Homosexuality is a social construct. Fact or fiction?

Well I think we can all say that attraction to one sex or another is primarily a physical thing ( obviously there will be some influence of society on whether people choose to act on it).
The question is gays if the gay stereotype is societal construct. ie.. Guys with high pitched voices and girly interests.

I think it has become that, I think it's literally just confusion or a mental thing it's not normal

The globalists are behind homosexuality.
youtube.com/watch?v=kpiUfb7adPE

Homosexuality is not a social construct. It is an aberration from our programming. If our biological purpose is to procreate and if only a man and a woman achieve that, then it is safe to say that homosexuals should not exist in nature. But whether you think homosexuality should or shouldnt be accepted is another question. Tbh homos arent all bad but the ones that I know are degenerates and sexual deviants so I might be biased.

>programming
>biological purpose
>should not exist
>degenerates
Easily one of the worst posts I have ever read.

Cool opinions. Got any facts?

There's a study floating around about that last bit, apparently when high pitched gays undergo surgery where they're knocked out by anesthesia when they start to come out of it they lose the lisp and their voices get deeper until they fully regain consciousness. Of course it's a tiny sample size and entirely correlational but it would make sense that the stereotypical voice is forced, it basically serves as a way for gay men to identify other gay men by voice alone.

in the army it is
I always thought it made sense
>bunch of guys high on test living in close quarters
>aggressive and hostile environment
>exposed to danger and stress inducing experiences as soldiers
so instead of killing each other that anger is channelled through sexuality and sexual dominance

Fiction.

I'm pretty confident homosexuality is "natural" in the sense that it probably begun to occur very early in human development as a way for dominant males to show their dominance on weaker males, to have sex when they didn't want to knock anyone up etc.

In most cultures through history they have always made big distinction on the differences between the one who penetrates and the one who gets penetrated. Latter being the more shameful role.

Homosexuality is basically narcissism. You're looking for yourself through the same sex instead of reaching an otherness with the other sex. Man/woman relationship are harmonious and dialectical. Homosexuality is decadent, it's a vice and the fact that it is now declined into an identity is a sign of a dying society.

Sounds like nonesense to me.
more nonsense
What does primarily a physical thing mean?
The question is, can you, after realizing certain things, become attracted to anything or anyone you want.
Is sexuality as fluid as that.
Ask yourself why are you not sexually attracted to X?
People can find a person attractive and then not after a while even though the other person did not change physically(lets say a men stops finding a certain woman as attractive)...
So what did change? And is it that something that can change between genders?
Why not?
Is it not possible that because of a change in perspective and starting to agree with certain ideas you will suddenly be attracted to other people that you have not been attracted to?
Like being attracted to other races or not. Being attracted to other genders? Being attracted to animals???

If you are a men who likes only women your tastes in women change as well..Based on what? Why do you like certain women but not others?

I thought being homosex was all about the wiener. That seems to be the focus in the movies I've seen.

>man/woman relationships are harmonious

Confirmed for never being in one

It seems from the evidence we have now is that people seems to have ranges of attraction and how far those ranges go can depend on your environment. Meaning a gay man is not going to fuck a woman but he may fuck a very effeminate man.

t. rush limbaugh

Most aren't nowadays because individuals are more and more driven to consumate people like they consumate objects and neglect their companion. Sadly.
Yeah but you don't provide anything to refute my claims.

Truth is that you cannot have a civilised discussion about this without a group of homosexuals purposely spreading half truths/misinformation.

So is heterosexuality. So is sexuality, actually. As is the idea of social constructs itself.

>This is me being logical
nah, it's you being a troll

>I already fell in love with a girl at age 6. I do not believe I even knew you could also fall in love with boys. Therefore, falling in love with girls is a very natural thing to do. Heterosexuality is nature. I could very well imagine the same thing happening for a little boy to fall in love with another boy at age 6, without even knowing he should be attracted to girls according to nature/society/whatever. Therefore, homosexuality is nature. If both are natural, neither is a societal construct. This is me being logical without having any proofs of any claim whatsoever.
lel

>I only base my worldview off of my own personal anecdotal evidence

>nowadays

Nah, men and women are mortal enemies who just happen to bond with one another for the purpose of breeding.

Honestly, outside of sex, men are far better companions than women.

>driven to consumate people like they consumate objects
English second language?

You never experienced love with a woman who loves you too.

Yes...

And not just other people. People think of themselves as objects, as part of a process with an end goal which must be achieved in the most efficient way.

con·sum·mate
1. make (a marriage or relationship) complete by having sexual intercourse.
"his first wife refused to consummate their marriage"

So, alienated labour causes homosexuality?

Confirmed

There is a hilarious amount of ironic moral realism in a thread discussing social abstractions.

Homosexuality is equally an artificial abstraction as heterosexuality, because both are some kind of identifying lifestyle viewed as an objective fact about somebody whereas a gay man can still put his penis in a vagina. Morality that compares the two abstractions is irrelevant and also an abstraction itself.

That is one smug-looking rat.

...

Oh thank you!
I meant "use".
The word "consommer" is kinda similar.

No problem m8

of course it is, just like heterosexuality

worst shit I have ever read. homosexuality occurs between thousands of species on this planet, but somehow it "shouldn't exist in nature"?

it literally existed in nature before humans even existed, but it's not supposed to be there? really?

you're also fucking retarded because you think sex is exclusively about procreation (biologically speaking) when a lot of animals just have sex to solve conflict or lower hormone levels to cease aggressions.

Regarding you, OP, it's a fact.

non-reproductive members improve the fitness of the kin group, dumbdumb

How can a dick in the ass be a social construct

>our biological purpose is to procreate
except we are already too fucking many. our "biological purpose" as a species is to survive and procreation is not necessarily always the right way to go.

lost

world

Everything you can name is a social construct

...

>except we are already too fucking many.
meme. The fact is, crowdness doesn't influence fertility
>our "biological purpose" as a species
There exists no such thing. Organisms are interested in passing on their genes, not pan-speciest greater good bullshit.

>People are attracted to either male or female because society has created this split.
society didn't create a split, they tried to repress one side of it. how the hell do you get people that almost excusively or exclusively have same sex attractions when society has actively discouraged that for a long time?

>Where is this homosexuality gene or genes?
>They dont exist.
they don't know any specific genes associated with it but niether do they know the specific genes for autism. the fact is that identical twin boys are much more likely to both identify as gay later in life than fraternal twins. this shows that homosexuality is at least partially tied to genetics

Humans are capable of abstract thought and aren't bound to biological imperatives

>The kind that implies that the idea of being attracted to either male or female is a recent idea

No it doesn't. It implies the label of "a homosexual" or labelling certain acts/lifestyles/behaviors as "homosexuality" is a construct that came out of social interaction, which is true.

You acknowledge this with your second sentence (more or less), so your first one is somewhat odd or unclear what you meant.

Why would you care about the darwinian fitness of another individual? Correct me if I'm wrong but you don't really seem to be the altruistic type. If you are however, you're severely misguided.

Gay gene doesn't exist, but the belief that it's either a choice or the result of genetics is false dichotomy.

>sign of a dying society
Just like every single move Western society has made since the collapse of the Roman Empire right?

>Humans are capable of abstract thought
True.
>and aren't bound to biological imperatives
Lel.
Literally why every doctrine that has tried to say that that has created more hell on earth that any others.
It's not like the very core of our brain is a instinctual reptilian brain screaming at us through our most basic instincts that take priority one way or another

>appeal to emotion horseshit

Sorry but no. There's literally zero activities a man can enjoy doing with a woman if said woman doesn't make his cock hard or isn't his mother.

"the gay gene" does not exist but your genes do influence what sex you are likely to be attracted to. that's all I meant to prove by the twin example

That's some cock-hard projecting you're doing there.

It's not projecting at all. You can notice that the only time a man can enjoy sharing a workplace with a woman is when the woman is attractive. If she's fat and ugly her value as a man's companion goes straight down the toilet, which isn't the case with men.

You made that scenario up in your head. What's your proof, anecdotes from your life?

Do you have any definitive proof of this? I think sociology as a whole could benefit from this amazing discovery you've made.

Woman is a crap companion. The only reason the traiditional household worked is because the man and the woman barely spent their time together other than eating and fucking.

>overpopulation on the rise

if anything I would like for us to have more faggots

My brain could give me the desire to eat but I can deny it to my death.

>medicaldaily.com/gay-gene-survived-evolution-it-carried-mothers-who-have-more-children-study-240813

youtube.com/watch?v=MHDCAllQgS0

If you're asking whether it's a choice, probably not, though I say this from the perspective of someone who's bisexual. As to why it is that people are homosexual, it's fairly hard to pinpoint. I'm betting on it being a combination of genetic and environmental (not how you're raised but what happens in the womb) factors, seeing as how that's how it tends to go with the many other animals that can be homosexual. This could also answer the question of "how would a 'gay gene' survive", in that the genes predisposing for homosexuality could also result in other, more positive traits depending on a number of factors. Just my two cents as an armchair geneticist.

Reminder that faggots should all be killed

This doesnt mean anything. Perhaps in society where this dichotomy doesnt exist, i.e. gay and straight, it would not be true. Twins do a lot of things in a similair way.

Genes and society are not two different things. This is yet another false dichotomy.
Its different sides of the same coin. Much like a a human is both a person and a bunch of cells working together.

Pseudo-science.

This would mean that by allowing homosexes to marry and not have hetrosexual families we are getting homosex genetics out of the gene pool.

>Top 2 memesters.
Good job.

Image, you could be having that much fun with your best pal!!
Read and discuss some history and then go hug naked in a bath.

>The authors of a 2008 study stated "there is considerable evidence that human sexual orientation is genetically influenced, so it is not known how homosexuality, which tends to lower reproductive success, is maintained in the population at a relatively high frequency". They hypothesized that "while genes predisposing to homosexuality reduce homosexuals' reproductive success, they may confer some advantage in heterosexuals who carry them". Their results suggested that "genes predisposing to homosexuality may confer a mating advantage in heterosexuals, which could help explain the evolution and maintenance of homosexuality in the population".[163] A 2009 study also suggested a significant increase in fecundity in the females related to the homosexual people from the maternal line (but not in those related from the paternal one).

No, it means that you could be perfectly straight and still have the 'gay gene' (though there are most likely a number of genes involved). Whether or not the 'gene' gets activated during early development would be due to a variety of factors.

>things exist outside the individual
*tips*

Look you humanities retard, there are 2 things that dictate what an individual does: his genome and his upbringing.

For anything that involves "choosing" this is influenced by your upbringing and your genome.
For anything that involves "being" this is influenced by your genome exclusively, such as being a redhead or being sensitive to pain.

Does this mean there is such thing as a "gay gene"? Probably not.
However does this mean the degree to which someone can feel attraction to the same and opposite sex is determined by a certain set of genes? Most definitely.

Genes are what give us our sexual attraction in the first place so to think they don't determine as well what gender this attraction is directed to is idiotic.

What is idiotic is thinking that microscopes uncover some new truth instead of simply repeating the same thing from a different perspective.
Messing around with DNA samples is gonna tell you exactly the same as simply watching people.
The only difference is that if you are doing a DNA study tons of retards will come along claiming its news or that its some sort of "objective truth" and other such nonesense.

The only objective irrefutable proof we can achieve is the scientific one, and the closer we get to discovering all the human genome and the purpose of each of its genes, the better.

truth>feelings

Psychologists love twins separated at birth studies and there is a lot of them that apparently happens because its really the whole nurture versus nature thing.

Turns out that if a twin that was separated by birth and raised in a different family in a completly different geographical location turns out to be gay, there is a strong likelihood that the other twin will be gay too even though they were raised in different conditions.

In a certain sense, homosexuality is obviously a social construct. Sexuality tends to be somewhat fluid, and the demarcation between homosexuality and heterosexuality is clearly something of a product of culture. So, sure. Many of us lean strongly one way or another in terms of our preferences, though.

Homosexuality didn't exist until people began to draw distinctions between difference kinds of sex.

I'm sure for the Greeks, who engaged in pedophilia and homosexual activities didn't view different forms of sex to be distinct. Sex was sex whether it was with a dude, a kid, or a chick.

this

We are objects, though.
Just with a sensory experience.

If there was a society which truly taught that sex between the same gender was impossible, nobody would ever be gay. People are gay nowadays because we live in a society where not only are people taught homosexuality is possible but that it should be accepted by everybody. Consider transexuality. The amount of people who identify as the other gender would be significantly smaller today if transexual surgery was impossible.

Homosexual sex is older than humanity but the homosexual identity is very recent

i dont think you have the willpower to starve yourself to death
im assuming here, but... yeah

all sexuality is a social construct, why would you think one is more of a construct that any others?

This is the dumbest shit I've ever read. For centuries it's been taught (incorrectly) that homosexuals cannot engage in sexual intercourse and that any attempt to do so was merely sodomy and was an unnatural offense to god, and surprise, plenty of people were still gay, even if they weren't enthusiastically open about it.

God this board was good for 2 days

Fucking can't stand you piece of shit faggot degenerates.

Everything has to come back to some guy being a faggot.

Please developp, Im genuinely interested

not that user, but see also
livescience.com/6106-gay-uncles-pass-genes.html

Thanks. That's interesting