Ishihara: “Gays are Genetically Defective – They’re Pitiful”

Yup a real dick he was.

Now it has Obama...

@Megidola

Adopting any social policy is imposing one value system over another. The only way to avoid that is pure anarchy, which is mostly impractical.

Society usually chooses it's policies on their perceived usefulness, although frequently enough, wrongly.

The scientific way to test a given trait is to ask yourself "does this trait give the species advantage over most other species". If true, then the trait is beneficial. If false, it's redundant at best and it could be considered a behavioural imperfection (not genetic!).

When examining homosexuality, it's important to examine it in respect to heterosexuality. Now, comparing all the differing characteristics between hetero and homo people would take an entire book, so I'll let you decide for yourselves. All I'm implying is that gender preference can have a very real impact on the individuals that choose to partake in it.

And the world will one day know, Ishihara died as he preached, a degenerate of society.

HouseLife
06:31

there have been countless studies of is there a gay gene, is it environmental, and is it treatable.

now correct me if im wrong, not a single one has been conclusive, but polititions will take whatever they can from them and run with it.

Anonymous
09:28

ok, gay people are about 10% of the population, and thats of those who openly admit it. there are people who are gay but go with the opposite sex, to be "normal", it doesn't make them not gay, it makes them self hating gay.

Actually as much as people may dislike this, this guy is not entirely incorrect. Keep reading before you down vote. I'm not saying homosexuals are abominations as he may be saying (doesn't seem like it based on the wording though), but the aspect that they're 'missing something' is actually apparently a little correct in the sense of genetic growth.

I forget where I read it, but I read that it's being found that homosexuality being 'you're born with it' may be true to a certain degree, but only in prosperous nations. Notice how there is much more open homosexuality in the most developed and wealthy nations where births are generally healthy? Apparently scientists are exploring a potential discovery that during the first trimester during pregnancy, the mother's stress level and the presence of numerous men/women around her are a major determining factor for the development of homosexuality.

They've determined that the more brothers born before a child, the higher chance of homosexuality being developed in the womb based on diminishing of certain hormones based upon the mother's sense of 'enough male offspring' and the like. Basically a sense of 'there are too many men, breeding will be tough' and the hormones adjust for that.

This is a very lay description of what I read of course, but you get the idea. Basically take away his potentially homophobic-sounding remarks and they're unconsciously in the right direction apparently. But just because homosexuals lack something doesn't make them lesser beings. ...reality TV makes them lesser beings.

Wonderful points. I should clarify that I'm not being 'illogical' about this by using biology. And the spiritual aspect is basically the same, what your body calls for by unknown forces we don't yet understand. They are there, and are very clear when we know how to listen, it's part of my training and way of life, so literally all I can say in that regard is 'trust me.'

But you've brought up yet again more aesthetic aspects, alidan. Women liking how women look is a biproduct of them being the source of procreation, because by default their beauty is universally accepted for reasons of furthering our race. Other females recognize that because that recognition also drives the interest toward what beauty is. The feminine is more supportive and understanding. It draws people to it. Women who go 'awww' at little children can pull at a man's heart strings while the baby itself can be disgusting to them.

There is a fear regarding the understanding that homosexuality has a source. People speak of it as if suddenly we may know why homosexuals are homosexual and they'll no longer be 'special' or 'mysterious' or something. It's kind of like 'will babies be special once we understand how they're created fully?' and obviously no, we're even MORE amazed. So what if it makes quite a lot of sense that hormones during development can be adjusted based on the mother's surroundings? In the end, yes, there's a simple reality that pure homosexuality will never be considered 'not a defect' by the heterosexual community but it's not a defect of themselves, it's an adjustment based upon society and surroundings. As such, the fact that homosexuality is an adaptation that the population doesn't consider useful, it also can be understood to be a byproduct of that very population and accepted.

Everyone wants to pretend they're special. Homosexuality is not special in the slightest, and if the homosexual community keeps trying to push that being homosexual is some magical experience they'll continue to alienate the people they're trying to reach. The people THEMSELVES are what speaks for who they are, not their homosexuality.

Ian McKellan is gay, but the man is a treat to behold on screen for me. His actions are what speaks to his character, and I hold nothing but respect for the man. It is the prancing gay parade fools that make me roll my eyes, because they are relishing the fact that they are shoving it down peoples' throats while simultaneously being detrimental to the things they claim they want, and then complain that people don't understand them.

@HouseLife & alidan:

I can see where both of you are coming from and agree with some/most of your points. I disagree with HouseLife's theory of variables in the developmental stage of a fetus to be the cause of "homosexuality" based on a historical stand point, however. I wont go into that though for I cannot prove it.

As for people not being entirely gay or straight; I find this to be true. I am at current a "gay" man and most likely shall stay as such. I can find beauty in the female form and appreciate it, but it does not get my blood flowing. I'm not ruling it out for the future, though, sense I am an advocate of "human love". However! Not being able to further the human race as a gay is a bit off. It is still possible to produce offspring simply by mating with the opposite gender, even if it is not pleasurable. It may be despicable and thus not occur to most straight people, but it happens quite often.

I will agree that ones path in life can have a huge impact on ones sexual preferences. It is only logical to think as such. I'm not sure if I can say that some humans are born gay, just as I am not sure I can say humans are born good or bad. It is all circumstantial at this time.

HouseLife
17:07

i come at it from a far more logical sense. mainly because thats how i am. women that i know have said that the only real reason they arent lesbians is because they some day want to have kids, and they are ok with either or, and in studies like i said 50% were willing to admit they would be with a woman, if they could have a kid together with a woman, and not through artificial insemination like now, but through genes of both them making it, than that is a game changer. i believe it is possible to do now at least in the case of woman x woman, but if it will ever happen is another story all together.

i do get where you are coming from, and as a man i may not be able to say this with any accuracy, but women have somewhat of a biological clock that makes them want to have a kid at some point or at least many do. and this clock isn't thinking it has to be with this guy here, or that guy there, its just i want a kid. now the person they chose to have the kid with is most of the time (some old studies said at least 60% of the time) that its the person they love.

that said, if it ever became ok for 2 women to have a kid (i doubt it ever will) than pressure to be with a man would be lifted. i believe that than women would be far more open to lesbianism than they are currently.

Yuuasa
20:45

nothing has ever been proven, because largely anti gay people fund them, and pro gay fun the opposite. one side concludes there may be a coloration, and the other side proves the other side false at a latter point in time.

i believe the environmental you grow up in, your values (religious or family) have a big influence on what happens. i personally come from a more or less anti gay family (though they changed allot with me, as i never had a real girl friend, most of my friends at many points were girls, and shit i asked for a kid) and with relatives heavily religious. my point of view is so long as i dont need them to survive, they can go fuck themselves, ill do whatever the fuck i want. not everyone is capable of doing that though. one friend of mine admitted she was a lesbian to me, and is now married, because she couldn't disappoint her family, even though they treat her like shit, and she cut ties with almost all of them. i find that sad that thats how people think

@HouseLife and alidan

What about bisexuality? Where does that come from? I mean, all of these studies are nice and all, but how can they explain bisexuality?(I know that what I'm saying is kinda off-topic, but at the same time, a good, sound scientific study on homosexuality should also include what factors into bisexuality. Since the two are semi-related, and thusly should have some contributing factors(also please note that I am merely curious about whether these studies have included what may or may not factor into bisexuality)). Speaking as a bisexual, these studies are of passing interest. Also this old man is such a troll.

HouseLife
04:17

when i say logical i mean useing your brain over hormones and other such things, its not illogical, but at the same time not logical.

i don't believe hormones have the largest effect over all at least while they baby is developing, however we would never get the ok to to dose fetuses in the womb, to see if they got the gay afterwards. don't get me wrong i know hormones can be a powerful thing, look at any well don't tranny before and after shots and its clear, but its also clear that they were men before the hormones, increases in estrogen can make the bad boy testosterone ball more attractive to you, but even before they had the extroren they were attracted to males. and because of the more attractive lesbians, i couldn't say that testosterone on their side makes them like women. and if a developing brain was that moldable by hormones alone homosexuality would be far more than 10%

the gay pride parade, o wow, i can accept that, its an extreme and its fun for them. but the problem is that some of them dress and act that way all the time. the parade forced people to accept them more and more, but the problem with gay community is some of the flaming nature of some of them. i dont get why some insist on doing shit that way, i never will. i mean i like halloween but im not dressing like my favorite monsters year round.

@anon 07:38 08/12/2010

That is so true because I use to work with a guy like that. He says he's not gay, but makes a lot of gay jokes, such as taking it up the ass when thing don't go right at work.

Just like it's hilarious to see the conservative sheep get all mad and leave comments they seem to think are witty.

@ Anon 07:01

If you read my statement, I said they were exploring the prospect. I wasn't projecting any certainties, but honestly when I heard it, it made the most sense of any argument I had ever heard.

The reality is no creature in the history of nature will ever come into EXISTENCE as homosexual, as that would directly counter its further propagation. However being BORN homosexual is another matter. Obviously there are those who are homosexual by experiences in life, but the brain has been shown to have differences in homosexuals regardless of experiences, and they've been trying to trace it.

Let's face it, understanding homosexuality is beneficial in many ways, just as it's beneficial to be understanding of racial differences for diseases, such as black people are more susceptible to certain diseases than white and hispanic people and vice versa, same for any race of people.

In recent years, the issue has become that homosexuals have had to build a wall as they've come out en masse and tried to become equal members of society as they deserve, just like women before them. But also just like women before them, the militant lesbian no longer has a place in our society as a benefit, because unlike before, when said personality was a necessary force for the betterment of women, now she comes off merely as a 'whining bitch.'

Homosexuals are going to hit a similar wall if they haven't already. They aren't special, they're just homosexual, and human just like everyone else. They were projected as being special in the late 90s and early 00s with all the gay shows showcasing, but now there are, for lack of a better term, 'flaming fags' that are detrimental to their furthering their cause. There are 'gay' people and then there are 'fags,' following the same Chris Rock logic of "there are 'black people,' and then there's 'niggas.'" The latter in both examples are both not helpful to either society's acceptance and we all know it, as do they.

HouseLife
16:01

"sexuality is in fact caused by multiple aspects of their growth for better or worse"

i have to agree and disagree with you there, what you said may be true, but the way you meant it probably isn't.

i honestly think that anyone who says they will never or could never be attracted to the same sex is a closed minded mental invalid, at the same time gay people who could only imagine themselves with the same sex, or fem nazies are on the opposite side, but equally closed minded and equally mental invalids.

lets take it this way. i'm attracted to feminine form, a decent face, and lack of facial/body hair. i have seen men on the internet and in real life that i would be attracted to, but the majority of what i like are women. im assuming that with 90%+ of the people in the world its roughly the same, at least what they are attracted to, they look at the body and face first, see if they like it and go to see if the personality is right.

now for me at least if that body face and personality happed to have a penis attached to it, i really doubt i would care.

now for most people they would probably at some point like kids, and they want a kid that comes from part of them and their partner, well that cant happen from men to men yet but is possible from women to women. so thats one deturant. and another is they just cant imagine that rubbing their pussies together, or taking it in the ass can feel good, women cum more from rubbing than penetration as it is already, and men have a prostate which i know from my right hand and a lubricant can bring one hell of an orgasm (you masturbate over 40000 times in a 13 year period of time and tell me you dong get board of the same old thing every day)

my point is i believe that gay or straight has less to do with being brought up a certain way, or raised a certain way, than it has to do with most people are so fucking scared of exploring themselves to know what would feel good. some men are attracted to more masculine figures, while many women (i believe some studies said 50% were open to a lesbian experience) are attracted to a mix of feminine and masculine appearance.

Good points all. When it comes to sexuality, you were speaking more aesthetic, I was speaking on a much deeper spiritual and biological level. Literally our biology calls for certain things in the realms of procreation. I too am attracted to the male form, and I am interested in it as an artist. I consistently do life drawing and find dynamism and beauty in the male form. I was also gay in my teens for a short time, and still feel respect for the male form, but I will never be gay, and never will seek it because there's not even an inkling of going further than treating the male form like a piece of art.

I found out later that doctors have determined that during puberty when hormones are in overdrive, it's actually quite common for adolescents to experiment. I've determined that before the age of reason happens between 10-13, the vast majority of our thoughts are based on A+B=C logic, until afterward, when we gain complex thought processes based on enough experience and brain growth. Those basic thoughts combined with new body changes of course lead to such experiments.

Either way, I find it hard to consider what you say regarding kids. Nothing in that section makes sense, as women cannot have kids naturally. I was speaking entirely from our biological imperative. Our biology isn't aware of cloning or artificial insemination, it goes by nature. Heterosexuals' base functions can't suddenly be programming "Oh by the way, we can clone now." Homosexuals' biology MUST be adjusted to crave the same sex, there are chemical patterns and synapses that form for that purpose. So through however many methods exist, be it womb, events, etc. those pathways get rewritten or develop differently.

It has nothing to do with fear, the fear comes when you already have the desires to explore and then make a conscious choice to do so or not based on how you've been programmed in upbringing and such. The desires, however, come from somewhere else entirely.

You are talking from the exact defensive position that is detrimental to the gay communities now. Being gay comes from somewhere, and those studies you mention many of them are in fact true, just used irresponsibly. No matter what gay people wish heterosexuals to believe, there is a fundamental feeling from the perspective of people who DO procreate that homosexuality is in no way beneficial to them. This isn't an attack, nor is it gay bashing, it's a fundamental fact from the biological perception of heterosexuals. They're not against homosexuals intrinsically, they just have no use for them as a sexual being. You will never really get much better from heterosexuals than "You can do whatever you want, just leave me alone about it please" because it honestly is of literally no benefit to heterosexuals. If that's not enough, then they're simply asking too much. Homosexuality will never be a special situation, nor will it become something majestic. It is what it is, nothing more, nothing less. It's something that heterosexual people can accept and even respect, but unless there is scientific evidence for it, the majority can't be given a conduit with which to understand it as natural.

You'll find both sides of the same coin even after the science is established: those who will attempt to 'cure' homosexuality as if it somehow is a disease, and those who will use the knowledge to see homosexuality with more natural understanding. But if homosexuals cannot understand that their sexuality is in fact caused by multiple aspects of their growth for better or worse, then they will be in constant denial, and merely cause even heterosexuals like myself who WANT to listen and respect and understand to throw up our hands and just go 'fine, whatever, just leave me alone about it."

who cares genetically different is win. that ol man can eat a dick lolz