# Population Genetics > Y-DNA Haplogroups >  Y DNA R1b and homosexuality

## motzart

There is a great debate right now as to whether homosexuality is genetic or learned, homosexuals themselves strongly believe that they are "born this way". I present to you my research into the topic.

First I will reference this map of the legality of homosexuality in Europe contrasted against the spread of Y DNA Haplogroup R1b in Europe.




You can easily see that homosexuality is only legal in European countries where the y dna haplogroup r1b is most common. 

As we already know R1b is directly tied to the spread of the celtic cultures in europe.
(Map of the spread of celtic cultures below, also correlates to homosexuality legality status).



To finalize this theory I present a quote from the great Greek philosopher Aristolte and a later Roman Historian on the sexual preferences of the celts (taken from the celtic wikipedia page)

*According to Aristotle, most "belligerent nations" were strongly influenced by their women, but the Celts were unusual because their men openly preferred male lovers (Politics II 1269b).[77] H. D. Rankin in Celts and the Classical World notes that "Athenaeus echoes this comment (603a) and so does Ammianus (30.9). It seems to be the general opinion of antiquity."[78] In book XIII of his Deipnosophists, the Roman Greek rhetorician and grammarian Athenaeus, repeating assertions made by Diodorus Siculus in the 1st century BC (Bibliotheca historica 5:32), wrote that Celtic women were beautiful but that the men preferred to sleep together. Diodorus went further, stating that "the young men will offer themselves to strangers and are insulted if the offer is refused".
*


I think it is fair to say that r1b most likely carries the gene responsible for homosexuality.

----------


## motzart

Here is another great map illustrating the legality of homosexuality in europe, the other one may be a little broad (global)

----------


## Orillion

> I think it is fair to say that r1b most likely carries the gene responsible for homosexuality.


Is this a comedy thread?

I mean, you do know that homosexuals are born from heterosexual parents, don't you? You also do know that there are LGBT people in every corner of the world? And that countries in which homosexuality is legal actually are industrialized democracies, which *might* much better explain the level of social progress said countries are able to reach? I suppose you also do know that R1b isn't a chromosome or even a gene and as such it cannot "carry" anything, and that if there may be a part of genetic background in homosexuality as an aspect of an invidual's personality, it's mainly our experiences as a human being which make people who they are?

Drawing such conclusions from such random elements is irrelevant at best, and dangerous at worst. Dangerous, because it's the same kind of reasoning that gave birth to "scientific" racism at the beginning of the XXth century. Sorry for the seemingly aggressive tone of this reply, but such complete nonsense deserves a clear reply.

----------


## motzart

> Is this a comedy thread?
> 
> I mean, you do know that homosexuals are born from heterosexual parents, don't you? You also do know that there are LGBT people in every corner of the world? And that countries in which homosexuality is legal actually are industrialized democracies, which *might* much better explain the level of social progress said countries are able to reach? I suppose you also do know that R1b isn't a chromosome or even a gene and as such it cannot "carry" anything, and that if there may be a part of genetic background in homosexuality as an aspect of an invidual's personality, it's mainly our experiences as a human being which make people who they are?
> 
> Drawing such conclusions from such random elements is irrelevant at best, and dangerous at worst. Dangerous, because it's the same kind of reasoning that gave birth to "scientific" racism at the beginning of the XXth century. Sorry for the seemingly aggressive tone of this reply, but such complete nonsense deserves a clear reply.


Yes there are LGBT people in all corners of the world, just like there is variation in height/hair color/eye color around the world, yet in certain European countries we see these traits much more commonly expressed than elsewhere in the world, as with homosexuality. 

Countries like Japan, South Korea, and Russia (and China in some ways) are equally as advanced technologically as the west and yet these issues do not have legal status there. I agree that acceptance of LGBT people represents social progress but why is it only in western Europe that these issues are important enough to the populace to achieve legal acceptance? For this to happen a consistent portion of the population must identify as homosexual, whereas it is less common elsewhere in the world.
*
I am not trying to say that everyone who has R1b is a homosexual, but rather there may be some gene on the R1b y chromosome that correlates with homosexual tendencies, only expressed in some individuals. This would make sense as the Y chromosome is the one responsible for the expression of sex characteristic.* 

As to your comment about someone's experiences making them who they are, homosexuals are very adamant that their preference is NOT a decision and it is genetic. This was the first thing I addressed in my post.

Your comment about scientific racism is valid only if you believe there is something wrong with being a homosexual which there is absolutely not.

----------


## motzart

_To further my point as to why the issue of homosexuality is so important in Western Europe and to whether that is just a function of "social progress"._

I would argue that legalization of Cannabis is also an issue that represents "social progress", you can contrast this map of the legal status of Cannabis in the world against the legalization of homosexual unions in my first post and see that Cannabis is important enough to achieve legal status in many primarily non R1b countries while homosexuality is limited to only R1b countries in several of which Cannabis remains illegal. This is not an issue of some countries being "better" than others in terms of social progress but rather a, "Why are some issues more important here than there?" question.

----------


## Orillion

You're obviously stuck on your opinion, which is supported by absolutely no argument other than your own belief. You can't simply post similar maps about totally different topics and draw conclusions. I'm sorry, but you can post as many of these as you want, it won't make your point more valid.

Example:




> yet in certain European countries we see these traits much more commonly expressed than elsewhere in the world, as with homosexuality.


What's your sources for writing the above sentence? Do you have any data, objective, verifiable data? Has it occured to you that being a homosexual and living in, say, Saudi Arabia, or Subsaharian Africa, means being a prime target for assassination, sometimes by your own family? Under these circumstances, only a very little proportion of LGBT people are actually out, most of them are living in the closet. You could ask them as many times as you want, they'd never admit they are gay. There are thousands of reasons (cultural, religious, economic, etc.) which can explain why such a topic is handled differently by different countries without having to resort to dubious biological explanations.




> *This would make sense as the Y chromosome is the one responsible for the expression of sex characteristic.*


You're confounding separate things here. The Y chromosome contains what turns a human embryo into a male embryo (*biological sex*). At around two years of age, children are beginning to identify themselves as being a boy or a girl, or in rare cases, neither (*gender*). At around 7 years of age, the first signs of what will eventually become sexual attraction appear, and begin to develop over several years until self-consciousness of said sexual attraction is gained (*sexual orientation*). These are _three separate phenomenon_, as has been shown by gender studies (a field of academic research that you should explore, since you're interested in the topic of homosexuality).

I'll explain a bit more what "scientific racism" means. In the above quotation, you're equating sex characteristic with sexual orientation. As i just said, these are different things, but equating them is a common misconception which is solely based on the assumption that being a male homosexual means that you're not a "real" man/being a lesbian means that you're not a "real" woman. Granted, it's not racism here, but casual sexism, but the mechanism is just the same. Mind that i'm not accusing you of being a horrible racist, i'm just saying that our reasoning is biased by our cultural background, which contains a certain level of implicit racism/sexism.

Once again, i can't stress enough the importance of reading books about gender studies if you're into that kind of topic. It'll clear a lot of things out.

----------


## Fire Haired14

> There is a great debate right now as to whether homosexuality is genetic or learned, homosexuals themselves strongly believe that they are "born this way". I present to you my research into the topic.
> 
> First I will reference this map of the legality of homosexuality in Europe contrasted against the spread of Y DNA Haplogroup R1b in Europe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can easily see that homosexuality is only legal in European countries where the y dna haplogroup r1b is most common. 
> 
> ...


This is very offensive, that you associate us R1b L11 carriers and west Europeans with homosexuality. The Celts did not spread R1b L11 in west Europe, just many believe Indo Europeans who spoke the ancestral languages to Italo-Celtic and Germanic arrived with it from the east about 5,000 years ago, and that it rapidly spread during the bronze age. Whether people think homosexuality in inmoral or not, is all about culture and politics NOT genetics. West Europeans are very left winged people, unlike many of their relatives in America. A big reason R1b L11 became so popular in west Europe is probably largely because of high ranking males who had many women, not homosexuality. Also, what about R1b carriers in west Asia?

It is no big deal that some Celtic tribes Romans knew were very homosexual, Greeks and Romans had the same problem and they had issues with other forms of sexual perversion. I highly doubt any of those Celts saw homosexuality as a loving marriage between two men, they saw it as a perverted sexual relationship. Those young men who offer themselves to strangers aren't looking for a husband they can start a family with. Modern left-wingers twist what homosexuality has always been known for, so that they can justify it.

----------


## Fire Haired14

> *I am not trying to say that everyone who has R1b is a homosexual, but rather there may be some gene on the R1b y chromosome that correlates with homosexual tendencies, only expressed in some individuals. This would make sense as the Y chromosome is the one responsible for the expression of sex characteristic.*


Are you sure you want to say that again?



Just kidding around.

----------


## Power77

Whether or not homosexuality is expressed on the Y-chromosome(which I doubt) should not really matter. From these maps we can safely see a shocking pattern. However I bet there are as many homosexuals and trans people in non R1b countries as in R1b countries. Perhaps we could say that R1b countries have begun to tolerate homosexuality better than most non R1b countries. But that would be due to culture and social progress rather than genetics.

----------


## LeBrok

> Whether or not homosexuality is expressed on the Y-chromosome(which I doubt) should not really matter. From these maps we can safely see a shocking pattern. However I bet there are as many homosexuals and trans people in non R1b countries as in R1b countries. Perhaps we could say that R1b countries have begun to tolerate homosexuality better than most non R1b countries. But that would be due to culture and social progress rather than genetics.


Well said.
Homosexuality goes across all Y and X chromosomes. Just by this fact the premise of this thread, linking it to just R1b, is wrong.

----------


## motzart

> What's your sources for writing the above sentence? Do you have any data, objective, verifiable data? Has it occured to you that being a homosexual and living in, say, Saudi Arabia, or Subsaharian Africa, means being a prime target for assassination, sometimes by your own family? Under these circumstances, only a very little proportion of LGBT people are actually out, most of them are living in the closet. You could ask them as many times as you want, they'd never admit they are gay. There are thousands of reasons (cultural, religious, economic, etc.) which can explain why such a topic is handled differently by different countries without having to resort to dubious biological explanations.


At some point in history it was punishable by death to be gay anywhere, yet only in Western Europe have groups managed to push acceptance for the lifestyle, it is not something that has happened overnight but a gradual erosion of a prejudice made by a strong presence of homosexuals within these societies. The argument that western countries are "Just more progressive" does not hold up, I've shown you a map already regarding Cannabis legalization that shows that there are other countries in the world more progressive in that regard. Take a look at these maps regarding the legalization of Abortion, another "progressive issue". 

 




You can see that Russia which is a very anti homosexual country is more progressive than Europe when it comes to Cannabis legalization or Abortion, even China is more progressive than the UK and Ireland when it comes to Abortion. Acceptance of the gay lifestyle within Western Europe is *NOT* simply a function of an overall liberal bias. How then did social acceptance of homosexuality become such a hot issue in Western Europe pushed to the point where it has legal status equivalent to the heterosexual lifestyle? Again I will reiterate, at some point in history homosexuality was punishable by death everywhere, ONLY in Western Europe was the issue so important that it has been changed. 

Whether it is gay male or some other LGBT situation, these deviations from the heterosexual lifestyle are all socially accepted only where R1b is common. I have shown that the deviation has been documented for thousands of years from the earliest historians. Whether it is a gene on the R1b Y Chromosome or some other genetic trait the celts carried with them is unknown, what IS known is that there is a correlation between these groups and deviation from the traditional heterosexual lifestyle.

----------


## motzart

> you're equating sex characteristic with sexual orientation.


NO

I am investigating the assertion that GAY (Or LGBT) people AS THEY CLAIM are BORN this way and that they do not CHOOSE to be this way. If, as these groups VERY STRONGLY believe, there is a GENETIC cause for their seuxual orientation, then it is linked to a gene, and what better gene to be the cause in homosexual men than the y chromosome.

----------


## Power77

Such a wrong analogy would be comparable to saying that baldness is caused by having haplogroup J1 or that all bald/balding men are J1 carriers or that J1 carriers are more prone to baldness than carriers of other Y-chromosomes. Pretty presproterous way of thinking if you ask me.

----------


## LeBrok

> NO
> 
> I am investigating the assertion that GAY (Or LGBT) people AS THEY CLAIM are BORN this way and that they do not CHOOSE to be this way. If, as these groups VERY STRONGLY believe, there is a GENETIC cause for their seuxual orientation, then it is linked to a gene, and what better gene to be the cause in homosexual men than the y chromosome.


 So what Y haplogroup causes homosexuality in women?

----------


## LeBrok

> At some point in history it was punishable by death to be gay anywhere, yet only in Western Europe have groups managed to push acceptance for the lifestyle, it is not something that has happened overnight but a gradual erosion of a prejudice made by a strong presence of homosexuals within these societies. The argument that western countries are "Just more progressive" does not hold up, I've shown you a map already regarding Cannabis legalization that shows that there are other countries in the world more progressive in that regard. Take a look at these maps regarding the legalization of Abortion, another "progressive issue".


Richer countries are more liberal than poor ones generally speaking. That's why LGBT have highest freedoms of expression in Western Europe. It just happened that Western Europe is rich in R1b therefore you see a missleading corelation, between R1b and homoseuality. There is no causation.

Russia and China and few others are evenements in case of abortions. This was set by communist party decree few decades ago. Society didn't have chance to vote for or against, unlike in the Western free countries.

----------


## Fire Haired14

> Well said.
> Homosexuality goes across all Y and X chromosomes. Just by this fact the premise of this thread, linking it to just R1b, is wrong.


Assumptions.

----------


## LeBrok

> Assumptions.


What haplogroups, you assume, will gays in China or Japan have?

----------


## Ike

> Such a wrong analogy would be comparable to saying that baldness is caused by having haplogroup J1 or that all bald/balding men are J1 carriers or that J1 carriers are more prone to baldness than carriers of other Y-chromosomes. Pretty presproterous way of thinking if you ask me.


 Not quite. Dude thinks that the pattern of gay-marriage (and similar social peculiarities) is linked with it. You'd have to add, for example, J1 area females burning hot for bald men, to complete your analogy. Anyway this makes sense:




> I am investigating the assertion that GAY (Or LGBT) people AS THEY CLAIM *are BORN this way* and that they do not CHOOSE to be this way.*If*, as these groups VERY STRONGLY believe,*there is a GENETIC cause* for their seuxual orientation, then it is linked to a gene, and what better gene to be the cause in homosexual men than the y chromosome.


BTW, it doesn't matter if they claim it or not. It's a logical assumption that there could be hereditary factors involved. Their opinion is of no importance so you don't have to involve it in your theory.

There is also a possibility that it is imprinted in all of us, but some societies have also imprinted a better tolerance towards that kind of behavior.

----------


## motzart

> Richer countries are more liberal than poor ones generally speaking. That's why LGBT have highest freedoms of expression in Western Europe. It just happened that Western Europe is rich in R1b therefore you see a missleading corelation, between R1b and homosexuality. There is no causation.


Saudi Arabia and Qatar are very wealthy but you don't see liberal attitudes in these countries. *Why is Western Europe so accepting of Homosexuality but not Cannabis and Abortions if they are so "liberal"?*

----------


## motzart

> What haplogroups, you assume, will gays in China or Japan have?



As with pigmentation and other traits, there can be many genes that result in similar effects.

Gays in China and Japan might have the gay gene currently being investigated by rearchers found on the X Chromosome Xq28.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/s...rch-finds.html

I think it is more likely that the cause of homosexuality in European men will be linked to R1b, we know that the majority of the aristocracy and monarchs in Europe have been R1b, and we also have a thoroughly documented tendency towards homosexual behavior in these groups.

----------


## Fire Haired14

> What haplogroups, you assume, will gays in China or Japan have?


You assume you know what causes homosexuality.

----------


## Fire Haired14

> Well said.
> Homosexuality goes across all Y and X chromosomes. Just by this fact the premise of this thread, linking it to just R1b, is wrong.


Like i said last summer gay men and women probably did not receive their attraction to the same gender from the opposite gender. You can't get around that. If homosexuality is natural there are other causes. Trust me Lebrok, i am totally fine with saying it's natural just i am sick of people assuming it is or is not because of their agenda.




> You can see that Russia which is a very anti homosexual country is more progressive than Europe when it comes to Cannabis legalization or Abortion


It depends how you define a progressive society. Is killing of unborn children(almost never because of rape) progressive? If gays are desprite for marriage and to be open about their homosexuality in society, whatever i guess they have the right to do so, even though currently i oppose that lifestyle. I just don't want homosexuality and their lifestyle being shoved down our throats 24/7 via the media, like it currently is. I want it to be represented according to its popularity, so not much. The way the far left supports homosexuality is annoying, extreme, and sick. Also, i don't want to be called a bigot, neanderthal, not given equal rights of expression, and posed as some hatern because i don't agree with the libearl elite.

----------


## Fire Haired14

> As with pigmentation and other traits, there can be many genes that result in similar effects.
> 
> Gays in China and Japan might have the gay gene currently being investigated by rearchers found on the X Chromosome Xq28.
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/s...rch-finds.html
> 
> I think it is more likely that the cause of homosexuality in European men will be linked to R1b, we know that the majority of the aristocracy and monarchs in Europe have been R1b, and we also have a thoroughly documented tendency towards homosexual behavior in these groups.


The correlation you mention means nothing. Having sex with dozens of young women and prostitution is probably also common in European royalty, every heard of adultery?

----------


## Fire Haired14

> What haplogroups, you assume, will gays in China or Japan have?


A gay east Asian? That's probably hard to find, because they are not apart of western culture.

----------


## LeBrok

> Saudi Arabia and Qatar are very wealthy but you don't see liberal attitudes in these countries.


 It is a fresh process in this countries and it will take time.
*




Why is Western Europe so accepting of Homosexuality but not Cannabis and Abortions if they are so "liberal"?


* It is based on health aspects to society. Being gay doesn't make a society weaker in any way. There is a war on smoking, because of adverse health effects, and cannabis fall under this category, and they stink a lot. It would be easier to accept marihuana if it was only in adable form. Abortion is a very difficult subject, it is about killing a new life, and as such it will be always a touchy and controversial no matter what.
Liberal society doesn't mean that everything goes. We judge everything by benefits and disadvantages to whole society. Whatever doesn't harm society as a whole, is allowed or will be allowed in the future, once people get used to novelty and we have time to analyze advantage/harm of it.

----------


## LeBrok

> You assume you know what causes homosexuality.


 Nope, I assumed what doesn't cause it.

----------


## LeBrok

> A gay east Asian? That's probably hard to find, because they are not apart of western culture.


You assumed that homosexuality is cultural, that's why your conclusions are wrong.

http://www.womenofchina.cn/html/wome...t/172748-1.htm





> *Japan’s first lady Akie Abe joins annual LGBT parade in Tokyo*


http://japandailypress.com/japans-fi...tokyo-2847836/

----------


## LeBrok

> *
> 
> Gays in China and Japan might have the gay gene currently being investigated by rearchers found on the X Chromosome Xq28.*


*
*I'm glad you found counterargument for yourself.

And yet you still clinging to your faulty premise.



> I think it is more likely that the cause of homosexuality in European men will be linked to R1b, we know that the majority of the aristocracy and monarchs in Europe have been R1b, and we also have a thoroughly documented tendency towards homosexual behavior in these groups.


R1b is the most numerous haplogroup in Western Europe, therefore it will correlate with whatever you want. Also it will be the most probable haplogroup for monarchs, just on statistical probabilities. I'm just not sure why you can't see it?

I have a hunch that you created this thread only to diminish R1b. For some reason you have anti R1b agenda.

----------


## Fire Haired14

> You assumed that homosexuality is cultural, that's why your conclusions are wrong.
> 
> http://www.womenofchina.cn/html/wome...t/172748-1.htm



http://japandailypress.com/japans-fi...tokyo-2847836/[/QUOTE]

Where did they get that flag and the idea of a gay club? I am not saying it is impossible just less popular.

----------


## LeBrok

> http://japandailypress.com/japans-fi...tokyo-2847836/
> 
> Where did they get that flag and the idea of a gay club? I am not saying it is impossible just less popular.


Do you have gay statistics from Japan or China?

----------


## motzart

> I have a hunch that you created this thread only to diminish R1b. For some reason you have anti R1b agenda.


Taking an association with homosexuality as negative is something only a bigot would do, are you a bigot LeBrok?

What if I were to propose to you that I am a homosexual in grand fashion? What would your hunches lead you to believe then?

----------


## LeBrok

> Taking an association with homosexuality as negative is something only a bigot would do, are you a bigot LeBrok?


Read my posts on a subject.




> What if I were to propose to you that I am a homosexual in grand fashion? What would your hunches lead you to believe then?


 How can you be gay when you are Hg I2a1? Don't you remember already, only R1b are gay!

----------


## Fire Haired14

> Taking an association with homosexuality as negative is something only a bigot would do, are you a bigot LeBrok?
> 
> What if I were to propose to you that I am a homosexual in grand fashion? What would your hunches lead you to believe then?


A Mesolithic/Upper Palaeolithic European lineage I2a1-P37.2 having gay members, impossible!!!! They may have had above average testosterone levels, because of their tall stature and robust bones.

----------


## Fire Haired14

> Do you have gay statistics from Japan or China?


No, I don't care about this enough to do serious research.

----------


## LeBrok

> No, I don't care about this enough to do serious research.


But somehow you care to comment with your assumptions pulled from thin air.

----------


## Power77

If anything homosexuality is more linked to the X chromosome than the Y.
Which may explain why there is homosexuality among both genders...

----------


## Degredado

R1b men massacred the vast majority of haplogroup I men and stole all their women, on their own turf... imagine if R1b's were straight  :Laughing: 

That being said, tr0ll thread is obvious.

----------


## Ike

> Taking an association with homosexuality as negative is something only a bigot would do, are you a bigot LeBrok?


ROFL :) He did the same to me with black people :)

----------


## Fire Haired14

> Taking an association with homosexuality as negative is something only a bigot would do, are you a bigot LeBrok?


Right there is great evidence of how twisted the minds of the far left are. Anyone who thinks differently than you is a bigot, and should not be allowed to express their opinon. Most of the world agrees that homosexuality is unnatural, and thinking so does not mean you hate gay people.

----------


## Fire Haired14

> But somehow you care to comment with your assumptions pulled from thin air.


From thin air??? I have given great evidence time and time again, that gay men and women do not have the same sexual behavior as their opposite gender. You can't find a way around this, yet still assume there is some scientific explanation for homosexuality. A definite one has not been found, and if it is natural the source of it is probably very complicated.

----------


## motzart

> ROFL :) He did the same to me with black people :)


LeBrok is just passionate about R1b, as it is his own haplogroup. He defends the honor of R1b with a lustful zeal and he will not tolerate any homosexual propaganda  :Laughing: . Perhaps this strong love he has for his own haplogroup goes beyond pride and verges on the territory of sexual thoughts? The truth is buried deep within his psyche. Can LeBrok admit he is 'in love' with R1b? Can he admit he has come here to seek out others with R1b to engage them romantically? If he has, more support for my thread.

Would any R1b bearers be willing to post their browser histories so that we may investigate for pornography searches involving red haired indo europeans?

----------


## motzart

> R1b men massacred the vast majority of haplogroup I men and stole all their women, on their own turf... imagine if R1b's were straight 
> 
> That being said, tr0ll thread is obvious.


I see your father stole one of our U5b1 women, heartless bastards. My own father took an H1c3 woman though so between us it is even. I prefer to think of the Neolithic peoples of Europe as not a bunch of genocidal maniacs but rather a peaceful group of tribes interacting and co-operating. But please I will relent my homosexual assertions if you are going to unleash the glorious armies of the Irish and Basques on me. God I fear the Irish and Basques, history's greatest heroes never defeated in battle.

----------


## LeBrok

> LeBrok is just passionate about R1b, as it is his own haplogroup. He defends the honor of R1b with a lustful zeal and he will not tolerate any homosexual propaganda . Perhaps this strong love he has for his own haplogroup goes beyond pride and verges on the territory of sexual thoughts? The truth is buried deep within his psyche. Can LeBrok admit he is 'in love' with R1b? Can he admit he has come here to seek out others with R1b to engage them romantically? If he has, more support for my thread.
> 
> Would any R1b bearers be willing to post their browser histories so that we may investigate for pornography searches involving red haired indo europeans?


Lol, this shows how great observer you are. You befriended two biggest gay bashers on eupedia Ike and FireHaired.

And for your information, I would comment same way regardless of haplogroup, because your observation doesn't make sense. You point for correlation without causation. Do you understand this concept?

----------


## Degredado

> I see your father stole one of our U5b1 women, heartless bastards. My own father took an H1c3 woman though so between us it is even. I prefer to think of the Neolithic peoples of Europe as not a bunch of genocidal maniacs but rather a peaceful group of tribes interacting and co-operating. But please I will relent my homosexual assertions if you are going to unleash the glorious armies of the Irish and Basques on me. God I fear the Irish and Basques, history's greatest heroes never defeated in battle.


The Irish have only ever had to face Vikings (who managed to capture only fractions of the island, temporarily) and the English, in their entire History. I think most would agree about those two being some pretty heavyweight foes.. 

As for the Basques,, you must be forgetting that the Romans, Visigoths, Franks/Carolingians and Umayads all failed to conquer them. They don't speak basque to this day for no reason.

----------


## motzart

> R1b men massacred the vast majority of haplogroup I men and stole all their women, on their own turf... imagine if R1b's were straight 
> 
> That being said, tr0ll thread is obvious.


I had to reply to this comment again as I have had new revelations.

Perhaps it was not the WHG women that the indo europeans came for, if they were, as science and data supports, homosexual, perhaps it was Haplogroup I that they invaded Europe to acquire. These red haired homosexual Pakistani R1bs could not control their lust when they learned of the tall glorious blonde haired blue eyed WHGs and killed off their mtdna U women out of jealousy.

----------


## Maleth

> Here is another great map illustrating the legality of homosexuality in europe, the other one may be a little broad (global)


They can add Malta in this map (The little island under Sicily) as we were just granted civil union right last Month.

Homosexuality has nothing to do with HG. As a homosexual I know enough that homosexuals come from every part of the world. Do you think that a homosexual person from Uganda (example) is going to be honest with his/her sexuality if the government puts you in prison?. Even in the case you would know someone and don't report it? There are 'underground' gay bars in Iran and Eygpt and other Arab countries (where homosexuality is illegal just like how Europe was less than 100 years ago, have a look at Victorian times in Britian). These homosexuals have no choice other to live in denial, live double lives or suppress their same sex attractions with all the negative consequences it brings about..... or find ways to live in other countries where they can live their life without the different grades of persecution.

----------


## Grubbe

> Saudi Arabia and Qatar are very wealthy but you don't see liberal attitudes in these countries. *Why is Western Europe so accepting of Homosexuality but not Cannabis and Abortions if they are so "liberal"?*


Saudi Arabia and Qatar are both Muslim countries. They don't tolerate homosexuality for religious reasons. Re cannabis: I think, at least in the Nordic countries, the reason the bovernments won't accept cannabis and other drugs, is that they already have alcohol. And that's leading to more than enough problems, without introducing other drugs as well. Re abortion: The situation in individual European countries depends on what level of freedom the women have, also often connected to religion.

----------


## Grubbe

> I think it is more likely that the cause of homosexuality in European men will be linked to R1b, we know that the majority of the aristocracy and monarchs in Europe have been R1b, and we also have a thoroughly documented tendency towards homosexual behavior in these groups.


Kings could get away with anything - because they were kings. Other people had to behave, if they wanted to keep their head. Even so: Some monarchs were homosexuals, but others had lots of extramarrital children. But whoring around was not an acceptable way of life for "the commons" either, without severe consequences.

----------


## Ike

> Lol, this shows how great observer you are. You befriended two biggest gay bashers on eupedia Ike and FireHaired.


So, just because I'm against their right to exercise their sexual perversions in front of me (i.e. in public), now I'm also against them?

----------


## LeBrok

> So, just because I'm against their right to exercise their *sexual perversions in front of me* (i.e. in public), now I'm also against them?


Yes, it is exactly what it means. Other words you are "pro-gay" as long as they stay in the closet, lol.

----------


## Angela

> Lol, this shows how great observer you are. You befriended two biggest gay bashers on eupedia Ike and FireHaired.
> 
> And for your information, I would comment same way regardless of haplogroup, because your observation doesn't make sense. You point for correlation without causation. Do you understand this concept?



Obviously, if the distinction were understood, the thread would not have been posted. You need some advanced vocabulary, reason, and logic to understand it. Forget about actually looking up studies. 

I don't know to what extent homosexuality is determined by genetic factors, uterine environment, early childhood environment, and/or life experiences. I think that the research as well as the testimony of actual gay people indicates that the inclination is present from an extremely young age and has a genetic component. 

There is some early work indicating a link to the X chromosome, as another poster mentioned. I'm not going to bother posting the link because it probably won't be read, and if read, it probably won't be understood. The fact that it is on the X makes some sense to me since if the 'determining' genetic factors were on the "Y" one would think it would be a trait that would die out. It also might explain why there are apparently(?) fewer Lesbians than homosexual men. In women, since there are two X chromosomes, it would be rarer to get a situation where both genes code for homosexuality and the trait is expressed.

None of this is to say that homosexuality may not be more present in certain ethnic groups than in others.There are indeed some studies that indicate it is more prevalent in certain European countries than in others, although it's difficult to know how accurate such data might be given the social stigma is stronger in some countries than in others. Once you get out of Europe, it's impossible to quantify as some posters have pointed out, as the penalty can be death.

Also, there seems to be an unawareness here of the hypocrisy which can exist even in such countries. Yes, homosexuality is strictly forbidden in Muslim countries. That didn't stop the Ottomans from engaging in a very lively trade in young boys for sexual purposes. J2a is very predominant there. Do our posters really not know what goes on even in places like J1 Saudi Arabia? Last time I checked, this isn't a part of the world awash in R1b.

Or what about Afghanistan and the "Bacha Bazi," the underage "dancing boys"? Oh wait, there's a lot of R1a there! Is it all the "R" lineages? But wait again, from that map of gay civil rights in Europe it looks to me like the more hunter gatherer north is more homosexual. Is it the higher percentages of the yDNA "I"? Or is it all that mtDNA U5 and U4, or rather the X chromosomes these women carried? 

I'm going to give some of these young men the benefit of the doubt and assume they are joking around. If I were to believe they are serious, it would be just too depressing.

Ed. And just why do some of you care so much what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedrooms? Are they harming you in some way? I swear, maybe there's something to the idea that men who are so viciously anti-gay harbor unresolved homosexual feelings themselves, or at least are very insecure about their sexuality.

----------


## mihaitzateo

> There is a great debate right now as to whether homosexuality is genetic or learned, homosexuals themselves strongly believe that they are "born this way". I present to you my research into the topic.
> 
> First I will reference this map of the legality of homosexuality in Europe contrasted against the spread of Y DNA Haplogroup R1b in Europe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can easily see that homosexuality is only legal in European countries where the y dna haplogroup r1b is most common. 
> 
> ...


I think it was rather some custom or wrong information transmitted ,but I doubt that between Celts homosexuality was high.

----------


## Ike

> Yes, it is exactly what it means. Other words you are "pro-gay" as long as they stay in the closet, lol.


You indeed have some weird logic.

1. It is not what you say it means.
2. I'm not "pro-gay" whether they're in the closet or out of it. Why would I be pro or against it? How can one even be pro or against it?! Are you pro Pluto or against it? Are you pro baldness or against it?

----------


## Fire Haired14

> Lol, this shows how great observer you are. You befriended two biggest gay bashers on eupedia Ike and FireHaired.


I am sick of you treating me as if I am some type of right-wing separatist. Is the way people reacted to Robertson not hating, or how people who have differnt opinons are treated(like this) by establishments? It is as if it's against the law not to be far-left. You'll just ignore that the people you support are snobbish-oppressors who lie(posed this man as a raciest) and send propaganda via the media, and still act as if their hippy underdogs. Go ahead Lebrok, post another one of your snobby Christian-bashing comments. Modern liberalism is largely about hating anything that's conservative. All you liberals use the same old phrases and ways to express yourself, yet every time you say it you think it's new(1960's have been over for over 40 years) and groundbreaking.

----------


## Fire Haired14

> They can add Malta in this map (The little island under Sicily) as we were just granted civil union right last Month.
> 
> Homosexuality has nothing to do with HG. As a homosexual I know enough that homosexuals come from every part of the world. Do you think that a homosexual person from Uganda (example) is going to be honest with his/her sexuality if the government puts you in prison?. Even in the case you would know someone and don't report it? There are 'underground' gay bars in Iran and Eygpt and other Arab countries (where homosexuality is illegal just like how Europe was less than 100 years ago, have a look at Victorian times in Britian). These homosexuals have no choice other to live in denial, live double lives or suppress their same sex attractions with all the negative consequences it brings about..... or find ways to live in other countries where they can live their life without the different grades of persecution.


Do you have sources for undergroud gay bars in the middle east, or are you making assumptions?

I don't mean to be offensive, just gonna ask some questions if you don't want to answer them fully that's fine. How and when did you determine that you were homosexual? When did you become sexually mature, and did you go through puberty normally? Have you ever been attracted to the opposite gender? Are you attracted to men the same way as women are attracted to men?

----------


## Fire Haired14

> LeBrok is just passionate about R1b, as it is his own haplogroup. He defends the honor of R1b with a lustful zeal and he will not tolerate any homosexual propaganda . Perhaps this strong love he has for his own haplogroup goes beyond pride and verges on the territory of sexual thoughts? The truth is buried deep within his psyche. Can LeBrok admit he is 'in love' with R1b? Can he admit he has come here to seek out others with R1b to engage them romantically? If he has, more support for my thread.
> 
> Would any R1b bearers be willing to post their browser histories so that we may investigate for pornography searches involving red haired indo europeans?


You sick bastard, LOL.

----------


## Angela

> Do you have sources for undergroud gay bars in the middle east, or are you making assumptions?
> 
> I don't mean to be offensive, just gonna ask some questions if you don't want to answer them fully that's fine. How and when did you determine that you were homosexual? When did you become sexually mature, and did you go through puberty normally? Have you ever been attracted to the opposite gender? Are you attracted to men the same way as women are attracted to men?


Have some decorum. Are you going to ask when we all lost our virginity next? How many and what kinds of sexual partners? Do you have no filter whatsoever? If you must ask such questions, do them in a PM, but be advised that most people will block you forthwith.

----------


## Fire Haired14

> The Irish have only ever had to face Vikings (who managed to capture only fractions of the island, temporarily) and the English, in their entire History. I think most would agree about those two being some pretty heavyweight foes.. 
> 
> As for the Basques,, you must be forgetting that the Romans, Visigoths, Franks/Carolingians and Umayads all failed to conquer them. They don't speak basque to this day for no reason.


Nowadays, there are more pussies in the west(including Ireland) than there every was. Our lives are luxurious and safe, war barely effects us, we don't have much of a need to learn how to fight, and survival is much much easier than in it was in the past. Besides, genetics has little to do toughness. Culture, mentality, your in-born personality, and the way you grew up are the biggest factors. Sure, many great warriors came out of Ireland and the Basque in the past, but that doesn't mean their war-traditions have been passed down to their modern descendants. 

Why doesn't anyone give English any credit for their past achievements? Starting from when the Anglo Saxons first arrived in Britain over 1,500 years ago, they have dominated the British isles. What language do Irish, Welsh, and Scottish mainly speak? Anytime they didn't conquer rebellious people in the British isles, it was because they had more important things to do, or were tired out from all the wars. At one time Britain had the largest empire in the history of mankind.

----------


## Fire Haired14

> Have some decorum. Are you going to ask when we all lost our virginity next? How many and what kinds of sexual partners? Do you have no filter whatsoever? If you must ask such questions, do them in a PM, but be advised that most people will block you forthwith.


Your right, those questions are inappropriate.

----------


## LeBrok

> You indeed have some weird logic.
> 
> 1. It is not what you say it means.
> 2. I'm not "pro-gay" whether they're in the closet or out of it. Why would I be pro or against it? How can one even be pro or against it?! Are you pro Pluto or against it? Are you pro baldness or against it?


 What I meant was tolerant not pro-gay. You said that you are ok with gays, but they can't be around you.

----------


## Fire Haired14

> What I meant was tolerant not pro-gay. You said that you are ok with gays, but they can't be around you.


It is perfectly normal for someone to be uncomfortable around gay people, and the reason goes without saying. He isn't evil or something, sure he should learn to not be uncomfortable(like with alot of things) but you shouldn't condemn him for it. Also, why do you fear from responding to me?

----------


## Ike

> You said that you are ok with gays, but they can't be around you.


I'm OK with gays, I'm not OK with public display of their perversion. 
I'm OK with swingers, but I'm not OK with public display of their perversion.
I'm OK with sex doll perverts, but I'm not OK with public display of their perversion.

You see the pattern? I'm totally comfortable with any of these people being around me, as long as they don't accentuate their sexual peculiarities.

----------


## LeBrok

> I'm OK with gays, I'm not OK with public display of their perversion. 
> I'm OK with swingers, but I'm not OK with public display of their perversion.
> I'm OK with sex doll perverts, but I'm not OK with public display of their perversion.
> 
> You see the pattern? I'm totally comfortable with any of these people being around me, as long as they don't accentuate their sexual peculiarities.


So when they are around you they need to act straight?

----------


## LeBrok

> I'm OK with gays, I'm not OK with public display of their perversion. 
> I'm OK with swingers, but I'm not OK with public display of their perversion.
> I'm OK with sex doll perverts, but I'm not OK with public display of their perversion.
> 
> You see the pattern? I'm totally comfortable with any of these people being around me, as long as they don't accentuate their sexual peculiarities.


So when they are around you they need to act straight?
When was the last time gays or swingers "perverted around" you?

----------


## LeBrok

> It is perfectly normal for someone to be uncomfortable around gay people, and the reason goes without saying. He isn't evil or something, sure he should learn to not be uncomfortable(like with alot of things) but you shouldn't condemn him for it.


You might have an argument with Ike then.




> Also, why do you fear from responding to me?


 No idea what you mean.

----------


## LeBrok

> Ed. And just why do some of you care so much what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedrooms? Are they harming you in some way? I swear, maybe there's something to the idea that men who are so viciously anti-gay harbor unresolved homosexual feelings themselves, or at least are very insecure about their sexuality.


From politicians to clergy, the ones who teach us and set antigay legislation are often caught red handed "romancing" with another man.

----------


## LeBrok

> I am sick of you treating me as if I am some type of right-wing separatist.


 Why separatist?




> Is the way people reacted to Robertson not hating, or how people who have differnt opinons are treated(like this) by establishments? It is as if it's against the law not to be far-left.


 I have a feeling that everybody not agreeing with you is "far left".



> You'll just ignore that the people you support are snobbish-oppressors who lie(posed this man as a raciest) and send propaganda via the media, and still act as if their hippy underdogs.






> Go ahead Lebrok, post another one of your snobby Christian-bashing comments.


 Last time we talked about religion you bashed all the Catholics. The last time I checked they were christians.




> Modern liberalism is largely about hating anything that's conservative.


 Not true, I'm a fiscal conservative, and I'm still undecided about abortion. I just don't see a reason to oppress people and I love freedoms, but I never was a hippy. And for that I'm a conservo-liberal.





> All you liberals use the same old phrases and ways to express yourself, yet every time you say it you think it's new(1960's have been over for over 40 years) and groundbreaking.


 Thanks to oppressive and intolerant people like you we still have to fight to open their minds.

----------


## Ike

> So when they are around you they need to act straight?


No, they don't need to act straight, in fact they don't need to do anything. The problem starts because they are obsessed with making other people aware of what their sexual preferences are. They can achieve their sexual climax pushing their organs into front end, back end, hole in the ground, car exhaust system; watching children pornography cartoons, graveyard pictures, funerals; caressing trees, glass, thin air; I don't care as long as I don't know anything about it...




> When was the last time gays or swingers "perverted around" you?


Never, because West thinks that's socially unacceptable. I guess it's a Muslim thing, and that's why they're against it, otherwise we'd be overflown with those requests too.

----------


## Ike

> You might have an argument with Ike then.


He doesn't. It is initial reaction for a normal person to feel scared, confused and uncomfortable once it becomes aware of concept of homosexuality. 

You know, after years of killing and dying, bombing, starvation, and seeing it all over and again live or on TV....when you see a slashed corpse with it's penis cut off and put in his mouth, you kinda become dull for those things and you lose your vomiting reflex for simple things like anal sex or gay people. Now I could wade through a whole filed of naked gays with a smile on my face  :Grin:  Thank you Vatican, you've made me gay tolerant :)

----------


## Maleth

> Ed. And just why do some of you care so much what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedrooms? Are they harming you in some way? I swear, maybe there's something to the idea that men who are so viciously anti-gay harbor unresolved homosexual feelings themselves, or at least are very insecure about their sexuality.


...............Spot on

----------


## Maleth

[QUOTE=Fire Haired14;431657]Do you have sources for undergroud gay bars in the middle east, or are you making assumptions?/QUOTE]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-19525136

----------


## RobertColumbia

> Whether or not homosexuality is expressed on the Y-chromosome(which I doubt) should not really matter. From these maps we can safely see a shocking pattern. However I bet there are as many homosexuals and trans people in non R1b countries as in R1b countries. Perhaps we could say that R1b countries have begun to tolerate homosexuality better than most non R1b countries. But that would be due to culture and social progress rather than genetics.


Yes, this is a more likely possibility. Perhaps we could call whatever it is on R1b that we think does this the "Celtic 'don't razz on the gays' gene".

----------


## DuPidh

[QUOTE=LeBrok;431575]Richer countries are more liberal than poor ones generally speaking. That's why LGBT have highest freedoms of expression in Western Europe. It just happened that Western Europe is rich in R1b therefore you see a missleading corelation, between R1b and homoseuality. There is no causation.

Russia and China and few others are evenements in case of abortions. This was set by communist party decree few decades ago. Society didn't have chance to vote for or against, unlike in the Western free countries.[/QUOT

Liberalism and wealth are not related. Liberalism is a cultural attitude of some Northern Europeans. Historically Netherlands has been known as a society open to ideas that were heresy for others. If it was not for their liberalism and setting standards for accepting thinking differently we still might have not known that earth rotates. It was there where Galileo published his findings. And Neatherland was not rich at that time. Even today they are open to gayness, drugs and legal prostitution. Their attitude was later embraced by other Northern European countries. 
Gayness is more pronounced in Germanic countries. I don't think has to do anything with R1. But I think is a genetic disorder.

----------


## Fire Haired14

> *Gayness is more pronounced in Germanic countries*. I don't think has to do anything with R1. But I think is a genetic disorder.


Is there anyway to prove this. Just speculation.

----------


## LeBrok

[QUOTE=DuPidh;466103]


> Richer countries are more liberal than poor ones generally speaking. That's why LGBT have highest freedoms of expression in Western Europe. It just happened that Western Europe is rich in R1b therefore you see a missleading corelation, between R1b and homoseuality. There is no causation.
> 
> Russia and China and few others are evenements in case of abortions. This was set by communist party decree few decades ago. Society didn't have chance to vote for or against, unlike in the Western free countries.[/QUOT
> 
> *Liberalism and wealth are not related*. Liberalism is a cultural attitude of some Northern Europeans. Historically Netherlands has been known as a society open to ideas that were heresy for others. If it was not for their liberalism and setting standards for accepting thinking differently we still might have not known that earth rotates. It was there where Galileo published his findings. And Neatherland was not rich at that time. Even today they are open to gayness, drugs and legal prostitution. Their attitude was later embraced by other Northern European countries. 
> Gayness is more pronounced in Germanic countries. I don't think has to do anything with R1. But I think is a genetic disorder.


Can you show us an example of poor county that is liberal?

----------


## RobertColumbia

[QUOTE=LeBrok;466111]


> Can you show us an example of poor county that is liberal?


Venezuela perhaps? I might claim Brazil too. They might not be on the list of the top ten most liberal countries, but they are certainly more liberal than, say, Russia or Iran.

At the sub-country level, you sometimes see liberal, but poor, _regions_ of countries. This is so in many poor urban areas of the USA, which overwhelmingly vote for the Democratic party (the more liberal of the two main political parties, and the one generally in favor of increased welfare and socialized medicine). By contrast, poor _rural_ areas there tend to be highly conservative. There may also be a racial aspect to that because poor urban areas in the USA tend to be overwhelmingly black, while rural poverty there tends to be overwhelmingly white.

----------


## Angela

There are a lot of papers that claim that homosexual initiation rites were a part of the "Indo-European" cultural package. We don't know if it was also a part of the European Neolithic.
https://books.google.com/books?id=1h...opeans&f=false

However, it does exist in some hunter-gatherers in New Guinea, so I would think a logical conclusion might be that it existed in all human societies to one degree or another.

----------


## Maleth

> However, it does exist in some hunter-gatherers in New Guinea, so I would think a logical conclusion might be that it existed in all human societies to one degree or another.


There is no doubt about that, just look at the gay communities in New York they practically come from ethnicities, from all over the world. Chinese, Arab, African....you name it

----------


## LeBrok

> Venezuela perhaps? I might claim Brazil too. They might not be on the list of the top ten most liberal countries, but they are certainly more liberal than, say, Russia or Iran.


I would say, developing countries with developing freedoms.




> At the sub-country level, you sometimes see liberal, but poor, _regions_ of countries. This is so in many poor urban areas of the USA, which overwhelmingly vote for the Democratic party (the more liberal of the two main political parties, and the one generally in favor of increased welfare and socialized medicine). By contrast, poor _rural_ areas there tend to be highly conservative. There may also be a racial aspect to that because poor urban areas in the USA tend to be overwhelmingly black, while rural poverty there tends to be overwhelmingly white.


 I would say that poor vote Democratic, because Democrats always promise more for the poor than conservatives. Best example is Medicare program by Obama. Otherwise I think they have similar level of conservatism and liberalism.

----------


## DuPidh

[QUOTE=LeBrok;466111]


> Can you show us an example of poor county that is liberal?



Thailand came to my mind. They appear to be more open to sexuality. I am not talking about female prostitution. I am talking about their attitude for gays.

----------


## LeBrok

[QUOTE=DuPidh;466251]


> Thailand came to my mind. They appear to be more open to sexuality. I am not talking about female prostitution. I am talking about their attitude for gays.


 Yes, in this department they seem to be doing right. However in whole freedom spectrum, like press, business, democracy, they are closer to the bottom of the freedom scale.
https://freedomhouse.org/report-type...d#.Ve_SihFVhBc

----------


## Alpenjager

Well, very interesting thread Motzart!

I noticed the same thing around me. I'm not R1b and I tested more than 10 people of my social circle. The most Femenine individuals belongs to R1b and all of R1b have evident Femenine "undertone" but not all of them shows this behaivor on the exact same way. On the other hand E1b, T1a, J2 and I2 have less, negligible or nule Femenine behaivor. I want to emphasize that this is very obvious to me. The total number of R1b is 5 and non-R1b is 7. My list from most Fermenine to less Femenine: R1b, R1b, R1b, R1b, // I2, R1b, E1b-V13, I2, // E1b-M81, E1b-M81, J2, T1a. 

So, I have no doubt about a link between Feminity and R1b. Because of this I don't know. This thoughts are shared among some of the individuals of this small research.

----------


## Angela

How wonderfully scientific!

----------


## Twilight

Only way to find out is to make a poll. If there was any gay gene, I seriously doubt that the Gay gene would solely hitch a ride on the Y-Chromozone; that would mean that lesbians would be stereotyped as having a Y-Chromozone.

Sourcing from 23andme, these genes are the strongest link to homosexuality.
rs6990254: G = more likely to be homosexual, T = average likelihood 
rs2221108: G = more likely to be homosexual, A = average likelihood 
rs2221108: G = more likely to be homosexual, A = average likelihood

----------


## Sile

> Well, very interesting thread Motzart!
> 
> I noticed the same thing around me. I'm not R1b and I tested more than 10 people of my social circle. The most Femenine individuals belongs to R1b and all of R1b have evident Femenine "undertone" but not all of them shows this behaivor on the exact same way. On the other hand E1b, T1a, J2 and I2 have less, negligible or nule Femenine behaivor. I want to emphasize that this is very obvious to me. The total number of R1b is 5 and non-R1b is 7. My list from most Fermenine to less Femenine: R1b, R1b, R1b, R1b, // I2, R1b, E1b-V13, I2, // E1b-M81, E1b-M81, J2, T1a. 
> 
> So, I have no doubt about a link between Feminity and R1b. Because of this I don't know. This thoughts are shared among some of the individuals of this small research.


all humans are conceived as females

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1Kdoja3hlk

whats the different haplogroups got to do with feminity

----------


## DuPidh

> Well, very interesting thread Motzart!
> 
> I noticed the same thing around me. I'm not R1b and I tested more than 10 people of my social circle. The most Femenine individuals belongs to R1b and all of R1b have evident Femenine "undertone" but not all of them shows this behaivor on the exact same way. On the other hand E1b, T1a, J2 and I2 have less, negligible or nule Femenine behaivor. I want to emphasize that this is very obvious to me. The total number of R1b is 5 and non-R1b is 7. My list from most Fermenine to less Femenine: R1b, R1b, R1b, R1b, // I2, R1b, E1b-V13, I2, // E1b-M81, E1b-M81, J2, T1a. 
> 
> So, I have no doubt about a link between Feminity and R1b. Because of this I don't know. This thoughts are shared among some of the individuals of this small research.


It actually appears to be so, that Northern Europeans are more likely to be Gay persons. Keeping in mind that Northern Europeans are over 50% R1 people the probability that Gay person is R1 is very high so there actually appears as scientific hint of connections between homosexuality and R1. 
But don't forget the R1 haplogroup is the most numerous haplogroup in Europe. Out of 300 million males Europe has over 200 millions are R1 males. So even if in percentage wise the likelihood of a R1 person being gay is equal with likelihood of a I1 person being gay, since R1 males are a lot more numerous, one will meet a lot more R1 gays than other haplogroups. So the appearance is that all R1 are gays. But if you calculate for every haplogroup the percentage of gay members it should be the same percentage for every haplogroup.

----------


## Maleth

> Well, very interesting thread Motzart!
> 
> I noticed the same thing around me. I'm not R1b and I tested more than 10 people of my social circle. The most Femenine individuals belongs to R1b and all of R1b have evident Femenine "undertone" but not all of them shows this behaivor on the exact same way. On the other hand E1b, T1a, J2 and I2 have less, negligible or nule Femenine behaivor. I want to emphasize that this is very obvious to me. The total number of R1b is 5 and non-R1b is 7. My list from most Fermenine to less Femenine: R1b, R1b, R1b, R1b, // I2, R1b, E1b-V13, I2, // E1b-M81, E1b-M81, J2, T1a. 
> 
> So, I have no doubt about a link between Feminity and R1b. Because of this I don't know. This thoughts are shared among some of the individuals of this small research.


Pure nonsense

----------


## Goga

If ancient R1b folks were more gay than others they would never have so much descendants and conquer Europe!

----------


## LeBrok

> If ancient R1b folks were more gay than others they would never have so much descendants and conquer Europe!


This is probably one time I agree with you. ;)

----------


## Fire Haired14

> It actually appears to be so, that Northern Europeans are more likely to be Gay persons. Keeping in mind that Northern Europeans are over 50% R1 people the probability that Gay person is R1 is very high so there actually appears as scientific hint of connections between homosexuality and R1. 
> But don't forget the R1 haplogroup is the most numerous haplogroup in Europe. Out of 300 million males Europe has over 200 millions are R1 males. So even if in percentage wise the likelihood of a R1 person being gay is equal with likelihood of a I1 person being gay, since R1 males are a lot more numerous, one will meet a lot more R1 gays than other haplogroups. So the appearance is that all R1 are gays. But if you calculate for every haplogroup the percentage of gay members it should be the same percentage for every haplogroup.


You're basing this on observation and stero-types which makes it pseudo-science. People of mostly Northern European decent today(Americans, Australians, North Europeans) are the most liberal today. That can help explain why it seems more of them are homosexual than others. In most of the world homosexuality is socially unacceptable.

----------


## RobertColumbia

[QUOTE=LeBrok;466255]


> Yes, in this department they seem to be doing right. However in whole freedom spectrum, like press, business, democracy, they are closer to the bottom of the freedom scale.
> https://freedomhouse.org/report-type...d#.Ve_SihFVhBc


It is interesting how the concept of "freedom" exists on different spectrums. For example, the USA is famously permissive when it comes to weapons ownership - it's even possible to legally own a fully automatic machine gun in many areas without a great deal of difficulty. On the other hand, The USA tends to take a rather restrictive view of many sexual freedoms, and many areas still have a very hardline attitude toward marijuana. By contrast, much of Western Europe shrugs at many drugs and hardcore pornography, but makes it difficult to obtain even a basic rifle or handgun.

----------


## Angela

[QUOTE=RobertColumbia;466452]


> It is interesting how the concept of "freedom" exists on different spectrums. For example, the USA is famously permissive when it comes to weapons ownership - it's even possible to legally own a fully automatic machine gun in many areas without a great deal of difficulty. On the other hand, The USA tends to take a rather restrictive view of many sexual freedoms, and many areas still have a very hardline attitude toward marijuana. By contrast, much of Western Europe shrugs at many drugs and hardcore pornography, but makes it difficult to obtain even a basic rifle or handgun.


That's very short sighted of Europeans, in my opinion. In Italy, one of the first things the Fascists did after they took control of the government was to confiscate all fire arms, even those used by peasants for hunting. That's one reason why it took so long for actual resistance against them to materialize, even in areas like mine with a long history of anarchist and communist parties. (Of course, the killing of people like Mateotti, the rounding up of anyone who dared to voice a contrary view and imprisoning them or sending them into exile was a big factor as well.) 

In fact, only when the British started dropping arms and ammunition by air did was any kind of armed resistance possible.

In the U.S., the founders had a healthy distrust of centralized governments. Europe has always failed to understand that. Unfortunately that virus is spreading in the U.S. as well. 

One of the, in my opinion, outstanding features of the U.S. Constitution is the "balance of powers" between not only the executive, the legislative and the judiciary, but between the federal and the local jurisdictions. All of this, as well, stemmed from a healthy distrust of allowing too much power to accumulate in one place.

I'm not so sure that all of Europe is so much more liberal sexually than the U.S. It also depends how you define "liberal" in terms of sexuality. From my own personal experience in Italy, it's much more open in terms of representations of nudity and sexuality, discussions of sexuality in mixed company, acceptance of its centrality in human life etc. than the U.S. On the other hand, there's less tolerance of homosexuality even today than in the U.S., and there's far less promiscuity, out of wedlock pregnancies etc. among young girls than there is in the U.S. or northern Europe.

----------


## LeBrok

> That's very short sighted of Europeans, in my opinion. In Italy, one of the first things the Fascists did after they took control of the government was to confiscate all fire arms, even those used by peasants for hunting. That's one reason why it took so long for actual resistance against them to materialize, even in areas like mine with a long history of anarchist and communist parties. (Of course, the killing of people like Mateotti, the rounding up of anyone who dared to voice a contrary view and imprisoning them or sending them into exile was a big factor as well.) 
> .


Good point, Angela. In Europe in every country, or almost, there was some sort of dictatorship or occupation regime, when most arms were confiscated from dissatisfied population. In US on other hand there is a steady democratic system for 200 years, with governments coming from roots, and not afraid of their people. We should also mention that Wild West culture proliferated and solidified gun ownership a lot too.

----------


## RobertColumbia

> Well, very interesting thread Motzart!
> 
> I noticed the same thing around me. I'm not R1b and I tested more than 10 people of my social circle. The most Femenine individuals belongs to R1b and all of R1b have evident Femenine "undertone" but not all of them shows this behaivor on the exact same way. On the other hand E1b, T1a, J2 and I2 have less, negligible or nule Femenine behaivor. I want to emphasize that this is very obvious to me. The total number of R1b is 5 and non-R1b is 7. My list from most Fermenine to less Femenine: R1b, R1b, R1b, R1b, // I2, R1b, E1b-V13, I2, // E1b-M81, E1b-M81, J2, T1a. 
> 
> So, I have no doubt about a link between Feminity and R1b. Because of this I don't know. This thoughts are shared among some of the individuals of this small research.


Were these people of similar ethnic backgrounds? If you compared an R1b Swede, an I1 Swede, and an R1b Scot, you might actually discover that the two Swedes were more similar to each other than either of them was to the Scot.

----------


## LeBrok

> Were these people of similar ethnic backgrounds? If you compared an R1b Swede, an I1 Swede, and an R1b Scot, you might actually discover that the two Swedes were more similar to each other than either of them was to the Scot.


How can a person notice correlation of haplotype with body or sexuality?!!! Do people post their haplotype with pictures on internet, or do we have gay database with their haplotype, do people walk in the streets with R1b on their forheads? Total nonsense. To be clear, if I was gay I would be a proud gay.

----------


## Maleth

> Good point, Angela. In Europe in every country, or almost, there was some sort of dictatorship or occupation regime, when most arms were confiscated from dissatisfied population. In US on other hand there is a steady democratic system for 200 years, with governments coming from roots, and not afraid of their people. We should also mention that Wild West culture proliferated and solidified gun ownership a lot too.


Sorry this is out of subject but since its mentioned I have to comment. This is something I really cannot agree on. I see it very very differently. One cannot compare the age of the wild west and cowboy and Indians scenario to the kind of democracy we have today. Having a licensed fire arm at home does not equate to democracy in any way. I am very glad that in Europe we do not have the same mentality, and sorry Angela but there is really nothing short sighted about that, I am surprised you have come to this conclusion. Not sure why anyone can see that its beneficial or increase points toward democracy. I think the US has a big problem with all the 'solidification' of gun ownership and in reality probably has failed to to do something about it in my opinion. We are not living in the age of the wild west (so far at least) and its a creepy feeling to say the least.

Maybe firearms at home are ok in a civil war or in very unstable situations were there is total anarchy....but in a functioning democracy? whats the purpose? unless one feels threatened all the time. For what other reason its ok to have a licensed fire arm at home? Love to hear about the benefits of it........

----------


## Maleth

> That's very short sighted of Europeans, in my opinion. In Italy, one of the first things the Fascists did after they took control of the government was to confiscate all fire arms, even those used by peasants for hunting. That's one reason why it took so long for actual resistance against them to materialize, even in areas like mine with a long history of anarchist and communist parties. (Of course, the killing of people like Mateotti, the rounding up of anyone who dared to voice a contrary view and imprisoning them or sending them into exile was a big factor as well.)


Angela, those were different times, time of turbulence, why would that justify for guns to be legal in American households in2015? to defend what and from whom? Are things really that bad? or its some kind of obsession that needs healing?

----------


## LeBrok

> Sorry this is out of subject but since its mentioned I have to comment. This is something I really cannot agree on. I see it very very differently. One cannot compare the age of the wild west and cowboy and Indians scenario to the kind of democracy we have today. Having a licensed fire arm at home does not equate to democracy in any way. I am very glad that in Europe we do not have the same mentality, and sorry Angela but there is really nothing short sighted about that, I am surprised you have come to this conclusion. Not sure why anyone can see that its beneficial or increase points toward democracy. I think the US has a big problem with all the 'solidification' of gun ownership and in reality probably has failed to to do something about it in my opinion. We are not living in the age of the wild west (so far at least) and its a creepy feeling to say the least.
> 
> Maybe firearms at home are ok in a civil war or in very unstable situations were there is total anarchy....but in a functioning democracy? whats the purpose? unless one feels threatened all the time. For what other reason its ok to have a licensed fire arm at home? Love to hear about the benefits of it........


I don't think there is an argument who has better democracy, at least from my side. It is more about differences of freedoms that we enjoy under similar democratic systems, like gun ownership or sexuality.

----------


## RobertColumbia

> Well, very interesting thread Motzart!
> 
> I noticed the same thing around me. I'm not R1b and I tested more than 10 people of my social circle. The most Femenine individuals belongs to R1b and all of R1b have evident Femenine "undertone" but not all of them shows this behaivor on the exact same way. On the other hand E1b, T1a, J2 and I2 have less, negligible or nule Femenine behaivor. I want to emphasize that this is very obvious to me. The total number of R1b is 5 and non-R1b is 7. My list from most Fermenine to less Femenine: R1b, R1b, R1b, R1b, // I2, R1b, E1b-V13, I2, // E1b-M81, E1b-M81, J2, T1a. 
> 
> So, I have no doubt about a link between Feminity and R1b. Because of this I don't know. This thoughts are shared among some of the individuals of this small research.


One problem with measuring "femininity" is that it is not an easy concept to define formally or quantitatively. In addition to there being no clear model for giving someone a femininity "score", there is also the issue that ideas on what is and what is not "feminine" varies from culture to culture and from time period to time period. For example, some cultures (including one in which R1b predominates) do not consider skirts to be inherently feminine.




> all humans are conceived as females
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1Kdoja3hlk
> 
> whats the different haplogroups got to do with feminity


If humans start as female and become male later during development due to the influence of the y-chromosome, it could be plausible that mutations on the y-chromosome could affect the timing or intensity of that transition. I'm not saying that that is actually the case, only saying that it is a plausible hypothesis that could be investigated scientifically.

----------


## Sile

> If humans start as female and become male later during development due to the influence of the y-chromosome, it could be plausible that mutations on the y-chromosome could affect the timing or intensity of that transition. I'm not saying that that is actually the case, only saying that it is a plausible hypothesis that could be investigated scientifically.


if your are saying that it could be a reason why some men are more feminine than other men, then I agree

----------


## Fire Haired14

The inner-cities of America are a wild-west type scenario. Plenty of guys carry guns or knifes around everyday.

----------


## Alpenjager

> Were these people of similar ethnic backgrounds? If you compared an R1b Swede, an I1 Swede, and an R1b Scot, you might actually discover that the two Swedes were more similar to each other than either of them was to the Scot.


Yes, All of them grew down the same cultural influences and have similar ethnic background.





> One problem with measuring "femininity" is that it is not an easy concept to define formally or quantitatively. In addition to there being no clear model for giving someone a femininity "score", there is also the issue that ideas on what is and what is not "feminine" varies from culture to culture and from time period to time period. For example, some cultures (including one in which R1b predominates) do not consider skirts to be inherently feminine.


I agree. As "most femenine" I mean most close to the behavior generally shared among all womans. I never considered "skirts" as "femenine behavior", some guy could be very masculine and dress a skirt but also other guy could be most femenine and dress a skirt.

----------


## RobertColumbia

> ...I agree. As "most femenine" I mean most close to the behavior generally shared among all womans. I never considered "skirts" as "femenine behavior", some guy could be very masculine and dress a skirt but also other guy could be most femenine and dress a skirt.


How would you define "feminine behavior"? Most of the obvious things have obvious counterexamples in modern or ancient cultures.

----------


## Alpenjager

"Sex beyond the genitalia: The human brain mosaic" Daphna Joel et al. 2015

pnas . org / content / early / 2015 / 11 / 24 / 1509654112

----------


## redeyednewt

I have heard that being bisexual, gay, lesbian, or transgendered is genetic but people from all genetic backgrounds and heritages around the world are LGBT; but in some countries if you come out you risk imprisonment and death.

----------


## RobertColumbia

> I have heard that being bisexual, gay, lesbian, or transgendered is genetic but people from all genetic backgrounds and heritages around the world are LGBT; but in some countries if you come out you risk imprisonment and death.


Great point. Do you think that the genetic influences indicate a common origin (e.g. that all gay people are descended from a single person who was the original gay person), or do you think that the mutations arose at different times in different places?

----------


## DuPidh

> There is a great debate right now as to whether homosexuality is genetic or learned, homosexuals themselves strongly believe that they are "born this way". I present to you my research into the topic.
> 
> First I will reference this map of the legality of homosexuality in Europe contrasted against the spread of Y DNA Haplogroup R1b in Europe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can easily see that homosexuality is only legal in European countries where the y dna haplogroup r1b is most common. 
> 
> ...




It appears as homos are predominantly Northern Europeans. And that's an indication of some genetic disorder. If you go to Southern Europe you would be amazed how many bold people you will see. Another genetic disorder. But homosexuality is documented that has existed in Greece 4 000 years ago. Go in museums and see male sex scenes in their pottery or sculptures of Romans. So its not that its unknown.

----------


## Fire Haired14

> It appears as homos are predominantly Northern Europeans.


By Northern European you mean North*West* European, primary Germany, France, British Isles, and Scandinavia? I haven't seen confirmation NorthWest European is a real genetic category. 

I haven't read anything that makes a Swede closer to an Irishman as opposed to Polish or Russian. Saying there's a special relation between Scandinavians with Irish is far-fetched and unproven. I see it as a Isles Celts, Norse(and Germans?), and Gaul(??, no idea what's going on here, France is very diverse). Two distinct regions, and a mysterious Gaul/France and Germany. I don't see any reason to associate France, British Isles, Germany, and Scandinavia all together as one big category. 


Anyways, I'd expect NorthWest European countries to have higher percentage of homosexuals because to be the case because they're the mostly Liberal. Think about it: Britian, France, and Germany have been powerhouses for 100s of years and the center of liberalism. It'll be hard to find a homosexual in the SouthEast United States, where everyone is basically 100% British. Or in Western United States, where everyone is 100% NorthWest European. 

If Poles, Russians, Lithuanians, etc. are very similar to NorthWest Europeans genetically, why are they so much more conservative and non-homosexual? Obviously the difference is cultural not genetic.

----------


## Boreas

How do we explain lesbians?

----------


## LeBrok

> By Northern European you mean North*West* European, primary Germany, France, British Isles, and Scandinavia? I haven't seen confirmation NorthWest European is a real genetic category. 
> 
> I haven't read anything that makes a Swede closer to an Irishman as opposed to Polish or Russian. Saying there's a special relation between Scandinavians with Irish is far-fetched and unproven. I see it as a Isles Celts, Norse(and Germans?), and Gaul(??, no idea what's going on here, France is very diverse). Two distinct regions, and a mysterious Gaul/France and Germany. I don't see any reason to associate France, British Isles, Germany, and Scandinavia all together as one big category. 
> 
> 
> Anyways, I'd expect NorthWest European countries to have higher percentage of homosexuals because to be the case because they're the mostly Liberal. Think about it: Britian, France, and Germany have been powerhouses for 100s of years and the center of liberalism. It'll be hard to find a homosexual in the SouthEast United States, where everyone is basically 100% British. Or in Western United States, where everyone is 100% NorthWest European. 
> 
> If Poles, Russians, Lithuanians, etc. are very similar to NorthWest Europeans genetically, why are they so much more conservative and non-homosexual? Obviously the difference is cultural not genetic.


That's right. Gays and lesbians are more openly visible (out of closet) in more open and tolerant societies like Western Europe. On genetic level there is not much difference among Europeans to explain homosexuality in numbers between nations.

----------


## RobertColumbia

> ...Anyways, I'd expect NorthWest European countries to have higher percentage of homosexuals because to be the case because they're the mostly Liberal. Think about it: Britian, France, and Germany have been powerhouses for 100s of years and the center of liberalism. It'll be hard to find a homosexual in the SouthEast United States, where everyone is basically 100% British. Or in Western United States, where everyone is 100% NorthWest European....


Having spent many years in the USA, I'd say that the trend is more that it is easier to be "out" as a homosexual in certain areas, and this leads to many homosexuals migrating to those areas. Many (but not all) of these areas are in the northeast, and that feeds into the cycle of Northeast USA = Gay.

Going back to the R1b map, there's something missing. What about the African R1b-V88 in Nigeria and Cameroon? That area is well known for being very homophobic. Also, look at Scandinavia. I1 is more common there than R1b, but it is still a gay-friendly area. While I think that a genetic factor is plausible, I don't think that just identifying a haplogroup is going to do it. There are likely some autosomal factors, as well as some sociocultural and sociopolitical trends that could be influenced by genetics but could also be caused by other (non-genetic) circumstantial factors.

----------


## Angela

If this scholar is correct, homosexual relations between an adolescent boy and an older more experienced warrior with which we're familiar from classical Greek culture was actually part of the Indo-European culture from the beginning, and would have spread with their culture. 
https://books.google.com/books?id=1h...uality&f=false

If that's the case it would have involved all the y-Dna haplogroup carriers who were involved, including R1a. That may explain the pederasty in the Afghan tribes. It's also very common in Arab countries as well, however, which is why the hypocrisy of the ISIS fundamentalist ravings in regard to homosexuality is particularly infuriating. PLO leader Arafat was notorious in that regard, leading to all sorts of rumors that he died of AIDS.
http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/10/28/...fghan-tragedy/

----------


## Fire Haired14

> If this scholar is correct, homosexual relations between an adolescent boy and an older more experienced warrior with which we're familiar from classical Greek culture was actually part of the Indo-European culture from the beginning, and would have spread with their culture. 
> https://books.google.com/books?id=1h...uality&f=false
> 
> If that's the case it would have involved all the y-Dna haplogroup carriers who were involved, including R1a. That may explain the pederasty in the Afghan tribes. It's also very common in Arab countries as well, however, which is why the hypocrisy of the ISIS fundamentalist ravings in regard to homosexuality is particularly infuriating. PLO leader Arafat was notorious in that regard, leading to all sorts of rumors that he died of AIDS.
> http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/10/28/...fghan-tragedy/


That's pretty unlikely. A few cases in Afghanistan or Greece, doesn't mean 3000 BC PIE did that. The system in Afghanistan is a tradition of abuse anyways. It's not as if it's a culture-trait or whatever. It's the result of a world of pedophiles with guns. The ancient Greeks were known perverts, I don't think we can use them to represent any norm.

----------


## LeBrok

> That's pretty unlikely.* A few cases in Afghanistan or Greece,* doesn't mean 3000 BC PIE did that. The system in Afghanistan is a tradition of abuse anyways. It's not as if it's a culture-trait or whatever. It's the result of a world of pedophiles with guns. The ancient Greeks were known perverts, I don't think we can use them to represent any norm.


Few cases? Check Spartan Culture. It was so prevalent that their law was modified to allow a wife to sleep with other Spartan warrior in order to make a baby! Number of spartans was dropping through centuries till only 1,000 left, and dissipated into general population of the region. I guess, there was a bit too many gays and lasbiens and too few straight to sustain the population.

----------


## Fire Haired14

> Few cases? Check Spartan Culture. It was so prevalent that their law was modified to allow a wife to sleep with other Spartan warrior in order to make a baby! Number of spartans was dropping through centuries till only 1,000 left, and dissipated into general population of the region. I guess, there was a bit too many gays and lasbiens and too few straight to sustain the population.


That's surprising and interesting. A population that won't reproduce, scary. IMO, it is the result of their circumstances. I don't think it's representative of any norm. Just like circumstance in prison leads to homosexuality. If isolated for years, people will likely resort or sticks or animals or whatever.


https://youtu.be/B94lP-fZyLk

----------


## Sile

> How do we explain lesbians?


Their fathers where R1b  :Good Job:

----------


## Promenade

> How do we explain lesbians?


Ha, I laughed when i saw this, probably the most sane comment in this thread.

As far as I know homosexuality is greatly influenced by hormonal imbalance in the womb. I often see people trying to relate Haplogroups to certain traits but I dont think I've ever seen a substantial scientific study proving a causation between Haplogroups and any traits that wasn't actually caused by some other factor.

I recall reading somewhere that people with y-dna N make better weightlifters and people with y-dna T make better sprinters but I'm not sure I believe any of that.

----------


## Promenade

> If this scholar is correct, homosexual relations between an adolescent boy and an older more experienced warrior with which we're familiar from classical Greek culture was actually part of the Indo-European culture from the beginning, and would have spread with their culture. 
> https://books.google.com/books?id=1h...uality&f=false
> 
> If that's the case it would have involved all the y-Dna haplogroup carriers who were involved, including R1a. That may explain the pederasty in the Afghan tribes. It's also very common in Arab countries as well, however, which is why the hypocrisy of the ISIS fundamentalist ravings in regard to homosexuality is particularly infuriating. PLO leader Arafat was notorious in that regard, leading to all sorts of rumors that he died of AIDS.
> http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/10/28/...fghan-tragedy/


I would tend to think its completely cultural. Look at western Europe from to the fall of Rome to 1900 and you would never assume there was correlation between homosexuality and R1b more than any Haplogroup or place on the planet.

Yet only a couple centuries prior the fall of Rome Plato was writing in the Republic one of the most important books ever written about the temptation to lust after young male pupils and only a few decades after 1900 many western European nations had allowed for same sex marriage. 

I believe its just modern "liberal" beliefs and ancient indo european beliefs somewhat overlapping on that one issue. Christianity dominated the cultural attitude toward homosexuality in europe for many years and had been itself influenced by early Semitic views on it(which may have arisen due to cleanliness i.e preventing the spread of STD and then became infused with religious doctrine later on). With rise of Islam in Europe we may even see this happen again as attitudes about homosexuality shift back to another cultural source. What I'm trying to show here is that the trend is transient due to the culture of the time.

It seems in ancient times homosexuality was really a cultural event among warrior peoples or warrior classes, we see it in the Samurai who have nothing to do with Indo Europeans. It was most likely a cultural phenomenon shared among warrior classes or peoples because of their lack of contact with women and strong bond forming with other men. Other cultures may have developed differently and seen it as uncleanly as I described before with Semitic groups, the decision whether to accept it or not probably depended on the cultures environment and which option had the less detrimental consequence.

----------


## Maleth

Homosexuality is perfectly normal in the animal kingdom (in smaller percentages just as in humans) and so is Bi sexuality by the way. What haplogroups do these animals carry? and Im not talking just about Bonobo's the closest animal to humans but an array of animal groups. Very natural and nothing disorderly and none of them are persecuted but a part of the clan.

----------


## Maleth

> Their fathers where R1b


The term Lesbian is derived from the Greek Island of Lesbos...not exactly an Rlb stronghold ....tho like male gays they would be found in equal percentages in any society in the world  :Grin:

----------


## Sile

> Ha, I laughed when i saw this, probably the most sane comment in this thread.
> 
> As far as I know homosexuality is greatly influenced by hormonal imbalance in the womb. I often see people trying to relate Haplogroups to certain traits but I dont think I've ever seen a substantial scientific study proving a causation between Haplogroups and any traits that wasn't actually caused by some other factor.
> 
> I recall reading somewhere that people with y-dna N make better weightlifters and people with y-dna T make better sprinters but I'm not sure I believe any of that.


maybe its because the y chromsome starts to kick in about 6 weeks after conception......this is the norm.........maybe homosexual mens Y -Chr kicks in later , like 10 weeks , which could mean more female x-chr traits in their makeup  :Confused:

----------


## DuPidh

> I would tend to think its completely cultural. Look at western Europe from to the fall of Rome to 1900 and you would never assume there was correlation between homosexuality and R1b more than any Haplogroup or place on the planet.
> 
> Yet only a couple centuries prior the fall of Rome Plato was writing in the Republic one of the most important books ever written about the temptation to lust after young male pupils and only a few decades after 1900 many western European nations had allowed for same sex marriage. 
> 
> I believe its just modern "liberal" beliefs and ancient indo european beliefs somewhat overlapping on that one issue. Christianity dominated the cultural attitude toward homosexuality in europe for many years and had been itself influenced by early Semitic views on it(which may have arisen due to cleanliness i.e preventing the spread of STD and then became infused with religious doctrine later on). With rise of Islam in Europe we may even see this happen again as attitudes about homosexuality shift back to another cultural source. What I'm trying to show here is that the trend is transient due to the culture of the time.
> 
> It seems in ancient times homosexuality was really a cultural event among warrior peoples or warrior classes, we see it in the Samurai who have nothing to do with Indo Europeans. It was most likely a cultural phenomenon shared among warrior classes or peoples because of their lack of contact with women and strong bond forming with other men. Other cultures may have developed differently and seen it as uncleanly as I described before with Semitic groups, the decision whether to accept it or not probably depended on the cultures environment and which option had the less detrimental consequence.



You are over simplifying when you say that homosexuality in Northern countries, is a matter a liberty. Its not. Homosexuality was widespread in Nazi Germany. Was liberty the cause? Was not. The reason is in R1b countries the homosexuals are numerous. They have the numbers and the power to make their voice heard. Many homos appear to be intelligent. As such they have occupied high position in social hierarchy making it possible to influence the society to accept their presence. Homosexuality has been visible in Dictatorial countries like Germany not in liberal ones as Holland. The only country in the world that has always been open to ideas and behaviors that for everyone else were heretic was Holland. Other countries simply imported Dutch model. And yet homosexuality was not open and accepted in Holland.
To make my point: Homosexuality in Northern countries is wide spread and numerous as result of genetic predisposition. This high numbers and their social status made it possible that societies in North to accept as the fact of life homosexuality.

----------


## Fire Haired14

> I would tend to think its completely cultural. Look at western Europe from to the fall of Rome to 1900 and you would never assume there was correlation between homosexuality and R1b more than any Haplogroup or place on the planet.
> 
> Yet only a couple centuries prior the fall of Rome Plato was writing in the Republic one of the most important books ever written about the temptation to lust after young male pupils and only a few decades after 1900 many western European nations had allowed for same sex marriage. 
> 
> I believe its just modern "liberal" beliefs and ancient indo european beliefs somewhat overlapping on that one issue. Christianity dominated the cultural attitude toward homosexuality in europe for many years and had been itself influenced by early Semitic views on it(which may have arisen due to cleanliness i.e preventing the spread of STD and then became infused with religious doctrine later on). With rise of Islam in Europe we may even see this happen again as attitudes about homosexuality shift back to another cultural source. What I'm trying to show here is that the trend is transient due to the culture of the time.
> 
> It seems in ancient times homosexuality was really a cultural event among warrior peoples or warrior classes, we see it in the Samurai who have nothing to do with Indo Europeans. It was most likely a cultural phenomenon shared among warrior classes or peoples because of their lack of contact with women and strong bond forming with other men. Other cultures may have developed differently and seen it as uncleanly as I described before with Semitic groups, the decision whether to accept it or not probably depended on the cultures environment and which option had the less detrimental consequence.


Every behavior or cultural trait isn't because your Germanic or Greek or Chinese or whatever. There isn't an Indo European or Semetic behavior or culture. Your making connections that don't exist.

----------


## Fire Haired14

> To make my point: Homosexuality in Northern countries is wide spread and numerous as result of genetic predisposition. This high numbers and their social status made it possible that societies in North to accept as the fact of life homosexuality.


You have no evidence to back this up or debunk it. You're making baseless statements. IMO, it's 100% culture. You could say any region of the world is genetically prone to certain behavior, if it's in the result of their culture.

----------


## Boreas

> Their fathers where R1b


Wow the problem is solved  :Grin: 

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


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_homosexuality

Homosexuality is also in Americans and Far East during the all history.

----------


## Sennevini

Homosexuality isn't more widespread in western Europe; it's more visible; 
there are cultures like eastern Europe or the Middle East where it all happens underground.
You would be a blind man to deny it exists there.

----------


## Promenade

> Every behavior or cultural trait isn't because your Germanic or Greek or Chinese or whatever. There isn't an Indo European or Semetic behavior or culture. Your making connections that don't exist.


You misrepresented what I said. In fact I believe we agree with each other that people here are mistaking the acceptance of homosexuality in some cultures with a propensity to be more homosexual. I was simply giving examples of cultures that historically accepted and rejected homosexuality, I never said it was ingrained in their behavior.

----------


## Promenade

> You are over simplifying when you say that homosexuality in Northern countries, is a matter a liberty. Its not. Homosexuality was widespread in Nazi Germany. Was liberty the cause? Was not. The reason is in R1b countries the homosexuals are numerous. They have the numbers and the power to make their voice heard. Many homos appear to be intelligent. As such they have occupied high position in social hierarchy making it possible to influence the society to accept their presence. Homosexuality has been visible in Dictatorial countries like Germany not in liberal ones as Holland. The only country in the world that has always been open to ideas and behaviors that for everyone else were heretic was Holland. Other countries simply imported Dutch model. And yet homosexuality was not open and accepted in Holland.
> To make my point: Homosexuality in Northern countries is wide spread and numerous as result of genetic predisposition. This high numbers and their social status made it possible that societies in North to accept as the fact of life homosexuality.



I didn't say that the acceptance of homosexuality was exclusive to western liberal society and that it couldn't be found in other cultures, I was making the case that people perceive homosexuality as more prevalent in these places because they are accepted by the modern cultures there. If you find acceptance of homosexuality on the left or right of the political spectrum it doesn't matter that's not the argument I'm making.(Although your claim that homosexuality was widespread in Nazi Germany as compared to any other society is dubious, the original leader of the brown shirts was purged for being a homosexual)

The fact is you have no empirical data to support your outrageous claim, especially when controlling for the fact that its acceptable to be homosexual in these countries. If you were to do conduct such a study in northern europe during the middle ages you would be hard pressed to find an admitting homosexual, just as you would be in modern times in places where homosexuality is frowned upon.

You make this claim that there is a genetic predisposition in Northern Europe for homosexuality but you offer no hard evidence other than your anecdotal observations which conveniently ignore anything that doesnt validate your argument. Your whole basis of your argument seems to be that since they in our modern era culturally accept homosexuality and have high rates of R1b then it must be correlated. R1b is also highly prevalent in central asia and parts of Africa yet I don't see much acceptance for homosexuality there. I'm guessing your counter argument will be equally vague and based on observation

----------


## Tomenable

> What haplogroups, you assume, will gays in China or Japan have?


Is the percent of gays among the population the same in China or Japan as in Europe, or lower, or higher?

----------


## Promenade

> maybe its because the y chromsome starts to kick in about 6 weeks after conception......this is the norm.........maybe homosexual mens Y -Chr kicks in later , like 10 weeks , which could mean more female x-chr traits in their makeup


Perhaps, we would need to see research done on this, but homosexuality is not only correlated with feminine traits many homosexuals display hypermasculinity. I think the science behind it is fairly complex. What I was pointing at here though is that we were neglecting the female side to it which doesn't even involve the y chromosome.

----------


## Angela

> I would tend to think its completely cultural. Look at western Europe from to the fall of Rome to 1900 and you would never assume there was correlation between homosexuality and R1b more than any Haplogroup or place on the planet.
> 
> Yet only a couple centuries prior the fall of Rome Plato was writing in the Republic one of the most important books ever written about the temptation to lust after young male pupils and only a few decades after 1900 many western European nations had allowed for same sex marriage. 
> 
> I believe its just modern "liberal" beliefs and ancient indo european beliefs somewhat overlapping on that one issue. Christianity dominated the cultural attitude toward homosexuality in europe for many years and had been itself influenced by early Semitic views on it(which may have arisen due to cleanliness i.e preventing the spread of STD and then became infused with religious doctrine later on). With rise of Islam in Europe we may even see this happen again as attitudes about homosexuality shift back to another cultural source. What I'm trying to show here is that the trend is transient due to the culture of the time.
> 
> It seems in ancient times homosexuality was really a cultural event among warrior peoples or warrior classes, we see it in the Samurai who have nothing to do with Indo Europeans. It was most likely a cultural phenomenon shared among warrior classes or peoples because of their lack of contact with women and strong bond forming with other men. Other cultures may have developed differently and seen it as uncleanly as I described before with Semitic groups, the decision whether to accept it or not probably depended on the cultures environment and which option had the less detrimental consequence.


I may have given the wrong impression about the arguments presented here.

The author isn't saying that male homosexuality was only present in Indo-European societies. He's saying that it was ritualized as a right of passage for adolescent boys in these warrior cultures whether Greek, Celtic, Germanic, Indo-Iranian etc. He even finds it in warrior cultures of Melanesia, so it isn't only _Indo-European_ warrior cultures. 

He also shows that it was present in the prior "Neolithic" cultures.
https://books.google.com/books?id=1h...ltures&f=false

I think there's pretty abundant evidence from Canaanite culture that it was ritualized in a completely different context there, as there were male prostitutes in the temples as well as the more common female ones. The male priests took the passive role. So, I don't think there was a "Semitic" or Near Eastern proscription against it. The proscription was the product specifically of Hebrew religious and societal norms. They railed against male prostitution as well as female prostitution in the temples and orgiastic rites of any kind. Even masturbation was a grave transgression, so I don't think it was totally about disease avoidance. It might perhaps have partly been a way to distinguish themselves from the Canaanites whom they wished to supplant, although they took it further than the Indo-Europeans.
http://epistle.us/hbarticles/neareast.html

The literature on the subject is ambiguous, but it does seem there is a genetic component, as well as perhaps epi-genetic factors. It also seems to pass through mothers, not fathers, which would mean that the ychromosome is either irrelevant or a minor factor. That makes sense to me since we can see it is present in cultures carrying diverse yhaplogroups. 

That isn't to say that it is not more prevalent in certain ethnicities. I don't think anyone knows that yet, but it may well be true.

Oh, and just because it was a right of passage in certain cultures doesn't mean that most men continued to practice it, because there are indications from ancient literature that this wasn't the case.

----------


## Tomenable

I've heard and read, that homosexuality is caused by prenatal anomalies in levels of hormones, not by genes.

I think this is correct because homosexuals often don't have children, so selection works against their genes.

----------


## LeBrok

> Is the percent of gays among the population the same in China or Japan as in Europe, or lower, or higher?


I'm not sure if they did any statistics, as we have from the West. But it surely exists, and I believe on similar scale. Even existed in samurai culture.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_Japan

I'm expecting to see a big difference between farmers and small hunter gatherer tribes in level of LGBT. Theoretically, it should be increased in farmer societies due to arranged and forced marriages. Unlike small tribes where laws are few and people are most free to go with their nature.

----------


## LeBrok

> I've heard and read, that homosexuality is caused by prenatal *anomalies in levels of hormones*, not by genes.


Keep in mind that *genes do regulate* level of hormones and amount of receptors. It could be a simple genetic case. Well, maybe not that simple if there are good few genes involved.




> I think this is correct because *homosexuals often don't have children*, so selection works against their genes.


 Yes, now when they have a choice, but not before when all the marriages were arranged and forced by parents and societal pressure. I know couple of gays from polish community here, married in Poland, who were husbands and fathers, and left all of this for a guy lover. They say that they were sick and tired of pretending they were straight. The point is that they were gay and they made children, possibly transferring "gayness" to next generation.

----------


## RobertColumbia

> ...
> The literature on the subject is ambiguous, but it does seem there is a genetic component, as well as perhaps epi-genetic factors. It also seems to pass through mothers, not fathers, which would mean that the ychromosome is either irrelevant or a minor factor. That makes sense to me since we can see it is present in cultures carrying diverse yhaplogroups....


Good point. The "Gay Uncle" theory of the transmission of male homosexuality claims that the genes typically causing men to become gay do not affect women in that way. It then says that gay men, being mostly childless but still having a fatherhood instict, lavish extraordinary amounts of attention and nurturing onto their nieces and nephews. The nieces, having multiple strong "daddy" figures in their lives, grow up very healthy, get married, and have lots of children. The nephews become another generation of "gay uncles" to help raise the next generation of gay-male-gene propagating girls.

In a nutshell, the theory offers an explanation why such a seemingly anti-reproductive trait can still reproduce. In a sense, gay men reproduce indirectly via their sisters.

If this is true, I would expect there to be a stronger correlation between mtDNA and male homosexuality than a correlation with y-DNA. Has anyone found one?

----------


## Maleth

> Is the percent of gays among the population the same in China or Japan as in Europe, or lower, or higher?


No one can know for sure until all homosexuals and bisexuals feel outright comfortable in their sexuality world wide. Remember that in all Islamic countries homosexuality is a crime (Like in some African countries), just like it was in Europe a few decades ago. So who is going to claim to be a homosexual in any kind of survey?! Homosexuals only won some degree of rights very recently, in China and that does not mean that all of them are comfortable to be honest with their sexuality. There is still a great deal of nonacceptance in Russia and the east of Europe in general and many refuse to be open or even comfortable with their sexuality.

----------


## Maleth

> I've heard and read, that homosexuality is caused by prenatal anomalies in levels of hormones, not by genes.
> 
> I think this is correct because homosexuals often don't have children, so selection works against their genes.


There are a good amount of Homosexuals (male and female) that have been married (because of social pressure) and had children.

----------


## Fire Haired14

> You misrepresented what I said. In fact I believe we agree with each other that people here are mistaking the acceptance of homosexuality in some cultures with a propensity to be more homosexual. I was simply giving examples of cultures that historically accepted and rejected homosexuality, I never said it was ingrained in their behavior.


I know. I just don't agree we know what PIE culture or Semitic culture is. So, to say Europe's acceptance of homosexuality is partly because of PIE isn't true. PIE, etc. cultural traits should be long dead by now. Not because their genes or language didn't survive, but because every generation is a new start and culture quickly changes/dies out.

----------


## Fire Haired14

@Lebrok,

History of homosexuality



> In a 1976 study, Gwen Broude and Sarah Greene compared attitudes towards and frequency of homosexuality in the ethnographic studies available in the Standard cross-cultural sample. They found that out of 42 communities: homosexuality was accepted or ignored in 9; *5 communities had no concept of homosexuality*; 11 considered it undesirable but did not set punishments; and 17 strongly disapproved and punished. Of 70 communities, *homosexuality was reported to be absent or rare in frequency in 41*, and present or not uncommon in 29.[1][2]


IMO, in recent years homosexuality has been blown out of proportion in the West. Most popular TV shows have a star gay member, mentions to homosexuality is common. But I really don't think in most human societies it's nearly as common as the West has it cracked up to be. 

I read some type of Ape-expert or whatever(don't know the real name) that said homosexuality has never been reported in Chimps in the wild, but is well known in Bonobos. Also, that they usually only see homosexuality in animals when they're taken out of the wild and put in zoos or just human controlled areas. Sexuality is male-female reproduction, end of story. If Homosexuality exists in nature in our DNA, it's some-type of mutation of heterosexuality. And to say homosexuality is on par with heterosexuality of normality in sexuality is denial of the mechanism of sex itself, because sex is a gender thing(One has the vagina, one has the penis).

----------


## Tomenable

*Fire Haired,*

A Polish feminist from the Congress of Women - professor Monika Płatek - would disagree with you. She said:  :Smile: 

Quote:

*"In homosexual marriages as many children are born, and often more, than in heterosexual marriages."

*Source (in Polish): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0qmuBSGUog#t=4m38s



Maybe in lesbian marriages, but obviously not in gay marriages.

----------


## Maleth

> @Lebrok,
> 
> I read some type of Ape-expert or whatever(don't know the real name) that said homosexuality has never been reported in Chimps in the wild, but is well known in Bonobos. Also, that they usually only see homosexuality in animals when they're taken out of the wild and put in zoos or just human controlled areas.


The vast majority of studies have been conducted in the wild.

----------


## Maleth

> Maybe in lesbian marriages, but obviously not in gay marriages.


My ex partner was married with two children and there are many cases of gay men who were married and have children.....as much as Lesbians

----------


## Tomenable

> My ex partner was married with two children and there are many cases of gay men who were married and have children


I don't doubt it.

But they adopted these children, or sired them in previous hetero marriages - they did not give birth to them while in gay marriage.

And the professor in question spoke about children born by homosexual couples (which obviously is only physically possible for lesbians).

Probably it was just a slip of the tongue, though.

----------


## elghund

> There is a great debate right now as to whether homosexuality is genetic or learned, homosexuals themselves strongly believe that they are "born this way". I present to you my research into the topic.
> 
> First I will reference this map of the legality of homosexuality in Europe contrasted against the spread of Y DNA Haplogroup R1b in Europe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can easily see that homosexuality is only legal in European countries where the y dna haplogroup r1b is most common. 
> 
> ...


I think this hypothesis is ludicrous, but since there are six pages with almost 150 responses, I'll add my two cents too. Haplogroup I1 appears more correlated to legalized gay marriage than R1b is. Look at Finland. Or why not say mtDNA haplogroup H1 has a higher correlation to legalized gay marriage? One should consider, these countries have all changed attitudes drastically in the past generation. Have they all changed haplogroups at the same time as well? Was this a demic or cultural invasion? Most of of Western Europe's and the USA's citizeny have been dragged like Archie Bunker to this new century's values, while various forms of entertainment media have continuously pushed the envelope of acceptance towards homosexuality for over a half century. For five decades now, it has always been the younger demographics with the ever more tolerant attitudes. 

Do other correlations exist in relation to countries with legalized gay marriage other than haplogroup? What about the correlation between countries that air Hollywood pictures to countries that legalize gay marriage? Here's a map showing Viacom's territory for starters: 
Viacom-intl-markets.jpg

----------


## Fire Haired14

> (which obviously is only physically possible for lesbians).[/B]


I remember when I was in 5th grade this kid said Lesbians can have kids. I was skeptical but believed it for a few years, till I realized that's absurd. Come on now, there's no way?! You need sperm, which comes from male genital. It''s just one of those myths.

----------


## Boreas

> I remember when I was in 5th grade this kid said Lesbians can have kids. I was skeptical but believed it for a few years, till I realized that's absurd. Come on now, there's no way?! You need sperm, which comes from male genital. It''s just one of those myths.


it could be true, maybe when you were in 5th grade

But not anymore
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...cientists.html

----------


## Maleth

> I don't doubt it.
> 
> But they adopted these children, or sired them in previous hetero marriages - they did not give birth to them while in gay marriage.


A good number of homosexuals (both male and females) because of various cultural circumstances and the region are born in (even in the most Liberal countries) end up faking a marriage (male and female) as it seems to be the most tolerable situation (Even if fake and totally against their sexuality) to be able to live the closest thing to a normal life. Children are born in these marriages with normal intercourse (no adoptions) (I would not go into the details of what kind of sex life these couples have!). Some of these marriages are broken as the homosexual parent finds that they cannot take living in a fake life anymore. Sometimes early in marriage and sometimes later. Sometimes they stay in the marriage all their life. It all depends on the social and culture background of the region they come from.

Remember that in Western Europe for example generally speaking there are growing Muslim communities where homosexuality is preserved as a taboo and homosexuals can be persecuted (even physically) to 'regain' a kind of family honor.

In the Netherlands which is one of the most liberal countries have their own bible belt where the situation can be very similar to the Muslim one (the same religious fanaticism you get in the Bible belt in the states). The Catholic (depending which countries) and more and more the Anglican and some other protestant Christian religions have a totally different outlooks with homosexuals participate actively and openly in Religious activities. Even Judasim as a religion these days have a tolerant attitude towards homosexuals. The hardline radicals that quote the torah for reasons of persecution are the minority.

Many more homosexuals decide to remain single and live their life according the circumstances in the region they come from. In severely repressed areas migration is common, but underground homosexual activity is evident even in the most repressive regions of the world, but normally it will be a very lonely life as everyone feels the need to pair up at some point or another and can never be expressed in public. 

In areas were legal marriage and civil union exist fake marriages are much much less then in very backwards countries and regions that criminalize homosexuality and promote persecution.




> And the professor in question spoke about children born by homosexual couples (which obviously is only physically possible for lesbians).
> 
> Probably it was just a slip of the tongue, though.


In homosexual marriages where adoption is legalized most seem to adopt but some also opt to donate sperm (artificial insemination) with an arrangement to who will bring up the child (normally with a Lesbian). The vast majority of adoptions (where its legal) world wide are normally taken up by Lesbian couples. Some have their own children from previous fake marriages. Its also good to point out that when I say fake marriages it does not mean disrespect. To the contrary many female and Male homosexuals normally have a special bonding with their partner, its just the sexual part that does not work. 

However the vast majority of cases the heterosexual part take the parting very bad (most of them do not disclose their sexuality as a reason) so the partner will be very demoralized. Even if the truth comes out there is lots of resentment and anger on separations or divorce. However most of the Heterosexual do manage to get on with their life but often they would have a degree of paranoia about their new partners thinking the same thing can happen. Some of them even become vociferous homophones because of the bitter experience.

----------


## LeBrok

> A good number of homosexuals (both male and females) because of various cultural circumstances and the region are born in (even in the most Liberal countries) end up faking a marriage (male and female) as it seems to be the most tolerable situation (Even if fake and totally against their sexuality) to be able to live the closest thing to a normal life. Children are born in these marriages with normal intercourse (no adoptions) (I would not go into the details of what kind of sex life these couples have!). Some of these marriages are broken as the homosexual parent finds that they cannot take living in a fake life anymore. Sometimes early in marriage and sometimes later. Sometimes they stay in the marriage all their life. It all depends on the social and culture background of the region they come from.


Right on! How hard is to understand that G and L, were and still are in most places, forced to heterosexual marriages. They had and still have children in such unions. I personally know couple of cases. It was going on for good few thousand of years at least. 
It only doesn't make sense for people who don't think it is a genetic issue. They think that gay and lesbiens were brainwashed by liberals or a devil into it, lol.

----------


## Sile

There are peace-keeping reports from westerns that the moslem peace keepers practice homosexuality with boys under 13 years of age...........it is noted as not a crime as long as they are not teens.

we have the same mentality with the man raping the 12 year old boy in the swimming pool complex in Austria a month or so ago

----------


## DuPidh

> I didn't say that the acceptance of homosexuality was exclusive to western liberal society and that it couldn't be found in other cultures, I was making the case that people perceive homosexuality as more prevalent in these places because they are accepted by the modern cultures there. If you find acceptance of homosexuality on the left or right of the political spectrum it doesn't matter that's not the argument I'm making.(Although your claim that homosexuality was widespread in Nazi Germany as compared to any other society is dubious, the original leader of the brown shirts was purged for being a homosexual)
> 
> The fact is you have no empirical data to support your outrageous claim, especially when controlling for the fact that its acceptable to be homosexual in these countries. If you were to do conduct such a study in northern europe during the middle ages you would be hard pressed to find an admitting homosexual, just as you would be in modern times in places where homosexuality is frowned upon.
> 
> You make this claim that there is a genetic predisposition in Northern Europe for homosexuality but you offer no hard evidence other than your anecdotal observations which conveniently ignore anything that doesnt validate your argument. Your whole basis of your argument seems to be that since they in our modern era culturally accept homosexuality and have high rates of R1b then it must be correlated. R1b is also highly prevalent in central asia and parts of Africa yet I don't see much acceptance for homosexuality there. I'm guessing your counter argument will be equally vague and based on observation


Your argument is very superficial to my opinion.
It goes more or less like this: The Germanic R1b populations one day woke liberal and said, ok, from now and on everything goes. Everything crazy and satanic that human imagination can produce is acceptable. It did not happen like that. Many of Hitlers generals were homosexuals, (rumors are that even Hitler was one of them), so were a good part of their soldiers. The homosexuals, because of the rise of the cities were able to practice their rituals and remain anonymous. Their clubs were so numerous in Germanic countries, that people new about their life styles. They held important positions in the society and their numbers could not been ignored, so the general population came to accept their lifestyle as part of life. But without their large numbers they would have been ignored. Now the large cities have grown in Southern Europe and conditions for anonymity exist, so does the freedom for them to have their clubs, and still their ranks are limited. This is a strong hint that homosexuality is more pronounced in Germanic speaking countries not just because of liberty, but for their frequency. And of course R1b is prevalent in these countries. There has been no study for the numbers to introduce you to figures but an average person can deduct from the experience that a Germanic folk is a lot more likely to be homosexual than a non Germanic one.

----------


## RobertColumbia

> Your argument is very superficial to my opinion.
> It goes more or less like this: The Germanic R1b populations one day woke liberal and said, ok, from now and on everything goes. Everything crazy and satanic that human imagination can produce is acceptable. It did not happen like that. Many of Hitlers generals were homosexuals, (rumors are that even Hitler was one of them), so were a good part of their soldiers. The homosexuals, because of the rise of the cities were able to practice their rituals and remain anonymous. Their clubs were so numerous in Germanic countries, that people new about their life styles. They held important positions in the society and their numbers could not been ignored, so the general population came to accept their lifestyle as part of life. But without their large numbers they would have been ignored. Now the large cities have grown in Southern Europe and conditions for anonymity exist, so does the freedom for them to have their clubs, and still their ranks are limited. This is a strong hint that homosexuality is more pronounced in Germanic speaking countries not just because of liberty, but for their frequency. And of course R1b is prevalent in these countries. There has been no study for the numbers to introduce you to figures but an average person can deduct from the experience that a Germanic folk is a lot more likely to be homosexual than a non Germanic one.


If this were true, then we would expect to find that Celtic populations, having even more R1b than Germanic populations, would have even more of this happening. Is there any indication that this is so?

----------


## Maleth

> Your argument is very superficial to my opinion.
> It goes more or less like this: The Germanic R1b populations one day woke liberal and said, ok, from now and on everything goes. Everything crazy and satanic that human imagination can produce is acceptable. It did not happen like that. Many of Hitlers generals were homosexuals, (rumors are that even Hitler was one of them), so were a good part of their soldiers. The homosexuals, because of the rise of the cities were able to practice their rituals and remain anonymous. Their clubs were so numerous in Germanic countries, that people new about their life styles. They held important positions in the society and their numbers could not been ignored, so the general population came to accept their lifestyle as part of life. But without their large numbers they would have been ignored. N*ow the large cities have grown in Southern Europe and conditions for anonymity exist, so does the freedom for them to have their clubs, and still their ranks are limited. This is a strong hint that homosexuality is more pronounced in Germanic speaking countries not just because of liberty, but for their frequency*. And of course R1b is prevalent in these countries. There has been no study for the numbers to introduce you to figures but an average person can deduct from the experience that a Germanic folk is a lot more likely to be homosexual than a non Germanic one.


Germany does not recognize marriages for homosexuals, but civil unions. While both Spain, Portugal and also my country in the deepest south of Europe... also Argentina same sex marriage is legal. I am not sure what your point is. My country was ranked 3rd in LGBT rights world wide after Belgium and the UK and we have at least 5 openly gay majors.

----------


## Maleth

> They think that gay and lesbiens were brainwashed by liberals or a devil into it, lol.


 :Grin: .......and the open homosexual acquaintances of the ancient Greek / Roman Culture (and others) are downright perverted and disgusting and deserve gods wrath but everything else is so wonderful and still amazes us to this day  :Confused:  :Rolleyes:

----------


## Fire Haired14

@Lebrok,

I don't get why you're so happy to mention that homosexuality caused population reduction in some ancient Greeks or that it was popular. Because it is clear most of these "homosexuals" were not actually homosexual, especially in Sparta. Circumstances caused them to pervert their sexuality. Prison does the same thing. It helps cause people to be homosexual. If humans were naturally so homosexual, we wouldn't exist!! It'll be difficult to find any population so homosexual or bisexual. 

Saying "I think some people are born gay and should be treated with respect" is differnt from "That's awesome, a guy who claims to be gay left his wife and family. Hell yeah!! The Spartans almost went extinct because they were so gay. Yeah, awesome!!". You tread too much towards this second time to a point that it gets creepy.

----------


## LeBrok

> @Lebrok,
> 
> I don't get why you're so happy to mention that homosexuality caused population reduction in some ancient Greeks or that it was popular. Because it is clear most of these "homosexuals" were not actually homosexual, especially in Sparta.


 How did you figure I was happy?! I just stated a historical fact. Stop assuming.




> Circumstances caused them to pervert their sexuality.


What circumstances?! 


> Prison does the same thing.


If anything they were the only free citizens of sparta. The rest of population was enslaved and worked for them. They were free warrior society. 



> It helps cause people to be homosexual.


 Can you point us to statistics about level of homosexuality in prisons. Or you only know about this rampant prison homosexuality from Hollywood movies and internet stories?




> If humans were naturally so homosexual, we wouldn't exist!! It'll be difficult to find any population so homosexual or bisexual.


 How 1-3 percent homosexuality will make all humankind vanish?! Spartan's level was much higher, and with consequences indeed.




> Saying "I think some people are born gay and should be treated with respect" is differnt from "That's awesome, a guy who claims to be gay left his wife and family. Hell yeah!! The Spartans almost went extinct because they were so gay. Yeah, awesome!!". You tread too much towards this second time to a point that it gets creepy.


Perhaps when you remove your emotions and prejudices you will start understand how it works. Just because you are emotional about this issue it doesn't mean I am. I'm completely impartial.

----------


## Alpenjager

Interesting findings:

At the time of the Bell Beakers, someone mixed bones of both sexes. 

https : // 4.bp.blogspot.com/-KkVPEsaUcvw/Vt3zvHC3--I/AAAAAAAAOFM/p0wrYTPA74M/s1600/Capture.JPG

Mike Parker-Pearson 2016

----------


## mr_y82

> Yes, it is exactly what it means. Other words you are "pro-gay" as long as they stay in the closet, lol.



Le Brok. Welcome to the United States way of thinking!! You are getting it! lol... Seriously though, some people here act like extending personal liberties to others is somehow infringing on their own rights... As demonstrated by Fire-brained below... Sorry for resorting to a cheap shot, but this is so typical of the Southern US and it's such a sad situation... Trust me guys... I live in NC and the below drivel about "gayness being shoved down our throats" is not only a hilarious pun,  :Laughing: it is also grossly inaccurate! 




> Like i said last summer gay men and women probably did not receive their attraction to the same gender from the opposite gender. You can't get around that. If homosexuality is natural there are other causes. Trust me Lebrok, i am totally fine with saying it's natural just i am sick of people assuming it is or is not because of their agenda.





> It depends how you define a progressive society. Is killing of unborn children(almost never because of rape) progressive? If gays are desprite for marriage and to be open about their homosexuality in society, whatever i guess they have the right to do so, even though currently i oppose that lifestyle. I just don't want homosexuality and their lifestyle being shoved down our throats 24/7 via the media, like it currently is. I want it to be represented according to its popularity, so not much. The way the far left supports homosexuality is annoying, extreme, and sick. Also, i don't want to be called a bigot, neanderthal, not given equal rights of expression, and posed as some hatern because i don't agree with the libearl elite.





> Why separatist?





> I have a feeling that everybody not agreeing with you is "far left".
> 
> Last time we talked about religion you bashed all the Catholics. The last time I checked they were christians.
> 
> Not true, I'm a fiscal conservative, and I'm still undecided about abortion. I just don't see a reason to oppress people and I love freedoms, but I never was a hippy. And for that I'm a conservo-liberal.
> 
> Thanks to oppressive and intolerant people like you we still have to fight to open their minds.


Again LeBrok, this is part of your training ;) ... Being moderate here is "left wing wacko," and to a Southerner, your "conservo-liberal status renders you a "communist." In the South I was raised Catholic... Not only did we get asked often if we worshiped Mary and drank blood (which I guess was technically true according to the transubstantiation), but now it is also the religion of Latino immigrants, so that is a double whammy for conservative Americans... Many people in the South honestly do not understand the family tree of Christianity, and don't realize that Catholicism is a Christian denomination... Additionally, it would frighten you how many protestants don't know where the word "protestant" derives from... If they did, they would know that Catholics are Christian! I am not saying this is all pervasive, but the amount of ignorance would truly frighten you my friend!




> Venezuela perhaps? I might claim Brazil too. They might not be on the list of the top ten most liberal countries, but they are certainly more liberal than, say, Russia or Iran.
> 
> At the sub-country level, you sometimes see liberal, but poor, _regions_ of countries. This is so in many poor urban areas of the USA, which overwhelmingly vote for the Democratic party (the more liberal of the two main political parties, and the one generally in favor of increased welfare and socialized medicine). By contrast, poor _rural_ areas there tend to be highly conservative. There may also be a racial aspect to that because poor urban areas in the USA tend to be overwhelmingly black, while rural poverty there tends to be overwhelmingly white.


Another American with some sense! There's hope yet! It makes no real sense, but Southerners stubbornly vote against their own interests routinely... As you suggest, poor urban minorities are generally less socially conservative culturally, and being outside the mainstream this certainly influences voting. 




> I would say, developing countries with developing freedoms.





> I would say that poor vote Democratic, because Democrats always promise more for the poor than conservatives. Best example is Medicare program by Obama. Otherwise I think they have similar level of conservatism and liberalism.


LeBrok, LeBrok, LeBrok... I thought we were getting somewhere... Again, you are assuming that Americans "think..." This is where you have been lead astray as explained in my response to Robert. Once you grasp how ignorant we are, the pieces will start falling into place!




> It'll be hard to find a homosexual in the SouthEast United States, where everyone is basically 100% British. Or in Western United States, where everyone is 100% NorthWest European.



This is such rubbish... I am guessing they just don't like you very much and steer clear....




> In US on other hand there is a steady democratic system for 200 years, with governments coming from roots, and not afraid of their people. We should also mention that Wild West culture proliferated and solidified gun ownership a lot too.






> Maybe firearms at home are ok in a civil war or in very unstable situations were there is total anarchy....but in a functioning democracy? whats the purpose? unless one feels threatened all the time. For what other reason its ok to have a licensed fire arm at home? Love to hear about the benefits of it........





> Originally Posted by Maleth
> 
> 
> Angela, those were different times, time of turbulence, why would that justify for guns to be legal in American households in2015? to defend what and from whom? Are things really that bad? or its some kind of obsession that needs healing?


LeBrok does have a point, he understands us better than I gave him credit for earlier...  :Grin:  I would not dismiss that as an influence, but as Maleth says it does not excuse current laws... That being said, a lot of people in the South do still hunt significantly and this reality makes restrictions less likely... I'm about as liberal as they come, but I do support gun ownership... We need more laws, rules/restrictions, background checks, limitations on types of guns that can be owned, etc... That might happen in my lifetime, but the South really will rise again if Washington tries to take their guns! It IS an OBSESSION for sure!




> Homosexuality is perfectly normal in the animal kingdom (in smaller percentages just as in humans) and so is Bi sexuality by the way. What haplogroups do these animals carry? and Im not talking just about Bonobo's the closest animal to humans but an array of animal groups. Very natural and nothing disorderly and none of them are persecuted but a part of the clan.






> I read some type of Ape-expert or whatever(don't know the real name) that said homosexuality has never been reported in Chimps in the wild, but is well known in Bonobos. Also, that they usually only see homosexuality in animals when they're taken out of the wild and put in zoos or just human controlled areas. Sexuality is male-female reproduction, end of story. If Homosexuality exists in nature in our DNA, it's some-type of mutation of heterosexuality. And to say homosexuality is on par with heterosexuality of normality in sexuality is denial of the mechanism of sex itself, because sex is a gender thing(One has the vagina, one has the penis).


As Maleth says, it is expressed throughout the animal kingdom... google my friend. Bonobos live in the wild... They happen to be in a pocket that is so resource dense and secluded that there was not need for competitive violence, so everyone just boinked everyone else all the time to expend energy instead of ripping each other apart... They essentially domesticated themselves as we have ourselves, and if I remember correctly (don't quote me on this, google it) we are more closely related to Bonobos than regular chimps... so maybe we share their potential natural inclination toward homosexuality... I personally am not gay and have never been inclined in that way, but I do not consider it any more unnatural than my heterosexuality.




> No one can know for sure until all homosexuals and bisexuals feel outright comfortable in their sexuality world wide. Remember that in all Islamic countries homosexuality is a crime (Like in some African countries), just like it was in Europe a few decades ago. So who is going to claim to be a homosexual in any kind of survey?! Homosexuals only won some degree of rights very recently, in China and that does not mean that all of them are comfortable to be honest with their sexuality. There is still a





> great deal of nonacceptance in Russia and the east of Europe in general and many refuse to be open or even comfortable with their sexuality.





> Keep in mind that





> genes do regulate level of hormones and amount of receptors. It could be a simple genetic case. Well, maybe not that simple if there are good few genes involved.
> 
> Yes, now when they have a choice, but not before when all the marriages were arranged and forced by parents and societal pressure. I know couple of gays from polish community here, married in Poland, who were husbands and fathers, and left all of this for a guy lover. They say that they were sick and tired of pretending they were straight. The point is that they were gay and they made children, possibly transferring "gayness" to next generation.


I have a gay 1st cousin once removed (R1b, btw  :Grin: ) who, due to cultural/familial pressure was in a "convetional" marriage for decades before doing as many on this thread suggested, getting fed up with the lies and embracing who he really was. I'm happy for him, and his partner is hysterical btw. I think the attitude of those here who act like homosexuality is a genetic flaw really shows a dangerous kind of ignorance and refusal to be anything resembling objective (because is there really any such thing, or has quantum mechanics just screwed us all?). It's sad that this mentality is so prevalent here, in the Southern US, and elsewhere in the world, but I see it changing some in the younger generation; they are much more open-minded... and we'll say, "Bernie Sanders oriented," so their may be hope yet... for the US anyway.

When people tell me that gayness is a choice, I ask them _"If you are straight, which we happen to be_ (despite the 'R1b celtic gay sex urge gene')_, tell me about the moment you decided to be straight... I cannot remember making this decision; it was simply my natural preference for as long as I can remember, and luckily I was born into the liberal branch of the family and would have been equally accepted had I "opted" to be gay..."_ Science clearly tells us it is predominantly (if not entirely) genetic even if it can be culturally influenced... It's too bad people can't even realize when they are being prejudiced....




> As far as I know homosexuality is greatly influenced by hormonal imbalance in the womb.


Then it seems like it would be more likely to be linked to X...




> You make this claim that there is a genetic predisposition in Northern Europe for homosexuality but you offer no hard evidence other than your anecdotal observations which conveniently ignore anything that doesnt validate your argument.



Nice to see a few people representing a sane voice from the United States...




> Good point. The "Gay Uncle" theory of the transmission of male homosexuality claims that the genes typically causing men to become gay do not affect women in that way. It then says that gay men, being mostly childless but still having a fatherhood instict, lavish extraordinary amounts of attention and nurturing onto their nieces and nephews. The nieces, having multiple strong "daddy" figures in their lives, grow up very healthy, get married, and have lots of children. The nephews become another generation of "gay uncles" to help raise the next generation of gay-male-gene propagating girls.





> In a nutshell, the theory offers an explanation why such a seemingly anti-reproductive trait can still reproduce. In a sense, gay men reproduce indirectly via their sisters.
> 
> If this is true, I would expect there to be a stronger correlation between mtDNA and male homosexuality than a correlation with y-DNA. Has anyone found one?


I had never heard of that theory... Interesting! And if the answer to your last question shows a link to mtdna it could also be linked to Promenade's hormone imbalance...?




> Only way to find out is to make a poll. If there was any gay gene, I seriously doubt that the Gay gene would solely hitch a ride on the Y-Chromozone; that would mean that lesbians would be stereotyped as having a Y-Chromozone.





> Sourcing from 23andme, these genes are the strongest link to homosexuality.
> rs6990254: G = more likely to be homosexual, T = average likelihood 
> rs2221108: G = more likely to be homosexual, A = average likelihood 
> rs2221108: G = more likely to be homosexual, A = average likelihood


Neat, and another same voice from the US... and apparently a fellow r1b1b2a1a2d? Well I have an *... Cool though! Howdy Cuz!




> Fire Haired,
> 
> A Polish feminist from the Congress of Women - professor Monika Płatek - would disagree with you. She said: 
> 
> Quote:
> 
> "In homosexual marriages as many children are born, and often more, than in heterosexual marriages."
> 
> Source (in Polish): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0qmuBSGUog#t=4m38s
> ...


That's because gay R1bs have a higher rate of R1b sons... it's a vicious cycle and soon we will no longer be able to reproduce! (kidding!) I would not be offended if they did a study to prove/disprove a link...




> @Lebrok,





> I don't get why you're so happy to mention that homosexuality caused population reduction in some ancient Greeks or that it was popular. Because it is clear most of these "homosexuals" were not actually homosexual, especially in Sparta. Circumstances caused them to pervert their sexuality. Prison does the same thing. It helps cause people to be homosexual. If humans were naturally so homosexual, we wouldn't exist!! It'll be difficult to find any population so homosexual or bisexual. 
> 
> Saying "I think some people are born gay and should be treated with respect" is differnt from "That's awesome, a guy who claims to be gay left his wife and family. Hell yeah!! The Spartans almost went extinct because they were so gay. Yeah, awesome!!". You tread too much towards this second time to a point that it gets creepy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  Originally Posted by Fire Haired14
> ...


LeBrock is right... Spartans basically had state institutionalized homosexuality... Soldiers had young boy apprentices... As you say, they were away from home a lot, and for long periods of time, but they seemed to engage in homosexual sex pretty voluntarily... 




> How wonderfully scientific!



LOL... Another member of "Americans For Sense" chiming in!




> And of course R1b is prevalent in these countries. There has been no study for the numbers to introduce you to figures but an average person can deduct from the experience that a Germanic folk is a lot more likely to be homosexual than a non Germanic one.



Some of those ancient Europeans certainly had a greater affinity for the horse!

edit: why has my post gone so narrow? tried to fix it....

----------


## Fire Haired14

> How did you figure I was happy?! I just stated a historical fact. Stop assuming.


Lies. You're clearly very happy to discuss rare examples of an naturally high frequency of homosexuality. You chose to discuss those rare cases because of your bias. Stop lying, man. 




> What circumstances?! If anything they were the only free citizens of sparta. The rest of population was enslaved and worked for them. They were free warrior society. 
> Can you point us to statistics about level of homosexuality in prisons. Or you only know about this rampant prison homosexuality from Hollywood movies and internet stories?


"What circumstances?" Are you kidding? Um...., being surrounded by only men for years. If a man doesn't ejaculate for a few months straight, he'll get blue balls. It's unhealthy. Humans have to be sexually-stimulated on a regular basis. If there's no women around, they resort to the closest thing a human woman, a human man. 

Any society where most men are homosexual, clearly is in circumstances which leads to sexual-perversion. Yes Sexual perversion, exists! The science of Sex is male-female. We need it to reproduce. So, any group of humans where most are homosexual, won't last long and their genes won't be passed down. 




> Perhaps when you remove your emotions and prejudices you will start understand how it works. Just because you are emotional about this issue it doesn't mean I am. *I'm completely impartial.*


LOL. A dude left his family and kids because he thinks he's gay, and you assume he's biologically gay and has every right to end a life-long commitment he made to his wife? First you should condemn and question him. Anyone who suddenly leaves their spouse, should be condemned, because they made a commitment.You should first ask: "If you are gay, why did you get married?" And how do I know if you're gay? You had consensual sex with your wife, there were definitely two-way feelings between you and your wife. Did you love your wife? If not, did you actually believe you could fake a marriage for social acceptance?"

The fact you didn't ask any of these questions, to me proves you're bias. 

Lebrok, could you imagine faking being attracted to a man and having sex with him? Didn't think so. That life would be hell. Any married man who claims to be gay, can't be completely gay, he must have some attraction to women.

----------


## A. Papadimitriou

680px-Same_sex_marriage_map_Europe_detailed.svg.png

Updated. There are civil unions for gay couples in Greece since last year. That's good for me although I don't really care to be frank. Countries with red = Constitution limits marriages only to opposite sex couples (!)
All those countries are ex-Communist countries, by the way. So, @FireHaired, maybe Communism is the right solution for US. Lol. There will be no gay marriages or civil unions, even in the post-Communist era (There will be a Fall, unavoidably).

----------


## Maleth

> Any society where most men are homosexual, clearly is in circumstances which leads to sexual-perversion. Yes Sexual perversion, exists! The science of Sex is male-female. We need it to reproduce. So, any group of humans where most are homosexual, won't last long and their genes won't be passed down.


So far there is no such thing and never have been a society were most are homosexual. Societies were lost or destroyed because of aggressive war, and many men lost in battle so the female population outnumbered that of males sometimes by huge numbers. Whole societies were destroyed or reduced by famine or disease, but not with the absurdity that Men became homosexuals. 




> "What circumstances?" Are you kidding? Um...., being surrounded by only men for years. If a man doesn't ejaculate for a few months straight, he'll get blue balls. It's unhealthy. Humans have to be sexually-stimulated on a regular basis. If there's no women around, they resort to the closest thing a human woman, a human man.


Another fallacy. The scrotum never gets blue due to semen accumulation. The normality is to get wet dreams or otherwise it will be reabsorbed into the system. Heterosexual males who are attracted to the opposite sex will usually get kinky dreams of women (not men) during the process. Then there is the process of masturbation where the same happens. A Heterosexual male effortlessly will have female images in the process. Firehead, do you ever get worried that some day you might become a homosexual? This has never ever been a problem with genuine heterosexuals I spoke openly with so I am really not sure how the whole subject fascinates you so much and perceive it enough. I personally went through many years in my younger days being attracted to the same sex and not being able to express myself. However the lack of interaction did not prompt me to have sex with a woman. And I always knew what excited me. Never had a problem with it accept that due the ignorance of the time it was a very lonely thing for a while as I thought I was the only person in the world with such attractions. According to your logic I should have had sex with women. 




> "If you are gay, why did you get married?"


And I believe after all these pages written on homosexuality and the REALITY of persecution you still believe that social pressure and the environment and the psyche of many societies will leave no choice but for a homosexual to marry some one of the other sex (some times to please a bullying environment including Religions and dominant parents were siblings are totally dependent on. This also happens on a large scale in America by the way (the land of freedom). With all respect this just shows you really have no concept of real situations in life and just thrive on fantasies from the fragments of your own imagination, turning them to realities and making them fact. 

If you are not a homosexual like me, how come you are so sure of what you state? Have you ever heard of honour killings? Arranged marriages? social pressures (often pushed by parents too?) you think its a joke? Have you never heard of parents even in the most liberal countries since a young age threaten their kids of family disgrace and being disowned? This is still a reality today. Do you really think that all homosexuals in the world (including the USA) have total freedom to live their life as they wish without any interference from society or the state or the country they live in? and just choose to marry a women just because its cool and they want to try it out? Get informed.

----------


## mr_y82

edit: I wrote the below before I read Maleth's post, so I apologize for the redundancy!




> 1)"What circumstances?" Are you kidding? Um...., being surrounded by only men for years. If a man doesn't ejaculate for a few months straight, he'll get blue balls. It's unhealthy. Humans have to be sexually-stimulated on a regular basis. If there's no women around, they resort to the closest thing a human woman, a human man. 
> 
> 2) Any society where most men are homosexual, clearly is in circumstances which leads to sexual-perversion. Yes Sexual perversion, exists! The science of Sex is male-female. We need it to reproduce. So, any group of humans where most are homosexual, won't last long and their genes won't be passed down. 
> 
> 3) LOL. A dude left his family and kids because he thinks he's gay, and you assume he's biologically gay and has every right to end a life-long commitment he made to his wife? First you should condemn and question him. Anyone who suddenly leaves their spouse, should be condemned, because they made a commitment.You should first ask: "If you are gay, why did you get married?" And how do I know if you're gay? You had consensual sex with your wife, there were definitely two-way feelings between you and your wife. Did you love your wife? If not, did you actually believe you could fake a marriage for social acceptance?"
> 
> The fact you didn't ask any of these questions, to me proves you're bias. 
> 
> Lebrok, could you imagine faking being attracted to a man and having sex with him? Didn't think so. That life would be hell. Any married man who claims to be gay, can't be completely gay, he must have some attraction to women.


A few of us have addressed each of the things above, but you still demonstrate you don't get it... Maybe you didn't read? Maybe you didn't think it was worth responding... Anyway, provide some sort of evidence of your position and I may take the time to respond to you again... otherwise it's a waste of time when I could be on another thread learning from people who use data rather than prejudice and judgement to fuel their posts... but I will take the time to reiterate a few concise points so maybe you will take the time to consider...

1) Blue balls, from my understanding, if the result of nearly reaching climax and then not actually ejaculating, esp. if you are turned on for a long time... And to your statement about men resorting to doing whatever is available... I was an awkward, introverted teen... I may have tried some slightly odd things, but my own hand seemed to tide me over until my sexual awakening... I never was inclined to have sex with men just because I was too shy and awkward to figure it out with girls... never felt the need to boink any animals either... How odd? 

2) Theories explaining this have been proposed in previous posts...

3) Ask my 1st cousin once removed... he was gay and miserable through decades of marriage (as stated in previous post)... in the nature versus nurture debate sexual preference falls on the nature side... Read.

----------


## Fire Haired14

@mr y82,

Not having sexual activity and sexual stimulation are two differnt things. If a human doesn't see their opposite gender for years and is surrounded by the same gender, there's a good chance they'll resort to homosexuality. If a human doesn't see humans for years and surrounded by animals, chances are they'll resort to motor-sexuality. If a human doesn't see living creatures for years and surrounded by trees, chances are they'll resort to tree-loving. 

Homosexuality wasn't seen as very differnt from motorsexuality just 60 years ago. In most human societies that's still the case. So, just because social norms today see motorsexuality as horrible and homosexuality as okay, doesn't mean it is completely impossible for a human to resort to it. Lebork, Angala, and others ignore motorsexuality or other forms of sexuality(there's even a who's inlove with his car and has sex with "him", and his therapist said it was okay like being gay is okay) by calling them mental-disorders, because they don't want to admit sexuality can be perverted. Sexuality can be perverted! That's all I'm saying. So, the high amounts of homosexuality among Spartans Lebork loves mentioning, are certainly largely the result of sexual-perversion. 

@Melth,

IMO, In America there isn't enough social pressure to get married, for there be to be many truly gay people who are married. Getting married isn't just signing a paper and saying I do. You can't convince your spouse you're attracted and inlove with them, without actually being attracted and inlove with them, unless you're the greatest actor in the world. People who leave their spouses because they say they're gay, had to at least at some level wanted to get married, wanted to date that person, was sexually attracted to that person, was inlove with that person. I don't but it, that they get married just to cover up that they're gay. In conclusion, I find it hard to belive anyone who leaves a marriage for being gay, is completely gay. 

You and Lebrok not questioning whether or not these people are completely gay at all, after they leave their families and commitments, is very wrong. Can anyone say they're gay, and you'll believe them? I'm not saying this because they're gay. If someone were to leave their family because they say they never wanted to get married or did it for financial reasons or because of social pressure to get married, I'd be angry. They need to be condemned and understand they did something wrong.

----------


## LeBrok

As usually very well said, Meleth.



> I spoke openly with so I am really not sure how the *whole subject fascinates you so much* and perceive it enough.


I suspect the same thing. Most likely biosexualism being supressed by strong religious convictions. I wonder how long he will be able to fight his nature?

----------


## LeBrok

> introverted teen... I may have tried some slightly odd things, but my own hand seemed to tide me over until my sexual awakening... I never was inclined to have sex with men just because I was too shy and awkward to figure it out with girls... never felt the need to boink any animals either... How odd?


I subscribe to this.

----------


## mr_y82

^cheers!




> @mr y82,
> 
> Not having sexual activity and sexual stimulation are two differnt things. If a human doesn't see their opposite gender for years and is surrounded by the same gender, there's a good chance they'll resort to homosexuality. If a human doesn't see humans for years and surrounded by animals, chances are they'll resort to motor-sexuality. If a human doesn't see living creatures for years and surrounded by trees, chances are they'll resort to tree-loving. 
> 
> Homosexuality wasn't seen as very differnt from motorsexuality just 60 years ago. In most human societies that's still the case. So, just because social norms today see motorsexuality as horrible and homosexuality as okay, doesn't mean it is completely impossible for a human to resort to it. Lebork, Angala, and others ignore motorsexuality or other forms of sexuality(there's even a who's inlove with his car and has sex with "him", and his therapist said it was okay like being gay is okay) by calling them mental-disorders, because they don't want to admit sexuality can be perverted. Sexuality can be perverted! That's all I'm saying. So, the high amounts of homosexuality among Spartans Lebork loves mentioning, are certainly largely the result of sexual-perversion. 
> 
> @Melth,
> 
> IMO, In America there isn't enough social pressure to get married, for there be to be many truly gay people who are married. Getting married isn't just signing a paper and saying I do. You can't convince your spouse you're attracted and inlove with them, without actually being attracted and inlove with them, unless you're the greatest actor in the world. People who leave their spouses because they say they're gay, had to at least at some level wanted to get married, wanted to date that person, was sexually attracted to that person, was inlove with that person. I don't but it, that they get married just to cover up that they're gay. In conclusion, I find it hard to belive anyone who leaves a marriage for being gay, is completely gay. 
> ...


That kind of social pressure DID exist not long enough, even if it is being reduced now (how are you not getting this?).... my cousin is a REAL ANECDOTAL example, and I know of many others... My wife's uncle was in the same boat... social/familial pressure to enter into a hetero arrangement that did not last... but he was married for a long time first and banished by the family for years after revealing his true sexuality... You are not making sense, or explaining this away... Stop using all this language about "condemning" and calling it "wrong"... That is subjective and you are close-minded...

On a more humorous note, I had never heard of "motorsexuals" which sounds like car love, but you seem to have possibly associated with bestiality? Or were you just being unclear... I know that being a straight man who loves fast cars, this motorsexual video gets me going! I must be an undiscovered motorsexual!

https://youtu.be/-vgIk_MADYc?t=25s

----------


## Angela

> @mr y82,
> 
> Not having sexual activity and sexual stimulation are two differnt things. If a human doesn't see their opposite gender for years and is surrounded by the same gender, there's a good chance they'll resort to homosexuality. If a human doesn't see humans for years and surrounded by animals, chances are they'll resort to motor-sexuality. If a human doesn't see living creatures for years and surrounded by trees, chances are they'll resort to tree-loving. 
> 
> Homosexuality wasn't seen as very differnt from motorsexuality just 60 years ago. In most human societies that's still the case. So, just because social norms today see motorsexuality as horrible and homosexuality as okay, doesn't mean it is completely impossible for a human to resort to it. Lebork, Angala, and others ignore motorsexuality or other forms of sexuality(there's even a who's inlove with his car and has sex with "him", and his therapist said it was okay like being gay is okay) by calling them mental-disorders, because they don't want to admit sexuality can be perverted. Sexuality can be perverted! That's all I'm saying. So, the high amounts of homosexuality among Spartans Lebork loves mentioning, are certainly largely the result of sexual-perversion. 
> 
> @Melth,
> 
> IMO, In America there isn't enough social pressure to get married, for there be to be many truly gay people who are married. Getting married isn't just signing a paper and saying I do. You can't convince your spouse you're attracted and inlove with them, without actually being attracted and inlove with them, unless you're the greatest actor in the world. People who leave their spouses because they say they're gay, had to at least at some level wanted to get married, wanted to date that person, was sexually attracted to that person, was inlove with that person. I don't but it, that they get married just to cover up that they're gay. In conclusion, I find it hard to belive anyone who leaves a marriage for being gay, is completely gay. 
> ...


Logic shouldn't only apply to genetics discussions; it should apply to discussions like this, as well.

Of course it's wrong to deceive a woman about your sexuality and marry her and have children with her even though you are more or primarily attracted to men. Explaining why a man might feel pressured to do that doesn't mean that I think it's ok, or that I don't recognize the incredible hurt and damage that is inflicted on the wife and the children in those situations. I know two marriages where that happened, and in both cases the wife and children were devastated. At the same time I recognize how difficult it was for these men to live a lie. In both cases, I think the men actually believed the marriages would work and they could build a new identity. They were wrong, apparently. You also have to recognize that there are plenty of heterosexual men who tell a woman they love her and will be faithful knowing full well that they don't, or even if they do they have no intention of being faithful, or just get tired of it, or need reassurance as they age or whatever, and leave. That's hurtful and destructive too. People don't always live up to their commitments, and that's not limited to homosexual men, Fire-Haired. Understanding that doesn't mean excusing it.

I think you also are drawing a line between straight and gay that in real life can be rather blurry. From everything I've read and everything I've seen and experienced, human sexuality is on a continuum. There are many people who really would never, absent really exigent circumstances, have sex with a partner of the same sex, and people, men really, since all women need to really do is lie there if necessary, who can only perform with a person of the same sex. There are people, however, who are sort of in the middle, in that they might have an affair with a person of the same sex given the right circumstances, or dabble with it in young adolescence, but that are basically heterosexual. There are likewise people who can perform with a member of the opposite sex but whose orientation is undeniably homosexual. It's just the way that people are made, Fire-Haired. It's a complicated business, like everything to do with human beings. Denying it does no good. 

As for ancient societies, you're judging them based only on the limited prism of your own culture and experience. You do the same whenever the discussion veers from the mathematical, as in the discussions about pigmentation. You have to recognize that cultures are different, particularly cultures far separated in time and place from our own. There was no shame about homosexuality in ancient Greece and Rome, although it depended on the context and position. It wasn't just when they were on campaign and there were no women around, and it happened in Athens where men lived with their families as well as in the always barracks living Spartans, for what that's worth. There was also no shame about it in Celtic culture, or other Indo-European cultures, or Canaanite society, or on and on. It doesn't mean that the majority of men even in those cultures practiced homosexuality throughout their lives. It's just that the practice of it was open and accepted. Those are just facts. If you do some reading about those cultures you'll see that.

I'm not saying, by the way, that I approve of the sexual exploitation of minors, or non-consensual sex, or anything of the kind. Far from it, believe me.

----------


## mr_y82

^very well said... Thanks for your patience in pointing out these nuances... :)



> "You also have to recognize that there are plenty of heterosexual men who tell a woman they love her and will be faithful knowing full well that they don't, or even if they do they have no intention of being faithful, or just get tired of it, or need reassurance as they age or whatever, and leave. That's hurtful and destructive too. People don't always live up to their commitments, and that's not limited to homosexual men, Fire-Haired. Understanding that doesn't mean excusing it.





> I think you also are drawing a line between straight and gay that in real life can be rather blurry. From everything I've read and everything I've seen and experienced, human sexuality is on a continuum. "
> -Angela


Great points... Immorality is immorality whether you are gay, straight, in in between... I'm tired of the common attitude that it's a defect, or inferior in some way... I may be even more fed up, if I was gay, facing so much ignorance and intolerance (that often is not even acknowledged)... 

About your spectrum... This is my understanding too (my own wife being another anecdotal example). But, as I have been saying in other posts/threads, here in the South you realize that it's taboo to even admit that you can recognize that another man is attractive among many conservative circles... People are incredibly threatened and close-minded in many cases... As I said, it is improving among the younger generation, but it will take time... They support more personal liberties (and are more used to it due to a shifting culture that is more open, which is exactly what FireHaired wants to stop... A Trump supporter?)... I think this generation may end prohibition of marijuana here also, at some point.

----------


## LeBrok

> Lies. You're clearly very happy to discuss rare examples of an naturally high frequency of homosexuality. You chose to discuss those rare cases because of your bias. Stop lying, man.


 You'll never going to understand the world if you extrapolate your personal feelings on everything and everyone. 
Now try to understand others, like me: I really love the discovery process which consists of, thinking, talking, argumenting, figuring out how stuff works, where it comes from, etc. Once I figured it out, or learned from others, I like sharing, presenting and explaining to others. I'm impartial to conclusions. Whatever it is, it is.
Does it make sense now?






> "What circumstances?" Are you kidding? Um...., being surrounded by only men for years. If a man doesn't ejaculate for a few months straight, he'll get blue balls.


 Did you learn about this from your preacher? Total bollocks, lol, pun intended. As valid as a story that masturbation makes you blind. Embrace science, not folklor, to understand. 
Did you hear about "wet dreams"? And no, it is not about urine.





> LOL. A dude left his family and kids because he thinks he's gay, and you assume he's biologically gay and has every right to end a life-long commitment he made to his wife? First you should condemn and question him. Anyone who suddenly leaves their spouse, should be condemned, because they made a commitment.You should first ask: "If you are gay, why did you get married?" And how do I know if you're gay? You had consensual sex with your wife, there were definitely two-way feelings between you and your wife. Did you love your wife? If not, did you actually believe you could fake a marriage for social acceptance?"


 Listen to experienced people who went through the process. Perhaps you wouldn't be so confused at "ripe" age of 16.




> The fact you didn't ask any of these questions, to me proves you're bias.


Read this thread again. All was explained many times.




> Lebrok, could you imagine faking being attracted to a man and having sex with him? Didn't think so. That life would be hell. Any married man who claims to be gay, can't be completely gay, he must have some attraction to women.


Sure, it depends on personal feelings. Sexual orientations varies from man to man. Look at this as a spectrum. For example, if we could measure sexuality precisely, it might turn that some man are 70% homosexual and 30% hetero. But even for 100% homosexual man, it isn't impossible to have sex with a woman. Imagine this, you (as gay) were forced into a marriage. You sleep with your wife every night in same bad anyway. Pressure, from your parents and your wife is mounting to finally deliver a baby. A thought of having your own offspring is attracted to you too. You have to do *it* then. You probably tried few times but nothing happened. Finally, you found the way. You turned off the light to eliminate visual cues, hugged your wife from behind, imagined a beautiful boy and interaction with him, insert, few moves, and vue a la. Enough to make a baby. To make it easier, imagine that you could "warm up" yourself for this intercorse, playing in your mind scenes with boys and masturbating. Imagine you could ejaculate with just masturbating and introduce your semen with your hand?
In case of hetero man and lesbian wife it is even easier to conceive a baby.
You still think it is impossible?

----------


## mr_y82

LeBrock, my wife is as bisexual as the day is long and I don't hold it against her! ;) I was also raised Catholic and wear glasses!!! haha... I remember a Catechism classmate that engaged me in a very serious conversation at about age 13-14... He was incredibly worried that his masturbating had him on the fast track to hell! LOL... I told him that God didn't send good people to Hell (this is what my mom told us growing up when my non-practicing Amish-Lutheran-Buddhist father never went to church)... I think my Catechism mate kept wanking! I know I did!

----------


## Fire Haired14

Me vs Lebrok+Angela+Maleth,+mr Y82. LOL.

Anyways, stop treating me like I'm an idiot(xAngela who has been respectful). Be respectful. All I'm arguing is sexuality can be perverted. That's it!!! Stop stirring off topic. Directly respond to that argument. There's really no point to arguing this, because we know human sexuality can infact be perverted. There are known examples. You guys ignore this fact, because of your fear it means some gay people aren't gay. But you're perfectly ok with saying some straight people are actually gay or bi. That's a double standard. 




> I think you also are drawing a line between straight and gay that in real life can be rather blurry. From everything I've read and everything I've seen and experienced, human sexuality is on a continuum.


I never disputed this. I'm not saying I completely agree, but this wasn't something I was arguing against. I said I don't believe men who leave their families because they say they're gay "are completely gay".




> As for ancient societies, you're judging them based only on the limited prism of your own culture and experience. You do the same whenever the discussion veers from the mathematical, as in the discussions about pigmentation.


My culture is the most accepting culture of gays in the world. Many other cultures kill gays. Seeing homosexuality as immoral isn't a cultural trait, like wearing a certain style of clothing. It is a consistent trend in humans, and there's must be an inborn not cultural reason. Cultural relativism doesn't work for homosexuality. There are countless cultures who have no or little contact with each other, and see homosexuality as strange or immoral. 

I never read ancient writings, but I have read a few. Pre-Christian Germania didn't allow sex before 18, polygamy was looked down on and less popular than monogamy, and women were flogged if caught in adulterous acts. Tacuitus, who was Roman, praised Germans for this. He, and therefore Roman culture, clearly understood the idea of adultery. They committed adultery, but that doesn't mean they didn't have a concept of it. I once read writings from a famous Roman poet. He called his books "Dirty little books" and wrote that young girls shouldn't read them, and it was nothing compared to the sexuality in TV shows around today. Like I've described before, all humans see certain sexual acts as appropriate or inappropriate. Inappropriate acts are adulterous. If you want to argue with me, respond only to that. I'm not being rude. 




> You do the same whenever the discussion veers from the mathematical, as in the discussions about pigmentation.


How do I do this? Genetic discussion is 100% numbers. Anyways, I'm against putting personalities and characters on long-dead ancient people, like Goddess-worshiping feminist matriarch of Neolithic Romania or stupid caveman Cro magnon or Roman with a British accent. I never do that. I definitely never do that for pigmentation discussion. All I do is point out origins of traits and where selection happened. Is this about me saying Blonde hair, is more colorful and feminine than Brown hair? Don't take that personally, I didn't consider how a girl would think of that. I never said Blonde women are more attractive or that Brown hair is masculine and ugly. Girls dye their hair more than men, no matter what the color is, because girls like being colorful more than men. IMO, Purple hair is colorful and feminine, it doesn't mean it's more attractive or non-purple hair is masculine




> As usually very well said, Meleth.
> I suspect the same thing. Most likely biosexualism being supressed by strong religious convictions. I wonder how long he will be able to fight his nature?


Dude, just stop it. Stop, making lies about me. You should get an infraction if you keep posting lies about me. I'm fascinated by a lot of topics. That's how my brain works, and I've always been like this. Before DNA, it was baseball. Before Baseball, it was Mario/Luigi and Sesame street. IMO, Angela is similar in being ultra-into subjects, or even more extreme than me. Do you think she's gay to, because she writes a lot about it? 




> Stop using all this language about "condemning" and calling it "wrong"... That is subjective and you are close-minded...


So, if your wife cheated on you, you wouldn't say she did something wrong? Condemnation and any mention to morality(wrong), is subjected and close minded?

----------


## Maleth

> Angela is similar in being ultra-into subjects, or even more extreme than me. Do you think she's gay to, because she writes a lot about it?


fascination does not come from participating in discussing a subject but its what you say and how you say it. Im not aware that Angela has been extreme in any of her posts, to the contrary always had sound scientific basis / personal experiences with much logic and common sense. 

http://changingminds.org/explanation..._formation.htm

----------


## Angela

> Fire-Haired: Like I've described before, all humans see certain sexual acts as appropriate or inappropriate.


I totally agree with this.




> Fire-Hiared:Seeing homosexuality as immoral isn't a cultural trait, like wearing a certain style of clothing. It is a consistent trend in humans, and there's must be an inborn not cultural reason. Cultural relativism doesn't work for homosexuality. There are countless cultures who have no or little contact with each other, and see homosexuality as strange or immora


l. 

That's absolutely incorrect. Yes, there are many cultures which see homosexuality as strange or immoral. What you're ignoring is that there are many cultures throughout history which have accepted it in certain situations. That isn't a logical way of looking at the evidence, Fire-Haired. That's not what scientists or disinterested observers would deduce from_ all_ the evidence. What is clear if you look at_ all_ the cultures both now and in the past is that indeed the level of tolerance is dependent on or_ relative to_ the culture. 

One has to take the broad as well as the long view, and not just look at this or any issue, really, solely from the vantage point of modern western society. The west's view of homosexuality has been totally conditioned by Judeo-Christian traditions, and the views persist even in people who are no longer actually believers. There was indeed a certain acceptance of homosexual practices among the Canaanites and other farming cultures. For whatever reason, the ancient Hebrews were vehemently against it, as is, officially, Islam. When the "pagans" of ancient Greece and Rome and the Indo-European groups were converted, they adopted that view of homosexuality. 

I'm not condescending to you, Fire-Haired, but as to these "softer" less mathematically dependent issues, you have to get out of your own head. You can't assume that your opinion, which is very dependent on your particular cultural and religious experiences, is universal.

That's what I meant about the pigmentation discussion, and believe me, I didn't take anything you said personally and didn't feel insulted in any way. Everyone has a "type" when it comes to the opposite sex, Fire-Haired, and it's totally ok, although people who grow a little more self aware and mature as time goes on realize that it's better to focus on character, common interests, and capacity for love rather than whether they fit your "template" of "hotness". Of course, some people learn that lesson too late.

What isn't ok when you're having a philosophical or quasi-scientific discussion about these issues is to assume that_ your_ "type" is _everybody's_ "type", and even less so that what you have been conditioned to find attractive by your particular culture is universally attractive across the whole world and in all time periods.We've had these discussions before, about preferences as to body weight and shape, facial features etc. as depicted in art, and even in videos such as the one about which western women Korean men find attractive. As you learn more about different cultures you'll see that indeed these preferences, beyond certain basic traits which signal health and fertility, are culturally dependent, as is tolerance for certain expressions of sexuality.

If you can't see it, you can't, so I won't be having any more to add. 

@Maleth,
Thank you for the kind words. I return the compliment. :)

----------


## LeBrok

> Me vs Lebrok+Angela+Maleth,+mr Y82. LOL.
> 
> Anyways, stop treating me like I'm an idiot(xAngela who has been respectful). Be respectful. All I'm arguing is sexuality can be perverted. That's it!!! Stop stirring off topic. Directly respond to that argument. There's really no point to arguing this, because we know human sexuality can infact be perverted. There are known examples. You guys ignore this fact, because of your fear it means some gay people aren't gay. But you're perfectly ok with saying some straight people are actually gay or bi. That's a double standard.


Probability of your point of view being right is very small. You are arguing against 4 very smart people with life of experience and education of many fields. You are 16 with not much education and neither life experience. Also, your way of thinking about genetics has been corrected by others, like Angela, in other threads many times, so we know that your logic is able to trick you sometimes.
Considering all of this, do you understand the odds against you? Simply put, you can't be right on this subject!

----------


## Fire Haired14

> Probability of your point of view being right is very small. You are arguing against 4 very smart people with life of experience and education of many fields. You are 16 with not much education and neither life experience. Also, your way of thinking about genetics has been corrected by others, like Angela, in other threads many times, so we know that your logic is able to trick you sometimes.
> Considering all of this, do you understand the odds against you? Simply put, you can't be right on this subject!


I'm not usually wrong or corrected in my thinking of genetics. I'm the most up to date person here in that regard. Look at the threads I post. That can be a good thing or a bad thing.What I don't know a lot about is archaeology and history, and I never claim to be an expert in those subjects. Anyways, don't lie about me, to make me appear immature(16) and not intelligent(often corrected in other subjects), to disqualify what I argue here. If you want to argue against me, argue against what i say.




> fascination does not come from participating in discussing a subject but its what you say and how you say it. Im not aware that Angela has been extreme in any of her posts, to the contrary always had sound scientific basis / personal experiences with much logic and common sense. 
> 
> http://changingminds.org/explanation..._formation.htm


It doesn't matter what the word fascination means, what matters is the message I'm communicating. Maybe interested is a better word to use. Starting Over: I'm ultra-interested in some subjects. How does me being interested(I'm not that interested. I never do any research and only care when someone else brings it up) in homosexuality/morality discussions, mean I'm bi? Does this also mean I'm even more gay for DNA?




> Im not aware that Angela has been extreme in any of her posts, to the contrary always had sound scientific basis / personal experiences with much logic and common sense.


Her posts are longer than mine. She's ultra-interested into topics to. I could say the same about Tomenable or basically anyone who cares enough to use the internet to learn about genetics. Anyways, Angela not being "extreme" and being "scientific" is just your opinion. Argue with what I say, not my character, if you think I'm unscientific.

----------


## Fire Haired14

[QUOTE=Angela;477834]I totally agree with this.




> That's absolutely incorrect. Yes, there are many cultures which see homosexuality as strange or immoral. What you're ignoring is that there are many cultures throughout history which have accepted it in certain situations. That isn't a logical way of looking at the evidence, Fire-Haired. That's not what scientists or disinterested observers would deduce from_ all_ the evidence. What is clear if you look at_ all_ the cultures both now and in the past is that indeed the level of tolerance is dependent on or_ relative to_ the culture.


Would intolerance of homosexuality be so popular, if it was "relative to the culture", like style of clothing is? I never denied there have been/are cultures which accept homosexuality in some situations. I know they exist. What I'm arguing is, it is popular for humans to see homosexuality as an inappropriate form of sexuality, and therefore there must be something inborn causing unrelated cultures to do this. Would you agree there are enough cultures who see homosexuality as immoral, more than who create pizza, to bring this into consideration? I think the inborn trait, is seeing certain sex as inappropriate, and homosexuality which is rare and goes against the whole idea of what sex is(penis+vagina, reproduction), is going to be seen as abnormal and immoral by many humans. 




> One has to take the broad as well as the long view, and not just look at this or any issue, really, solely from the vantage point of modern western society. The west's view of homosexuality has been totally conditioned by Judeo-Christian traditions, and the views persist even in people who are no longer actually believers. There was indeed a certain acceptance of homosexual practices among the Canaanites and other farming cultures. For whatever reason, the ancient Hebrews were vehemently against it, as is, officially, Islam. When the "pagans" of ancient Greece and Rome and the Indo-European groups were converted, they adopted that view of homosexuality.


Was Germania Judieo-Christian? Was Tacitus Judeo-Christian? Is India Judeo-Chirtsian(homosexulaity is outlawed there)? These ideas aren't exclusive to Jews. One Greek mention to rampent homosexuality amoung *some* Celts, doesn't mean all Celtic-speakers loved homosexuality. For all we know, this Greek writer exaggerated homosexuality among some Celts(probably ones who lived next door to Greece), because it would be interesting reading. He called their homosexuality, "strange", BTW. 





> That's what I meant about the pigmentation discussion, and believe me, I didn't take anything you said personally and didn't feel insulted in any way. Everyone has a "type" when it comes to the opposite sex, Fire-Haired, and it's totally ok, although people who grow a little more self aware and mature as time goes on realize that it's better to focus on character, common interests, and capacity for love rather than whether they fit your "template" of "hotness". Of course, some people learn that lesson too late.


I never said I have a type. Anyways, good advice. 




> What isn't ok when you're having a philosophical or quasi-scientific discussion about these issues is to assume that_ your_ "type" is _everybody's_ "type", and even less so that what you have been conditioned to find attractive by your particular culture is universally attractive across the whole world and in all time periods.


I agree with this. I never disputed any of this. I never said I have a type. I gave my opinion, and said it was my opinion not fact. I wasn't conditioned to say anything I did.

----------


## mr_y82

> 1) Me vs Lebrok+Angela+Maleth,+mr Y82. LOL.
> 
> 2)Anyways, stop treating me like I'm an idiot(xAngela who has been respectful). Be respectful. All I'm arguing is sexuality can be perverted. That's it!!! Stop stirring off topic. Directly respond to that argument. There's really no point to arguing this, because we know human sexuality can infact be perverted. There are known examples. You guys ignore this fact, because of your fear it means some gay people aren't gay. But you're perfectly ok with saying some straight people are actually gay or bi. That's a double standard. 
> 
> 
> 
> 3)I never disputed this. I'm not saying I completely agree, but this wasn't something I was arguing against. I said I don't believe men who leave their families because they say they're gay "are completely gay".
> 
> 
> ...


1) There is a good reason you are outnumbered, the newer progressive say of thinking it catching on and will gain momentum whether or not you like it... I mean no offense by this, it's simply the way it is...

2) I remember calling you "fire-brained" (which I meant as a reference to a sort of "temper" and, in my mind, a heat that has compromised your rational mind's ability to be objective... Other than that could you refer me to where I have been disrespectful? You have shared your opinions and I have shared mine and tried to explain my reasoning... Even if it is a bit heated that does not equate to disrespect... I was trying to be succinct, blunt, and sometimes humorous, but if I have been disrespectful, I apologize and will keep the tone more civil (and thus hopefully more productive) from here on out.

3) Why do you presume to think for them? What gives you the right to question their homosexuality any more than they have the right to question your hetero nature?

4) You are right that it is still taboo in many places and much more accepted here (we used to have a slave holding democracy... was that not good enough? Should we have stopped progressing then? Should women be allowed to vote?)... But beyond that you are wrong... All kinds of things used to be punishable by death... Apparently you didn't bother to read my post on the evolution of society on the "Brussels" thread, but it applies here too, you have a regressive worldview that thinks it has the right to limit the personal freedoms of others based on your moral preference... You can remain as morally opposed as you want... That is your right, but a majority of Americans do, of will soon, support equal rights, and when they do, those rights should be extended to those people regardless of the feelings of the minority... In fact, even if only 51% of Americans decide, let's say, Cannabis should remain illegal, I feel like it is a bit odd that they can dictate what rights should be extended to the other 49% (it's called tyranny of the majority...)... Why are people so threatened by the rights extended to others? How will it hurt you?

5) Yes, all sorts of sex can be seen as perversion... What's your point? Where or if you draw a line is all subjective... If hetero sex is not a perversion, why is gay sex? What is the difference other than in your mind? Do you have the need/right to force your standards on others? If I were gay I would not care if it was called a civil union of marriage so long as I had the legal rights... I do think it is a little silly to try to force churches to perform ceremonies... If they want to hold on to outdated doctrines and refuse marriage, fine, that is their religious right, go to the magistrate and get married (state reps should NOT be allowed to refuse marriage like some of these southern states were trying to do)... Personally I would not want to get married in a church that did not support my lifestyle anyway... So what is the point in forcing their hand... I see that as a separate issue from the legal policy side... And I think things would progress more quickly for the good of both sides if a compromise was struck... Leave the religious stuff out of the government... That is how this system was intended to run... Obviously some rules like murder and theft have a (essnetiall universal) religious element, but they are clear violations of natural rights and thus are illegal... gayness and gay union/marriage is not a violation of YOUR rights, but trying to prevent it is a violation of homosexual rights...

6) Agreed... We don't have the right, or at least it is not productive, to slander one another... Bear in mind Fire-haired that we also have a different attitude toward gayness, so it's not really as derogatory as someone who thinks it is a perversion might perceive it. 

LeBrok, we both know this is no way to change a person's mind even if we get satisfaction resorting to such tactics when someone is seemingly being resistant to a rational argument. Plus I have really enjoyed our interaction, so don't get booted (must be that gay R1b attraction kicking in! j/k)!

7) What the sweet Jesus did I say that implied that cheating is moral? Please quote me saying anything that implies as such and I will clarify what I was attempting to say! I think people have the right to be in open relationships, closed ones, or anything in between so long as it is CONSENSUAL... This is not the same as cheating... Lying, in my mind, is immoral, and cheating is based upon this, not to mention all the interesting infections you could bring home to your partner... But they have the right to have whatever kind of "contract" they want, in my mind... If my wife wants to bring a girlfriend into our bedroom she gets my opinion and then we decide together from there what is appropriate and acceptable to both of us, and it is our right to do so... If she cheats on my I'll show her the door and would expect her to do the same for me...

Lying is wrong and denying people basic rights and equal treatment is also wrong... As Angela eloquently pointed out...




> you have to get out of your own head. You can't assume that your opinion, which is very dependent on your particular cultural and religious experiences, is universal.





> You are 16 with not much education and neither life experience.


Wait Fire-haired, you are only 16? You have so much time to figure this all out and I think there is still hope! Also, I feel bad for calling a kid less than half my age a name... I thought I was arguing with some older fellow who should know better... I will chalk this up to you being embedded in some regression southern culture that you may still break free from! I am not being sarcastic... many people are "victims" of these kinds of worldviews because they are immersed in it from a young age... I was raised in the south, but by a "libertarian socialist," if you will, so I had a pretty unfair opportunity to develop open-mindedness. 

Cheers mate!

----------


## mr_y82

> Anyways, don't lie about me, to make me appear immature(16) and not intelligent(often corrected in other subjects), to disqualify what I argue here. If you want to argue against me, argue against what i say.
> .


Oops, I thought LeBrok was being literal... Shows how smart I am... suddenly the end of my last post has an air of condescension that I did not intend... Sorry about that!




> 1)Would intolerance of homosexuality be so popular, if it was "relative to the culture", like style of clothing is? I never denied there have been/are cultures which accept homosexuality in some situations. I know they exist. What I'm arguing is, it is popular for humans to see homosexuality as an inappropriate form of sexuality, and therefore there must be something inborn causing unrelated cultures to do this. Would you agree there are enough cultures who see homosexuality as immoral, more than who create pizza, to bring this into consideration? I think the inborn trait, is seeing certain sex as inappropriate, and homosexuality which is rare and goes against the whole idea of what sex is(penis+vagina, reproduction), is going to be seen as abnormal and immoral by many humans. 
> 
> 
> 
> 2)Was Germania Judieo-Christian? Was Tacitus Judeo-Christian? Is India Judeo-Chirtsian(homosexulaity is outlawed there)? These ideas aren't exclusive to Jews. One Greek mention to rampent homosexuality amoung *some* Celts, doesn't mean all Celtic-speakers loved homosexuality. For all we know, this Greek writer exaggerated homosexuality among some Celts(probably ones who lived next door to Greece), because it would be interesting reading. He called their homosexuality, "strange", BTW.



1) How do you still not get that culture and society evolves and changes? We have explained in many times in many ways... Social norms, mores, values, etc... all change... I mean I am not going to miss the local stoning of the adulterers because I am busy typing this reply... We don't live in a stagnant world... No offense, but I have said my piece, as have others more eloquently, and if you don't get it I think I should stop wasting my time, trying to get you to have a more open mind, when it is clear you will only reiterate points that we have already quashed... 

2) History is cool, but who cares in this context? It doesn't matter what their attitude was towards homosexuality in the context of how we will do things today... We are dealing with the present day... present people... present rights... I possibly had some gay ancestors (esp since I am R1b! j/k)... ok? So? What difference does that make now? Let's focus on improving the world now since that is all we have... As we have established, social norms evolve just like everything else... How weird would be if the entire universe evolved except for a few human aspects? Why do people assume consciousness is a flat land? I think some Germanic tribes adopted Arian Christianity before the Romans were Catholic... not that this is relevant to the discussion at hand.

You have yet to convince us that our plethora of points are wrong... you just keep reiterating the same nonsense... And I mean that in the most constructively critical way possible...

----------


## Fire Haired14

@mr y82,

You're arguing a straw man, because of* your prejudices(everyone has them)*. I am arguing: 1: Sexuality can be perverted. 2: All Humans see some sexuality as inappropriate and therefore immoral. 

Only, argue against those opinions. Angela is the only who has done this. Lebork is the worst example. He loves lying, being sarcastic, and stirring off topic. You on the other hand, aren't like that, you just don't understand what I'm saying. 

Also, mr y82, I don't believe you'd be ok with your wife bringing a girlfriend to your bed. If so, do you believe in polygamy? BTW, I don't really problem with polygamy. The idea of monogamous marriage, which is the only type of marriage in the US, is the couple stays loyal to each other. They don't have any other sexual partners. I believe you're intentionally shutting off the part of your brain which says, "No she's my woman.", because of fear that makes you closed minded.

----------


## mr_y82

Actually no, I don't have a problem with Polygamy... To each his own... In fact, if it were legal and my wife and I consented to have a "sister-wife" I would accept and embrace this... My sex drive is a little more than hers, haha... In all seriousness though, each couple or group, or whatever, decides what is acceptable for themselves... I would not accept a man into our relationship because I am not interesting in pursuing sexual relations with a man, and my wife understand, accepts, and respects that, as I do her affinity for women... The sexual encounters she has had with women have been in my presence, and we agreed that I would not have direct sexual contact with the "3rd wheel," which I have been fine with... You have to find what is comfortable with both parties and respect those boundaries while being aware of the potential for regret! 

My wife is "my woman" in the sense that we make these important life decisions together... And I am "her man" in the same sense... I am not trying to be open-minded, I am... I have a temper that can be triggered, feelings that can get hurt, and my own prejudices (as you pointed out), but that does not change my belief system regarding the extension of rights to others! It's almost like you are looking out for me and worried that I will get hurt because I am not really in touch with how I feel... I actually really appreciate that sentiment... I think you have a kind and good "soul" and I appreciate the cordial back and forth.

As per above... I said "5) Yes, all sorts of sex can be seen as perversion..." I invited you to maintain your right of seeing gay sex in this light... All I did is ask you to respect those who feel differently, and don't think that legal policy should be based on moral grounds that clearly do not infringe upon the rights of others... which they don't... I think you are the one who has not adequately argued to the contrary, but you keep saying we have not instead? I really don't get what else I can say about perversion... You agreed it is subjective... I think people should have the right to practice their "perversions" with other consenting adults, and have legal rights as couples (or more) if they choose to... You apparently do not support this... That does not mean that I am disagreeing that most people think some actions are perversions... That is a totally unrelated issue, in my mind. When I said I have libertarian leanings I meant it! haha... But I also believe the economy must be controlled and taxes are useful (when not used for senseless bombing). I am worried about my own personal rights and others, not about the kind of lifestyle they choose for themselves...

LeBrok's just one of those liberal Canadians, with their universal healthcare, trying to ruffle your feathers, right LeBrok?  :Grin:  Pretty sure LeBrok's a kind soul too, and if more of the world was willing to participate in conversations like this I think, ultimately, the world would be a better place.

Cheers!

----------


## Fire Haired14

@mr y82,

It's all good. When it comes to laws, I support letting people do almost anything. However, I do think many gay couples, which is unlikely for there to be, isn't good for society. And my interpretation of legal "freedom" IMO is differnt from most people(until freedom includes something they disagree with). Legal Freedom isn't actually real freedom. It's freedom to do anything that isn't wrong or crazy. People have differnt limits. My limits on what is crazy or wrong, is pretty small, but it depends on the circumstances. For example, my limits in my family are very differnt.

I'm not sure what Lebrok's deal is. I have caught him lying several times, so.. I'm against a lot of liberalism when it comes to social issues not economics. I don't know much about economics, but from what I do know, I side more with liberals. Your liberal socially and conservative economically, while I'm the opposite. Most Americans, don't understand economics and social issues are two differnt subjects, and you don't have to be liberal or conservative in both.

----------


## John Doe

> @mr y82,
> 
> It's all good. When it comes to laws, I support letting people do almost anything. However, I do think many gay couples, which is unlikely for there to be, isn't good for society. And my interpretation of legal "freedom" IMO is differnt from most people(until freedom includes something they disagree with). Legal Freedom isn't actually real freedom. It's freedom to do anything that isn't wrong or crazy. People have differnt limits. My limits on what is crazy or wrong, is pretty small, but it depends on the circumstances. For example, my limits in my family are very differnt.
> 
> I'm not sure what Lebrok's deal is. I have caught him lying several times, so.. I'm against a lot of liberalism when it comes to social issues not economics. I don't know much about economics, but from what I do know, I side more with liberals. Your liberal socially and conservative economically, while I'm the opposite. Most Americans, don't understand economics and social issues are two differnt subjects, and you don't have to be liberal or conservative in both.


Define wrong and crazy, what you may define as such might be defined as different by another. As for laws well, there are always laws the individual doesn't agree with, it doesn't however mean one's view be enforced on everyone else. You don't believe people of the same sex have the right to marry? Fine, don't believe in that, you have every right to, but others have the right to disagree with you. As for economics, it's truly funny when it comes to American politics, the so called Conservatives of the GOP are indeed conservative when it comes to issues of family, religion etc, but economically they belong to the "Liberal" school of thought (Liberal in the sense of limited to no state intervention in anything concerning economics), while Democrats, while Liberal on issues of family, religion, culture etc do tend to be more sympathetic to the idea of Universal Healthcare, food stamps, government spending on roads, minimum wage etc. Add to that the fact that until the 1960s when the Southern Democrats switched to the GOP the Democrats were usually the ones with a large Conservative lobby (Southern Democrats), while the GOP was the more Socially Liberal party founded by the one who freed the slaves.

----------


## mr_y82

^you understand our system more than most Americans, as demonstrated by this point, haha. I do however define myself as "economically liberal" below, even though I lean away what you are defining as "liberalism"... So screw labels, haha, I do explain my position. Conservative implies they resist change... It was socialists, progressives, etc... here in the early 1900s that drove change, thus making those positions "liberal" (I.e. in favor of change)... I touch on some of this below... Of course I am a bumbling idiot too, so enjoy! :)




> @mr y82,
> 
> It's all good. When it comes to laws, I support letting people do almost anything. However, I do think many gay couples, which is unlikely for there to be, isn't good for society. And my interpretation of legal "freedom" IMO is differnt from most people(until freedom includes something they disagree with). Legal Freedom isn't actually real freedom. It's freedom to do anything that isn't wrong or crazy. People have differnt limits. My limits on what is crazy or wrong, is pretty small, but it depends on the circumstances. For example, my limits in my family are very differnt.
> 
> I'm not sure what Lebrok's deal is. I have caught him lying several times, so.. I'm against a lot of liberalism when it comes to social issues not economics. I don't know much about economics, but from what I do know, I side more with liberals. Your liberal socially and conservative economically, while I'm the opposite. Most Americans, don't understand economics and social issues are two differnt subjects, and you don't have to be liberal or conservative in both.


You are exactly right, and so few people here seem to get it, so I will outline if below... you choose a political system and and economic system... Many people equate the 2, but that is misguided... The very fact that you pointed that out show a thoughtfulness that most people lack.

Political system... We chose democracy, we could have chosen monarchy, oligarchy, dictatorship, etc... In a democracy the majority consensus rules (theoretically)... but it only works well if you have informed civic-minded citizens who engage in the process... We don't really have that! This is kinda beside the point, the reason I bring it up is because you got the impression I am economically conservative, when in fact it is generally considered a liberal position to extend social safety nets, which I support...I may have said something to mislead you...

Economic system... We chose capitalism, which exists on a spectrum with communism at the extreme other end... Even though I am a SOCIAL libertarian (support all rights that do not infringe on the rights of others, even drug legalization because prohibition does not work, it fuels cartels and does not curb drug usage, and if you have addicts buy a controlled regulated substance, from a government run site, you can attempt to intervene and help them break the addiction... Prohibition makes drug rebellious and deviant, which is a big draw for many people and one reason it seems to be so ineffective... Imagine using drug revenue to help people break addictions... sounds ironic, but not impossible in my mind...)... So even though I am a social libertarian I do not reflect libertarian economic beliefs (I won't abuse the Adam Smith example like many conservative economists do, not understanding the true context of his work) such as complete deregulation... I think modern China and many other places that US work has been exported to are prime examples of the environmental and social danger of deregulation... People are greedy and will get away with whatever they can to benefit themselves, so there must be rule and regulations regarding what they can get away with... If we had not done that here (making sure there's not human meat [thanks socialist Upton Sinclair] or dangerous chemicals in our food, safe machinery in factories, that toxic waste is not being dumped, minimum wage, benefits, etc...) we would still have jobs, but jobs that disgraced human beings (like the Apple employees that leaped to their death before they added the suicide net in China)... We don't even do a good job at a lot of those things due to the corporate interests that control out political system, but it sure as hell beats working in China! So back to my point... I lean way more toward the communist end of the economic scale, with the likes of Ralph Nader... lol... I think we should have universal single payer healthcare (current profit drive system has failed us for the same reasons as the EPA, FDA, etc...), lots of social programs to improve lives, good schools, hospitals (that are not profit driven, salaries should be incentive enough)... I do not however thing corporations should be government owned, right now we have a dangerous form of "corporatism" where the government and corporations walk hand in hand to the detriment of the American people at large (With the bailouts, etc... that was NOT Laissez Faire capitalism!) and then we leave little guys out to dry... It's a new Gilded age where 95% of the wealth is controlled by less than 5% so corporate interests and lobbies have taken over the political system for their own gain while America plays xbox, and turns a blind eye, because we are so relatively wealthy that most don't even notice they are getting away with this s--t!

Social political issues are a separate thing altogether... Because even if we agree democracy is best we don't necessarily agree on all the issues that arise due to a plethora of worldviews, and the diversity of thought that can exist even within one of those worldviews... So there's where people often differ... I happen to believe that as little intervention into private lives by the government is best... Heck, most Southern's will agree with that immediately... But in essence they contradict themselves by thinking the government has the right to tell me what I can smoke, who I can marry, etc... If they want the government to stay out of private lives, why do they feel so passionately that the government should curb this behavior? I walk my talk... I try not to judge others so long as they do not violate my rights... I think we can pretty clearly define when someone's natural right are being violated, and in my mind if a man and woman have the right to say "I want this person to be my soul heir etc...," which is essentially what marriage is, then 2 men have the right to make the same legal commitment to one another... It is not a religious issue... The Romans government recognized contracts between people... That is really what it is, and in my mind it is a natural right to decide who should inherit you stuff, decide when to pull the plug on life support, etc... Churches can call it whatever they want and chose to serve who they will as far as I am concerned (as I said before I would not go to a church that discriminated against me whether or not I have the legal right to)... *You agree gay people have the right to give their stuff to a same sex partner when they die? You agree they have the right to decide said partner can fulfill their wishes regarding life support, etc? You think it serves anyone to not let them file their taxes together? If you don't agree, please explain why not. I am not trying to violate anyone's right to religious freedom here... Quite the contrary... As long as your religion does not infringe on my natural and legal rights, have at it! Please just extend the same freedoms to those that do not share the same worldview... It's a big country and we'll never all be on the same page, that's why respect for tolerance (even if someone is doing something that YOU consider immoral, but is not directly affecting you or hurting a non-compliant person...). So I am a true libertarian in that regard... :)*

You are probably economically more conservative than me (since conservative essentially means resisting change, and our current economic system is probably more in line with what you think is proper than what I would wish for...), and, as you said, more socially conservative, which is why we differ so much on this issue specifically... :)

If you have the patience for it, and want to understand the inter workings of my brain, please do read the whole post, haha. I kinda felt like I kept switching gears, but hopefully it is all coherent. Let me know if you have any questions.

----------


## mr_y82

I edited the above a couple times, but wanted to add something I thought might be missed otherwise...

I don't think we even have to raise taxes on the lower and middle class to achieve my social goals... Closing tax loopholes and cheating for bigwigs would go a long way... If 95% of Americans have <5% of the wealth, how much can they really fund anyway? The money has to come from the top, but history teaches us that those at the top do not yield so easily... They protect the status quo that ensures them power and wealth (It's one reason the Roman's were threatened by Christianity, it called for egalitarianism; it's one reason Buddhism didn't catch on in China, it called for egalitarianism... Sufism, so on and so forth... *Democracy allows us to change this, but not in a climate of ignorant masses listening to debates about penis size and who has the prettiest wife... We can agree that is not democracy, and that our (slave holding) founding fathers would be appalled at the state of our "democracy," yes? 

*If the likes of John McCain can only own 7 multi-million dollar houses instead of 8 so that some bums that had a psychological break can have some food and healthcare I am not going to loose any sleep over that... *Many wealthy crooks pay lower taxes than upper middle class citizens because they own and control the media, the process, and the system...* 

*I believe our society, and its structure, are what allowed people of great wealth and status rise to the level they are at... And, if I were one of them, I would hope that I would recognize the fact that freedom and democracy had granted me a disproportionate reward... and that I would give back to the society that had granted me such a novel opportunity (think the likes of Bill Gates of true Philanthropists.... Guys like Trump would have you believe they could have achieved the same "greatness" under the Qin Dynasty, "Communist" Russia, etc... It's bulls--t...)... 

*I have strayed from topic... hope it was worth it, but I think I'm done with the explanation unless you want clarification on anything... this is how I spend my spring break from work? I am a loser! lol

----------


## John Doe

> ^you understand our system more than most Americans, as demonstrated by this point, haha. I do however define myself as "economically liberal" below, even though I lean away what you are defining as "liberalism"... So screw labels, haha, I do explain my position. Conservative implies they resist change... It was socialists, progressives, etc... here in the early 1900s that drove change, thus making those positions "liberal" (I.e. in favor of change)... I touch on some of this below... Of course I am a bumbling idiot too, so enjoy! :)
> 
> 
> 
> You are exactly right, and so few people here seem to get it, so I will outline if below... you choose a political system and and economic system... Many people equate the 2, but that is misguided... The very fact that you pointed that out show a thoughtfulness that most people lack.
> 
> Political system... We chose democracy, we could have chosen monarchy, oligarchy, dictatorship, etc... In a democracy the majority consensus rules (theoretically)... but it only works well if you have informed civic-minded citizens who engage in the process... We don't really have that! This is kinda beside the point, the reason I bring it up is because you got the impression I am economically conservative, when in fact it is generally considered a liberal position to extend social safety nets, which I support...I may have said something to mislead you...
> 
> Economic system... We chose capitalism, which exists on a spectrum with communism at the extreme other end... Even though I am a SOCIAL libertarian (support all rights that do not infringe on the rights of others, even drug legalization because prohibition does not work, it fuels cartels and does not curb drug usage, and if you have addicts buy a controlled regulated substance, from a government run site, you can attempt to intervene and help them break the addiction... Prohibition makes drug rebellious and deviant, which is a big draw for many people and one reason it seems to be so ineffective... Imagine using drug revenue to help people break addictions... sounds ironic, but not impossible in my mind...)... So even though I am a social libertarian I do not reflect libertarian economic beliefs (I won't abuse the Adam Smith example like many conservative economists do, not understanding the true context of his work) such as complete deregulation... I think modern China and many other places that US work has been exported to are prime examples of the environmental and social danger of deregulation... People are greedy and will get away with whatever they can to benefit themselves, so there must be rule and regulations regarding what they can get away with... If we had not done that here (making sure there's not human meat [thanks socialist Upton Sinclair] or dangerous chemicals in our food, safe machinery in factories, that toxic waste is not being dumped, minimum wage, benefits, etc...) we would still have jobs, but jobs that disgraced human beings (like the Apple employees that leaped to their death before they added the suicide net in China)... We don't even do a good job at a lot of those things due to the corporate interests that control out political system, but it sure as hell beats working in China! So back to my point... I lean way more toward the communist end of the economic scale, with the likes of Ralph Nader... lol... I think we should have universal single payer healthcare (current profit drive system has failed us for the same reasons as the EPA, FDA, etc...), lots of social programs to improve lives, good schools, hospitals (that are not profit driven, salaries should be incentive enough)... I do not however thing corporations should be government owned, right now we have a dangerous form of "corporatism" where the government and corporations walk hand in hand to the detriment of the American people at large (With the bailouts, etc... that was NOT Laissez Faire capitalism!) and then we leave little guys out to dry... It's a new Gilded age where 95% of the wealth is controlled by less than 5% so corporate interests and lobbies have taken over the political system for their own gain while America plays xbox, and turns a blind eye, because we are so relatively wealthy that most don't even notice they are getting away with this s--t!
> ...


I read it all, very interesting points you have made. I assume you're a supporter of Bernie Sanders (or were, since his chance of winning the nomination is seemingly, and I say seemingly since the corporate media doesn't really support him yet there's no other source of information but them)?

----------


## Fire Haired14

> Define wrong and crazy, what you may define as such might be defined as different by another. As for laws well, there are always laws the individual doesn't agree with, it doesn't however mean one's view be enforced on everyone else. You don't believe people of the same sex have the right to marry? Fine, don't believe in that, you have every right to, but others have the right to disagree with you.


Like everyone else here, you're allowing your prejudices to determine how you think of me. My whole point, was that differnt people have a differnt definition of wrong and crazy. I never disputed this, yet you assumed I did! You put on your prejudice glasses, and wrongly translated what I wrote. To some people gay marriage is wrong and crazy, to other people the limit is bestiality. Seeing homosexuality as immoral isn't anymore crazy than seeing bestiality as immoral. To you and everyone posting here it isn't, but that's just based on your definition of wrong and crazy.

----------


## mr_y82

^please respond to my specific questions; that will help people know how they feel about your stance. :)

I didn't type all that for just some John Doe to read it! LOL :P




> I read it all, very interesting points you have made. I assume you're a supporter of Bernie Sanders (or were, since his chance of winning the nomination is seemingly, and I say seemingly since the corporate media doesn't really support him yet there's no other source of information but them)?


Yes, I tend to support him on most fronts. He seems to have joined the Establishment mainly because that's the only way you have a shot (otherwise you just follow in Nader's footsteps and people blame you for lost/stolen elections...)... He did just pick up 3 states... He should get a lot outside the South, we'll see if somehow it can be a contested convention... I try to maintain hope mainly because Clinton represents a lot that I don't agree with, even if she's trying to talk a good talk right now (her voice is still extremely irritating... something about it grates at me... I know Sanders has that thick NE thing going on, but at least it sounds genuine...). My statement to read it all was primarily for Fire-Haired since we have been going back and forth, but I appreciate you taking the time! I have spent hours of my break from work pouring over info here on the forums, haha...

----------


## LeBrok

> I'm not usually wrong or corrected in my thinking of genetics. I'm the most up to date person here in that regard. Look at the threads I post. That can be a good thing or a bad thing.What I don't know a lot about is archaeology and history, and I never claim to be an expert in those subjects.


Ok, you make mistakes because you are not verst very well in archeology, genetics or history. Don't you think that it is the same for you with subject of sexuality? Are you verst well in it? Can you be mistaken about it? 
Helping clue is your age, 16, and many experienced and smart people telling you so. Take it from here.

----------


## mr_y82

^I hope he will read my posts and respond about the legal rights aspect... that's really enough for me... tolerance is a step towards acceptance, and then respect.... I hope you will read it all my bloated posts too and you'll be able to infer everything I would have to say about the Bushes... haha... I have interesting views for a Southerner, or maybe American in general... my sister lives in Germany and I have 2 cute little German nieces. I am fond of their modern system, but the refugee thing is becoming increasingly complicated...

----------


## TheSerpentKing

> Such a wrong analogy would be comparable to saying that baldness is caused by having haplogroup J1 or that all bald/balding men are J1 carriers or that J1 carriers are more prone to baldness than carriers of other Y-chromosomes. Pretty presproterous way of thinking if you ask me.


A correlation between early male pattern baldness/hair loss, mucho chest hair, thick beard growth and Haplos I and J is very well researched imho.
And regarding gay people,...well imo it's a combination of some mutated snps and cat shit
You have these mutations then sniff too much cat shit,... e voila your highly likely to be going gay or at least think about it.
Another guy sniffs too much cat shit, yet no mutations on those snps,...e voila he will get super high IQ,...others might just go bipolar. 
Some can "handle" cat shit some don't,...

----------


## Mmiikkii

Some people laugh at this theory and tend to point to cultural patterns linked to economic development to explain higher LGBTI acceptance.

But I believe that your Haplogroup can be very influential in your perception of homosexuality and your chances of being gay.
Mainly because an Y-DNA Hp only purpose is to define how are you as a man. And sexism is the main responsible for homophobia.

See for example, Latin America. It's not a wealthy place, and has 67-76% of Homosexuality acceptance. 
That is a lot, same as the US and Italy, and a whole lot more than Korea and other places with same economic development. Like Russia, Middle...
One of the main differences is they have R1b Haplogroup.https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2...ality-persists 
Anither poll shows Latin Americans have a lot of same sex attraction. Lot of people have gone to a gay bar and spoken in defence of LGBTQ people.https://www.ipsos.com/en/lgbt-pride-...ual-attraction

----------


## brakeyawself

> Not quite. Dude thinks that the pattern of gay-marriage (and similar social peculiarities) is linked with it. You'd have to add, for example, J1 area females burning hot for bald men, to complete your analogy. Anyway this makes sense:
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, it doesn't matter if they claim it or not. It's a logical assumption that there could be hereditary factors involved. Their opinion is of no importance so you don't have to involve it in your theory.
> 
> *There is also a possibility that it is imprinted in all of us, but some societies have also imprinted a better tolerance towards that kind of behavior.*


Honestly, I don't even know how I happened into this thread or why I am actually responding, but your latter statement, is likely the most accurate. The bold.

So, I am not suggesting that homosexuality is or isn't "nature" (genetic) or that it is or isn't "nurture" (conditioning), but the most likely answer, like everything else in the "nature vs. nurture" debate, is BOTH. It is not an either or scenario. It is almost certainly, like all other behaviors, a multivariate causation. Nurture accentuating aspects of nature. Meaning the capability or the possibility lives within each of us, but the let's say, causation is accentuated in some more than others either naturally or conditionally AND triggered in some more than others either naturally or conditionally, but always some interplay of the two. 

At this point in time, I don't think anyone has a good excuse to be attempting to attach certain behaviors with solely either "nature" or "nurture" because it's almost clear as day it is both.

And if you want proof of that, how do you explain the behavior in other primates? Other mammals? But in some "clans" or groups more so than others of the same species? Or in some species at higher rates than others? 

It's likely or at least possible, that these behaviors, all sexual behaviors really, are impacted by reactive aggression as well. In species or subspecies that have to some extent overcome reactive aggression, or the need and ability of the alpha male to dominate sexual behavior, the remaining members of the group are more free to explore their proclivities. Since males aren't as focused on becoming or maintaining the alpha position, there are no longer social restraints in place preventing such expression from hindering ones "ascent" or the competition between males. At least to some effect. And the effect that then has on females of the group who are no longer the "property" or whatever term you want to use, of the alpha male. 

I mean, it's almost certain at this point that all domestication, in humans, what we would call social evolution, and in animals, domestication, directly correlates with a reduction of reactive aggression. Meaning, beta males forming cohesive units to shut down alpha male tyranny. So basically, there are no human "alpha" males. All humans today are beta males or below. I kind of don't want to say "below" because that makes it seem as if "beta" or "zeta" or whatever is somehow lesser than alpha, when in reality, it's the "alpha" who ultimately loses to the others in this "competition". And alpha males, i mean, really, who wants to live like that? Knowing you'll have to fend off newcomers until the day one of them takes your life and your place? 

But anyway. Many of these behavioral debates are just a microcosm of the larger "nature vs. nurture" debates of the last 50 years. And ALL signs point to the answer being BOTH. In concert with one another.

----------


## firetown

I am not agreeing or disagreeing here, but I will add something to this:
Nations high in R1b tend to also have high frequencies of Rh negative blood.
Brazil, btw. is very high in R1b.
There was a study published many years ago claiming



> The present study sought to expand the limited evidence that sexual orientation is influenced by genetic factors. This was accomplished by seeking statistical differences between heterosexuals and homosexuals for four traits that are known to be genetically determined: eye color, natural hair color, blood type, and the Rhesus factor. Using a sample of over 7,000 U.S. and Canadian college students supplemented with additional homosexual subjects obtained through internet contacts, we found no significant differences between heterosexuals and homosexuals regarding eye color or hair color. In the case of blood type and the Rh factor, however, interesting patterns emerged. Heterosexual males and females exhibited statistically identical frequencies of the A blood type, while gay men exhibited a relatively low incidence and lesbians had a relatively high incidence (p < .05). *In the case of the Rh factor, unusually high proportions of homosexuals of both sexes were Rh- when compared to heterosexuals (p < .06). The findings suggest that a connection may exist between sexual orientation and genes both on chromosome 9 (where blood type is determined) and on chromosome 1 (where the Rh factor is regulated).*


https://www.rhesusnegative.net/stayn...t-homosexuals/

----------

