Where does he mention homosexuality

[laterade]

You said that gay men are healthy if they look strong.
By the same logic you would have to conclude that Stephen Hawking is healthy because he seems intelligent.

Good point, I should not be using one aspect to signify good health.
His brain function is certainly alright though his body is gone, so i don't think we can compare him to very many people at all
I was stating that many of the gay people I have seen and met are actively Trying to become healthier, and remain gay.
I think being gay is a choice not some deficiency or health issue.

Contrast this with the gays I meet here in Manila who are not conscious about health and are not strong people.

This shows me that health really is not a determining factor. Maybe some people are just gay

[goodsamaritan]

This shows me that health really is not a determining factor. Maybe some people are just gay

How could you have misinterpreted my post?
You deduced the complete opposite of what I was saying.

There was a pro-life gay volunteer once.
He said he wanted to be manly.
I told him I can tell his favorite food is soy, soy, soy and more soy.
He said... "right on the money you are sir... since I was a toddler, mom fed me on soy milk, lots of tofu, taho and still today I just love soy." how did you know?

[yuli]

But so many gays did not eat soy, both in history and today. Especially now days soy is not considered as much a health food anymore...less people around here are choosing it. Also just as many straight people probably eat soy. So if you come here and talk to a gay person, especially one that has a nice physique, there is a very high chance he doesn't eat soy, and that his diet is probably a lot closer to paleo then that fat biker riding around on a Harley next to him.

What about all the manly gays, sure they may have that metro-sexual look, style of dress etc. but they have broad sholders with muscle (a common trait of fit males), nice hair, bone structure, good jaw, they clearly exercise and obviously posses strength. Many gays these days its getting very HARD to tell, you see some fit guy in a business suit and you never know sometimes.

I am not saying diet has nothing to do with it but clearly it is more of a choice, and if a person is happy in their life with whatever their lifestyle is then even if they change their diet to raw paleo they will likely not drastically change. Also if a person is drastically changing their diet it may be because they are wanting to change their life around, so if they are not happy being gay then they will likely or hopefully change for their own well being, people have "changed" their lives like this without going to raw paleo, there is a lot more at play.

[goodsamaritan]

Like I said, there are various sources of gays, it's a multi source thing:

The book Sperm Wars describes the role of homosexuality as he observed as a social scientist.
The author Baker observes homosexuals are:

#1 - dual sexuals / ac-dc / can turn to both men and women.
#2 - are more promiscuous, start early and are really very very very promiscuous.

Since the homosexuals gain sexual experience at an earlier age, and they are promiscuous, they continue to reproduce

-- this is Baker's observation.  One of his hypothesis.

------------------

The diet and degeneration point of view: Pottenger's cats experiment.
I observe this is the case at times with Filipino homosexuals at times.


------------------
My contraception and sexual fulfillment point of view...

The popularity of contraception in any civilization and age ushers in more homosexuality.  The more contraceptive, the more promiscuity needed to sate the sexual desires of people.  Sex is a reproductive function, humans want to reproduce, contraception reduces this probability to reproduce immensely, humans compensate by having more frequent sex.

Witness and study those who practice zero contraception, their sexual appetites are sated and they don't have sex as often.

Some homosexuals I observe are merely sex addicts, the product end point of contraceptive saturation.  Homosexuality is the ultimate contraceptive.  See how many hundreds of partners homosexuals of this type go through.  They should not be labeled as homosexuals, they should be labeled as sex addicts. 

[laterade]

Yuli...I could not have said it better  

My mom is now gay and I still love her. I have not seen her happier than with her new mate and the experience has changed my views on the subject drastically.
It is just one of the many paths an individual can take and not a negative one in any way.
Of course If my son is gay i will beat it out of him LOL (jk)
I plan on having multiple spawns just to ease that worry.
It is not like we are speaking of pedophiles or chickenf*ckers.
my question is....
Who cares if they are gay anyway? Is it really affect anyone other than them? Why would we combat these choices?

[wodgina]

LOL being is not a degenerative disease. Most of the gay people I have met are very conscious of their health. Just look at their parades, the majority of them look like strong people.

You know that a lot of good looking buff dudes at the front of the parades are actually paid hetro models/dancers don't you? They interveiwed a few of them at the Sydney parade, I was a little shocked to be honest. Why do this?

[Brother]

Why would we combat these choices?

everything going on between consenting adults is ok. Even cannibalised murder. If the person who wants to get murdered and perhaps eaten (this strange fetish excists) are fully aware of what he does, and is not suffering from mental illness, then he should have the right to be killed and eaten by whoever have the matching fetish. There was a case in Germany about this very thing. The court was puzzled since all evidence suggested that the victim had been wanting this to happen, well documented by writing and video recording.

There was a chinese guy who wanted to marry his dog. Why couldnt he? The dog certainly seemed to like him very much!?

etc...whatever brings a person happiness in their lifes (or its end) that does not directly influence or hurt others, must be respected. Intrusive countercultures have no such right imo.  

[Brother]

You know that a lot of good looking buff dudes at the front of the parades are actually paid hetro models/dancers don't? They interveiwed a few of them at the Sydney parade, I was a little shocked to be honest. Why do this?

"gay culture" is an entirely differeny kettle of fish than "homosexual people". I know of many homosexuals who are offended by the "culture", its iconography (what youre getting at) and its methods of gaining public attention. How do I know? From their angry letters to the news papers at every years rainbow parade.

[TylerDurden]

You know that a lot of good looking buff dudes at the front of the parades are actually paid hetro models/dancers don't you? They interveiwed a few of them at the Sydney parade, I was a little shocked to be honest. Why do this?

That is fraud! But then the gay ideal is to have a 6-pack etc. so I suppose an ideal does not always have to reflect reality.

[TylerDurden]

Why would we combat these choices?

Well, if everyone were gay, there would be no children so it makes sense for society to frown on it. Gays currently have 1/6th the number of children that heterosexuals have, and the main reason they have even that high a number is because they were under previous social compulsion to get heterosexually married etc.

[yuli]

...if everyone were gay, there would be no children so it makes sense for society to frown on it...

I disagree, it doesn't make any sense to frown on gays...how can everyone become gay, its not a contagion, thats impossible, in history there were always a number of gay people and the world still didn't turn all gay, were still having children like always.

It does however make sense to frown on Gay Culture, just like we can frown on many other "cultures", that is what we do, it has nothing to do with actually being gay.

....Gays currently have 1/6th the number of children that heterosexuals have....

Good! Like we need that much more children when the planet is already so god-dam crowded.
When you think about this gays are an evolutionary necessity....
we breed a lot, we're all over the planet, now with gays at least there are some couples who will not be having kids...
If they do they'll likely adopt kids that have no proper home, great!
Gays also make up for the people that are having too many children for no good reason, when they can't even properly care for them.

You know that a lot of good looking buff dudes at the front of the parades are actually paid hetro models/dancers don't you? ....I was a little shocked to be honest. Why do this?

That is fraud!

Why were you shocked? Did you guys just drop from another planet?  Look at pictures in magazines, the media, look at Hollywood, these things aren't real...its just advertising (I guess advertising can be called fraud), but in this case its adversing for the so-called "Gay Culture". If you are surprised by that then you should be surprised by every ad for some kind of fitness thing that shows a picture of some dude that actually is not on that product, he's an actor/model to give us a certain idea etc etc, I am not saying I agree with it but this is the way things are often advertised, we all got used to that I thought. Its not a new trick. Especially when you look at something as highly advertised as the gay parade.

[TylerDurden]

Well, I suppose there is room for a small gay subculture, but more than a certain amount of gays in society, especially in countries with low birth-rates would not help. Perhaps homosexuality should only be widely encouraged in countries with high  birth-rates and/or populations like Iran, China or India.


As for the last comment, I should perhaps point out that, in the UK and quite unlike the US, TV shows routinely cast rather ugly actors who are more representative of the general population.So we don't have this body-beautiful concept to quite the same extent.

[magnetic]

Homosexuality seems only present in mammals and birds. Below lizards and the like, it seems to be unknown, last I checked. Also, I find the notion of homosexuality as a different sexual orientation problematic, as sex is merely procreation/reproduction which homosexuals (or heterosexual DINKs for that matter) do not do, technically. I see homosexuality as providing a different set of purposes, such as bonding, dominance  or other social function.

It is a behavior in which one individual dominates another, as you and others have pointed out.  This explains why it is only seen among certain social animals.  What seems common is that mammals and birds that practice "homosexual" behavior have a level of individuation.  Ants and bees, for instance, are social animals but I do not think they have the level of individuation that some mammals and birds do, so they do not manifest the same behavior patterns involving dominance. 

Dominance and submission in general are important adaptations because such behaviors allow us to settle disputes without too much bloodshed, at least when things are going smoothly.  Otherwise we have war.

[magnetic]

heh, i'm a sure this has some truth but it really doesn't matter tho, all you need is one square jawed queer who eats well (like a man) and this guy http://www.oceanrobbins.com/articles_jeffersonvideo.html to dispel this theory.

[edi]

how about we just all agree that veg diets potentially make fems that still marry and have kids.

I know one veggie who is very effeminate and married and another in the same boat.  They are both overly emotional, socialist wimps who can't make a coherent argument and always resort to rhetorical personal attacks.  I see this as common to veggie lovers as well as SAD eaters, which is why I have taken to calling grains "slave food."  People who eat too much slave food can't think for themselves, but I don't know if it has much effect on sexuality, which does smack of fetishism. 

Oh and f*ck being PC.

[magnetic]

Incidentally, I have a copy of Nutrition And Physical Degeneration sitting on my desk that I have been planning on reading for the last few weeks, I am going to start reading it soon.  If I come across any mention of homosexuality or sexual characteristics in general, I will make note of it here.  It is the 6th Edition if that makes any difference...

Ryan

[Mart1n]

Hi all, I just got here because of watching some of sv3rige's videos. This is my first post.

Trying to explain homosexuality your best bet may be that hormones, like testosterone, do depend on fat and cholesterol for proper function. This way you could, possibly, inherit homosexuality from malnourished parents. Or at least inherit a vector in that direction.

What I noticed when reading Weston A. Price's writings long ago is that new married couples in certain "primitive cultures" were eating specially selected type's of food known to optimize the health of next generation.
These specific diets were started well before any attempts were made to make children.
Another tradition was for the mother to not become pregnant before 3 years after the last time she gave birth, this to allow for recovery from giving birth and breast feeding, thus benefit both her own health and the next child.

Another possible clue may be what lactating women eat and what influences the quality of breast milk. Not to speak of buying "breast milk" in supermarkets. Would add to screwing up things for next generation.

If the concept of healthy parents = healthy children holds up as a general rule, then why not look for malnourished parents, and dietary guidelines in general, as a possible cause of homosexuality?

Martin

[TylerDurden]

These explanations for homosexuality do not add up. For example, the lack of testosterone theory does not explain how plenty of homosexuals in history have been quite violent, clearly-testosterone-filled-types such as Sulla or Alexander The Great. Plenty of homosexual royalty had far better nutrition in the Middle-Ages and Renaissance than  people from the lower classes. So, poor nutrition does not explain homosexuality. There is one scientific claim, that the more older brothers a man has, the more likely he is to be gay:-

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2016/04/gay-brothers/480117/

I grant that parents' good nutrition would likely help, epigenetically, to  reduce the number of genetically-defective children. For example, it is well-known that alcoholic parents are  more likely to produce epileptic children than other kinds of parents. So, well-fed parents  will produce well-fed children who are far less likely to grow up with defective reproductive apparatuses with lower testosterone-levels, but homosexuality is another issue.

[norawnofun]

Recently, they did a large study to determine the cause of sexual behaviour and find a "gay-gene": https://geneticsexbehavior.info/ https://geneticsexbehavior.info/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/ganna190830.pdf. They concluded that there is no such thing. My guess is that indeed, nutrition plays a main role, but there are for sure other factors like Tyler mentioned. You can´t blame everything on nutrition. Even in nature there are examples of gay animals. Did they eat soy? I doubt it. Still, I think that nutrition is a very important factor that one should not miss. I know at least 2 people that were fed soy milk when they were babies, and they turned out to be gay.

[Mart1n]

There is one scientific claim, that the more older brothers a man has, the more likely he is to be gay:-

Interesting. Same would count for homosexual women? Could it be related to mom giving birth too often over a too short period of time? Being pregnant, giving birth and breast feeding causes malnourishment if not replenished sufficiently.
 
I'd say we do not quite know if this adds up or not. But since malnourishment is likely to burden next generation, and hormonal function depends on cholesterol (nutrient), there sure is a basis for doing some testing and compare.

Ultimately homosexuality would undermine any tribe/civilization. That is, if the rate of homosexuality increases with the rate of malnourished parents.

Other than that I don't have anything against homosexuals. Quite a few homosexuals have something against being homosexual. They're just trying to cope with it. Most are just quite relieved that it's being accepted. Just like veggie-ism is being promoted, even by the UN.

Norawaynofun, as you I also suspect there are ways to mess up hormones. In addition the know-how and ability to mess with hormones, and ultimately reproduction, would be of interest for anyone engaged in matters concerning overpopulation.

[goodsamaritan]

How about this idea?
Genetic statistics show we are descended from a ratio of 1 male having children with 5 females.

Therefore plenty of males are not chosen for the job.

Maybe being a reproductive male is a sort of pinnacle of biology?

[TylerDurden]

 I have never heard of a rise in homosexuality coinciding with periods of  famine  Also, technically, male-female relationships(in the ancient world) were all about raising a family with babies). Homosexual relationships, arguably, were not about having children, but about forming social bonds etc.(look at the Spartan men all having to raise a young boy to adulthood, for example). In another case, male lions often are affectionate to male lion-partners, but that is because it is a lot easier for  a due or trio of male lions to get rid of male lions in another pride so that they can get hold of the female lions, than if they were to only  try singly, one at a time.

[dariorpl]

Recently, they did a large study to determine the cause of sexual behaviour and find a "gay-gene": https://geneticsexbehavior.info/ https://geneticsexbehavior.info/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/ganna190830.pdf. They concluded that there is no such thing. My guess is that indeed, nutrition plays a main role, but there are for sure other factors like Tyler mentioned. You can´t blame everything on nutrition. Even in nature there are examples of gay animals. Did they eat soy? I doubt it. Still, I think that nutrition is a very important factor that one should not miss. I know at least 2 people that were fed soy milk when they were babies, and they turned out to be gay.

The whole idea of finding an "X gene" that every person with X has, and every person without the gene doesn't have X, is quite dumb. Very few genes work like this. Rather, genes work synergistically and combine with each other to create all sorts of different possibilities.

Diseases are caused either by defective genes, or by toxicity accumulation, poor nutrition/lifestyle, or by artificial experience that teaches someone to go against their very nature; or by a combination or sequence of any or all of the above: For example, toxicity buildup can damage genes. Mental disorders can cause someone to poison themselves with drugs and chemicals. Damaged genes can also predispose someone to a mental disorder; etc.

If one were to be able to understand all there is to know about how genes combine to form particular individuals, I suspect we'd be able to tell which people with which genes have much higher or much lower chances of becoming gay.

---
RE: Tyler, the testosterone idea is incomplete, as this only applies to men who become gay because they feel more like women than men, but it does not encompass all gay men, such as those that become gay because they feel more manly by dominating boys instead of girls. All of that said, on average, and because a large proportion of gay men are of the first type, gay men have much lower testosterone than non-gay men.

How about this idea?
Genetic statistics show we are descended from a ratio of 1 male having children with 5 females.

Therefore plenty of males are not chosen for the job.

Maybe being a reproductive male is a sort of pinnacle of biology?

There is the theory that in H-G tribes/bands, weak or low status men only pretend to be gay so they will be trusted by the alphas to protect the females when they're not around; and in doing so have their only chance at reproduction.

[TylerDurden]

Just checking, but found a contrasting theory that  excess levels of androgens like testosterone in the womb increase the likelihood of male and female homosexuality:-

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/03/000330094644.htm

[sabertooth]

I view Homosexuality as a remnant of our evolutionary past, from a time when we descended from hermaphroditic sea worms. These creatures where able to take on both male and female genders, depending on the environmental circumstances.

This ambi-sexterity remained an active phenomenon within our amphibious ancestors who were able to still physically change gender to suit mating conditions. As we continued to evolve, sexual selection became more advanced, and the gender differences became more rigid and eventually the ability to physically change gender was lost.....but the physiological remnants of the primal hermaphroditic origin remained within the throwback DNA....and though physically it isn't possible for humans to gender morph, on a psychological level, exposure to certain hormonal, sociological or environmental conditions at the developmental phases, can confuse the very precarious nature of gender differentiation, leading to a partial reversion to the Latent amphibious states of hermaphroditism, which although cannot manifest with a physical gender change, it can be seen in the manifestation of sexual behaviors.

[Sol^Sa]

Since this thread keeps popping up I thought I'd add a few cents. Funnily a lot of gay dudes I met were seemingly interested in me and quite a lot of them actually from my observation were kind of feminine at least that was my impression. Even my ex-gf noticed that, we were once in a coffee shop and the dude who served the coffee there was gay, she knew that and I didn't so she told me afterwards: "Did you see how he was sticking his butt out or something" haha. The typical feminine stuff like caring a lot about their apperance and so on. At least the gays that I could tell apart easily from heteros are usually quite feminine there may be other "types". Anyway it's not a normal thing for people as we can see the majority is hetero. And I don't see how that would be nature's way of regulating population size because the numbers are way too low. In the end it is hard to guess could have many reasons like nutritional deficiences, infections or whatever, natural intoxication? I mean for example you get exposure to toxic chemicals in nature through volcanoes and such things I was thinking about this the other day. But I think it is very likely that modern conditions like food, chemicals etc. are to blame for the growing numbers of irregular sexual choices. You could look at that and generally the self-harming state of people nowadays in an abstract way and say that is nature's way to reduce population size. Just a bunch of abstract guesses. I can see how it would be very interesting and enjoyable to talk with some of you guys and share some thoughts.

Just checking, but found a contrasting theory that  excess levels of androgens like testosterone in the womb increase the likelihood of male and female homosexuality:-

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/03/000330094644.htm

Couldn't that be because the organism isn't able to keep the levels normal? Anyway there are certain levels needed a lot of people nowadays think the more the better kind of like the capitalists. Excess is the key word.