The Gay "Germ" Hypothesis

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

Calling people homophobes can be the same as Israel calling everyone an anti-Semite. Sometimes it’s just a way to stifle discussion and get away with being really internally considerate or much worse. Same as leftists calling people racist/sexist/Nazis, it’s just a way to shut down any questioning of their philosophies or actions. But sometimes there are actual homophobes or anti-semites or racists, who truly abuse and attack people for no good reason. I think it’s very important to see the difference when an accusation is being thrown and the intent/purpose/end result of said accusation. This is always done for emotionally charged topics and realities so it’s incredibly easy to fall for it, which is probably why so many people have so much trouble thinking clearly when this tactic is employed - they are too identified or invested emotionally, regardless of which side or group they’re part of in this dynamic.

If you’re gay or straight, it helps a lot to step back emotionally and just look at the discussion as a scientist, unattached. This is an explorative discussion. There are some people who did display more subjective and emotional preferences and aversion, but they don’t represent the whole discussion. And honestly, if we don’t fault people for arachnophobia then why is this such an issue? As long as they are not harming people, why fault them for feeling a thing? Same as being gay in the first place right? And if there is such a thing as “natural” aversion to homosexuality, as in not nurture-based, that too can be discussed without being offended at the very concept.

Also anecdotally I have heard gay people I’ve known speak about their aversion for female anatomy and hetero sex. I have no idea if the cause is the same, but it’s something I’ve heard more than once.

One analogy that comes to mind is kids hating vegetables as a common theme. Maybe that’s also a natural prompting to limit that stuff for carnivores.

Personally, I’ve both been very comfortable and very uncomfortable in the presence of gay men. To me it all came down to respect and external consideration. But the same could be said for straight people for the same reason. Unfortunately when discussing any “aversion” to homosexuality it’s really hard to separate that from nurture factors and lack of external consideration of the other party. If I am not raised to believe something is wrong, and the person I encounter is externally considerate, chances are I won’t even know they’re gay. And if I got to know them and found out, I don’t see myself feeling any different - unless their behavior somehow puts me off, but then that’s different.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

I never liked the “natural” vs “unnatural” argument because it doesn’t lead to anything. So many things natural and unnatural are great and terrifying and abhorrent. It’s kinda a moot point in my head. I mean technology isn’t natural yet we take advantage. It can do great and terrible things, like literally anything else depending on application. So that’s why I distill it to the purpose/function question and benefit/detriment in terms of growth. That’s just my take on this thing.

Yep. One of the implications of human aversion/disgust is that we're disgusted by many things that we don't NEED to be disgusted by. I'm thinking of the list of things in the paper I quoted. All those things are understandable from a certain perspective, but even that doesn't imply "natural" = "the right and only way". For instance, people are disgusted by unfamiliar and foreign foods. Naturally. But obviously other people eat them and enjoy them with no problem, so the disgust is contextual. You can find exceptions in all the categories of "disgusting things". Collective behaviors like this seem to follow something like a "Better safe than sorry" principle. Dirty food probably isn't dangerous, but you're better safe than sorry, because if you're wrong, the consequences are huge. The risk is too disproportionately high.

I think this is another reason (just one and certainly not the only) why humans tend to be disgusted by rape. The risks (unwanted pregnancy, disease) are way too high.

The point is just that - as others have pointed out repeatedly - majorities of people tend to find certain things disgusting. There will always be exceptions, but on the whole, it's a fact of life. That doesn't mean certain responses to people who trigger disgust are right or moral. At best, such behaviors can result in physical safety in a purely utilitarian way with no regard for the "disgusting" person. But most often the benefits are neutral because the disgust-inducing person posed no real contagious threat, as in the example of a deformed or disfigured person. It's not fair that certain people are rejected for reasons out of their control and which aren't a real threat to others, but again, that's a fact of life.

So, given that this is the state of affairs, what to do? Well, the first thing is to train oneself not to be a slave to your disgust responses. If you're volunteering at a hospital by helping patients, you may be disgusted by all sorts of things, but you should do your best to have a little self-control. But if you're walking down the road and encounter something you find disgusting, it's probably safer to trust your instinct without going overboard. I.e., avoid dumpster food and potentially diseased strangers. Right or wrong, they're "fat-tailed" risks, and you're better safe than sorry.

Second, recognize that most people will not have any self-control, and plan accordingly. In other words, try not to intentionally or unintentionally push other peoples' disgust buttons. If you're Filipino, for example, don't chow down on some chicken fetuses around a group of foreigners - especially if it's in their home - for whom that is nasty. It's basic external consideration.

Some things triggering disgust can and probably should trend downward, because they're not threats to our lives, but I doubt it's possible to ever get 100% of the population to rid themselves of their disgust. For example, if the multicultural utopia is realized, perhaps everyone will be raised having chicken fetuses as a food option. Maybe certain monoethnic cultures can do with a little less xenophobia. But again, given that this is utopian thinking, it's better to work on oneself rather than trying to change the world.

 

[Breo]

Note that I'm NOT saying legal discrimination, much less pogroms against gays is good. Of course not, just as discrimination against Jews is bad. But we should try to understand the reasons behind those things without blinking. And this includes a critical examination of the role the victims played in all of this. As homosexuals, you should look in the mirror, and not blame everyone else for everything. This is true for everyone - spiritual progress begins by looking in the mirror and taking responsibility instead of coming up with simplistic rationalizations and blaming everyone except ourselves.

There are Gays on this forum as well as Jews. And this is a very specific forum. It engages not only in practicing and exercising critical thinking based on facts in search of deeper principles of life, how to achieve spiritual progress and become a better human being for one another. Members of this forum also practice the Work which is "looking into the mirror and taking responsibility" for what is personally detected as false.

It really does not matter if this mirror is put in front of a gay/jew/colored/whatever belief system. It is the mirror that is relevant and the ability to process creatively what is reflected back. This is painful and most always will be. To hide behind a victim attitude and defend narcissistic wounds is a dead end for conscious learning.

At the bottom most people in this world of now suffer more than anything from a "divide and conquer" mentality of cancerous growth.
(Gay) Pride or (Jewish) Elitism, the latter is far more influential, are part of this entropic, delusional outplay. OSIT.

What Joe has summarized as a deeper principle behind, speaks to me strongly:

What few people seem to understand anymore is that suffering, discrimination, prejudice and generalized "inequality" in human affairs is a permanent feature. More poignant and personally felt than any externally imposed example of this is the suffering that comes 'unbidden' as a mere function of being alive (I suppose 'god' should be called to account for that one!). We CAN and DO, on an individual and case by case basis, address the worst examples of these injustices in our immediate and broader social lives - and it's not always perfect to say the least - but the push to eradicate them wholesale from the human experience is pure obtuse idiocy and inescapably destined to create social chaos, conflict and discord that will be much worse than the unavoidable injustice and suffering.

In short, people need to try to reconcile themselves to the reality of human existence and the myriad forms of unavoidable suffering that comes with it, stop asserting their supposed 'right' for revenge on, or recompense from, others or other 'groups' as stand-ins for their resentment about the basic 'injustice' of being alive, and stop feeding their narcissism with narratives about victimhood and persecution and the elevation in social status or material goods they think it will bring them.

Life does not exist for any of us to overcome or shut out, it exists for us to assume a responsibility to and for it, to the best of our abilities. That responsibility begins with ourselves as a single unit of life and then extends to those in our immediate environment. Anyone who claims they can or should do more is at best delusional, at worst a dangerous ideologue intent on leading others away from life.

 

[monotonic]

After thinking about it I don't really see a need for a germ to influence disgust. Every child in a home with pets will eventually (hopefully) overcome their disgust of cleaning the catbox or cleaning up crap from the floor.

It's easy to imagine a gay man with a strong sex drive seeking ways to satisfy it and gradually "overcoming" their disgust due to the pressure of that drive and the way the gay community and porn promotes it.

The difference is that we clean up after our pets in order to prevent infection, even though it brings us into contact with what is rightfully disgusting. Whereas in the latter case, they risk their health chasing after sexual experiences. But that is no surprise, considering how strong we know the sex drive to be for men in general. Promiscuous straight men have the same problem.

There is no guarantee that our bodies have not been tinkered with by STS to distort sexuality and generate suffering. I think the Cs said as much regarding sexuality and aggression. So if sodomy seems like an intended feature of the body to you, then consider what that intent may have actually been and whether it was likely in your best interests.

 

[Neil]

And I think the obvious riposte from homosexuals would be that you can have two opposites in the same gendered body.

Maybe you can to a degree. Perhaps they were lovers in a prior life who were heterosexual and they both ended up in the same gendered body this time around and realized they were attracted to each other, making do with what they had the best they could. My contention would be that all things being equal, the homosexual relationship will have certain complications and drawbacks that can never be entirely overcome in relation to the heterosexual relationship, and this is mostly imposed by the hard limits of 3D physicality and biology. When it comes to intercourse, if one had the ability to choose sexual orientation and gender, the heterosexual expression almost always wins. We could then get into endless arguments about tastes, interpretations, and opinions, but the best I can tell, scientifically and from an esoteric perspective, the deck is really stacked against homosexuality being able to work out in a healthy way. It's not impossible, but a lot more of an uphill battle.

Hmmm... but in that case - given the freedom of variability of physicality (and we presume sexuality) - how could you be sure that your 'hetero' partner was really hetero with respect to you?

Simple, when one is in their male form, the other is in their female form. Next time around, you might trade places. With gender being selective and variable, as long as the opposite forms are chosen throughout the act, it is a heterosexual act.

You see, I do believe there is a grain of truth to the whole gender fluidity idea. The grain is that once one's consciousness has gained enough weight and the mind-body connection is sufficiently strong, one's body merely becomes a reflection of one's wishes. To paraphrase the Cassiopaeans, physicality becomes your home to alter as you please instead of your prison. In 4D, one can change their physical sex according to need and circumstance, I think. Which brings me to this remark:

Very true IMO, although there is a lot of work to be done to make oneself fully half of the equation.

I guess from the big picture view, the purpose of the prison in this particular instance is to gradually work on each half of the duality, refining it so that the subtleties and nuances of the feminine and masculine energies can be appreciated when the restrictions are removed. One could then use them in a controlled and responsible manner instead of randomly and chaotically oscillating from one to the other or degenerating into an asexual blob. This would allow one to experience and integrate both sides of the equation in one lifetime, enhancing one's ability to give and empathize with the other, (if that is what one chooses) and overcoming the "men are from Mars, women are from Venus" dichotomy.

Instead, what we have with the gender fluid is people ascribing a level of consciousness to themselves that they do not have, not really understanding what they're even really talking about, and forcing others to support their fantasy. Furthermore, I find the idea of nonbinary to be extremely dangerous; I still believe gender is binary on the next density, even if it is variable, because that archetypal interaction is still necessary to drive creation. 4D STS can create various oddities that stagnate and decay, but I don't think nonbinary is a direction anyone really wants to go in. I realize this way beyond us and veering off topic, so I will stop now, but I do think these 4D impressions bleed over from time to time and drive people crazy, and 4D STS probably leverages them in some way to accentuate the confusion, resulting in chaos and disintegration.

 

[luc]

If you’re gay or straight, it helps a lot to step back emotionally and just look at the discussion as a scientist, unattached.

I think you made some great points SAO. But I also think that there can be a danger to this "let's step back and look at both sides of the coin", intellectual approach, because sometimes this can be a doorway for pathological material to enter our minds. There is a rightful place for emotions as well.

For example, I'm sick of our toxic, pathological culture, including pathological gay culture, to gaslight me into giving up common sense. I mean, what could possibly be more obvious than the statement "regular sex is more natural than anal sex"? It's like saying 1+1=2. Yes, you can engage in all kinds of intellectual games about definitions and all of that, but 1+1 is still 2. And yet, gay culture sells us the opposite, and we are so confused that we accept these things. Note that this isn't homophobic, this isn't judging gays, nothing like that - it's just stating something obvious, it's common sense. Same goes for so many other things.

And I don't think we need to preface everything with "of course gays have human rights", "of course they have dignity" etc. That, too, should be common sense, and I assume nobody here has ever harassed a gay just because he's gay and so on. We don't need to put up with this guilt trip gay culture uses to stifle our common sense. It really is the same as the "anti-Semitism" shtick.

In other words, I'm all for a detached, scientific look at things. But context matters, too - and right now, in the West at least, we live in a "pathological homo culture", and our emotional reactions to it might have less to do with "homophobia", and more to do with an instinctive revulsion against this thoroughly Orwellian, Dystopian, shameful state of affairs. Sometimes such emotions can be helpful with striving towards the truth, IF they don't consume us and we can keep the "moralistic snap-back" in check, or consciously channel it towards something productive and helpful.

 

[aragorn]

Mmm no? Is that really what you think I was attempting to do?

I was pointing out that prudishness doesn't aid in the discussion of sexuality in the scientific search for truth. It's also a little silly when heterosexuals comment on gay sex with any authority. It's a bit like a group of men discussing abortion without input from women, or white people discussing racism in America without minorities in the conversation. Not that such things can't be discussed, but rather, wide input from people who are directly involved might just give you a more accurate read on the situation, fwiw.

And for a "more accurate reading on the situation" women should also listen to men's views on abortions and the white people should also be heard regarding racism, right?

 

[Gaby]

You seem to be repeatedly and consistently missing the crux of the matter. Nobody is "commenting on gay sex" other than to point out 1) some obvious biological facts that make the existence of homosexuality curious, and 2) also reporting on a strong sense of aversion in those who are not homosexual that appears to be instinctual, i.e. hardwired and that is also curious.

For me the classical example of this is sexually transmitted diseases and the moral taste buds that Jonathan Haidt talks about in "The Righteous Man". We know that STDs have made a dangerous comeback. See for instance this:

Lethal Sex -The Rise of Sexually Transmitted Diseases in the Age of Postmodernist Liberalism

Syphilis, one of the most feared infections of the Middle Ages and Victorian eras, was until recently virtually eradicated from our world. In the United States, after being close to zero in 2000, the syphilis rate began a sharp climb in 2011....

www.sott.net

I used to work in a very conservative region where STDs were, comparatively speaking, unheard of. I met there a Ginecologist who was trained in England and who was used to the London population. He came to the conservative region in Spain and expected the same incidence of STDs, so he always asked a lab test for a specific STD germ for years until he got tired of getting back negative results, so he stopped. He was joking that it was commendable for the microbiologist to not complain about it. I also asked the Pediatrician of this region, if I had to suspect STDs in young girls with urinary infections, as was the case in South America where sexual abuse is so rampant. She told me that there was nothing of that kind in the region. I later saw myself that that was the case, except for the heart breaking ER cases where a child was raped or a woman was brought in hugging a teddy bear and who couldn't speak the local language and was raped.

Now I work in a more liberal region, so I had to re-study STDs all over again. The common story is that the condom broke, and they got infected. Then, there's the multiple partners story. Then, one of my HIV positive patients from Africa told me that he was certain that he didn't get HIV in Africa (despite the epidemiology), but locally after having multiple partners with both men and women and often in the same night and at all the same time. It is known that homosexuals are at an increased risk for certain STDs just because of the nature of their sexual acts. It was not surprising to hear recently that the same African patient was treated for gonorrhea after being diagnosed with HIV. As his doctor, I have to run a questionnaire with him all over again about his sexual practices and remind him that he's HIV positive and can't go messing around any more. Sigh.

In general, I feel completely repulsed by having to think about STDs. I try to take the scientific approach to make it easier on me and everyone else. I definitely don't want to learn about people's sexual practices and their vaginal or urethral discharges. I do take the opportunity of that fear reaction that people get when the billboard falls into their heads to shame them. Depending on a person's background and attitude, I just recommend sticking to one sexual partner that you can trust, "if you can find one". I tell them about STDs and how they have to come back in a few months for tests again because of the incubation periods, and then I tell them that there's simply too much STDs around, stuff that was only seen in Victorian eras, etc.

I was reviewing the subject yet again this week after one of my patients got cured of his urethral discharge with one shot of ceftriaxone and an azithromycin pill. I had the story of my African patient in mind when I chose his treatment.

Take for instance HPV for which only a few strains cause cancer. There are over 100 viral strains and about 80% of the population has some kind of strain or another. It can be transmitted even when using condoms. This is a virus whose vaccine can cause narcolepsy and an imbalance in the autonomic nervous system, making people prone to mood disorders and weird conditions. People with genetic predispositions in their thiamine pathways have it worse after the HPV vaccine. Imagine what it is doing in people's genomes when transimitted casually, but also from mother to child during pregnancy.

After all of this, I can certainly vouch for the good Christian values that make people stay clean in every sense.

Even though the available historical sources clearly indicate that the Greek king had different female lovers each night, he is considered the most famous gay man of antiquity, simply because a screenwriter in Hollywood imagined him as one.

Which reminds me of the porn connection that Laurent Guyenot talked about in "From Yahweh to Zion".

 

[Woodsman]

I think you made some great points SAO. But I also think that there can be a danger to this "let's step back and look at both sides of the coin", intellectual approach, because sometimes this can be a doorway for pathological material to enter our minds. There is a rightful place for emotions as well.

For example, I'm sick of our toxic, pathological culture, including pathological gay culture, to gaslight me into giving up common sense. I mean, what could possibly be more obvious than the statement "regular sex is more natural than anal sex"? It's like saying 1+1=2. Yes, you can engage in all kinds of intellectual games about definitions and all of that, but 1+1 is still 2. And yet, gay culture sells us the opposite, and we are so confused that we accept these things. Note that this isn't homophobic, this isn't judging gays, nothing like that - it's just stating something obvious, it's common sense. Same goes for so many other things.

And I don't think we need to preface everything with "of course gays have human rights", "of course they have dignity" etc. That, too, should be common sense, and I assume nobody here has ever harassed a gay just because he's gay and so on. We don't need to put up with this guilt trip gay culture uses to stifle our common sense. It really is the same as the "anti-Semitism" shtick.

In other words, I'm all for a detached, scientific look at things. But context matters, too - and right now, in the West at least, we live in a "pathological homo culture", and our emotional reactions to it might have less to do with "homophobia", and more to do with an instinctive revulsion against this thoroughly Orwellian, Dystopian, shameful state of affairs. Sometimes such emotions can be helpful with striving towards the truth, IF they don't consume us and we can keep the "moralistic snap-back" in check, or consciously channel it towards something productive and helpful.

Sounds about right. After all...

"Love is hate, war is peace."

-The food pyramid is upside down; Animal fat is bad and Veggies are good.

Carbon, the base building block molecule of life itself, is demonized! Smoking is bad for you.

What else?

Fluoride is a health additive. Capitalism is going to kill us all. There is no God or Spirit or Soul.

Let's see. I'm sure I'm missing some...

Cellphones aren't bad for you at all, vaccinate your babies (or Penn & Teller will mock you), Aliens aren't real, psychopathy is trendy, Believe Women, and Reality is a Social Construct; observe! There 35 genders! (Or was it 58?) I don't know. But I do know if you don't want to ice a gay cake or pluck a transvestite's testicles, your life can be legally destroyed.

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false"

And in perfect keeping, nobody knows if the above statement was actually said by once CIA Director, William Casey, or just made up by an imaginative author, but as with the equally questionable origins of the so-called, "Protocols of the Elders of Zion".., who the hell cares? A statement which resonates with such bone-felt baritone, does so for a reason.

Oh, forgot one: Masculinity is toxic and the family is akin to slavery.

And gay pride is somehow best featured when creepy mental cases wear spiked leather and rainbows. On leashes. And you better believe that's normal, boy, or you will face summary Twitter judgement and actual legal penalties in some countries!

If that's not Progressive enough for you, then I've got some Flat real estate you might also be interested in.

 

[Jenn]

Well the definition of graphic is:

Giving clear and vividly explicit details.

So imo I thought these comments were graphic-

Sodomy or anal sex, if that's what Adaryn was referring to, can be as brutal as the lovers want it to be - which is the same case for vaginal sex between men and women, or even oral sex between partners of any gender.

The practice' can be intimate and soft, and generally speaking, it has to begin that way

And as Ant said:

Jenn may have referred to different parts of your posts but personally I found the below ones to be overly explicit. You said your language was clinical. I beg to differ.

Cyre2067 said:
That's another point, straight people participate in butt sex as well. As far as natural, what does that even mean when it comes to human sexuality? If I go with a strict 'occurring in nature' that's demonstrably false, as there are animals in nature that do it in the butt as well.

And later on-

They're celebrating the passion they have and there's generally a lot of laughing - is that too much info?

Again coming back to Joe's point:

I think we're back to the original conclusion here, that everyone seems to agree on, that since most heterosexual people find it repellent, the promotion of it is a bad idea. I'd be as repelled by heterosexual aficionados of anal sex promoting it in one way or another on a float down main street, and would advocate (mostly in my own mind and in the privacy of my own home) for it to be banned.

Most other points pertaining to this topic fall into the realm of personal preference and, if I learned one thing, it's that personal preferences are what they are and you won't change someone by telling them that you prefer something else and that it's much better or more objective or whatever.

You may want to check your icky feelings at the door.

Isn't that the whole point of this discussion? That those "icky feelings" exist whether you want to acknowledge it or not. If it's an inbuilt aversion/ repulsion to the idea of gay sex, then no amount of "gay sex education" is going to change that.

Furthermore, if it is an inbuilt aversion, it doesn't make it good or bad, it just depends on whether the person can recognize that and then what they do with that information osit. Am I going to avoid being friends with gay people, or cross the street when I see a gay couple coming towards me... no of course not, because I'm not homophobic... I just don't want to imagine them having sex, in the same way, that I don't want to imagine my parents having sex

The aim of my post was to highlight that, like Luc, I also found what you said to be graphic. If you are sincerely "sharing information so that you can learn something", then maybe you would be open to the fact that people perceive things differently to how you perceive them, and that it may aid social relations and discussions if you respect that. I don't mean creating a safe space all about "the good vibes", just to practice some basic external consideration.

It seems contradictory to me that minorities demand their diversity and equality is acknowledged, yet will not allow opinions that go against their own to exist.

 

[Scottie]

I just want to add a few things to the recent great posts: "butt sex" and "do it in the butt" are certainly not clinical language.

"Anal sex" and "anal penetration" are probably much more clinical terms

And of course, being clinical or not is a different animal than being prudish or not. I'm sure we can all relate stories of people who were either totally prudish in public but tigers in the bedroom, or very blatant and open about sex in public yet effectively paralyzed in private due to guilt, shame, or whatever.

 

[Andromeda]

Personally, I have no aversion to homosexual people. I DO have an aversion to seeing publicized homosexual acts.

I have no problem with the idea of gays being anywhere, doing anything (lead roles in movies, public office, whatever) as long as promoting gayness is not the main reason for their situation (which it is in most cases today). I have no problem with the way gay people decide to show their affection for each other as long as I don't have to see or hear about it as part of a personal exhibitionism agenda (which happens a lot in today's world).

I DO have a BIG problem with the idea of homosexual and gender fluidity propaganda directed at children (children should be taught kindness, decency and acceptance by their parents, not xenophilia by the state). And a problem with the idea of homosexual elitism and demands for exceptional treatment to compensate for any past injustices (whether personal or, especially, at a remove).

I'm not prudish. To me, it just seems dehumanizing to see homosexuality unrealistically, in a glorified overly sexualized way. It also seems pretty unfair for homosexual individuals to expect heterosexual individuals to not see homosexuality as at least curious, if not downright strange.... and to try to systematically change that in children. There are ways to learn to get along and respect differences without either romanticizing or annihilating them. I would guess that the minority group who glorifies/normalizes homosexuality unrealistically is naturally equal to the minority group who is unrealistically militantly homophobic. The problem is that when one side grows, so does the other. And somebody dumped a whole bottle of miracle grow on that.

 

[Jono]

Thanks for the discussion. My parents views when I was growing up were always "I don't mind what people (homosexuals) do, as long as they don't shove it down my throat". I thought that was reasonable. It's funny how a lot of the modern leftists, which also covers a lot of the modern LGBT crowd, would now consider that a massively homophobic statement; when obviously it's just common sense.

A few years ago, I seen gay-pride and all its events as reasonable due to the oppression gays used to face. But as others have pointed out the cycle of suppression/over-promotion is ridiculous. A lot like the new wave feminist agenda of wanting to surpass the point of equal rights but to have even more rights. There are lots of other examples now I think of it, but they all appear to be more divide and conquer games to stop us looking up the power structure and keep us fighting between ourselves.

As for the germ theory it seems plausible especially when you look at things like toxoplasma. But I'm confused why people are getting their backs up against the wall when the C's have even pointed out that there are 'natural' homosexuals. No one seems to be saying there's anything wrong with it either. Maybe most of our preferences, healthy and unhealthy, are caused by 'germs' or infections, or maybe that's just another way at looking at different aspects of our programs, idk. The obvious thing though is that it appears that these divide and conquer games even make their way to the forum and derail/delay the point of the initial conversation because of emotional reactions.

 

[Yozilla]

(Gay) Pride or (Jewish) Elitism, the latter is far more influential, are part of this entropic, delusional outplay. OSIT.

Yup, and due to alleged Zionists' ownership of MSM could it be hypothesized why are they ferociously pushing LGBT agenda on goyim?

Maybe they wanna turn 'em all in geyim? huh

 

[Cyre2067]

Anal sex is a bit more descriptive than butt sex, but is there really a problem with 'butt sex?' Y'all need to lighten up. I think the thread demonstrates huge biases and a lot of folks justifying and endorsing that bias because some gay people and much of gay culture are relatively disgusting in their behaviors and attitudes.

The clutching of pearls throughout at my relatively tame use of language to illustrate points regarding human sexuality was, at the very least, entertaining. It was an effective obstruction to the points I was making, however.

There's little understanding from a gay perspective because most of y'all are straight and prefer to maintain the 'objectivity' of your 'revulsion.' Which is demonstrably not objective as there are folks who don't find it such.

It's a little sad that y'all can see two dudes hold hands in public without getting grossed out. Or if two people kiss in public (regardless of their gender) some folks again get triggered. That says much more about the individual(s) in question than the couple, if you ask me. If you want to justify those feelings and give them some safe harbor in your psyche and rationalize that with a pseudoscientific theory (which no evidence to support it) be my guest.