Why so many threads about Gay people?

originally posted by: Revelations29
a reply to: Darth_Prime

Homosexuality is one of the leading causes of the destruction of families in America. Look at your present generation today, they are completely #ed up.

HAHAHAHA!!!!! God your ignorance & stupidity never cease to amaze me.

LGBTQ+ has NOTHING to do with why the present generation is messed up.
The reason the present generation is #ed up is because of ignorant ass holes like you who think it is "vile" & an "abomination. The present generation is #ed up because older generations don't give a crap about the future, they only focused on themselves & making money so education fell through the cracks as well as other things.
The present generation is messed up because most families are one parent & they are too busy trying to make money to support their family that they can't properly be there for their child. If there are two parents then the chances are that they still are both having to work to try and get money for their children. Lack of discipline is another reason why the present generation being messed up. (It ties in with parent(s) unable to be there for their children)

You want to talk about causing harm? Self mutilation and spreading AIDS is pretty high on the causing harm spectrum.

Right because self mutilation is only done by LGBTQ+. I totally forgot that my heterosexual sister was cutting herself because she was...oh right HETEROSEXUAL & depressed.

In my other post to you, I already covered your idiotic views about AIDS & how AIDS isn't just for LGBTQ+

one of the worst diseases in history is allowed to spread without warrant.

The worst disease in history that you speak of is called hate. The other one is ignorance, they are both the worse diseases in history. After all, LGBTQ+ isn't a disease.

Oh and I almost forgot, Homosexuality and Pedophilia

Of course you had to use this retarded stereotype.
Facts About Homosexuality and Child Molestation

As an expert panel of researchers convened by the National Academy of Sciences noted in a 1993 report: "The distinction between homosexual and heterosexual child molesters relies on the premise that male molesters of male victims are homosexual in orientation. Most molesters of boys do not report sexual interest in adult men, however" (National Research Council, 1993, p. 143, citation omitted).

To avoid this confusion, it is preferable to refer to men's sexual abuse of boys with the more accurate label of male-male molestation. Similarly, it is preferable to refer to men's abuse of girls as male-female molestation. These labels are more accurate because they describe the sex of the individuals involved but don't implicitly convey unwarranted assumptions about the perpetrator's sexual orientation.

The distinction between a victim's gender and a perpetrator's sexual orientation is important because many child molesters don't really have an adult sexual orientation. They have never developed the capacity for mature sexual relationships with other adults, either men or women. Instead, their sexual attractions focus on children – boys, girls, or children of both sexes.

For the present discussion, the important point is that many child molesters cannot be [meaningfully described as homosexuals, heterosexuals, or bisexuals (in the usual sense of those terms) because they are not really capable of a relationship with an adult man or woman. Instead of gender, their sexual attractions are based primarily on age. These individuals – who are often characterized as fixated – are attracted to children, not to men or women.

a reply to: Revelations29

Sigh, okay, get your life gurl...

i can provide links about research that disputes everything you have said, but you wont change because you don't want to.. and that is your right... and who is brainwashed?

a reply to: Darth_Prime

I am not a psychologist, so I will make no judgements regarding whether there is a mental illness involved or not.

However, the following is fact and is borne out by many studies regarding population densities: The denser the population, the more prevalent the existence of homosexual behavior. The same curve applies to such behavior as cannibalism and other "antisocial" behaviors.

Before I get flamed, I am not trying to equate homosexuality with antisocial behaviors or cannibalism. The point is that it appears that, in addition to disease, as populations increase in density nature has it's own methods of curbing population growth.

You may draw your own opinions regarding the nature of homosexuality but the correlation to population density is clear.

This is from but one study on the subject:

In a 1962 edition of Scientific American, the ecologist John B Calhoun presented the results of a macabre series of experiments conducted at the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH).1 He had placed several rats in a laboratory in a converted barn where – protected from disease and predation and supplied with food, water and bedding – they bred rapidly. The one thing they were lacking was space, a fact that became increasingly problematic as what he liked to describe as his “rat city” and “rodent utopia” teemed with animals. Unwanted social contact occurred with increasing frequency, leading to increased stress and aggression. Following the work of the physiologist, Hans Selye, it seemed that the adrenal system offered the standard binary solution: fight or flight.2 But in the sealed enclosure, flight was impossible. Violence quickly spiralled out of control. Cannibalism and infanticide followed. Males became hypersexual, pansexual and, an increasing proportion, homosexual. Calhoun called this vortex “a behavioural sink”. Their numbers fell into terminal decline and the population tailed off to extinction. At the experiments’ end, the only animals still alive had survived at an immense psychological cost: asexual and utterly withdrawn, they clustered in a vacant huddled mass. Even when reintroduced to normal rodent communities, these “socially autistic” animals remained isolated until death. In the words of one of Calhoun’s collaborators, rodent “utopia” had descended into “hell”.

But would that mean that we are Born Gay as we say we are? or that we get the Gay Switch turnt (Slang) on so we can depopulate crowded populations?

a reply to: Darth_Prime

If you are asking me, then yes. As a switch turned on. With an appropriate increase in population density the existing and previously "normal" mice changed behaviors in less than a generation. There was no need to wait for reproduction.

No doubt this is at the genetic level, or something that is "programmed in" as a response to overpopulation. Taken to extremes (as the study shows) the results are quite disastrous.

I duplicated this with an aquarium and field mice back in the late 60s... I did not take it to conclusion, however. I terminated the study as soon as the cannibalism showed up.

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: Darth_Prime

I am not a psychologist, so I will make no judgements regarding whether there is a mental illness involved or not.

However, the following is fact and is borne out by many studies regarding population densities: The denser the population, the more prevalent the existence of homosexual behavior. The same curve applies to such behavior as cannibalism and other "antisocial" behaviors.

Before I get flamed, I am not trying to equate homosexuality with antisocial behaviors or cannibalism. The point is that it appears that, in addition to disease, as populations increase in density nature has it's own methods of curbing population growth.

You may draw your own opinions regarding the nature of homosexuality but the correlation to population density is clear.

This is from but one study on the subject:

In a 1962 edition of Scientific American, the ecologist John B Calhoun presented the results of a macabre series of experiments conducted at the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH).1 He had placed several rats in a laboratory in a converted barn where – protected from disease and predation and supplied with food, water and bedding – they bred rapidly. The one thing they were lacking was space, a fact that became increasingly problematic as what he liked to describe as his “rat city” and “rodent utopia” teemed with animals. Unwanted social contact occurred with increasing frequency, leading to increased stress and aggression. Following the work of the physiologist, Hans Selye, it seemed that the adrenal system offered the standard binary solution: fight or flight.2 But in the sealed enclosure, flight was impossible. Violence quickly spiralled out of control. Cannibalism and infanticide followed. Males became hypersexual, pansexual and, an increasing proportion, homosexual. Calhoun called this vortex “a behavioural sink”. Their numbers fell into terminal decline and the population tailed off to extinction. At the experiments’ end, the only animals still alive had survived at an immense psychological cost: asexual and utterly withdrawn, they clustered in a vacant huddled mass. Even when reintroduced to normal rodent communities, these “socially autistic” animals remained isolated until death. In the words of one of Calhoun’s collaborators, rodent “utopia” had descended into “hell”.

I have a question for your example on the mice. What about the rest of the animal kingdom? There are some homosexual animals so are they only that way to avoid over population or are they born that way?

I have a rebuttal to your post overall. LGBTQ+ can still have babies. ((see one of my above posts for examples)) If LGBTQ+ couldn't have children, then at least they could adopt the children heterosexuals don't want. Either way, mankind won't end, just maybe a slight decrease in population but not much. ((besides we could use a little less humans))

Right, we still have the "Ability" to impregnate, so really we don't "Depopulate" as we can contribute to the population

i'm a little confused about this Mice test, so the Mice didn't "Turn Gay" as the mice had more children the children were Gay?

a reply to: knoledgeispower

Number one: Yes, this will happen with all species, at least as far as mammals are concerned. I am not aware of any studies involving reptiles, for instance, and population density. I think it is pretty clear that this is a population control behavior.

Two: The mice could reproduce...they are not biologically changed any more than humans are. It's that the instinctive imperative is no longer there. The cases of LGBTQ members reproducing would definitely place them in a minority. One other thing: When they do reproduce, do they do it the normal way? Or do they rely on artificial means predominantly?

Regarding humans: What would you say is the incidence rate in lower population density models (such as rural for example) vs high density populations such as our larger cities? I submit (and I am sure I could pull up the data to support this easily enough) that the rate of homosexuality is much higher in high density populations as opposed to low density populations. There are studies regarding human population densities as well... google is a marvelous tool.

a reply to: Darth_Prime

In the study I quoted...the population was driven through successive generations reproducing without any predators or lack of food and a maintenance of hygiene to prevent disease.

In the one I ran, I periodically added "new members" until the behaviors began to show up. There was just the single generation with no reproduction. In a relatively small area (like 2 sq ft) I started with 2 mice...and each day I would add a couple more. I believe that within a week (was a long time ago) I was seeing altered behavior even though there was plenty of food and water. Aggression was...astounding.

But how does that translate to Humans Just because Mice did it in a controlled situation?

So i am Gay because the population needs to be lessened? but i was Born Straight?... i mean i'm only 23 so at what point did my body recognize the need to turn Gay to depopulate?

a reply to: Darth_Prime

The rate of homosexuality increases in humans along with the increase in population density.

While there is no solid "gotcha" data that proves the theory beyond any doubt, there is also no proof of the existence of a "gay" gene. If one is there, it has yet to be found.

So where does this leave us? Fact is, there is still much we do not know. There could be a "gay" gene. Or there might not be one...

In the case of there is not one, then the suggestion that one is "born" gay seems a bit disingenuous but at the same time does not rule out the possibility.

If there is one, then we are faced with the possibility that the gene may only kick in when population densities are at a certain level... In other words, there may be a gene that creates a predisposition for homosexuality given specific triggers exist. Or not lol

Fact is, we just do not know. Does it really make a difference what the bottom line cause is? It's not like we need to maximize reproduction. If people are happy being gay then...more power to them. We should find happiness where we can. At least, that is my approach to life.

I am 60, and I learned a while back that success, wealth etc are not important. Not having money may make one sad, but having money does not guarantee happiness. Therefore, the important things in life are family, health and happiness.

To quote a friend of mine: "What good does it do one to be able to afford the toys we want to play with if we do not have the time?" If we have the time, and cannot afford the toys, is that any worse?

Oh...and one more thing: If one believes in evolution there would seem to be no reason for homosexuality to persevere in nature. It would seems likely that such a trait would have been bred out of us long ago, if it has no beneficial use. Therefore one almost has to conclude that, for the trait to have been continued, there has to be a positive survival aspect to it. One is lead to conclude that, as a curb to population density, it proves it's contribution to survival and hence survives rather than being bred out.

Either that or it is totally outside of the evolutionary process.

a reply to: Darth_Prime

Please by all means, provide them. I'm an open minded guy, I was just like you people, believing people should do what they want as long as they dont harm anyone else. Then I did some reading.

a reply to: knoledgeispower

"Right because self mutilation is only done by LGBTQ+"

Straw Man. I never said Self Mutilation was only done by Gay people.

So you think "hate" is worse than AIDS? That's a funny idea. I don't think I'm spreading hate, I want things to get better, I want people to realize that homosexuality is doing more harm then good. You can do better then that.

Not all gays are of course pedophiles. That's not what I'm getting at. Homosexuality can be a result of child abuse, which is well documented from my posts. Homosexuals also have a higher chance of acquiring mental illnesses.

“Overwhelming evidence supports the belief that homosexuality is a sexual deviancy often accompanied by disorders that have dire consequences for our culture,” wrote Steve Baldwin in, “Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement,” soon to be published by the Regent University Law Review.
Read more at www.wnd.com...

www.wnd.com...


And why are you completely avoiding the fact that homosexuals are the direct cause of the spread of AIDS in America? You can see my CDC report from my previous posts.

And why is it that in over 8,000 years of recorded human history, there hasn't been a single case of homosexual marriage.

The entire "gay movement" is a hoax.

a reply to: knoledgeispower

Homosexuality in animals is a blatant lie and complete hoax as well.

- "Homosexual" Animals Do Not Exist

In 1996, homosexual scientist Simon LeVay admitted that the evidence pointed to isolated acts, not to homosexuality:

Although homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity.[11]
Despite the "homosexual" appearances of some animal behavior, this behavior does not stem from a "homosexual" instinct that is part of animal nature. Dr. Antonio Pardo, Professor of Bioethics at the University of Navarre, Spain, explains:

Properly speaking, homosexuality does not exist among animals.... For reasons of survival, the reproductive instinct among animals is always directed towards an individual of the opposite sex. Therefore, an animal can never be homosexual as such. Nevertheless, the interaction of other instincts (particularly dominance) can result in behavior that appears to be homosexual. Such behavior cannot be equated with an animal homosexuality. All it means is that animal sexual behavior encompasses aspects beyond that of reproduction.[12]

www.narth.org...

a reply to: bbracken677

Well, that is the foundation of many peoples rationale for discrimination. that we "Selected" to live this "Deviant" lifestyle and we shouldn't get Equal Rights Etc because it's our "Choice"

my problem with that is it sounds like the "Heterosexuals" are the dominate Species based on Reproduction, but we can reproduce too, it's reducing me down to nothing but population controller

a reply to: Revelations29

I being a (Homosexual) does not harm you or anyone in this world. you are using research that fits your Agenda, i can find research that is the exact opposite that may be bias towards the GLBT community, we can debate which is correct, or which is right all day.

a reply to: Darth_Prime

I see...

Nevertheless...it does not change who you are. It (to me) is equivalent to trivia. A piece of information that does not change reality one iota. It does not change you, who you are or what you do (in an overall sense)... it is theory that is unproven.

So..if homosexuality is not a genetic thing, then all the rights will go away? I kinda think not...

The studies do not suggest that homosexuality is a choice... just not necessarily genetic.

originally posted by: Revelations29
a reply to: knoledgeispower

Homosexuality in animals is a blatant lie and complete hoax as well.

- "Homosexual" Animals Do Not Exist

In 1996, homosexual scientist Simon LeVay admitted that the evidence pointed to isolated acts, not to homosexuality:

Although homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity.[11]
Despite the "homosexual" appearances of some animal behavior, this behavior does not stem from a "homosexual" instinct that is part of animal nature. Dr. Antonio Pardo, Professor of Bioethics at the University of Navarre, Spain, explains:

Properly speaking, homosexuality does not exist among animals.... For reasons of survival, the reproductive instinct among animals is always directed towards an individual of the opposite sex. Therefore, an animal can never be homosexual as such. Nevertheless, the interaction of other instincts (particularly dominance) can result in behavior that appears to be homosexual. Such behavior cannot be equated with an animal homosexuality. All it means is that animal sexual behavior encompasses aspects beyond that of reproduction.[12]

www.narth.org...

I see your vied inaccurate report and raise you with the reality of bonobos and their lesbian matriarchal rituals. Rad the link and watch the video at the end. Te truth will set you free.

www.dailymail.co.uk...

a reply to: Revelations29

mrsatopic.com...

beforeitsnews.com/health/2012/07/mrsa-or-aids-which-kills-more-americans-2421528.html

“The fact that more Americans (>19,000) die every year from invasive MRSA infections, (according to the Centers for Disease Control – CDC) than from HIV/AIDS every year should be a wake-up call for immediate action, MRSA is a preventable disease, states Jeanine Thomas, founder of MRSA Survivors Network".

Sorry, i can't get this link to work

originally posted by: Revelations29
a reply to: knoledgeispower

And why are you completely avoiding the fact that homosexuals are the direct cause of the spread of AIDS in America? You can see my CDC report from my previous posts.

I'm not avoiding it, I told you that your "fact" is b.s and I quoted:
"Misconceptions about HIV and AIDS arise from several different sources, from simple ignorance and misunderstandings about scientific knowledge regarding HIV infections and the etiology of AIDS ((that's you)) to misinformation propagated by individuals and groups with ideological stances that deny a causative relationship between HIV infection and the development of AIDS.

HIV can infect anybody, regardless of age, sex, ethnicity, or sexual orientation. It is true that anal sex (regardless of the gender of the receptive partner) carries a higher risk of infection than most sex acts, but most penetrative sex acts between any individuals carry some risk. Properly used condoms can reduce this risk.


The term AIDS (for acquired immune deficiency syndrome) was proposed later in 1982[5] by researchers concerned with the accuracy of the disease's name. In this new name, scientists were supported by political figures who realized that the term "gay-related" did not fully encompass the demographics of the disease. On April 23, 1984, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary announced at a press conference that the probable cause of AIDS had been discovered: the retrovirus that was subsequently named human immunodeficiency virus or HIV in 1986.


Today, it is generally accepted that the origin of AIDS probably lies in Africa. As you said, poor places don't have homosexuals or transgenders so by your logic, the birth place of AIDS has 0 homosexuals & transgenders. That means that it would have been spread by heterosexuals *gasp*


It was not until July at a meeting in Washington, D.C., that the acronym AIDS (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome) was suggested 9. The CDC used the term for the first time in September 1982, when it reported that an average of one to two cases of AIDS were being diagnosed in the USA every day. 10

In December the CDC reported that three heterosexual haemophiliacs had died after developing PCP and other opportunistic infections. There was nothing to suggest that the patients had acquired AIDS through homosexual contact, or intravenous drug use. What was significant was that all of the patients had received Factor VIII concentrates – a blood transfusion product made by pooling blood from hundreds of donors. "

Both HIV-1 and HIV-2 are believed to have originated in non-human primates in West-central Africa and were transferred to humans in the early 20th century.[5] HIV-1 appears to have originated in southern Cameroon through the evolution of SIV(cpz), a simian immunodeficiency virus (SIV) that infects wild chimpanzees (HIV-1 descends from the SIVcpz endemic in the chimpanzee subspecies Pan troglodytes troglodytes).[192][193] The closest relative of HIV-2 is SIV(smm), a virus of the sooty mangabey (Cercocebus atys atys), an Old World monkey living in coastal West Africa (from southern Senegal to western Côte d'Ivoire).[66] New World monkeys such as the owl monkey are resistant to HIV-1 infection, possibly because of a genomic fusion of two viral resistance genes.[194] HIV-1 is thought to have jumped the species barrier on at least three separate occasions, giving rise to the three groups of the virus, M, N, and O.[195]

There is evidence that humans who participate in bushmeat activities, either as hunters or as bushmeat vendors, commonly acquire SIV.[196] However, SIV is a weak virus which is typically suppressed by the human immune system within weeks of infection. It is thought that several transmissions of the virus from individual to individual in quick succession are necessary to allow it enough time to mutate into HIV.[197] Furthermore, due to its relatively low person-to-person transmission rate, SIV can only spread throughout the population in the presence of one or more high-risk transmission channels, which are thought to have been absent in Africa before the 20th century.

Specific proposed high-risk transmission channels, allowing the virus to adapt to humans and spread throughout the society, depend on the proposed timing of the animal-to-human crossing. Genetic studies of the virus suggest that the most recent common ancestor of the HIV-1 M group dates back to circa 1910.[198] Proponents of this dating link the HIV epidemic with the emergence of colonialism and growth of large colonial African cities, leading to social changes, including a higher degree of sexual promiscuity, the spread of prostitution, and the accompanying high frequency of genital ulcer diseases (such as syphilis) in nascent colonial cities.[199] While transmission rates of HIV during vaginal intercourse are low under regular circumstances, they are increased many fold if one of the partners suffers from a sexually transmitted infection causing genital ulcers. Early 1900s colonial cities were notable due to their high prevalence of prostitution and genital ulcers, to the degree that, as of 1928, as many as 45% of female residents of eastern Kinshasa were thought to have been prostitutes, and, as of 1933, around 15% of all residents of the same city had syphilis.[199]

An alternative view holds that unsafe medical practices in Africa after World War II, such as unsterile reuse of single use syringes during mass vaccination, antibiotic and anti-malaria treatment campaigns, were the initial vector that allowed the virus to adapt to humans and spread.[197][200][201]

The earliest well documented case of HIV in a human dates back to 1959 in the Congo.[202] The virus may have been present in the United States as early as 1966,[203] but the vast majority of infections occurring outside sub-Saharan Africa (including the U.S.) can be traced back to a single unknown individual who became infected with HIV in Haiti and then brought the infection to the United States some time around 1969.[204] The epidemic then rapidly spread among high-risk groups (initially, sexually promiscuous men who have sex with men).

So no, AIDS is not caused by homosexuals.

And why is it that in over 8,000 years of recorded human history, there hasn't been a single case of homosexual marriage

Because you clearly don't know how to read:

A same-sex union was known in Ancient Greece and Rome,[2] ancient Mesopotamia,[3] in some regions of China, such as Fujian province, and at certain times in ancient European history.[4] These same-sex unions continued until Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. A law in the Theodosian Code (C. Th. 9.7.3) was issued in 342 AD by the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans, which prohibited same-sex marriage in ancient Rome and ordered that those who were so married were to be executed.

History of Same sex unions