16% of young Christians are LGBT+
(protestia.com)
Comments (56)
sorted by:
Choose 1:
“born this way”
“600% increase in 10 years”
I never went with the "born this way" argument, even in my more Leftwing youth.
If homosexuality was so rampant in prisons, then whatever genetic factors cause it, does not suggest that the behavior of specific instance or instances is genetic. A crackhead doesn't suck dick for money because he's a genuine homosexual. Also, if gay men can be in straight relationships for years because their interest is from genetic influence, then it shows that there's going to be some numbers of straight men that are in homosexual relationships out of social conditioning or pressures.
That's what you're really seeing here.
First: straight men being told that their desire for emotional attachments with women in order to be sexually attracted to them is not "being normal and straight", but is instead "anromantic demisexuality" (I didn't make that up).
Second: there's going to be a large number of straight men that have been told "Being pansexual just means that you'll have sex with anyone of any sexuality" and them thinking "Okay, well, I'm going to just do that" because they are men and aren't sorting out their partner's sexualities first. They also have zero homosexual experiences during the entire time they are "pansexual".
Third: the data itself is being collected under social coercion. If you want to not be confronted with negative institutional pressures, or you want an incentive you would otherwise not get, you can identify as any sexuality (including anromantic demisexual), and no once can actually disprove you. Thus, corrupting the data.
Fourth: there is a genetic component to homosexuality. It never seems to drift past a few percentage points. These are homosexuals that actually don't have any interest in the other sex, and have only had homosexual sexual experiences, and have no response to the other sex's secondary sexual characteristics, and sometimes have a disgust reaction to them. These are the gays you take to conversion therapy, and they do a musical about how they won't be tempted to be gay (again, I didn't make that one up either). Everyone past 1-3% is probably straight, and those numbers don't ever seem to change.
There’s no evidence that’s supports being gay is genetic, every single study into it has been a colossal failure. The most we’ve seen as plausible arguments are women hormone fluctuations during pregnancy causing disruptive development of the fetus. This however does not explain identical twins, where almost always if one is gay, the other is not. The current “science” on this theory essentially claims that it’s just because the straight one does not know he’s gay.
Isn't that just so convenient that people "just don't know" that they're gay/trans/etc, and need to be shown the light?
The concept of an "egg" is disgusting and predatory, and I don't know how people don't see this sort of coercive behavior and rightfully shun it.
It's a pretty apt metaphor, though. They want to crack it open, destroying any future potential within.
Yup, and even then, there have been no consistent endocrinology studies to back up that point. If you surf through enough studies, you'll find that the actual premise for that is based on speculative conjecture: https://academic.oup.com/endo/article/152/8/2937/2457178
Basically, it's just guesswork that there might be some endocrines that might affect the orientation of a fetus. And this premise is based entirely on... theorycrafting.
I wish I was making that up.
This is the unfortunate result of “science” having to try and compensate for societal demands
You haven't met my cousin.
Same age as me, we grew up together in rural Idaho in the '80s. He always had slightly weird speech mannerisms and feminine interests (going back to like 4-5 years old). He also had no shortage of friends in rural Idaho despite being a somewhat effeminate dude because he wasn't a narcissistic faggot. Came out as gay in his early 20s and I was completely unsurprised. He's now been married for 15 years.
So I don't know how you'd measure a "genetic" component, but there's definitely something there, at least for some people. And given the amount of repulsion the thought of gay sex gives me, I don't see how a not-actually-gay person could get past that and actually willingly have a gay relationship.
And before you say "must have been molested as a baby" -- I'm just going to say, I doubt it. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.
That’s not genetics… again why I brought forward the only current viable hypothesis, which essentially boils down “it most likely happens during fetus development, but we don’t actually know”. There’s also the harsh reality that there are far more men that engage in sodomy without being “gay” the more it is normalized and accepted.
And we can't know because investigating homosexuality from that angle is "bigotry" and a stepping stone to conversion therapy.
I'm not going to argue the studies, because I think none of the studies have been good. So far, the most we've got is correlations. I still believe there is a non-social explanation to some homosexuality.
I've often found that there seems to be, among the stories of homosexuals and heterosexuals (who were experiencing) a common theme among males that "discovered" they were one way or the other. I call it: "The Dick-In-Mouth Test"
It seems to actually be pretty clear that in their own words, the subjects identified that they were going to try and fool around with a male partner they were comfortable with and there were two reactions:
One: the subject would see the other males dick, have a near insatiable desire to put it in their mouth, and think that this was a good idea.
Two: the subject would (by one way or another) have their friend's dick in their mouth, and immediately decide that this was a bad idea.
One is homosexual. Two is heterosexual.
Nobody seems to have the reaction of: "Meh, I could go either way with this dick in my mouth" or "I'm not sure what to think of this dick in my mouth, but I think I could be persuaded one way or the other, lets give it some time."
Nope, it seems to be pretty clear and pretty consistent in each case.
I tend to think that such a clear reaction for their first homosexual encounter is likely going to be an indicator of a genetic pressure rather than a social pressure.
You don't need to teach a straight guy to like boobs. You also don't need to teach a gay guy to eat dick.
Nature, uh, finds a way.
We have approximately ZERO credible correlations in any field of medical science.
We saw under covid that even DEATHS are manipulated easily. Good luck with anything more nuanced
Instructions unclear: died in a motorcycle accident and became gay
Maybe that's why they're pushing straight men to date troons so hard.
No, that's mostly because troons are horrifically unattractive and can't find dates.
If the Incels were given the same status as troons, they'd act in the same way (except with a lot less genital mutilation and child rape). The hyperaggression and demands that society compensate them would be the same.
Incels specifically, not Volcels or MGTOW.
It was on full display in the Tiger King documentary. He got multiple straight guys to take it up the butt because he had an ample supply of meth the give out.
I doubt that, that's much more of a feminine action.
It's far more likely going to be men who have no social value until they act effeminate, and find that feminine men get social value by default, and access to at-will sex. Easy trade off compared to being unwanted and alone.
I've said it before, but practically every gay person I've ever known has been pretty open about that they'd been raped/molested when they were children. Anecdotal, but seems too strange to be a coincidence.
And plenty of gay celebrities talk openly about "having sex" with "older men" when they were young.
It's amazing how captured the whole "gay" thing is. It's not like "born this way" versus "choice" versus "circumstance" makes a huge difference anyway. Plenty of terrible people are in part claimed to be "born this way." Some great people have absolutely terrible childhoods, but overcome it. So "born this way" isn't even an excuse. But the people pushing this alphabet stuff think they can force society to be more sympathetic if "that's just who gay people are." Even though it doesn't really matter much. I suppose they don't want people talking about all the people raping children...for some reason. "What an odd thing to say," as the Lotus Eaters like to say. Also, they want to stigmatize the idea of a gay "cure" or anything to that effect.
And, to be nuanced, to some extent I get it. It's basic self-preservation, in that sense it's fairly natural. Gays have been persecuted, at times viciously. Nazis did do a number on them, for example. The farther a group can get away from "well, perhaps they don't have to be that way," the safer they at least feel. I'd argue it might be counterproductive, though. If a group is innate and unchangeable, but keeps engaging in harmful behavior, that might make some extreme elements more interested in a final solution, not less. But I certainly get the instinct to try to hide behind "born this way." And it pushes the boundary; even if it might make extreme measures more likely, it takes a lot longer to get there. So "born this way" is at the very least a short term safety measure. It tries to force society to ignore the issue until it's too big to ignore...kicks the can down the road, basically.
I think it also makes them feel better about themselves. This is not a dig at gay people, for the record. But, if we are going with the "having homosexual sex at a young age messes up your sexuality," these people are often quite damaged. Some deal with it better than others, but there are plenty of people who hate themselves, or simply don't understand themselves. If they were just born that way, that makes it easier to accept, than that something was done to them to make them how they are. If they weren't born that way, though, I think it would be much healthier to face that. Imagine if we had therapists that actually helped people. That would be amazing.
If "teh ghey" is something that is done to someone, that seems like one of the biggest issues that should be addressed in that person's life. But instead we as a society are all on board the "affirmation" train. Which is one of the most retarded trains in existence, and seems counter to all good personal growth. But, hey, what do I know? I'm not an Expert™. Remember, Trust the Science.
This probably the most nuanced perspective on the subject and the captured state of the conversation by the Left.
Interesting that I haven’t heard born this way in years
Oh yea. That’s when I lost all respect for him. Well he was annoying before that but then he moved into the territory of “all my science conveniently supports whatever the latest leftie talking point is”
Choose one : LGBTBBQ Christian
Like it or not, those things are mutually exclusive
> Pushes both buttons
"That's because they can finally be themselves, you <insert current_year insult>!"
The fact that 15% of the Muslims sampled identify as non-heterosexual tells me that non-heterosexuals are being massively oversampled in every demographic for this study. Every stat on here is bullshit.
Fake and gay.
What percent of Christians are...Christian?
That would be a much more interesting statistic.
Probably near zero. American Protestants are obsessed with wealth and productivity, something the Bible is actively against (yes, you have to work, but industry does not come before worship of God). Sending girls to college and letting them party their years away is decidedly un-Christian.
16% of young Christians aren’t Christians
Atheists and agnostics seem incredibly gay, almost half.
I’m convinced most atheists didn’t really give it much thought. They go “well, I’m liberal and/or gay so I can’t be religious which means I’m an atheist” and that’s about it. For them, atheism didn’t come at the end of a process of introspection and questioning, it was simply another garment they gathered in creating their costume of “progressive.” This is why I can’t tolerate other atheists. Atheism, if arrived at after thought, should go hand-in-hand with skepticism. Most other atheists don’t have that. They mindlessly go along with every liberal thought (the vaccine is wonderful, nobody ever groomed a child ever, Trump wanted to execute all minorities and gays and it’s only by wearing knitted pussy hats that his holocaust was stopped) and oppose any detractors as vehemently as the most brainwashed cultist.
The "I hate Whites/Christians/Western" starter pack, essentially.
Weren't they also like 90% for the vaccine, or something? Atheists are* fucking bottom-barrel retarded.
And I say this as an ex-agnostic (which I'd argue is vastly better than atheism, but still.) It really is amazing, though. Atheists, especially modern atheists, managed to take "there is no God," make that into a religion, and then be more cultlike (not to mention more cuntlike) than all but the most cultiest of culty religions.
I'll say it again. Atheists are retarded.
* Often (don't @ me bros!)
Yeah, there's a reason I learned very quickly not to interact with other athiests. 99.9% of their bullshit tends to come down to 'I hate you Christian dad!' by any other words. And don't go much beyond that.
Yup, that's the funny bit. I don't care if someone believes in a god or not. That's on them. But, like some other groups that get memed on (vegans, crossfitters, climate cultists, etc.), they just get absolutely obsessive and obnoxious.
My issue with atheists isn't their beliefs, it's their hypocritical behavior. The cultish atheists love to hide behind calling their critics religious fanatics, when often that's not where the criticism is rooted. This brand of atheist really needs to have those victim points, like a lot of other progressive identity politics users. "Oh, no, the big bad Christian Extremists hate me because I've debonked their precious Sky Daddy." No, that person is hated because they're a cunt. Their persecution complex just makes them even more unbearable.
A ton of them are "LGBTQ2SIA+" already, so there's a contributing factor to that.
The other part that I've seen from atheists is "I don't care who I have sex with, so I'm Pansexual", which is lumped in with the rest as "not straight". This doesn't correspond to actual sexual experiences, of which all of the 'pansexual's' experiences will be heterosexual in nature.
You might even get: "No, I'm not heterosexual because I'm a pansexual male and I slept with a pansexual female. That's not straight."
It's all word games.
Is their Muslim sample exclusively second generation immigrants under 25? That's the only way you could come anywhere close to 15% queer in that demographic.
Wow. I have no words.
You always have a good percentage of any religious group that is easily indoctrinated into cults and extremism, this is definitely within those parameters.
The atheists SLIGHTLY being less gay than the agnostics also makes a lot of sense..
16% of young Christians are lost on the road to hell.
A bit misleading. The percentage that identifies as gay/lesbian is small and pretty consistent across all the IDs until you get to Jewish/Buddhist/Agnostic/Atheist etc. Identifying as Buddhist/Agnostic/Atheist whatever is kind of college rebellion typical bullshit.
I'm going to try to dig into the data a bit, it come from FIRE (a great organization) free speech surveys.
As always, "Other" / "Bi" / "Something else" is for basic bitches who want to pretend they are not basic bitches. "Ew, straight, that's for karens. I'm special and bi even though I only fuck guys."
Anyone have the link to the original source? Want to look at the methodology because if true this is pretty catastrophic.
This doesn't surprise me. Modern culture produces amorphous blobs and doesn't provide men and women with healthy role models. Male nature, in particular, is hated and hunted down by both the left AND the right. The right in particular has gone all in on feminism in the last few years. They may claim to want "manly men" but as the saying goes look at what they do and not what they say.
There was a huge die off of humans tens of thousands of years ago where only 1600 humans survive... if 50% or even 15% was gay, we would be fucked and went extinct. Basically genetic bottle neck where we are genetically extinct because eventual inbreeding. If humans back then were super gay or cut off their dicks with stone axes, problem wouldve been worse. But... luckily cro magnons and homo erectus had sexy time and merged to create modern humans.
they're not christians, then.
Pretty soon there won't be any. gen z is only 2/3 straight