/sci/ - Science & Math

INB4 engineers

Homosexuality is caused by having the opposite sex's version of the sexually dimorphous region in the brain develop during gestation, from causes that are not clear yet. But you already knew that.

inb4 100+ replies

THE DEVIL!!! Accept Jesus as your Lord and savior and you shall be saved.

>>1670269

Already did.

>>1670273
terms accepted

>>1670259

>>1670254
The only way to stop it is to exterminate all life

Why would you want to stop it?

>>1670422

he is jealous

>>1670254
There would be no more engineers. That would be a sad sad day.

>>1670422
Because it's disgusting

first posting
no known cure

>>1670429

So? They're happy, and they're not hurting anyone with it.

>>1670438
They're grossing everyone else out. That hurts people.

>>1670422
Because it violates God's order.

>>1670450

That isn't hurting them. It's just taking them out of their comfort zone. Also, everyone is far too strong a word.

>>1670451

No such thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature

>>1670262
There is no evidence that it happens in gestation. It could well be a result of both genetic and environmental factors. The brain does change over time in a variety of ways. Ever hear of parkinsons, or epilepsy? We know that it is a change in the brain, but we do not yet know what causes that change.

>>1670262
Lol, just like i have a snickers dimorphous region of my brain.

No seriusly, its a mental illness, just no ones brave enough to state it. This isnt a troll. Its fairly clear that they re-inforce their behavour by operant conditioning. The reward: orgasms and pulling the descrinination card, belonging to a 'group'.

>>1670481

I'd say abormality. Doesn't the word illness suggest that it in some way would retract from their standard of living, or abillity to interact with the world around them?

>>1670463

>fag trying to defend his line of work (engineering)

When did /sci/ become /new/?
>>1670581
>>1670481
>>1670451
>>1670450
>>1670429

>>1670490
>Illness
>standard of living

The purpose of genetics is to pass on... genes. Not doing so is clearly harmful. However a trend in all mental illness is that you do not mate, or at least, not as successfully.

I'm not sure that's an answerable question. I'm a woman and though I've never had sex with a girl I'll freely admit that I think Scarlett Johansson is very hot.

>>1670599

Why do we have to abhere to our genetic purpose when building our social structures though? That's just an appeal to nature. (Check wikipedia for the definition of the fallacy before we go off on a tangent).

Sure, we were produced by evolution, and we're still being affected by it, although the environment have changed very much, but we've since achieved sentience, and can chose to find other purposes in our lives than just blindly following our genetic imperatives, or their logical conclusions. If we say that homosexuality is wrong, what about people who chose to use condoms, or people like my father, who chose to have himself castrated?

>>1670610
lesbianism is clearly normal. Who wouldn't want her to sit on your face?

>>1670630
I assume you mean he had a vasectomy? Or else wtf is wrong with your father?

Additionally, I'm not sure a cause can be specified. I feel that there are multiple reasons a person may feel attracted toward another, and their gender is only one of many factors that cause a person to seek out their partner.

And also, if you noticed the multiple posts in the past few days regarding transexuality consider the parallels between this and homosexuality and how if you claim that everyone is not simply xx or xy it is hard to determine how "straight" or "gay" is even defined.

>>1670640

I don't know the details of the procedure, all I know is he can't have any more children. In Norwegian the word is used loosely about both procedures, although to my knowlege he still has his balls.

>>1670630
he should have done it sooner

So you want sentience to justify abandoning logic? Sentience is the ability to recognize one's self in a mirror. Thats not very impressive.

>>1670254

You cannot stop it. It is the next step in evolution.

>>1670674
so the human species is on track for an evolutionary dead end wear we simply stop breeding? What nonsense. Go back to /x/ if you want to talk about nonsense.

Gay Niggers from Outerspace

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0h4pxpjPi0

>>1670714

lol

>>1670630
Really, oh wow. Appeal to nature eh?
Your just restricting the options, we ARE part of nature. Your wrong to believe that humans have progressed beyond genetic imperatives. They are as much a part of our logical process as sentience. They are one and the same, you cannot disregard them.

>>1670463
Appealing to God is not appealing to nature. Nature's law doesn't imply what is good or bad. God's law does.

>>1670254
Who cares? Gay people provide benefits in both primitive and modern societies.

>>1670738
Seriously. Where would we be without engineering?

>>1670714
this

and also shit arguments about it being unnatural are invalid. Animals can be homosexual, so can humans.

It's your own choice not to accept one's homosexuality but you have no right whatsoever to tell her that it's wrong, that she shouldn't be it or whatever. You can choose not to accept it, but you have no right to claim that her sexuality is inferior to yours and hence she should stop being homosexual.

You have no right to try to make 'em "normal", and they have no right to try to make you gay etc etc i think you get it

>>1670729

True, but that doesn't mean I have to abhere to them in their most basic form. I enjoy sexual pleasure. I know the reason for that is that it used to be an effective mechanism to ensure reproduction. But that doesn't mean it's wrong for me to persue sexual pleasure without wishing to have children. Evolution and genetic imperatives explain how we got here, and the basics for the formation of our adaptive learning algorithms that doesn't mean it should dictate how we build our societies or what our moral imperatives should be. Existentialism, utilitarianism and humanism all do a better job at that.

>>1670754
You are wrong. I live in America. We have something called the 1st Amendment. It secures my right to tell anyone I want they are wrong, or bad, or claim anything the fuck I want.

>>1670737

But if you claim that nature's nature, as it were, flows directly from god, then surely what is natural should be a manifestation of god's will?

Also, semantics aside, it's basically the same fallacy, not matter if you're appealing to nature or an imaginary sky daddy.

>>1670766

It secures you the right to tell them your oppinions, yes. It doesn't secure you the right to enforce your oppinion on others. They're just as entitled to their oppinion as you are.

>>1670766
Amendments are privileges, not rights.

the whole point of sex is to reproduce therefore homosexuality is an imperfection and they should be massacred. if you put that trait in an evolutionary chain they WILL die off. fucking human beings are shit because there is no survival of the fittest anymore.

>>1670766
>>1670780

I reread the post you were responding to, and yeah, they don't have the right to censor you either for expressing your oppinion. But the line gets drawn at the point where you try to "cure" homosexuals against their will. And all cure proposed to exist today merely supresses it and makes their sexuality latent, which is hardly healthy from a psychological point of view.

>>1670791
>psychological point of view

this is /sci/ not /x/

>>1670782

>Implying evolutionary imperative = Moral imperative
>Implying survival of the fittest is invalid because the enviromental factors are different.

Go back to your social darwinism club and the 1920ies.

>>1670782
Well let's just face it, currently we're not 40000000000000000 years before christ and "they'd be bad for evolution"-arguments are invalid. Diverted sexualities will in no way be a destructive force nowadays when we are 9 billion fucking individuals on earth.

And besides there aren't so many homosexuals worldwide by per cent, so they really wouldn't mess upp so much in an evolutionary chain, would they?

Education causes people to be homosexual and to stop it the government would either have to set-up a homosexual colony by bringing all the gay people together in one area.

To destroy the homosexuality all-together you would need to destroy all schools, colleges, universities, etc; and start educating the truth rather than oneism.

Or holocaust.

Anti-homosexuals who actually have arguments for their standing have arguments that would apply or be accepted (by any rational being) thousands to billions of years ago, either because of religon or because of evolutionary causes.

Basically there are no valid arguments against homosexuality. You can choose not to like them but you still won't have any valid arguments. Unlike religons(eg islam) they aren't destructive towards our society in any way.

>>1670766
You have the right to an opinion, but you can not label an opinion a fact and expect there not to be consequences. This is the same reason you can not yell fire in a theater, free speech is protected but when it starts to threaten lives or spread lies (such as slander) you can still face some dire consequences.

>>1670810
>Education causes people to be homosexual
Source.

And even if there it a correlation, it could just indicate that they're more likely to come out of the closet.

>>1670820
homosex is gross, it is evil, it will claim your children, it will eat you pets, it will have sex with your pets too, homosex will defile your lawn statuaries, and cheat on it's taxes.

I'll wait for the dire consequences, you may begin at any time.

YAY TO IGNORANCE!

Homosexuality may be a genetic error or whatever, but as it isn't something that "in theory" shouldn't cause problems to the person and those around them (at least in a modern society), it should be accepted as a natural way of being, just like Heterosexuality.

And for those wh scream "if you don't reproduce you fail at life" I will say: ADOPTION MOTHERFUCKER, DO YOU KNOW IT? There are lots of kids who need parents ya know..

>>1670820
still waiting for the dire consequences

The band of Thebes was an army of 150 gay couples, and these 300 fags made the Spartans who stood at Thermopylae look like pussies. They have even won battles against the Spartan army when out numbered by Spartans. That's right the greatest fighting force in the ancient world was a bunch of fags

>>1670885
You are still out of the gene pool...you still fail, buddy.

>>1670885
Boo to people who say that people who disagree with them are therefore ignorant.

>>1670902
so your saying that fags are ultra violent and we should keep them around why?

>What causes people to be gay

Poju

>what can be done to stop it?

Why would you want to?

>>1670254


its neurological/hormonal, just like how heterosexuality is neurological/hormonal

when a straight guy sees an hour glass figure with some tits on it, hes gonna get attracted to it, even if it's a mannequin or drawing

a gayfag is someone whos brain reacts to the masculine bodytype not the feminine

ppl who like traps aren't gay though cuz they dont like male bodytypes, they like boobs and girl figures
go fuck yourself

>>1670913

I liked poju a lot but I never find male bodies attractive cuz males don't have poju bodies unless they take female hormones and become traps, in which case they can become delicious female hybrids

>>1670844
>homosex will defile your lawn statuaries

I lolled hard

>>1670885And for those wh scream "if you don't reproduce you fail at life" I will say: ADOPTION MOTHERFUCKER, DO YOU KNOW IT? There are lots of kids who need parents ya know..

Christians believe that every time an orphan is made, an angel gets its wings.

I LIKE PENIS

>>1670933

This is random, but I like your font.

>>1670933
I also like your font, but I'm not gay or nothing

>>1670925
Is liking traps gay? What if you want to fuck sexy trap dick?

>>1670927

I want to arrange a wandering gnome prank now where we steal a christian's lawn gnome and it sends cards from gay clubs around the world saying it's come out of the closet

>>1671017
it's only gay if you want to dock, butt sex is perfectly straight

>>1671017
Yes, you are gay and disgusting.

>>1671023
problem: only faggots have lawn gnomes.

>>1671023
>>1671032
I guess you could gift one to a straight person first, but that would lead to suspicions.

We actually could do a lot of good if more people were gay: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8sTSXVVGYvE

Gay people contribute to society without taking from it in the form of kids (kids cost a huge amount to the state and have a gigantic environmental impact too. Sure we need some, but we have way too many).

Gay people have partners with matching sex drives rather than straight couples who have wildly unmatching sex drives - gay men don't have to pretend to be better than they are or buy expensive stuff for their lovers to get laid. This is anecdotal, but gay couples always seem to understand each other a LOT better and finding someone truly compatible in all capacities for a relationship is easier. - I am not saying it's impossible for straights to find someone, though.

Gay people are less violent (compare violent crime levels in gay club vs straight club).

The only problem with being gay is homophobic people who make life hard and sometimes force gay people to do things like hide their relationships or resort to random unsafe hookups which spread disease.

Mfw we're called the ill ones.

Also, if you're still anal about the evolutionary angle (darn closet eugenicists), homosexuals can still promote their genes by supporting the offspring of their close relatives.

>>1671050
>Gay people have partners with matching sex drives

Explain the glory hole in the bathroom at the rest stop then.

>>1671097
I don't see how glory holes refute the obvious concept that two people of the same gender are much more likely to have the same sex drive than two people of the opposite gender.

>>1671104
because the glory hole goes to the next stall, and not the next bathroom.

>>1671104
Men and women were not created to be the same, but to be perfect complements. Enjoy your glory hole and all, but you'll never know what it is to have a complement rather than just someone like you.

>>1671118
The fuck is your point?

>>1671118

>Implying there wouldn't be glory holes to the next bathroom if they weren't harder to make.

Frankly, It makes more sense to advocate the opposite. If it is possible to create a 'gay bomb' we should do it muhahaha.

If we can make other gay,
1. Reduces population growth
2. Reduces competition for mates

I'm sure you guys can think of other benefits...

>>1671136
>1. Reduces population growth
>2. Reduces competition for mates
Both of which are bad.

>>1671129
you'd get your dick cut if that was the case

also look at casual encounters on craigslist once in a while. The ads for gay sex are way more than proportionate to the population. It is not uncommon for one to read: " I need 50 cocks in my ass by 9pm all takers welcome. D+D free safe only"

ITT: Social Darwinism

>>1671143
Please explain why reducing population growth in an overpopulated society is bad.

>>1671143
If you are a femanon, I guess the gay bomb would be bad...

BTW, It would also be fun to unleash the gay bomb on Iran...

>thread full of social Darwinists
>don't realize that homosexuals help inhibit population growth
>don't realize that over population is one of the biggest forces inhibiting the evolution of the human species

>>1671127
>Creationist
>implying I'll take you seriously


But yeah I don't have anything against straight people; hating someone for their sexual orientation would be retarded.

>>1671129
You'd have to put some cash through with your dick if you wanted it to end well.

>>1671136
It wouldn't be fair to change people already living their lives, but yes, I've heard the argument made for giving a gay pill to babies. Personally, I wouldn't meddle. It would help against overpopulation, but remember that the main problem with overpopulation is in the poorest regions of the world, where it is still common for a woman to have 8-9 kids - if we gave gay pills there we could positively affect QoL, but the poorest and least educated the also the most likely to hate the gays, so it wouldn't go down well.

The main point is that it doesn't really matter much either way and most utilitarian arguments made against homosexuality are just pathetic attempts to justify pre-existing homophobia.

>>1671145
>implying most of those guys aren't "straight" and married.

>>1671145
Fags like the anonymous sex...how is that a good thing exactly? And there are not that many bitches who go for the anonymous fucking.

>>1671171
fair? What is fair? This is 4chan.
*drops gay bomb on Vatican*
THERE IS NO EFFECT =D

>>1671155
You need a healthy birth rate to sustain the species. You fuck with that, you'll start risking extinction fast.

@ this thread
>implying that most of the problems associated with homosexuals aren't caused by the way society treats them

>>1671196
lol cry moar

Perhaps you would find this book interesting, Mr. Troll
http://www.amazon.com/Sex-Dawn-Prehistoric-Origins-Sexuality/dp/0061707805/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=
books&qid=1283106405&sr=8-1

>>1671192
Cutting the Earth's population in half would actually be a very good thing for us as a species.

>>1671192
>Implying we aren't already close to if not over the sustainable population cap.

>>1671206

Killing everyone who's IQ score is less than 130

Pic related to entire thread.

>>1671206
I submit the idea that, no, no it wouldn't be better. Half the people means half the technological advancement.

>>1671216
But I'm 119.
;_;

>>1671199
>implying marginalizing people is a good thing

>>1671217

It'd wastely increase the amount of resources availible to each individual though, increasing standards of living, leaving more time for education in preindustrialized countries.

>>1671171
>but remember that the main problem with overpopulation is in the poorest regions of the world

I've recently heard that the exact opposite is usually the most correct, actually. if anything they have 8-9 babies and perhaps 7 of them die due to poor healthcare.

>>1671217
You realize that most of the people on this planet are useless in that department, right? The people responsible for technological advancement is a microscopic percentile of the population, most people can't even read.

>>1671224

And you browse /sci/?

>>1671206
Nothing would be gained by reducing the population. And we'd run into serious economic problems. All our economic systems are based upon growth.

>>1671213
Populations are self-limiting.

I'm seriously thinking that Hitler had the right idea with his perfect race and all.

Captcha: fact wistor

>>1671213
>Implying we aren't already well beyond the population we can support when the oil runs out and we've still got no feasible alternative energy sources

>>1671251

>Bringing oil into the argument.

>>1671232

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_growth_rate

How about no.

>>1671243

>Implying the natural forms of population controll are preferable to limiting the population growth.

>>1671251
lies! nuclear power + electric vehicles solves most problems.

>>1671272

Fusion power will probably work before fossil fuels run out

>>1671233
Who is going to serve them at McDonalds? Who is going to assemble the machines they design? Who is going to fill up all those empty art museums? Who is going to operate the other side of the phone line when you call support?

Kings are only kings because they have peasants beneath them.

>>1671283

inb4 robots, or an Orwellian non-sentient worker class.

>>1671271
>implying widespread faggotry is preferable to natural forms of population limits.

>>1671272nuclear power + electric vehicles

You know, until we run out of uranium (won't take as long as you think).

>>1671280Fusion power will probably work before fossil fuels run out

Deuterium-Deuterium fusion is pretty much humanity's only long-term hope in preserving our type of civilization.

>>1671285Orwellian non-sentient worker class.

I believe you may be thinking "Huxleyesque"

>>1671289

>Implying it isn't.

I'd rather have more gay people/be a gay person than have world wide famine, disease, or war.

>>1671296

It seems you are right, yes. Thank you for the correction.

>>1670263

Seems you were right.

>>1671291
>Deuterium-Deuterium fusion is pretty much humanity's only long-term hope in preserving our type of civilization.
Renewables could totally sustain our current civilization. It would take a complete overhall of the electrical power infrastructure and a change in how we see electrical power generation (a wind farm on damn near every hill and tidal electric plants on every turbulent coast) but it could be done.

Not that it matters, there is no way our civilization would last longer than it would take to deplete all the fissile material. We would nuke ourselves with the byproducts of such a large nuclear industry in no time.

>>1671178
They don't like it, they're forced to resort to it due to homophobia. It's a "problem" of homophobia, not homosexuality.

>>1671192
We are far above the minimum needed. If we were below the minimum needed, we could easily survive even if every single person were gay, just by artificial insemination or having sex with the opposite gender occasionally for reproduction.

>>1671196
Very much this.

>1671232
Large families correlates with poverty: www bit ly/baasqj
At most, there are around 2 deaths per 10 infants, and mortality correlates with income per person: www bit ly/9Nir7I

>>1671243

Yeah, in the worst possible sense. We can take care of population ourselves and avoid all the problems and suffering of overpopulation that eventually lead to lower population.

>>1671280

Lol no funding. We'll be lucky to see it by 2060 in any useful form that can actually have an impact.

>>1671321
>Renewables could totally sustain our current civilization.
No.

>>1671291
>You know, until we run out of uranium (won't take as long as you think).
Or we convert U-238 to Pu-239.

>>1671340
Sure they are. You must have at least seen those images posted on /sci/ from time to time of the area of the Earth's surface that it would take the power the world. It is completely possible to power civilization with renewables.

>>1671355
This is true.

>>1671355

Summerfag who believes everything on the internet.

>>1671352

What about this?

>>1670781
This is the only post in the whole thread that made me rage.
Seriously /sci/, what the fuck?

>>1670254
Posting on 4chan causes homosexuality. The more often you post, the greater the cumulative chance that you'll experience a homosexual break. You should stop posting on 4chan immediately, OP, before it's too late.

>>1671423

It's true though. Same goes for the human rights. They're priveleges we're given for living in a civilized society, or in one that's in an international community with civilized societies.

>>1671423
You're right, it's very retarded. Everyone else just ignored it. :)

>>1671444
>:)
All of your opinions are now Shit. This is why we can't have nice things, gay people gaying up the fucking place.

>>1671453
:)
:)
:)

I'm surprised this hasn't been posted earlier. Seriously, we're discussing homosexuals on 4chan.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3j4t185wl-0