Posts by Miwojedk

@billy7oblos#11916 I don't get why you continue to repeat the falsehood that homosexuality and transgenderism is sexual deviancy. Moreover, my comment was in respone to you denying that you implied it was the norm, but now you say you think it's rampant?

Quote

is this admitting that the existence of LGBTQ+ people is related to society? that is nice.

I don't have to "admit" anything. I never said that LGBTQ+-people were exclusively a product of genetics.

Quote

Anyway suicide rates are another bad side affect of LGBT+ (that side affect does not exist in KSA is why i used it as an example)

I've told you why suicide is a bad indicator / measurement in regards to this conversation, yet you continue arguing the same point.

Quote

this is the conspiracy theory part, you cant just say 'it was illegal and socially unacceptable therefore the numbers are constant with todays numbers' the same could be said about pedophiles. the "ample reason to believe otherwise" is wrong because just because you feel something does not mean its been there for thousands of years. There is no ample reason to believe that the number of gay people has been constant, and there is overwhelming amount of proof that it has not.

Yet you give me no reason as to why I can’t claim that because it was socially unacceptable at the time that people would then repress their own sexuality. I may have worded it wrong earlier, but I clearly said in my last comments that there is no certainty in whether or not the percentage of LGBTQ+ have deviated since then. Which is why I called you out on your falicious reasoning that I should somehow be able to disprove an unfalsifiable claim. Seems you skipped over that part?

And I still implore you to learn what a conspiracy theory actually is. A conspiracy theory =/= hypothesis/theory lol.

Quote

Imagine if a pedophile claimed that half of society are secretly pedos, and that they just hide themselves because the subject is under taboo.

Except we can empirically assess this via anonymous questionaires or psychological assesments. You can’t do the same with a person from 1,000 years ago besides their own firsthand accounts.

Quote

There is no ample reason to believe that the number of gay people has been constant, and there is overwhelming amount of proof that it has not.

Kindly do show said proof. You continue to say that there is a lot of proof, but so far you have only linked to religious bigotry, unrelated suicide rates, STD stats and cherry-picked/misinterpreted your own (non-peer-reviewed) studies. I implore you to give me this abundance of academic research that verifies your claim that the percentage of LGBTQ+ persons has increased from ancient times.

Quote

Today we are more sexualized than ever, with pornogeraphy and sexual themes so pervasive that a show was recently banned for sexualizing children

And that show got cancelled due to outrage from the public. Wouldn’t that speak against your argument?

Quote

rape and molestation (and with extension homosexaulity) are way more common than they used to be and fertility rates are falling hard. Why is this relevant to the topic? because molestation is linked to homosexuality. link link2

I have already told you why this is not true. Homosexuality is not linked to molestation, and your own studies doesn’t claim so. Your second (new) link literally says in the abstract: “The reader is urged to use considerable caution in making cause and effect inferences. “. Seems like you didn’t even get past the abstract. Kindly read what you cite before you put it out into the aether.

Yes. I agree that homosexuality is much more - visibile - today than before, but you have to assert why that is besides conjecture.

I don’t get why you mention fertility rates, which have nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Do you think the gays are turning men infertile lol.

Quote

no, i compared what you think to what someone in a cult could think. also when i say conspiracy theory i don't mean an actual conspiracy theory

Then why would you even use the wording “conspiracy theory” lmao.

Quote

[…] hygiene is good. They all contribute to a longer life. Can you say the same about homosexuality?

I never claimed that homosexuality contributes to a longer life. Just as you can’t claim that being straight contributes to a longer life. And I don’t even get why this is relevant if something contributes to a longer life or not, when that has nothing to do with the ethical nature of homosexuality.

Quote

I agree, you just asked for a source on an opinion i gave, due to the nature of homosexuality (being in peoples heads) i cant prove that a man molesting a boy is gay, and you cant prove it is gay. Its a matter of opinion and there are no "facts" in it

Sure. But I just want to let you know that the vast majority of relevant scientific fields disagree with you. Why shouldn’t I be the one calling you a conspiracy theorist (per your own logic) here?

Quote

A display of this stupidity is when "trans women" (men) claim to have periods; its fucking retarded and you can see how much faith they have in the lie that they built for themselves.

Can you find mainstream examples of this? Not just some obscure retard, but a genuine interview with a sane person?

Quote

when a huge part of society endorses the lie that you can be born in the wrong gender, it only damages "trans people" (people who are unfortunate enough to believe the lie that they were born the wrong gender)

A lie backed by nearly every psychologist, sociologist, psychiatrist and other relevant fields. See, that’s what a conspiracy is, so you do know what it is, you just don’t know you’re the one caught in them. Do you think climate change is a hoax too?

why the fuk am i c. did u c this dick

@Shdwo#11831

haha shit

@billy7oblos#11747

Quote

I did not imply that its the norm, but its accepted by the majority of society in contrast to the KSA where the acceptance is way lower

You've insinuated multiple times that homosexuality and transgenderism is rampant in Western society and, in your own wording, will/has lead to normalization (or acceptance) of sexual deviance like pedophilia and zoophilia.

Quote

This applies to LGBT rates too (if its considered a sin people will do it less). But its not far off to assume that LGBT is linked to suicide because members of LGBT tend to have a higher suicide rate.

Far fewer LGBTQ+ people are religious than straight people, so I don’t get why if it is considered a sin in religion that this would have any effect on the broader LGBTQ+ community’s suicide rate. Your last sentence paraphrased is literally this: “LGBTQ+ is linked to suicide because LGBTQ+ tend to have a higher suicide rate.” I have no idea what else you could mean besides that LGBTQ+ have a higher suicide rate because they commit suicide. Care to elaborate?

Quote

in the end, just because western countries accept homosexuality (it is western countries see map) does not mean that "everyone has secretly been repressing homosexuality (4% of society ) for thousands of years

I don’t know which methodology or scale your link uses to determine if a country is accepting of LGBT. Naturally Western countries would be more accepting of LGBT since they’re the most liberal, and the laws in each of these countries reflect that. But I have to emphasize, again, that there is a clear distinction between something being legal and something being culturally accepted or normalized. As I mentioned earlier. 30-40% of Americans disapprove of homosexuality. That’s not very accepting, is it?
I also never gave that as justification for my argument. I have mentioned that there’s reason to believe that the degree of homosexuality (sexual attraction) in societies has been constant, but the fact that homosexuality has, for the most part of history, been widely regarded as a sinful/disgusting state of being – therefore one would naturally try to repress their sexuality to avoid persecution by your family, peers or government, and as I see it, you have yet to give ample reason for me to believe the opposite.

Quote

I can point to some facts that imply that homosexuality does not exist in less sexualised countries, i only do this because i realize that if you you really think you were born the wrong gender, you will accept such a huge conspiracy theory.

What constitutes a “sexualized country”? And what is this conspiracy theory you speak of? I’m pretty certain that I know the consensus on relevant literature. Unless that’s what you claim is a huge conspiracy that sociologists and the like are in on?

Quote

An example is if someone joins a cult and becomes convinced that there is an invisible jug on their head, you can tell them that it makes no sense, you can tell them that its scientifically impossible but you cant argue with "i feel the weight of the jug on my head

So are you saying I’m in a cult because I don’t subscribe to the same belief as you?

Quote

what i am trying to say is that the burden of proof falls on the LGBT community to prove that there always was and is 4.5 percent of people who are gay. No matter how convincing it is to say "it makes sense" or "they weren't allowed to come out" its still on you to prove it, or else its nothing more than a conspiracy theory.

This is an unfalsifiable claim as there is no way to examine the sexuality of people in the past beyond written firsthand accounts. A perfect example of Russel’s Teapot. So in fact, the burden of proof lies upon you, as you’re the one making ther unfalsifiable claim. We could also go about this via the law of parsimony – the simplest explanation is that it has been constant with time.

I also think you should look up what a conspiracy theory is.

Quote

The so called "gay gene" has been debunked there is no test that can accurately say if you are gay and there is nothing even suggesting that homosexuality is not influenced by society

I have never claimed that homosexuality is not to some extent influenced by society, however to say that the “gay gene” has been debunked is a falsehood, as no serious (social) scientist has claimed that a simply gene could describe your sexuality. This is a vast field in sociology and psychology still being studied, and I don’t think you, nor me, are going to be able to come to the final conclusion on this topic. Of course it is likely that to - some - extent homosexuality has increased due to societal factors, but there is no way to tell besides pondering.

Quote

If we agree that homosexuality is unnatural than the argument shifts to the bad side affects of it.

I agree that your teeth are unnatural because you use tooth paste. I agree that your immune-system is unnatural because you’ve likely been vaccinated. And again, homosexuality is not inherently “unnatural”.

Quote

no, i didn't say or imply that, STDs are a bad side affect though "And this is why the gay is bad.", no life expectancy is just another bad side affect.

And how does that bother you specifically if Mike wants to buttfuck Chad and he will, statistically, be more likely to receive an STD compared to Jessica and Tony? Do you want to mandate how people live their lives to such an extent that they can’t be with whomever they want?

Quote

no, they are not exactly the same in practical terms. but they are both deviants

False. Homosexuality is not considered a deviant in social sciences, as sexual deviancy denotes unusual sexual activity.

Quote

I think this is about opinion not studies, I consider them both deviants but a gay person would not want to be associated with them

Facts over feelings my dude.

Quote

if you tell someone they were born the wrong gender, that is telling them they were born wrong, and that they will never be able to truly be the gender they want to be and never experience love in the same way. That is pretty fucked up even if you don't directly say "you are born mentally wrong"

Nobody tells transgender people they’re born the wrong gender. They determine that for themselves. Psychologists, Psychiatrists and other medical specialists help with the actual transition and in combatting the illnesses that might accompany a person who might be suffering from gender dysphoria (e.g. Depression).

I don't get why you got banned in the first place. The ZTP is no longer in effect.

what's the oldest

@paiige1_#11618 There’s a reason why I support a Singlepayer-solution for the US compared to what they have currently. I think it’s the right thing to do when you prioritize help based on need. Which is why I find it odd that you say that I’m somehow for letting a non-critical person get treatment before another in a less fortunate situation. And no, I don’t support transitioning to be “quirky and trendy” and I know as a matter of fact that the vast, vast majority of gender transitions don’t occur as a result of this, and to insinuate that I belive this is a laughably bad strawman. I never claimed that being born the wrong gender doesn’t “fucking suck”. Gender dysphoria is a nuanced and complex issue that requires not just a lot of treatment, but also retrospection. You transition to another gender if it fits you better and increases your quality of life. There’s a reason why a whole field of psychology is studying this matter specifically. You might experience euphoria with another gender, whilst not being necessarily bothered in your daily life prior to transitioning. This is also not to speak of the plentiful of issues with identifying gender dysphoria. As I mentioned, this issue is much more complex than you make it out to be with your comments here.

Quote

I don't even know why you're speaking on this matter. If I remember correctly, you're not even trans. […] when you haven't nearly died to your own hands because of dysphoria i don't think you have the right to speak on matters like this.

Me being non-binary or not has nothing to with this argument other being an out for you to personally attack me or dismiss my opinion, because I don’t have the “right to speak on matters like this. I don’t bring up my degree in this discussion because I don’t think it’s relevant to the argument. And I think it’s absurd to claim that “one statement from the APA doesn’t represent the psychological community when they’re the largest organization of professional psychologists. That’s the equal to saying that the reports from the IPCC’s doesn’t represent the scientific consensus on climate change. Of course there are nuances, but to claim that they don’t follow the consensus is absurd.

Quote

if the "majority" of the psychiatric community agreed that you don't need dysphoria to be trans and transition it wouldn't be such a rigorous process to transition.

I will happily link you to the established research on the topic. Not every healthcare system is equal to yours (Assuming the US). Studies show that a single-payer system, or at least a public option, is superior to what the US has currently, yet the US still hasn’t enacted such a system. Bureaucracy and poltics all have a role in this as well.

@billy7oblos#11615

Quote

I dont know about you but if i thought something was morally wrong i would want it banned for sure

Legality is a whole other ballpark than morals and ethics. Cutting in line isn’t illegal, yet you wouldn’t call it just. My point being that I would contend that since 25% of America believes that homosexuality should be outright banned that an even bigger part of America (I believe the numbers are somewhere between 30-40% are either very- or somewhat against the idea of same-sex relations. Landing on the conclusion that, yes, the “majority of American society” has indeed accepted homosexuality, but to equivocate this into being the norm for the broad society is ludicrous.

Quote

My point was not rebuked at all, you said " Cultural acceptance is key in preventing suicides for any marganlized or oppressed community. and i am saying that the cultural acceptance was way lower (and in still in some areas) and the suicide rate is less in those areas, indicating that there are less gay people in those areas. I probably would not be able to get accurate suicide rates from the past so scrap that. As for the modern day suicide rates, lets compare Saudi Arabia and Canada, one ultura conservative country vs a country well known for its acceptance and welcoming refugees (whooo canada!)”

I’m not sure you know what “rebuke” means. Instead of continually using the same point I wanted you to either further expand on said point or use another instead of acting like a record player. And yes, cultural acceptance is indeed key in preventing suicides for marginalized and/or oppressed communities. I will happily link to the plethora of research or scholars on the subject, but I doubt you’d take the time to read it.

Quote

we can see from the first image that saudi arabia has one of the lowest lgbt acceptance (and decreasing), and from the second map we see that it also has some of the lowest suicide rates in the world

Again this is awfully misleading. LGB compromise 3.5% of the US populus (0.4 in addition being trans), and far less in sexually repressed countries like the KSA. There are a number of factors that could play into the lower suicide rates. E.g. most people in the KSA are extremely or moderately religious (predominantly Sunny Muslim), meaning that they view suicide as a sin. If you dearly believe that commiting suicide is equal to damaging God’s creation, then the suicide rate would naturally be lower. Canada is one of the least religious countries in the world, incl. Western and Northern Europe.
Another factor could be poor reporting. There’s also a broad trend of higher suicide rates in the majority of Western socities. To somehow contort this into being about whether or not we legalize gay marriage or accept the gayness is absurd.

Quote

again these are countries with wayyy lower lgbt acceptance than the us and canada, so if they had the same amount of lgbt people as north america, the suicide rates would be higher for sure.

Citation needed.

Quote

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11501300/

Keep in mind that t his is a non-peer reviewed study. And the abstract quotes: "Forty-six percent of the homosexual men in contrast to 7% of the heterosexual men reported homosexual molestation. Twenty-two percent of lesbian women in contrast to 1% of heterosexual women reported homosexual molestation."
You insinuated it showed that homosexuals are responsible for more childhood abuse than straights, which is misleading. The study examined how many homosexuals had experienced molestation, not whether or not they did it to others.

Quote

https://mainweb-v.musc.edu/vaw…lesbianrx/factsheet.shtml

This is yet another quote from your citation:
"17-45% of lesbians report having been the victim of at least one act of physical violence.” [...] but “Violence appears to be about as common among lesbian couples as among heterosexual couples (1,5). In addition, the cycle of violence occurs in both types of relationships.”

Quote

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3462414/

I never claimed the opposite of what your study tells.

Could you kindly answer my question instead of obfuscating. Do you think unwillingly spreading STDs is amoral?

Quote

https://www.lifesitenews.com/n…pectancy-20-years-shorter

And this is why the gay is bad.

Quote

https://psychology.ucdavis.edu…ml/facts_molestation.html

So your contention is that there is no difference in a man being exclusively attracted to male children vs. being attracted to other men?
“For the present discussion, the important point is that many child molesters cannot be meaningfully described as homosexuals, heterosexuals, or bisexuals (in the usual sense of those terms) because they are not really capable of a relationship with an adult man or woman. Instead of gender, their sexual attractions are based primarily on age. These individuals – who are often characterized as fixated – are attracted to children, not to men or women.”

Quote

to clarify, when i said lgbt are more likely to molest children, I was talking about crime statistics

If you're saying that being exclusively attracted to adolescent or younger males is equal to being exclusively attracted to other men, then perhaps you’re right, but not a single study you’ve showed says this is the case and all have made the distinction.

Quote

your side tells people they were born different instead of providing them with the help they need, directly influencing the suicide rates in transgender people

No respected psychologist or psychiatrist will ever tell you that being gay is a mental illness. So why would you ever need to provide them with treatment. Same goes with transgenderism: the consensus is that transgenderism is – not – a disorder, but there may be some associated with the package.

@Madea#11600 It's true. Gay men tend to be more promiscuous than straight men.

Are you billy7oblos

@billy7oblos#11591

Quote

not directly but normalizing homosexuality leads to pedophilia and others being normalized. (twitter made a rule allowing people to discuss it, it is clearly its being normalized)

So because Twitter permitted discussion about attraction towards minors with the provision that "they don't promote or glorify child sexual exploitation in any way" means that culturally Western society has drifted towards the aether and are on the same path as was Sodom and Gomorrah.

Quote

true, i forgot to add that gays have many many more sexual partners than straight people on average

Are you implying that unwillingly spreading STDs is somehow amoral?

@videogamesm12#11584

Quote

Gee, I wonder why! Maybe it's because the people who are LGBT+ (but live in a country where it's illegal) don't commit suicide because that's illegal too!

I highly doubt that has any major impact on it. See post above for explanation.

@billy7oblos#11550

Quote

I would say instead that more people become deviants from the norm the more we become sexualised

Feel free to cite any studies, papers or the like instead of regurtitating your original point for me.

Legality is virtually irrelevant to the discussion. As societies lean towards acceptance the law naturally follows. You mention that The majority (50<) of people accept “it” in North America, meanwhile I just cited a Gallup poll indicating that 25% of Americans believe that homosexuality altogehter should be penalized. There’s a big gap between believing something is morally wrong to outright wanting it banned. Cultural acceptance is key in preventing suicides for any marganlized or oppressed community. This is why I already made it clear that you can’t use suicide as an accurate measure of the number of LGBTQ+ people throughout history, but yet, you still continue to spout the same rebuked point.

Quote

Don't want to talk about suicide rates in the past?

I do, but you didn’t answer my question. Do you honestly think we have accurate data going back more than half a century on suicide rates?

Quote

we can compare the suicide rates in modern day lgbt+ accepting countries vs modern day non accepting countries. (its usually less in areas that lgbt is illegal)

… So are you going to supply any stats that backup your claim, or am I left to assume you don’t want to engage in this discussion?

Quote

normalizing homosexuality is bad for society because it normalizes other sexual deviancies like zoophilia and pedophilia.

And which sociologist/anthropologist said this again?

Quote

[Lantern project Link]

You linked to a charity organisation, not a research institute. What you linked was not a study, nor did it actually portray any factual numbers, why? Because their stats (now no longer avaliable) are from the Family Research Council (an American fundamentalist Protestant activist group). This is a snippet from their Wikipedia:

Quote

"The Family Research Council holds the belief that "homosexual conduct is harmful to the persons who engage in it and to society at large, and can never be affirmed", and asserts that it is "by definition unnatural, and as such is associated with negative physical and psychological health effects."The Council also asserts that "there is no convincing evidence that a homosexual identity is ever something genetic or inborn". These positions are in opposition to the consensus of mainstream psychological and medical experts that homosexuality is a normal, healthy variation of human behavior, and that sexual orientation is generally not chosen."

The references can be viewed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…atements_on_homosexuality

Quote

normalizing* homosexuality helps normalize pedophilia and zoophilia. gays also have a higher chance of molesting children

This is a falsehood dating back to before the 60s. Here’s a link to UC Davis detailing this widely debunked myth: https://psychology.ucdavis.edu…ml/facts_molestation.html

Quote

“In summary, each of these studies failed to support the hypothesis that homosexual males are more likely than heterosexual men to molest children or to be sexually attracted to children or adolescents.”

“The empirical research does not show that gay or bisexual men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children. This is not to argue that homosexual and bisexual men never molest children. But there is no scientific basis for asserting that they are more likely than heterosexual men to do so. And, as explained above, many child molesters cannot be characterized as having an adult sexual orientation at all; they are fixated on children.”

And funny enough, it actually details the Family Research Council’s “Study”:

Quote

“In summary, the scientific sources cited by the FRC report do not support their argument. Most of the studies they referenced did not even assess the sexual orientation of abusers. Two studies explicitly concluded that sexual orientation and child molestation are unrelated. Notably, the FRC failed to cite the 1978 study by Groth and Birnbaum, which also contradicted their argument. Only one study (Erickson et al., 1988) might be interpreted as supporting the FRC argument, and it failed to detail its measurement procedures and did not differentiate bisexual from homosexual offenders.”

Your other linked sources looks like this. I don't think I need to say why I find them absurd:

Quote

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11501300/

This is literally from the abstract:
“This research is apparently the first survey that has reported substantial homosexual molestation of girls.”
also non-peer-reviewed.

If anything is to be called cherry picking, this is certainly it.

I still think everything in this thread is relevant:
https://forum.totalfreedom.me/…reedom-is-a-shitty-server

fssp summarized it neatly:

Quote

Seconded. I find a tinge of humor in this server transitioning from a focus on the aspect of freedom to a building server when it is one of the most uncomfortable creative servers to build on.

If this server continues to move in the direction of a hobbyist's community, a decision which I would not object to alone, then what exactly is the average player supposed to do here? Block selections are handicapped, the average player cannot import schematics, and from my personal experience as a master-builder, the team is split down the middle between engaged contributors and legacy holders of the position who do not wish to engage in any team effort.

In terms of my activity as a master-builder, I was of the latter group, given that I already have a server of my own to make progress with, and my application for the position of master-builder was filed at a time when the rank was not seen as a project of dedication to the server. What we have now is the natural effect of taking a position and changing its directive.

People are going to skim over this thread and come to the conclusion that inactives are complaining to complain, however this belays something that everybody should realize: the server, in its current state, has a problem which cannot be fixed without fundamentally changing its goals. Seth and Windows firmly placed the server on differing paths, and Wild should decisively state where he wants this server to be in three years for this community to work towards that effect.

There's no use in advertising a server with no clear purpose. For those who put advertising over a change in directive, you should consider what new players are expected to do on TotalFreedom.

Display More

@billy7oblos

Quote

with this argument, its ok to have sex with sex dolls fashioned after animals or children; no one gets hurt (so that's a bad argument

Can you make an argument as to why this wouldn't be okay without arguing against seperate aspects of it (e.g. it might lead to harm to real children/animals.)

@hammelhopfan#11453 Dysphoria describes the anxiety, distress and torment some encounter if their gender doesn’t allign with biological sex. Transmedicalism or truscum is not a majority-held belief in the psychiatric/psychological community. Transgenderism is not a conscious choice, as you don’t choose what gender your brain chemistry has determined you to be. The clear consensus in the psychological communities is that you don’t need dysphoria in order to transition.

I wonder how many people in this thread has a background in evolutionary psychology, biology, philosophy or have ever read a single study / research paper.

Half the thread is about a fallacious appeal to nature. Some spider species eat their mates. Male ducks rape female ducks. Dogs piss on the ground to mark their territory. Trying to somehow contort this argument into something about why / why not homosexuality is found in nature is beyond retarded. Sex is not sought out (at least in terms of most mammals) for kiddies. For most, if not all mammals it’s sought out for pleasure. This is why we make cum.
It doesn’t matter if homosexuality is found in nature. You’re trying to appeal to the fact that my dog buries their turd in a patch of dirt and arguing that this is ample reason for us to start shitting in my backyard. The same exact thing can be said of religion. Just because in some absurd scripture it is stated that “being x is wrong” has nothing to do with it being morally right or wrong. On a personal basis, yes, it might dictate how you view it, but you’d be laughed at trying to arguing against cutting your beard in today’s age, despite it being forbidden in the Hebrew Bible: “You shall not round off the hair on your temples or mar the edges of your beard.” (Lev 19:27). Basing sociatal norms on a holy book from 1000-3000 years ago is ridiculous. Ever heard of the seperation of church and state?

@billy7oblos could it be that, as society becomes more accepting of deviations from the norm, that opressed and marginalized groupings (e.g. homosexuals) start to emerge from the closet? Do you flaunt your sexuality wherever you go? How can you reasonably expect that the woman on the sidewalk is indeed a woman, and not a man without making an assumption or knowing what’s inbetween their legs? Same goes for sexuality, you have no way to reasonably know whether or not a stranger is homosexual or not, therefore it is ludicrous mock the idea that “5% of society were secretly gay”. On that same note: do you honestly think we have accurate data going back more than half a century on suicide rates? Unless you’ve got some sort of study or paper on the subject, then you’re just pulling numbers and ‘factoids’ out of thin air.
Nobody, not then nor now, have “completely overcome their attraction”. You can supress your sexual identity, which may lead to further disorder, or they could choose to accept their sexuality and thus be subject to being shunned by your family, social circle and society as a whole. That’s not to also mention the copious amount of scrutiny, physical / mental torture or the constant fear of death as a result of said persecution. This is still happening to a lesser extent in Western societies, and in some places you’ll still get killed for your sexuality. I’m sorry, but what you’ve said so far in this thread only displays a plain ignorant reading of history.

Your implication that it’s easy to be homosexual in (Western) society today is also silly. The quote

Quote

if its really a 'sexuality' and they only love the same gender than wouldn't they take freedom at the first chance they got?

is a prime example of this. The underlying assumption here is that we now have the “liberty” to love the same gender. Legally yes, but it's a very naive to think that just because something is (il)legal means that it no longer happens. Killing is illegal yet it still happens.
In the US approximately 30-45% of the country still disapprove of homosexuality in general, not just gay marriage. And 25% of Americans believe that homosexuality should be banned. Legality does not equal cultural acceptance.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/1651/gay-lesbian-rights.aspx

@billy7oblos

Quote

history tells us that is was much less than 5% of society being killed when gays were killed, the number would probably be similar to the number of zoophiles and other deviants being killed

Citation needed.

@billy7oblos

Quote

As for hating themselves, wouldn't they be more prone to commit suicide back when their 'sexuality' was repressed than now?

Yes.

@billy7oblos

Quote

the suicide rate would have been much higher if 5% of society was forced not to have sex with who they loved.

Citation needed.

@billy7oblos

Quote

The clear fact is that the number of homosexuals have increased by a ton, they simply did not exist before.

Citation needed. A correlation does not mean causation. I would certainly contend that the percent of people with homosexual desires have stayed more or less constant, but the percent of people out of the closet has exponentially risen alongside cultural acceptance. My argument requires the least amount of assumptions, so I would very much like to see the stats you have on the subject matter.

@billy7oblos

Quote

you claim they born naturally attracted to the same gender and they cant control it and yet they hide their whole 'sexual identity' just so people don't insult them?

Just so people “don’t insult them” is such a vast oversimplification and ignorant view on the issue. You make it sound like societal shunning is nothing. And your comparison afterwards: “do you think the slaves would have stayd slaves because "people would hate them"” is even more asinine.

@hammelhopfan#11442 everybody who's trans aren't suffering fom dysphoria.

@paiige1_#11423

Fine if that's your personal opinion opinion, but that's not how it's broadly percieved. I could say that it's my personal opinion that all steak comes from a cow, but that's not necessarily true in the general sense.

can we ban this individual from the forum