Why is homo- and bisexuality on the rise in the West?

[Templar]

There is no conclusive evidence that homosexuality is genetic. Twin studies hint at that it is not. I think they came up with the genetic argument to make it more socially acceptable.

 

[Bergin]

There is no conclusive evidence that homosexuality is genetic. Twin studies hint at that it is not. I think they came up with the genetic argument to make it more socially acceptable.

I think is well accepted that genetics plays a role in it. the question is what else plays a role?

 

[Tomenable]

There is no conclusive evidence that homosexuality is genetic. Twin studies hint at that it is not. I think they came up with the genetic argument to make it more socially acceptable.

My observation (it might be wrong though) is that for people like LeBrok, everything must be genetic unless there are striking racial differences. When there are striking statistical differences between racial groups, then it must be 100% cultural, because claiming otherwise would be racist.

However, he seems to be racist himself against Native Canadians (he claimed that they lag behind due to - quote - "shortage of farmer genes").

I have heard from my Canadian friend, that racism against "First Nations" is still very acceptable for most people in North America. Just like racism against Eastern Europeans (which is why you see LeBrok slandering Eastern Europeans and Native Canadians all the time - these are his two favourite scapegoats, which is kind of funny considering that he is an Eastern European living in a land which formerly belonged to Native Canadians).

And racism against Blacks, Middle Easterners, and some other groups, is of course Non-PC. He is driven first of all by current trends in political correctness and by his "trendy" leftist views, before logic.

My guess is that racism against Natives is more PC probably because they don't fit into the multicultural narrative. Only immigrants of all kinds fit into the multicultural narrative, not aboriginal inhabitants.

All other kinds of POCs increase "diversity" and "multiculturalism", but Natives do not. Natives just happen to be there, and always have been, so they are not making Canada more multicultural than it already is, and this differentiates them from all other groups, making them "less attractive" for various SJWs etc.

PS:

I was told that accusing someone of racism might be Non-PC if they are leftist or part of another group which enjoys preferential treatment in the West (if they are right wing then it's OK). It is better to call such leftists "nitpicky", "angry" or "bossy". And that's what LeBrok seems to be.

How is it unpersuasive that exclusive homosexuality didn't exist in the past?

Not only in the past.

Even at present it does not exist in some societies.

For example the San Bushmen and the Pygmies.

 

[LeBrok]

My observation (it mightu be wrong though) is that for people like LeBrok, everything must be genetic unless there are striking racial differences. When there are striking statistical differences between racial groups, then it must be 100% cultural, because claiming otherwise would be racist.

And I say it is only in your head, because you can't find me saying that. Go ahead and quote me.

However, he seems to be racist himself against Native Canadians (he claimed that they lag behind due to - quote - "shortage of farmer genes").

How difficult is it to recognize differences in races but still treat all equally, inclusive and with respect to all? I guess very, because it is something incomprehensible to you!

I have heard from my Canadian friend, that racism against "First Nations" is still very acceptable for most people in North America. Just like racism against Eastern Europeans (which is why you see LeBrok slandering Eastern Europeans and Native Canadians all the time - these are his two favourite scapegoats, which is kind of funny considering that he is an Eastern European living in a land which formerly belonged to Native Canadians).

Wow, what a sharp logic, lol. So if Vietnamese comes to work and live in Poland, he or she must be racist.

And racism against Blacks, Middle Easterners, and some other groups, is of course Non-PC. He is driven first of all by current trends in political correctness and by his "trendy" leftist views, before logic.

And another great logic of yours "current political correctness is racist to Blacks and Middle Easterners". I hope you will never be an attorney or a judge, or god save your clients!

My guess is that racism against Natives is more PC probably because they don't fit into the multicultural narrative. Only immigrants of all kinds fit into the multicultural narrative, not aboriginal inhabitants.

LOL, your guesses. I know that racism is due to intolerant and close minded people like you. Ether like it or not, you represent this conservative past, which enslaved others and lead nationalist and religious wars. In the past the world was full of people like you.

All other kinds of POCs increase "diversity" and "multiculturalism", but Natives do not. Natives just happen to be there, and always have been, so they are not making Canada more multicultural than it already is, and this differentiates them from all other groups, making them "less attractive" for various SJWs etc.

Oh, teach me about Canada.

I was told that accusing someone of racism might be Non-PC if they are leftist or part of another group which enjoys preferential treatment in the West (if they are right wing then it's OK). It is better to call such leftists "nitpicky", "angry" or "bossy". And that's what LeBrok seems to be.

You don't like to be a racist, it hurts you? Stop being one. Try to be tolerant, inclusive and respectful to others.

 

[Maleth]

There is no conclusive evidence that homosexuality is genetic. Twin studies hint at that it is not. I think they came up with the genetic argument to make it more socially acceptable.

I very much doubt it. As for those of you who console your believes on some kind of Twin study prove...read this. Also to add further to my personal experience the only identical twins I know in my area happen to be both gay.

For example, one twin in Bruder's study was missing some genes on particular chromosomes that indicated a risk of leukemia, which he indeed suffered. The other twin did not.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/identical-twins-genes-are-not-identical/

 

[Maleth]

Undermining of traditional natural order of things
I blame capitalism first and foremost, feminism is at first glance the obvious reason but it was created by capitalism which is a cannibalistic system of obsession with materialistic profit being worshiped above all else.

What is wrong with feminism? Can someone explain?. I guess its an evil word for those who think that a woman's place irrelevant to her abilities is to stay at home cooking and making babies. There is nothing natural about that. That could have been a system that worked well during some era in human development, but not relevant as a system today. I have seen some women in some cultures were they are literally servants of their husbands. Its simply disgusting and unacceptable. It doesn't mean its all well when a woman has no say totally dependent on her husband with chauvinistic laws that back up the abuses. A chauvinistic environment normally goes hand in hand with Homosexual persecution and does not add for men to get more excited sexually with each other. That is total nonsense.

 

[LeBrok]

I very much doubt it. As for those of you who console your believes on some kind of Twin study prove...read this. Also to add further to my personal experience the only identical twins I know in my area happen to be both gay.

For example, one twin in Bruder's study was missing some genes on particular chromosomes that indicated a risk of leukemia, which he indeed suffered. The other twin did not.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/identical-twins-genes-are-not-identical/

A great point. They should read studies pointing to the fact that identical twins are not 100 percent identical.

 

[Angela]

One thing I have learned on this forum, or better yet, what has been confirmed, is that most people are incapable of objectively looking at evidence or engaging in logical thought. That's why I increasingly don't bother to debate certain ideas with certain people. There's no point.

 

[srdceleva]

One thing I have learned on this forum, or better yet, what has been confirmed, is that most people are incapable of objectively looking at evidence or engaging in logical thought. That's why I increasingly don't bother to debate certain ideas with certain people. There's no point.

It's amazing how if we don't agree with you guys it's us who are incapable of thinking objectively. All of my thoughts have been very objective and quite well reasoned. It isn't strange or not objective for me to believe that if a girl was raped by a man at a young age that one day she may grow up and have a mental block or fear of men. It's not unreasonable to think that maybe a boy who didn't grow up with a loving father, grows up and is looking for masculine affection. There is much more evidence to suggest this than any of those pseudo scientific studies. LeBrok tries to label me as someone who just denies science but I don't even know if he read the studies he sent me. One of them claimed homosexuals had different brain structure than straight men, even though in that study homosexuals with aids were used as the proxy for just "homosexuals." This is why the scientific community has never ever said being homosexual is for sure genetic as there is no study that has proven this.

@Lebrok
Conservatives were not the ones enslaving people. The abolitionist movement in North America was a Christian one, this is a fact. The same Christians today who oppose homosexuality would also be the same people to protect them and help them if someone really was trying to persecute them just as they helped the slaves. There is a reason why Christianity has produced figures like mother Theresa and John Paul the second. Those people both staunchly opposed homosexuality and sexual immorality, yet no one would label them like you try to label us.

It's clear to anyone who uses reason that a relationship that is the reason for all of human existence ( heterosexually) is not equal to a relationship which isnt. If there were no gays in the world anymore life would go on regularly, if there were no straights, civilization would cease to exist.

You all will say a father sleeping with his daughter is nasty even if they are adults and not normal. Yet just 15 years ago people were saying the exact same thing about homosexuality. If anyone isn't being honest and objective it's you guys. Also Angela's argument about incest creating unhealthy babies is nonsense. This is the modern age where contraceptives and abortion are easier to get than candy. Also there are surgeries to prevent pregnancy. All of the same arguments for homosexuals can be used to support incest between adults. If you don't agree with this, your a biased non reasonable person and no one can discuss with you.

 

[LeBrok]

It's amazing how if we don't agree with you guys it's us who are incapable of thinking objectively. All of my thoughts have been very objective and quite well reasoned. It isn't strange or not objective for me to believe that if a girl was raped by a man at a young age that one day she may grow up and have a mental block or fear of men. It's not unreasonable to think that maybe a boy who didn't grow up with a loving father, grows up and is looking for masculine affection. There is much more evidence to suggest this than any of those pseudo scientific studies. LeBrok tries to label me as someone who just denies science but I don't even know if he read the studies he sent me. One of them claimed homosexuals had different brain structure than straight men, even though in that study homosexuals with aids were used as the proxy for just "homosexuals." This is why the scientific community has never ever said being homosexual is for sure genetic as there is no study that has proven this.

One of them? Just don't be shy and link it here. I'll be glad to have reasonable discussion with you. Ah, did you noticed other studies which came to same conclusions?

@Lebrok
Conservatives were not the ones enslaving people. The abolitionist movement in North America was a Christian one, this is a fact.

You mean there were Christians involved in it, great. Keep in mind that in Christian predominantly country almost all organizations will consist mostly of Christians. For the same reason mostly Christians had slaves in America.

The same Christians today who oppose homosexuality would also be the same people to protect them and help them if someone really was trying to persecute them just as they helped the slaves. There is a reason why Christianity has produced figures like mother Theresa and John Paul the second. Those people both staunchly opposed homosexuality and sexual immorality, yet no one would label them like you try to label us.

In free and inclusive world homosexuals don't need help from Christians or any other religious group. Just let them be and treat them like full value human beings.

It's clear to anyone who uses reason that a relationship that is the reason for all of human existence ( heterosexually) is not equal to a relationship which isnt. If there were no gays in the world anymore life would go on regularly, if there were no straights, civilization would cease to exist.

Who knows, maybe with genetic engineering and designer babies there will be no gays in the future. They exist now though and there should be place for them to have good life like for anyone else. It also would be nice if whole world spoke one language, there wouldn't be a need to waste time and money to learn second or third one.

You all will say a father sleeping with his daughter is nasty even if they are adults and not normal.

Who is saying this?!!! There is higher risk of conceiving unhealthy baby, yes. Otherwise if daughter is of legal age, who will stop them and what is the harm for society or people involved? However, such partnerships or even partnerships between siblings are very unusual and will never become mainstream. There is something in us, an instinct, that makes siblings and parents unattractive.

Yet just 15 years ago people were saying the exact same thing about homosexuality.

50 years ago women couldn't vote, 100 years ago there was only one democracy in the world. There are places even today that prohibits homosexuality, democracy and women voting. All of these old prohibitions were eventually dropped, in the West, on grounds of benefits or not being harmful to society, therefore these should be for people to freely chose. You might also check statistics and studies done to access adopted children and raised by gay couples. What do these studies say?

 

[Maleth]

It's clear to anyone who uses reason that a relationship that is the reason for all of human existence ( heterosexually) is not equal to a relationship which isnt. If there were no gays in the world anymore life would go on regularly, if there were no straights, civilization would cease to exist.

:grin: there is artificial insemination.....but joking apart one cannot base an argument on bogus ifs. The world is what it is. If your believes are based on any religious connotations as you are implying in this particular post then one can argue that god is perfect and that's how he wanted things to be, so why all the resistance to prove otherwise?

 

[Northener]

I don't see any rise. In the west is, at least since the sixties, LGTB more and more accepted. So that may be can considered as a rise. But imo that's no rise but something what once was 'hidden' can know be expressed openly.
In my opinion it's one of the biggest achievements of the enlightement that people (individuals) can express their sexuality in the way they want (as long as they don't harm others). I don't see any pro in restricted, hidden or frusty kind of sexual behaviour because of close tied social norms.
But this 'enlightement achievement' is never certain, because fundamentalist of different kind have one thing in common: they can't stand free (individual) expression....