![Lava is wet. [1170x1454 - 182KB]](https://pic8.co/sh/7UV98u.jpg){kind=link}
I knew a gay guy that was not molested. He didn't do anything sexual until his 20s. He was raised in a Christian family with parents who were missionaries. He ended up with a man boobs and a feminine personality (not effeminate). He tried to pray the gay away, but that's not going to work when you're looking at gay porn. There are chemicals in the water that turn the frogs gay, and there are chemicals that turn the humans gay.
I also acknowledge the existence of rape and molestation and often times this gets people who shouldn't be gay to engage in gay sex. Then there's casting off boundaries and excess and desensitization often coming from excessive porn use. Add drugs and alcohol to the mix, and that can also contribute to screwing people up.
Its all the age old question : "Nurture or Nature?" Was it environmental or was it inherent?
I personally have always believed that homosexuality is a natural population control mechanism since it is non-reproductive. It would be likely that in this context then, that a chemical or something becomes more or less prevalent that could predispose one towards homosexuality - like you said, turn the frogs gay. And yes, if this all is true, they would most DEFINITELY use it as a population control method. Thats just the "nature" part.
the "Nurture" is the porn brain, the fetishizing, the propaganda (Rainbow Mafia, sex sells, BBC race mixing for Whites, etc) and all the kike nonsense.
I don't think it's genetic, but it's environmental chemical exposure interfering with proper development. It's most likely in the mother's womb, but it could also be after that in a child's earliest development. This will often produce people who are effeminate, have man boobs, a faggy voice, and other physical indicators (there's even a study on finger length).
(post is archived)