather destructive and a short term measure. Reducing fertility seems like the more humane method.

Actually, not true. A depopulation of 4% takes 5 years to recover at normal levels. Where as conspireing to "turn people gay" would have little real effect. So fewer men are inclined to impregnate the women. Do you believe that the remaining men who are not affected would be reluctant to pick up the slack?

That is a good point. How about if we are not just talking about men though? Perhaps we could get crazy and bring feminism into this with it perhaps being a driver of lesianism?

Still the numbers are inconsequential. Besides Lesbian women can easilly get artificial insemination.

They can , and I've noticed sometimes they turn lesbian after having kids. I take your point though.

I think that is perhaps a reactionary issue. Some women just flat out learn to hate men after many disappointments. I have known some to flat admit that is the reason for their change in preference.

Gonna echo this post real quick-like since it is true that the science behind the genetic origin of homosexuality is indeed shaky and unconfirmed. However, I'm of the disposition that, as beings capable of enjoying sexual pleasure, we can indulge ourselves in same-sex copulation since our species is not at risk of depopulation ('cept maybe nuclear war, of course - don't say I didn't warn you!).

What I do know is that sexual orientation, experience, and identity are all very fluid. They each influence the other and sometimes they change sub-consciously. Our ability to experience emotions (and especially those of others!) should induce compassion for those who are trying to reconcile their particular gender with their world around them. And if we just follow in Google's steps (http://bit.ly/MRGelr), we'll do better as the universe`s phenonemon that we are.

This is a great way to look at it. I fully agree. I personally think that it is, in a way, a sell out to say it is genetic. There is still much diversity out there but there is a certain strength in just saying "i am what I am, so mind your own business" Be proud of who you are.

I guess using the word infect has offended you but it was not meant in any ill will. You are infected by your environment every second of the day. So you must think you have a choice in the matter of who you become, you don't for the most part. You are your environment. All I was suggesting, is it possible that TPTB are using it to manipulate the population growth. No bigotry here bro. All love to everybody especially the people who are different than me for helping me stand out.

You are still missing a key point. The evidence overwhelmingly points to homosexuality being a genetic predisposition. I.e. society has nothing to do with how many people are gay, only how many people will be openly gay given the level of persecution at the time.

An argument to evidence will not go over well in this subreddit...

I can see a possible basis for his argument; think of the BPA that leeches out of many plastics, and how it "feminises" males. But it's quite the leap to say that BPA leeching is an intentional depopulation vector.

The evidence overwhelmingly points to homosexuality being a genetic predisposition.

this is not true. If it is , can you link to the abstracts?

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/4142950?searchUrl=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3Dhomosexuality%2Bgenetic%26acc%3Doff%26wc%3Don&Search=yes&uid=3738032&uid=2134&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&sid=56299095363

I will concede that it is possible that homosexuality is hormonal as opposed to genetic. The notion that it is a product of social conditioning however, is completely unsupported as far as I am aware. Further still, the idea that homosexuality is a choice by the subject is absured.

If you are aware of any studies that contradict this, please post them.

hormonal could include a mendelian inheritance cause or environmental causes whether that could be environmental polluntants or psychologically based such as stress related.

I found this study showing stressed rats had reduced sperm. I know in this thread we are talking about homosexuality though.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19881152

What makes you think that your environment completely decides what you will become? Genetics, personality, resilience and upbringing all play a huge role in determining who we grow up to be

Yea and that would be your environment. duh

Genetics is what you inherit from your parents. For example, hereditary diseases. That is the "nature" in the "nature vs. nurture" debate.

I just think your environment is what activates the genes. Not everybody who has the cancer gene gets cancer. Why is that?

Because you don't understand how hereditary diseases work? It's a predisposition, not a guarantee.

Of course, you're free to "think" what you want, but to come to conclusions and then perpetuate them without an ounce of actual understanding of how these things work, all you're doing is damaging the world in which you live.

Religion does that. Not my opinions.

They both do it.

Because we get cancer cells inside our bodies regularly. How a body responds to a threat may be weakened by the presence of a flu virus, or a lack of sufficient vitamins and minerals and it just may be that day that that cancer finds a good home to hang out in. There are so many internal wars that happen inside your body every day and sometimes luck is against you. And cancer isn't a gene. Nor are viruses, infectious bacteria, or hereditary diseases. Genes CAN be altered throughout one's lifetime (check out this on epigenetics, since it interests you so much: http://bit.ly/LbqWYo), but since human sexuality is such a fluid thing, it is much better to consider it as a spectrum in which everyone can be a little gay and a little straight, perhaps oscillating between the two (or not) over time.

genetics, personality and resilience would not be your environment. duh

With elaboration, you appear to be less ignorant than I have presupposed. Apologies for being angry, but I get fired up for gay rights, since they are regularly persecuted as a people. In response to your assertion that the environment (nurture) is the prime factor in determining a person's orientation, I ask you: "When did you decide that you were straight? Did you always know?" As a cisgendered fellow, I never realized that I had "chosen" to be attracted to women. And as a young kid growing up, and being told that I was "gay" or a "faggot" in school really questioned my orientation. So, you see? Environment does not play the singular factor because if it did, then I would have been convinced that I was a homosexual. Personal experience may not go far, but self-reflection might. Sexuality exists on a spectrum.

Just when I thought people here couldn't get any more retarded...

Homosexuality has been around for as long as the human existence. It also spans across many different species of animals. How fucking stupid can some of you be to think that its some kind of new thing created by your nutty boogeymen?

Nobody said it was created by any boogie man. I also agree that it's been around a long time. I don't agree that it happens the same within the animal kingdom as it does ours. That is simply not true. The post was about if TPTB have figured out how one turns towards homosexual lifestyle and using it to further their world depopulation program. Nothing wrong with being gay. It's not like you have a choice in the matter, you just are.

Sooo.... you think there is a conspiracy around something that is hardwired into people?

Yes. Several really but I'm not sure about the homosexual one that's why I was asking if others thought it was possible. Had nothing to do with bashing anybody. Fear is the most important one the use to control us.

Based on what evidence? This is my problem with Conspiracy Theorists. Most conspiracy theories are just blind speculations by individuals that are then turned into "facts" after they scream it loud enough. Look at King Nutjob, Alex Jones. He pulls conspiracy theories out of his ass on a daily basis, and his fans eat that shit up. He always says he has "documents" and "sources", yet never reveals them.

You can't just come up with a theory and call it a valid one. That's not how cognitive thinking works.

Do your own research! If you don't know that they use fear against us then you are way behind and I don't have time to teach you. What evidence pfff it's all around you.

Do your own research!

Well technically, you are the one making up the theory. That would make the compiling of research your job. You don't just pull an idea out of your ass, and demand that others do the research to prove your baseless idea wrong. I believe you just have proven how conspiracy theorists suck at debating.

You're not gonna believe anything I say anyhow. So you don't believe there is a conspiracy out there that people are using fear to control other people? Honest question. Fear is just one example. The most basic one.

I'm not going to believe anyone's baseless opinions without some credible sources.

So you don't believe there is a conspiracy out there that people are using fear to control other people?

Fear has always been a tool used to control people. This isn't breaking news here. However, you can't just make up a theory, and say that just because you think it might be true that it is.

And if you ask me, the largest amount of fear I see comes from the conspiracy theorists, themselves. Look at Alex Jones, Glenn Beck, Ron Paul, etc. All of them scream that the sky is falling every single day, and their fan base eats that shit up. So if you want to talk about fear trying to control people, look no further than the sources you probably believe are credible.

The only one I suggested that I thought for sure was fear. I was only posing a question to r/conspiracy what they thought about the homosexual idea. I do not support Alex Jones or Glenn beck they are tools of the system to spread fear, I agree. Ron Paul on the other hand is in no way any comparison with those too. Not even close. It's a joke for you to even say it. Also what's a credible source? Someone else's baseless opinions? Common since comes into play at some point doesn't it? Why do you have such a negative outlook on people who want and look for the truth of real conspiracies? TV?

Holy hell, it's like you live in a completely different world where 1 + 1 = fuck your logic.

Most of the people who live and look for the truth usually are different than your pathetic brainwashed government educated idiots who can't think for themselves, always looking for the TV to tell what to do. Fuck you and your LOGIC. Keep eating the gmo food they are preparing for you idiots.

couple more ways they use things that a hard wired into us, greed,lust,sloth,glutney,envy,wrath, and more. They hit us on a daily basis with this shit.

Also what's a credible source? Someone else's baseless opinions?

Peer reviewed publications would be the top tier of credible sources. As for opinions, credible sources are usually void of opinions, but focus on the facts that are known.

Ron Paul on the other hand is in no way any comparison with those too.

He is like a lightning pole for conspiracy nutters. His entire platform and his ideals are built around impending doom. Maybe he many not be a conspiracy nut himself (as in he doesn't believe the shit he says), but he sure as hell has found a way to make sweet, sweet money off of pandering to the nuts.

Go around /r/conspiracy and ask them who their favorite candidate is for President. I'll give you one guess whose name you'd hear more than anyone else. Ron Paul also draws in the crowds of misogynists and racists. Check out some of the big posters here in /r/conspiracy. You'll find that in one post, they'll be crying about 9/11 or blaming the Jews for something, and then they'll find their way over to /r/ronpaul or /r/Libertarian.

One of the least things I like about Ron Paul is his stance on 911 but it would be political suicide if he was honest about what really happened that day. His foreign policy and his freedom ideas is what I really like. It's not just r/conspiracy or r/ronpaul that you find support for paul but all over the internet, he pretty much owns it. If you think all conspiracies are just theory then I don't know what else to say but you probably shouldn't hang out in this sub unless you're just here to agitate people.

Homophobe, much?

Homophobe? Not at all. This was not to bash any gays at all. It was a simple question in R/conspiracy.

Is it true that you raped and murdered a girl in 1991? I mean, I'm not calling you a rapist and murderer, I'm just asking a simple question.

No I didn't. See simple answer. No offense but the questioning doesn't make any sense.

Your father should have rolled your mom over on her tummy when you were conceived. It would have helped the gene pool.

If there was an actual depopulation agenda, all "the powers that be" would need to do is release a male contraceptive pill.

So no, your idea is nonsensical.

Research the Vasalgel that is being developed in India. Talking points: * Lasts 10 years * Can be reversed at any time. * 100% effective.

Honestly, I think they would get caught before they could give it to everybody or at least enough to do some damage. This would have to be a slow process and delivered many different ways

No, I mean an actual male contraceptive pill, like women get to have, but which seems to be denied to men for some reason.

Lots of men don't want kids, but the woman they're with do, and she has an "accident" with the birth control pills and the next thing you know there's another kid in the world.

You should always use a condom if you don't want kids. Don't leave it up to the girl or you could be setting yourself up for that. Birth control pills could be dangerous in the long run. We just don't know yet because it hasn't been around long enough to see if there are any side affects. It could possibly change how a women would pick her mate.

HOMOSEXUAL ILLUMINATI LIZARDJEWS

For all you downvoters who got your pannies in a wedge. This was not at all meant as a gay bashing post. Just an honest question.

It's cool - you just have to be careful when you phrase questions to communities who will read between the lines. From the surface, it sounds like you want to change people's sexual orientations against their wills in order to reduce the overall population of humanity. It sends kind of a mixed message, don't ya think?

I guess I could of used a different word than "infect". I'm sure this is one of the reasons for the negativity. This is the only reason why people would take it personally. In my opinion

How many conversations can be ruined just by jumping on an OP and telling him how awful he is just because you're offended?

I tend to think he is wrong but why be right for the wrong reasons? Are we gonna sit here and persecute someone for pondering something out loud in a public forum?

Looking like a downvoting brigade stopped by last night lol. This was not gay bashing at all and yet people still taking offense.

r/conspiratard

As someone with several gay friends I find this offensive. Sure some people turn gay due to social views and reject by opposite sex but not everyone. Do you really think people would willingly choose the hard life that is being a homosexual?

"turn gay" You REALLY wrote that. You don't have any gay friends. If you did have gay friends, you would find NONE of them would say they "turned gay" at some point in their life. Did you turn straight at some point in your life?

Second, you either didn't read or failed to understand the Op's comments. The Op is pondering the possibility there may be a way to influence sexual orientation in the womb via the use of hormones, chemicals, chemicals which influence hormone production...etc. As you are most likely aware, gay and lesbian couples lack the proper equipment to reproduce in what some might label, a conventional manner. A method of artificially influencing the sexual orientation of the human fetus so the unborn child is predisposed to be homosexual would curb the growth of world population, Though, to stop the current population explosion, my guestimate is less than 40% of the world population could continue to breed. A 60% homosexual population is something that might be noticed.

You obviously didn't read my post I said some people turn gay and yes some people do.

[deleted]

Really?

You once posted a picture of mohammed shitting on himself, asshole.

this response made my day

[deleted]

mad?

[deleted]

i think you have self esteem issues

[deleted]

I'm not following you around. It's just an RES tag. You're not special, just enough of an asshole that I can take literally 5 seconds to mark something by your username.

[deleted]

those are very stupid thoughts.

I love how you claim to be a liberal but bash liberals

liberals can be wrong and do bad things. If you're looking at my comment history, I assume you're looking at my comment about wang-banger's propaganda work? Being a liberal doesn't mean I have to agree with what he does.

non-theist and bash other non-theists.

no actually i'm just sickened by antitheists. atheists are perfectly fine on their own. In fact, my comments towards NukeThePope could just as easily be directed towards you.

Seriously, what is missing in your life that it drives you to interact with people like this?

John Snow dies at the end of A Dance with Dragons. He gets killed at the wall by his men for trying to forge a peace with the wildlings.

there is some serious cognitive dissonance going on here. "seriously, what is missing in your life that drives you to interact with people like this? BY THE WAY, DOUCHEBAG SPOILER ALERT." What are you missing? Did your parents not love you because you were an atheist and now you're a bitter and hateful antitheist?

I've already read aDwD. Most people seem to agree that it's a cliffhanger, but good shot at trying to shock me, asshole.

[deleted]

replying to you takes a lot less effort than you think it does.

[deleted]

NukeThePope is a frequent antitheist poster to /r/atheism. He made a post the other day about how much better East Germany must be for being atheist. I think about him about as much as I think of any other power user on reddit; not terribly much.

NO WAIT I'M JUST A FAGGOT WHO SPENDS ALL DAY STALKING PEOPLE TO TAKE THEM DOWN ON REDDIT.

[deleted]

huh. you know, sometimes people talk about mitt romney attacking obama for points that romney himself is weak on. i didn't realize it was such a common strategy. I'm referring to when I said to you "I think you have self-esteem issues", and bam, your next 5 or so comments are you trying to attack my self-esteem.

[deleted]

lol

well that was worth the read

He has a point lol, joking, we are all eccentric on this subreddit which is a good thing but this guy is a complete wacko.

I mean I know I'm a little bat shit or at least that's what my family and friends tell me for some of my believes. But this is stupid it's like saying god wants depopulate the afterlife by making gingers.

Has nothing to do with god. Only evil people

No I don't at all think they had a choice in the matter for most of them. I wasn't trying to be offensive. I also have gay friends. The first few years of your life, starting from conception, you are exposed to things that possibly could help facilitate your life decisions into becoming homosexual which in turn would help out the population problem. It's just a thought I wanted to put out there to hear what other people thought about it.

Well your idea leaves little room for free will to make any of us into the person we want to be. If subliminal gay messages were targeted at certain children then other messages had to be shoved in mine and your faces. So neither of us are anything but the type of adults that someone wanted us to be.

Correct. You have no free will of who you will become you are your environment. Ever heard the phrase you can take the kid out of the hood but you can't take the hood out of the kid? Or something like that. I do believe people can change who they are as they get older because they are able to make decisions on their own.

Hang on a minute. Why do you find this idea offensive? It has not been established scientifically the reason for homosexuality , so why would you find it offensive that someone for someone to offer a suggestion that it would be possible to initiate an agenda to turn people gay.

If the cause of homosexuality is not generally known, is it not possible that actions taken by parties could cause homosexuality?

You idea assumes that gays are preprogrammed for some depopulation plot

No , I allow for the possibility that people could be influenced to become homosexual.

Ok then I am sorry for all this fuss I've caused, I thought you were implying something else.

no need to be sorry. It's all about the discussion.

You seem like a good man I had you all wrong when I first posted

If, as you say, we have not scientifically established the cause of homosexuality, how could we possibly be causing it on purpose?

If the cause is not established then anything is possible ?

You're not getting it. How can an intentional conspiracy possibly work if the only way it can work is unintentionally? It would be as if a shadowy pact was made to do... nothing in particular.

Also I'm pretty sure they did find a gay gene

I'd like to see a citation for that. Having a great deal of experience from reading the medical/scientific literature I doubt highly the validity of that.

Ok I will admit I can't but I do feel I read it somewhere

They probably found a gene or snp that was statistically more prevalent in homosexuals but that in no way counts as evidence.

I will agree and recant my statements

the reality is that the reason for homosexuality is as well understood as that of mental illness.i.e partially hereditary and partly environmentally based. Homosexuality was considered a mental illness by the way.

term "mental illness" would not be right description for sexual preference.

Take a look at this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvdBSSUviys

I didn't say that mental illness as a description for sexual preference. I merely suggested that homosexuality was as well understood as mental illness .

But it was used to describe homosexuality and term "mental illness" is used very often to discredit group of people. I think it is important to note that. Homosexuals were prosecuted for their sexual preference in that way.

Yes , mental illness is arguably a social construct, with little biological or aetiological basis despite what pharmaceutical endorsed studies have led us to believe. I am not exactly sure what your point was. Not trying to be rude. Perhaps you could rephrase?

I was just pointing out to injustice done to people who describe them self as homosexuals.

I know

Are you referring to the cluster? I think iv'e read something about the size of a cluster in your head had something to do with it. Not sure though.

You been reduced to petty insults.

Who did I insult? lol

Sorry I thought I was replying to someone else.

Your feelings of offense are irrelevent. They only exist because you have been conditioned by pro-homosexual propaganda to feel this way. What must be looked at is the historical context -- how has homosexuality been regarded over the past five thousand years, in different cultures around the world. The overwhelming attitude toward it has been strong condemnation.

What?! So you're saying because I have black friends and fell bad for the way they were treated is anti slavery messages? Blacks were condemned for most of history too. As well as people with mental disorders and "whiches." so we should all just fuck with the others mental and emotional states because most of history did it that way? You sir are dumb as fuck.

[deleted]

It is the same and seeing how homosexuals were praised in Greece and Rome not all cultures condemned them

[deleted]

I'm not sure the exact dates but wasn't it around the time when philosophy was being born?

No, it was at time of decline of civilization.

At the time of decline civilization is starting to turn on it self. Eating it self from within.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_of_the_Roman_Empire

No, it was literally the entire time. And Grecian men were fucking each other literally hundreds of years before the founding of Rome.

EDIT: Hundreds yes, thousands no.

Ancient Greece (Hellenic) had a few city's / states (polis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polis )with different way of life. Sparta is one example. Hellenic culture did have homosexual people but some of the relationship from that time would be considered pedophile. it is a wrong conclusion that practices that were used in one city /state were prevalent in other city's / states.

You should read this.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty_in_ancient_Greece

In Hellenic times they also had slaves.

You should enroll in a classical history course in your nearest place of higher education.

Hellenic culture did have homosexual people but some of the relationship from that time would be considered pedophile. It is a wrong conclusion that practices that were used in one city-state were prevalent in other city-states.

That...what? These people still existed. I think you're missing the point of this whole everything: Greeks didn't "invent" homosexuality. The Romans did not "invent" homosexuality. Homosexuality did not suddenly appear and signal the end of an empire. Human sexuality is far more fluid in its expression than many people in the present assume- gay, straight, and bisexual, and asexual are just a few of the equally valid and equally natural orientations human beings might consider themselves at any given time.

Furthermore, I think you should read this before you claim that man-on-man-poundings began during the decline of the Roman Empire.

TL;DR ?

Arguing about homosexuality and its relationship with the decline of any civilization is ridiculous.

Well, it is a hypothesis...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis

A hypothesis (from Ancient Greek ὑπόθεσις; plural: hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. The term derives from the Greek, ὑποτιθέναι – hypotithenai meaning "to put under" or "to suppose". For a hypothesis to be put forward as a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it. Scientists generally base scientific hypotheses on previous observations that cannot satisfactorily be explained with the available scientific theories. Even though the words "hypothesis" and "theory" are often used synonymously, a scientific hypothesis is not the same as a scientific theory. A working hypothesis is a provisionally accepted hypothesis proposed for further research.

I was talking about Greece I had no idea about Rome but that seems to make sense

It is the same thing in every civilization collapse in history. Same events are occurring over and over..

Historic recurrence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historic_recurrence

Nevertheless, while it is often remarked that "History repeats itself," in cycles of less than cosmological duration this cannot be strictly true. That was appreciated by Mark Twain, who has been quoted as saying that "History does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme."

It was accepted during the entirety of their civilization. The Romans, Greeks, Egyptians, and other Mediterranean cultures had homosexuality built into their culture. It was part of their religion even, with their heroes and gods often having homosexual affairs.

Thank you for being historically-literate.

Don't know why you're getting downvoted as that is a valid question. Couldn't fund anything specific, but I know for sure it was big in Plato's time, and it is featured commonly in mythology

EDIT:I mean revered/accepted, I know it always has existed

Alternative sexualities have existed in similar proportions since the dawn of civilization. Whether or not a particular society persecutes, ignores, threatens, or accepts these sexualities has, of course, varied.

But non-acceptance does not mean these people did not exist.

Discrimination against homosexuality has been around a hell of a lot longer than discrimination against color. Were talking since the dawn of man. How long would you expect a caveman to survive being homosexual? It would not of been tolerated then. So no, I don't think he is comparing the two.

[citation needed]

Wait, so homosexuality is at the same time both more ancient than civilization itself and a new frightening world-depopulation scheme? My goodness, it's far more sinister than I had thought!

Yes, homos have been around longer than civilization building.

I suspect that discrimination against colour has been going on a good fair while too though. In days gone by aversion those significantly difference in appearance would have been the norm I believe .

Just because it had happened doesn't mean we should keep it going. We aren't cave men we are supposed to be alot smarter then this. And just because it doesn't help populate the world doesn't mean it shouldn't be allowed to happen

I'm not saying it shouldn't be allowed to happen at all. I'm ok with people being gay. I just think that TPTB could and would manipulate it to help with their depopulation program. Or could be a natural way for nature to control our population explosion.

Well if I remember right I read somewhere the CIA made a gay bomb. 30 rock used it as a joke in one of their episodes but it happened in real life too

Edit for all those dumbass downvoters: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_bomb

Lolwut

you're a fucking retard.

And why is that?

take a guess.

Ah man im no good at guessing games

Maybe this is why:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_bomb

from the article:

Despite these claims, no pheromonal substance has ever been demonstrated to directly influence human behavior in a peer reviewed study.

I never said it worked I said they tried to make one. So shut the fuck and go troll someone else because you got proved wrong.

You seriously think I'm 'trolling' you? You really are retarded.

I can't figure out if you're a dumb troll or just really really stupid

facepalm.jpg

Discrimination against homosexuality has been around a hell of a lot longer than discrimination against color.

Would really like to see some evidence for this.

Do I really fucking need too? honestly you can't think for yourself on that one? You don't think homosexuality has been around since the dawn of man? We were all black at one time. I bet you have a problem with that huh. Homos would not of been tolerated in those days they would of been killed. God you people are fucking stupid. Probably christian too

Atheist/Biologist actually. You're just assuming that they would not have been tolerated since the "dawn of man", as you're projecting your own homophobic tendencies on to your ancestors. You haven't got a fucking clue whether Homo habilis or Australopithecus Africanus cared whether they saw one dude fucking another dude. You only THINK they would have had a problem, where as the likely scenario is they had bigger things on their mind, such as not being eaten or fighting over territory with another tribe.

Also, i find it funny how you try to make it seem like i'm racist in order to make your arguments more valid. Also, you might want to check on your grammar before calling other people stupid, it doesn't make you come across well.

The fact remains, you have literally no proof that homosexual tendencies were frowned upon by our ancestors, but are still certain that it was the case. Quite frankly, it's hilarious.

No homophobic tendencies here. I could care less what you think about my grammar, I'm not writing a paper or book. So, do you really think it would of been excepted back in the day and it just recently became unacceptable? I personally don't give a rats ass if a man likes a man, this was not what the post was about. It's not natural or you would see it more often in the animal kingdom. Something within our environment is creating it, weather it be man made or nature. I guess I could see it being natural if nature was doing it to protect itself against our ever increasing population growth. Which is a serious problem to our way of life and to our planet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

"Your feeling of offense are irrelevant." That's pretty much the most obnoxious thing that I have ever read. How can you make any claim about someone else's reality without ANY information or evidence. Yeah, and do you know why it is easy to condemn a minority? Because then you can gain political power by inciting the majority against the minority.

He's got a point with "Your feelings of offense are irrelevant."

If neo-nazis were in power, they'd be offended if you questioned their ways.

Saudi Arabians can be greatly offended if you compare them to animals in any way, like "You are strong as an ox." That may make it unwise to say it, but doesn't mean you were any less correct that you would be if the person chose not to be offended.

Some Buddhists may choose not to be offended by insults against them. Does that mean that insults against them are more likely to be true?

That makes no fucking sense. Just because people in the past did it means everybody should do it.

You never go full retard

[deleted]

Couple of generalization and errors in your comment. 1) a vast majority of the gay population does not have "the gay accent", 2) a huge amount of kids do purposly dress/act against the status quo on a daily basis just to "not fit in" and are therefor discriminated against. I actually believe it is a form of PTSD caused from a traumatic event that a child encounters during puberty. A few studies have touched on this and I know from first hand experience my gay friends have a very traumatic even that happened to tem during puberty. However, I care not to prove, "cure", or end it. I personally think what a person does to their own body is up to them.

Whatever people want to do with their own lifes and behind close doors isn't any of my business

More people need to think this way. Bravo

I agree with everything you said. Now, what if everyone is born with that gene and it takes something in the environment that turns it on. It's no choice of the individual.

[deleted]

It could be numerous different things, it doesn't have to be a violent act in my opinion but it could. It's environmental. Could be something that happens to babies in the womb.

It all started with kinsey report

The Kinsey Report: How a Rockefeller Funded Study Laid the Groundwork For Today's Moral and Cultural Collapse

Essentially "The Kinsey Report" said that aberrant sexual behavior was so common as to be normal. Thanks to psychologist Dr. Judith Reisman, we now know that Alfred Kinsey was a homosexual and the "Kinsley Report" was a fraud.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2004/100804culturalcollapse.htm

Both of Kinsey’s most recent admiring biographers confessed he was a sadistic bi/homosexual who seduced his male students and coerced his wife, his staff, and the staff’s wives to perform for and with him in illegal pornographic films made in the family attic. Kinsey and his mates, Wardell Pomeroy, Clyde Martin, and Paul Gebhard, had "front" marriages, which concealed their strategies to supplant what they saw as a narrow procreational Judeo Christian era with a promiscuous "anything goes" bi/gay pedophile paradise. We now know Kinsey, for example, "was deeply influenced by five pedophile headmasters who were quite clear they had very warm relationships with young adolescent boys of twelve or thirteen" in one New England area. An early adherent and advocate of masturbation, Kinsey suffered an untimely death due, at least in part, to "orchitis," a lethal infection in his testicles that followed years of sadistic, orgiastic "self-abuse." Kinsey’s obsessive, brutally masochistic masturbation methods appear to have assisted in his early demise. Kinsey solicited and encouraged pedophiles, at home and abroad, to sexually violate from 317 to 2035 infants and children for his alleged data on normal "child sexuality." Many of the crimes against children (oral and anal sodomy, genital intercourse and manual abuse) committed for Kinsey’s research are quantified in his own graphs and charts .......Kinsey’s closet team 1) "forced" subjects to give the desired answers to their sex questions, 2) secretly trashed three quarters of their research data, and 3) based their claims about normal males on a roughly eighty-six percent aberrant male population including 200 sexual psychopaths, 1400 sex offenders and hundreds each of prisoners, male prostitutes, and promiscuous homosexuals. Moreover, so few normal women would talk to them that the Kinsey team labeled women who lived over a year with a man "married," reclassifying data on prostitutes and other unconventional women as "Susie Homemaker."

http://www.drjudithreisman.com/archives/regent.pdf

An effective foot soldier in the subjugation of the masses was the Rockefeller-funded Alfred C. Kinsey, the co-author of the highly influential Sexual Behavior In The Human Male, and other volumes. One technique of eugenics (selective breeding) and control is the destruction of traditional morality, and Kinsey may have accomplished more in that respect than any other man this century.

Kinsey studied at the Bussey Institution at Harvard in the 1920s (at the time a hotbed of eugenics research), then moved on to teach at Indiana University, where his work in cultural deconstruction would ultimately succeed in decimating American sexual mores, help to fragment the family, and would leave the population far more vulnerable to reproductive, cultural, familial, and mind programming.

Kinsey, always portrayed in the press as a wholesome "leave it to Beaver" style family man, was "one of the scholarly eugenicists of pre-World War II", according to biographer James Jones. Kinsey recommended that a portion of the "lower classes" be sterilized to foster a more robust gene pool.

Among his intimates was Dr. Ewen Cameron, the infamous CIA-funded mind control doctor.

Another of Kinsey's influences was Dr. Herrmann Muller, one of his colleagues at Indiana University. Muller, who had begun receiving Rockefeller funding from the National Research Council in 1925, received a Guggenheim grant in 1932 to pursue his work in the genetics department of the Rockefeller-funded Kaiser Wilhelm Brain Resarch Institute in Berlin.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVwbVRNwm6s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpN_QTRcrVQ

Playboy and the (Homo) Sexual Revolution

http://www.savethemales.ca/000165.html

And if we take a look in public relations (propaganda) and how it is easy to influence public.... with all pro gay agenda in media...

There was 0% of women smoking in 1900... now there is 17,3% and all this after public relation campaign

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0OrT-8gXMs

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/adult_data/cig_smoking/

Absolutely it could.

There has been no shortage of 'gay is ok' propoganda and general focus on gayness over the last 20 years.

Couple that with the studies which show that the industrial chemicals which mimic estrogen , including contraceptive pill which finds its way into the water supply due to recycling of toilet water. You have a recipe for feminisation.

Does anyone have an explanation for the rapid decrease in sperm count in the last 50 years. If I was paranoid , I might be of the persuasion that there were an orchestrated attempt at reducing fertility in order to reduce population growth.

If it isn't an orchestrated program to exterminate white Christians, it might as well be, because that is its effect.

Exactly, because if there is anybody in this world that is truly persecuted, it's White Christians. Have a look around the world outside of your narrow-minded subscriptions. Remember the Dark Ages and the Inquisition? Views like yours advocate hatred and bigotry.

[deleted]

Really? Westboro Baptist Church, anyone? Indoctrinating children to fear their own bodies and sexuality? Second-class citizenship for homosexuals in America and a lot of the rest of the world based off of scanty interpretations of the Bible? Pushes to remove examples of evolution from South Korean textbooks? But you're right, it's less barbarous. But then, so is sexism and racism, but their subtlety doesn't make it any less offensive. People have just gotten better at being bigots, is all.

Which church? I really hope you don't mean catholic, because i wouldn't even know where to start. Otherwise, it depends on the church, some are better than others

The bullshit.... can you smell it? And do you enjoy your victim complex? I assume you are a white maleand (probably christian) and I'm gonna go out on a limb and say you've never been persecuted in your life for those reasons.

what's it like to have so much unwarranted hatred inside your heart?

to be honest t , when I encounter the destroying christianity argument I am someone turned off. Perhaps because I am agnostic atheist. I recognise that it could be argued that christianity has had a profoundly positive influence on humanity in general but I can''t help but see it as a somewhat archaic control system.

When you talk about exterminating whites , I can't counter that argument as , if you look at the population data then whites certainly are a minority. Kind of ironic as where I come from (uk) there is often talk of ethnic minority, but actually whites are the ethnic minority, particularly real whites (blue eyed, light haired people)

That's what Hollywood is doing.

So how many Hollywood films would it take for you to turn gay?

I don't know... Once I saw what there were trying to do, I stopped watching them...

And you...

None, because I don't think that's possible.

Homosexuality has always been around. It should be a self-limiting problem: homos don't have babies, hence they should die off within a generation. But they don't. Nobody knows why homosexuality keeps emerging from the hetrosexual norm.

However, in past historical periods, not only in Western cultures but around the world, homosexuality has been strongly discouraged. Those who exhibited homosexual tendencies were ostracized, and this pressure was designed to force them to conform to the hetrosexual norm. Nobody decided to implement this censure. It was a reponse of the group consciousness of the people as a whole, an instinct. We must assume that there is a reason for this rejection of homosexuality, even if we are not bright enough to figure out what the reason may be. We must assume that homosexuality was perceived by the human race as a whole as a danger to its survival.

Homosexuality has been almost universally rejected, except in very decadent cultures shortly before their collapse. Today, it is being embraced by a large percentage of the people, and this embrace is driven by ceaseless, relentless pro-homosexual propaganda.

This raises several interesting questions. Who is pumping out this propaganda, and why? Well, we know who controls our media. It is the Jews. Why would Jews wish to encourage homosexuality among Christians? Can it be a deliberate tool to weaken both Christianity as a religion, and white European culture? Are the Jewish leaders in Israel encouraging homosexuality among Jews in Israel?

If our culture is in a decadent phase, it may be that nothing can save it. However, if we believe that the downward spiral can be slowed, if not stopped, then the censure of homosexuality is one of the things that is necessary for slowing this decline.

Homosexuality is not tolerated in Islam. This may be one reason why Islam is destined to triumph over both Christianity and Judaism. It enforces codes of behavior that, in the long run, contribute to the survival of the culture, and the peoples under its rule.

Am I saying that Islam is good? No, of course not. It is benighted and oppressive. But if Christians cannot defend themselves from the degeneration of white Christian culture, which is being encouraged and facilitated by Jews for their own purposes, it may be that Islam is inevitable. If Christians give up power over their own lives, a vacuum will be created, and another power will fill this vacuum. It won't be Judaism -- Jews want to exploit and destroy Christians, they don't want to convert them -- it will be Islam.

Am I saying that homosexuals should be beaten and killed? No, of course not. I am saying that if our Western civilization, which is a white Christian civilization, is to survive for much longer, homosexuality is one of the behaviors that must be discouraged and minimized in the culture. This is clear, historically.

Homosexuality has always been around. It should be a self-limiting problem: homos don't have babies, hence they should die off within a generation. But they don't. Nobody knows why homosexuality keeps emerging from the hetrosexual norm.

That presupposes that homosexuals don't ever have sex with people of the opposite sex. That's a mistake.

However, in past historical periods, not only in Western cultures but around the world, homosexuality has been strongly discouraged. Those who exhibited homosexual tendencies were ostracized, and this pressure was designed to force them to conform to the hetrosexual norm. Nobody decided to implement this censure. It was a reponse of the group consciousness of the people as a whole, an instinct.

Much the same could be said of those who were left-handed. Also, it's worth saying homosexuality was actually tolerated and, to a certain degree, celebrated in certain cultures such as ancient Greece, ancient Rome, and even Native American culture. Don't get me wrong, that doesn't change the fact that yes, homosexuality was viewed in a negative light by many ancient cultures, but certainly not all of them.

We must assume that there is a reason for this rejection of homosexuality, even if we are not bright enough to figure out what the reason may be. We must assume that homosexuality was perceived by the human race as a whole as a danger to its survival.

Must we? That's a lot of assumption. An appeal to antiquity is a weak argument, especially as it relates to the proto-evolution of morality.

Who is pumping out this propaganda, and why? Well, we know who controls our media.

I would assume by homosexuals like me who are tired of being marginalized for something we have no control over: who we love.

It is the Jews.

[citation needed] Also, that's ridiculous. Both reform and orthodox Jews have been some of the loudest critics of gay rights. I mean, I can offer citation, but I'm pretty sure a cursory googling would confirm.

If our culture is in a decadent phase, it may be that nothing can save it. However, if we believe that the downward spiral can be slowed, if not stopped, then the censure of homosexuality is one of the things that is necessary for slowing this decline.

I'm actually interested in this idea. How does your context-less policing of what goes on in my bedroom prevent the decay of our culture? Enlighten me, please.

Homosexuality is not tolerated in Islam.

You mean they horrifically murder my kind. Yes. I'm aware.

But if Christians cannot defend themselves from the degeneration of white Christian culture, which is being encouraged and facilitated by Jews for their own purposes, it may be that Islam is inevitable.

If Christians can't perpetuate their brand of "the truth", then what does that say about their God? Just a thought.

Am I saying that homosexuals should be beaten and killed? No, of course not. I am saying that if our Western civilization, which is a white Christian civilization, is to survive for much longer, homosexuality is one of the behaviors that must be discouraged and minimized in the culture. This is clear, historically.

We shouldn't be beaten and killed. Thank you for that generous allowance. How, praytell, should we best be oppressed then? What should you do to minimize our so-called influence. Is it enough to just verbally berate us? Call us fags? Dykes? I'm a personal fan of "butt pirate."

I just don't understand why you think you have the right to minimize my humanity. I just don't get why you think you have the right to enforce your morality on me. You said earlier in your...whatever the hell you call your diatribe...that we've always been around.

That's right.

We have.

And we will continue to be around, not because we're some disease you can't eradicate, but because we are an intrinsic part of the human experience. Socrates, Plato, Oscar Wilde, Alan Turing. Your precious culture and civilization wouldn't exist without our contributions. There is no conspiracy here, or perhaps it's better to say that there is nothing nefarious here.

As a homosexual, I don't care about your approval. I don't care about your opinion. I don't need your support. All I want is what I deserve: my humanity and my dignity. No one deserves to take that away. Not even in the name of defending Christian culture.

Wow, good on you man. Most of the time when I see these long, rambling, racist/homophobic/sexist comments I'll just downvote and move along, but I'm glad someone stood up and called this idiot out on his bullshit. Thanks for being one of the good ones.

Two-spirit isn't a sexual identity. It isn't homosexuality. Bad third example.

Don't get me wrong, I am in full agreement with what you are saying, I'm just trying to clear something up.

You're right to an extent. Two spirit isn't JUST sexual identity, but I think you'll find that the term acts as an umbrella that includes gays, lesbians, and transgendered.

I stand by my third example, but thanks for offering an opportunity for clarity.

Do you have any thoughts as to the reason for homosexuality?

Well, first of all, I'd like to quantify homosexuality in the context of this conversation as a same-sex attraction, because that's the way it's being touted.

Next, I'd like to note that the vast majority of the current scholarship produced by the psychological and psychiatric communities, starting with the work of Alfred Kinsey, seem to indicate that sexuality isn't quite so polarized as we're discussing here.

There's literally mountains of research on the subject from Kinsey's pioneering study to the more recent work of Fritz Klein that supports the idea of a more fluid, dynamic expression of sexuality.

For instance: I identify as a gay male because the majority of my sexual attraction is geared toward other males. Am I also attracted to women on occasion. Hell yes! That girl (NSFW) from the frontpage on July 4th is STILL in the back of my mind, and yeah...I fapped to her.

Does that make me straight? Hell no! Bisexual? Not especially. That girl is hot, but I'd still rather have sex with a hot guy.

The point I'm trying to make is that I think the vast majority of people are attracted to both genders at different points in their lives. I think it's worth noting that most every argument AGAINST homosexuality is religious in nature. Even the few secular arguments that homosexuality somehow defies the laws of nature are woefully unfounded.

So these arguments are framed in such a way that sexuality becomes so very polarized. You're either gay, or straight, or bi, or trans. Or whatever. I think the truth is that each individual has their own sets of dynamic attractions. Maybe they're more heterogenous or more homogenous, but I don't think policing these attractions really profits anyone anything.

I guess at the end of the day, you ask me "Why homosexuality?"

At the risk of being trite, I think I must answer "Why not?"

What is someone as smart, educated, and logical as yourself doing in r/conspiracy?

My roommate told me about the thread, and having recently wrestling with the business of disentangling myself from a religious background, I find threads like this good practice for queer apologetics. Thanks for the compliment, though. :)

These people are difficult to reason with, so I wouldn't waste too much energy. Glad you're working through it, from those I've known that have struggled through the same thing, that type of background decides where you come from but not where you end up. Good luck.

/r/conspiracy is hysterical. I read it for shits and giggles.

Lol man, you're a raging lunatic.

Is there a single topic out there where you're not completely wrong? Because you're starting to run out of them.

Nobody knows why homosexuality keeps emerging from the hetrosexual norm.

Go read The Selfish Gene. Long story short: humans are a social species and childless adult family helps protect and nurture the next generation.

Nobody decided to implement this censure. It was a reponse of the group consciousness of the people as a whole, an instinct.

Wow. Go read some history books while you're at it. The Romans didn't give half a fuck about "censuring" homosexuality. They didn't even recognize the modern concept - their view of sexual preference was tops vs. bottoms. Roman men we'd put on the straight end of the Kinsey scale would think nothing of getting a blowjob from another man, but would sooner eat shit than pussy.

I must take issue here. I believe that Christianity is an insidious plot to eliminate the natural culture and strength of the European people. It reduced Europe from proud free people to slaves and kept them there for eons.

This is an interesting hypothesis. I feel that this is a rather tongue in cheek proposition but perhaps it is not. For sure christianity has been a powerful force on the european population , but many would say one for the better rather than for the worse.

It is not tongue in cheek. I truly believe that it is an alien system of control, imposed through slaughter and fear, resulting in the wholesale destruction of much of European culture, leaving mindless serfs in the charge of foreign royalty.

The idea of hell, especially, as punishment for the wicked allows people to abandon the idea of justice in this world, having faith that it will be meted out in the next.

How pervasive is Christianity now though? I'd concede it was, but now?

I believe 79% of America.

It is rapidly losing adherents, which is an excellent development. People are waking up to the scam.

Homosexuality has always been around. It should be a self-limiting problem: homos don't have babies, hence they should die off within a generation. But they don't. Nobody knows why homosexuality keeps emerging from the hetrosexual norm.

You dumb fuck. Do you have any idea how human genes work? it gets pass down from generations to generations.

You have no idea what you're talking about

The 'gay gene' isn't necessarily the 'have gay babies' gene.

I am interested in understanding the importance in your eyes of the christian faith. Much of what you say and to be fair , what I have read from you makes sense, but the emphasis on christianity confuses me somewhat. Please explain the importance of christianity. I am genuinely curious.

Ok then I am sorry for all this fuss I've caused, I thought you were implying something else.

I just think your environment is what activates the genes. Not everybody who has the cancer gene gets cancer. Why is that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

facepalm.jpg

This is a great way to look at it. I fully agree. I personally think that it is, in a way, a sell out to say it is genetic. There is still much diversity out there but there is a certain strength in just saying "i am what I am, so mind your own business" Be proud of who you are.