/lit/ - Literature

>>10541727
>nonfaggots
>philosophers
pick one and only one, especially for pure math

>>10541727
where was that lecture given? link?

>>10541727
You won't find a non-teleological argument against it, but some have tried to make one

>>10541739
this.

I would love to see the reactions in the room

>In the heterosexual act, it might be said, I move out from my body towards the other, whose flesh is unknown to me; while in the homosexual act I remain locked within my body narcissistically contemplating in the other an excitement that is the mirror of my own.

>>10541727
>The function of sex is procreative unity
Wrong.

Aristotle

>>10541745
This. The only reason the Abrahamic religions can't accept homosexuality is because it doesn't serve a purpose, and given the logic of the religion, it must therefore be a consequence of the Fall, i.e., it cannot be a good.

>>10541758
t. roastie

>>10541745
It gives AIDS

>>10541769
>t. roastie

Ignore sodomite orders.

The Germanic tribes used to drown homos in bogs, as described in Germania by Tacitus
>"Traitors and deserters are hanged on trees; cowards, shirkers, and sodomites are pressed down under a wicker hurdle into the slimy mud of a bog."
you cannot defend homosexuality

>>10541782
I wonder for what reason a person would have that picture saved on their computer

>>10541769
>ill never procreate with muh aryan goddess if des libruls keep corrupting em

>>10541785
It makes me laugh every time I see it

>>10541727
Homosexuality goes against the Categorical Imperative

>>10541784
You cannot defend slave morality

>>10541792

In what way? It only seems to violate the categorical imperative if there's no such thing as being a homosexual; ie, if sexuality is fluid or a choice.

>>10541727
I've often wondered if the Arthurian legend about the wounding of the grail king could be interpreted as an admonishment of homosexuality.
Metaphorical dick (the lance of Longinus) on actual dick "action" leaves the land barren.
Not exactly philosophy, but something to think about.

>>10541796
Elaborate on this please

>>10541727
Hope you never go sterile for any reason or that your partner never develops uterine cancer and has to have a hysterectomy. Also I hope you are highly aware of your moral obligation to never have sex with somebody without being able to guarantee you will ejaculate. Have you had your sperm count tested recently? Do you ever masturbate ever?

>>10541810
t. triggered homo

>>10541818
I have not once heard an argument against homosexuality that wasnt rooted in fee fees.

>>10541751
neat

>>10541805

> Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become an universal law

> Everyone should be allowed to have solely non-procreative sex

Effectively only good under Anti-natalism. Still a consistent position, but what you are arguing against.

> Homosexuals should be allowed to have solely non-procreative sex

Doesn't result in a position only good under anti-natalism; breeding still occurs.

>>10541784
Wtf I love being Germanic now

>>10541824
Is it not exactly the same stance the people who support same sex marriage use? "love will prevail" "we will have our day" etc.

It stems from the same feels before reals attitude

>>10541751
This but unironically.

>>10541784
looks like the barbarians were based

fuck Socrates and his boyfucking bunch

Lesbian here.

Just a reminder that we are taking over. The fact is women have NEVER been attracted to men: we needed them for protection, economic support and procreation, and sex is what we traded for those things (or they just raped us).

But now? First-world men have been totally domesticated, so no need to worry about violence. We're taking over the work force too, so we can provide for ourselves. And medical science has made procreative sex totally unnecessary; we can just buy the sperm (with our superior earnings) and have it cleanly injected without getting within ten feet of a penis.

Women are naturally more attracted to other women. Who wouldn't be? We're beautiful, soft and smooth and curvy, basically the opposite of hairy oafish ape-like men. And we know how to please each other like no man ever could. Lesbian sex can last for hours.

Every day more and more "straight" girls are being turned. The world of the future is where a small number of strong men act as our designated studs and the rest of you losers are eunuchs designated for manual labor exclusively. Deal with it.

>>10541727
>A Critique of Pure Trapness
>Queer Ultraviolence

>>10541751
This is just an argument for bears to fuck twinks and butches to fuck femmes.

>>10541836
Nonsense, here's a good one:
>By limiting what I can do with my body you limit what you can do with your own
>By demanding that somebody pretends to be something they're not you introduce mental stress that will contribute to slumps in their labor
>By denying the ability of homosexuals to form partnerships you deny orphans homes creating a net increase in crime when they age
>By demanding daddy government put the homosexuals in time out you only drive them underground, increasing the spread of disease as the culture becomes criminalized and safe sex info suppressed
>Suppressing homosexuality will require spending tax payer money on imprisoning and rooting out homosexuals who can always pull a Hoover and take over one of these costly institutions for their own protection

What was your argument again btw? Something about gays hurting your feelings and offending you? Remind me why we should waste money to protect your feelings.

>>10541848
this is copypasta, right?

It's enjoyable and therefor evil.

>>10541848
>LARPing

>Women are naturally more attracted to other women.
Untrue. The only reason lesbianism and homosexuality are prevalent in """modern""" society is the feminization of men in mass media, and the usage of female sexuality to sell product.

At least you admit homosexuality "turns" people, as opposed to it being biologically innate. Though, I disagree with the word choice.

I don't know why I replied to this semi-seriously.

Stupid ones.

>>10541767
Aristotle was none too fond of it either.
>>10541847

>>10541848
This post is not /u/ approved.

>>10541863
>IF YOU DON'T LET ME FUCK MEN IN THEIR POO POO HOLES I WILL BECOME A RABID MENTALLY ILL CHILD ABUSING CRIMINAL
what an argument

>>10541782
as above, so below

>>10541863
>What was your argument again btw? Something about gays hurting your feelings and offending you? Remind me why we should waste money to protect your feelings.

Not the guy who posted the first post, but arent you the one who mentioned feelings in the first place?

And besides noone is (or will be) suppressing anything, if anything it's being more welcomed now more than ever if you live in a civilized part of the world that is, Also what do the orphans have to with the equation, adaptations are strict already as it is

>>10541796
If homesexuality was a maxim everyone adopted, humanity would die out

>>10541796
A person can choose to only engage in homosexual sex acts, and you would label them a homosexual, so yes it is a choice.

>>10541833
>under anti-natalism
Nope. If your parents had solely non-procriative sex you wouldn't be here to have non-procriative sex.
Kant is weird, but consistent. Look up the lying argument.

>>10541905
What does this have to do with the categorical imperative?
>>10541896
Homosexuality is an act, not a maxim. I still don't know what the maxim would be which is permissible under the categorical imperative. The one that >>10541833 gave still has the problem of referring to some particular entity as part of the maxim, which I do not think Kant permits.

>>10541836
Feelings are a valid reason to get married, they are not a valid reason to restrict the rights of others.

>>10541882
Is that what I said? Well ya better lube that feelhole my dude cause im gonna fact inside you. I will infect you with HIV positivism. You will beg to cum but I will hang a sign that says "heteros need not apply". Then I will find your son and teach him how to apply mascara.

>>10541895
You're right, I did because I've never heard a non emotional argument from homophobes, I was kinda hoping to flush one out.

And yeah, things are getting better I'm not denying that just outlining why continuing in that direction makes practical sense and why getting your feelings in a twist over another man's pee pee is ridiculous and expensive.

>>10541905
A person can't however choose what they're attracted to. A man attracted to men is homosexual, a woman attracted to women similarly. Lying about this fact changes nothing.

Tommy likes spicy foods
Tommy hates the taste of bland foods
Tommy only eats chili in private
Tommy only eats turkey and mayo sandwiches in public

Does Tommy like spicy or bland foods?

bump

>>10541810
You realize that all of this is already accounted for in Roman Catholic moral teaching, right? Why are you brining up points that have already been refuted?

>>10541824
How about medical reasons? Nothing like getting a perforated colon and having fecal matter travel through your bloodstream settle in your brain tissue. Ask a proctologist what he thinks of sodomy.

>>10541975
Show us these refutations and lets check how hard or flaccid they are.

>>10541982
Superior to an emotional argument, absolutely. But what you think youre saying and what youve actually said are different. Lemme explain:

>Not all homosexual men participate in anal sex
>Not all anal sex results in a perforated colon
>Suppressing information on safe homosex will not reduce the number of perforated colons
>By this logic lesbian women are a-ok
>By this logic heterosexual anal sex must also be restricted
>By this logic we must restrict all other potentially sex acts such as bdsm, oral sex and of course putting a penis in a vagina which can result in
>By this logic we should restrict all potentially harmful acts including the consumption of poisons like alcohol or spicy foods which can also cause colon damage

This also doesn't affect my previous economic arguments where you're asking taxpayers to give their money to the government to stop two adults from having consensual sex because it might harm them and not you.

Get the picture? I'm too fiscally conservative to approve of homophobia

>>10541727
>homosexuals
>listening to reason

Nice attempt

>>10542008
>By this logic we must restrict all other potentially sex acts such as bdsm, oral sex and of course putting a penis in a vagina which can result in
Oooph I erased a portion of this while editing, my b

Cuts, bleeding, infection and disease transmission and of course: carpet burn

>>10542026
>Carpet burn
Hahahaha holy fuck that's the gayest thing I ever read.

>>10542036
well they are the masters of sexual deviancy

The other side of the coin is that some homosexuals have just decided that they want to be happy with their mate and that they'll never do right by society/authorities/the more bitter elements of /lit/.

>>10542049
tolerance of homosexuality is part of the reason western birth rates are falling

>>10542060
Well depends at the states you look at, I think Russia has a ban on these sort of advertisements because you the reason you specified, since it can only cripple the birthrate but then again they're not exactly paragons of human rights

>>10542036
t. incel
You can burn your back pretty badly on some carpet sex my dude. For this reason sex on carpets MUST be restricted to limit the spread of carpet burn which can lead to bleeding and further infection.

All sex must be held under careful supervision and take place on linoleum mats that are lubricated with cosmetic grade south korean snail slime so as to prevent friction.

>>10542060
It's either that or an urban, increasingly automated society with a large information based economy has less use for a large population than a rural agricultural society or even a burgeoning industrial society.

one or the other, who can even tell lmao

>>10542060
Falling birthrates has everything to do with the increased cost of having children, and nothing to do with The Gays. When you live a rural life children can even be a net positive because after a few seasons they start to be able to provide labour.

ilu gayfag

>>10541733

Read the Symposion. Western civilization was built on a foundation of gay assfucking.

>>10541751

>gay sex is narcissistic rather than ecstatic

Nice assertion bro.

>>10541784

You can't attack it :^)

>>10541896

Same thing would happen if everyone spent their youth fapping to BLACKED and browsing the 4chinz, but it doesn't seem to have stopped any of you lot.

>>10541847

>barbarians were based

>Destroys roman civilization, sending Europe into the dark ages
>LOL BUT AT AT LEAST THEY KILLED GAYS XDDDDDD

This is your brain on /pol/.

>Redpillers love the Freudians like Jung
>Redpillers also violently reject homosexuality
>Redpillers don't even realize their rejection of homosexuality stems from a latent and repressed desire to satisfy the penis they wished they had.

Sad!

>>10542016

Not like us REAL REDPILLED MEN who use LOGIC and REASON instead of arguing with our FEELINGS and POSTMODERNISM. Those GAYS and LIBERALS will never now the power of RATIONALITY. If they did, they wouldn't be GAY LIBERALS.

Any that argue heavily for something homosexuality "can't" achieve.

>>10542093
you obviously didn't read the Symposium.

>>10542099
Good use of caps, you sure showed him who's the boss

>>10541751
Yet Roger Scruton is the biggest fag in the entire world. Strange.

>>10541727
>the fulfillment of a function is good

My prostate has the potential to induce spiritual orgasms therefore I'm obligated to slam that shit with a big fat cock.

jk fags are degenerate and a sign of our decadence, a risk factor for civilizational collapse, catastrophe which I'm obligated to oppose for the sake of security, the highest value, among my progeny and self.

When I was younger I remember trying to construct secular arguments against homosexuality because I had abandoned Catholicism but still retained a conservative worldview. My arguments were embarrassingly weak and so I became more liberal/libertarian.

>>10542105

>bunch of fags talking about the nature of love
>the doctrine that love of beautiful (male) bodies is a stage on the way to love of beauty in other manifestations is explicitly argued for
>the text explicitly endorses gay assfucking for the purpose of education of both fucker and fuckee

>>10542126
Yeah that's how it usually goes. When you ditch the moral/religious/emotional arguments against homosexuality you start to realize how impractical and expensive homophobia is.

>>10541932
>A person can't however choose what they're attracted to.
Fetishes aren't fully predetermined genetically, you can actually condition your brain to acquire new fetishes or to loosen current ones. Homosexuality is no different

>>10542087
the increase in homos correlates with decoupling socio-economic fate from reproductive success and ability to maintain heterosexual extended kin-network relationships over decades. one can go to harvard from single parent home, get degree in finance, become millionaire, bang whores whole life and then produce one homo kid who legacies into harvard and, gets cushy finance job from daddy’s firm and produces no heirs to daddy’s bloodline. the startup wealth culture in america has now backfired, there is a vacuum which wealth grows in, without social mediation of ascent or contextual constraints on its spread or descent through generations which means you have legions of affluent homo faggots who can’t continue their families prestige project. homosex also growing from chemical shit storm that atomize half-breed single mom autistic FIFA youth are exposed to+hentai defilement vectors for xenosexuality

>>10542060
>MUH BIRTHRATES
lmao

>>10542119

>so's im movin the fammly out to da'cuntry cuz y'caint trusst d govvermnt no more. gots my munny alls in buckshot and gold. caint bleeve these libburuls want they chiddren in thaim same bathrooms as queers! gettn of the grid!

>>10542119

You're actually not allowed to post on the board if you didn't start with the Greeks, just thought I'd let you know.

>>10542135
>expensive homophobia

Can you elaborate on that please? I know you previously mentioned how much people would spend to combat something such as homosexuality but is that close to what you had in mind with those words?

>>10542137
>produces no heirs to daddy’s bloodline
and having a female child is just as worthless as having no children at all amirite

>>10542136
This would require homosexuality to be a fetish. Good luck proving that senpai

Furthermore even if we blindly accepted homosexuality not as a sexuality but as a fetish, then we still find ourselves faced with an argument demanding that we spend millions of dollars to cause harm to economy because some people don't like the fetishes the others.

>>10542151
Yeah it's pretty much that but also the fallout of it as well. Suppressing homosexuality doesn't get rid of homosexuals it just ruins their lives and makes them unhappy.

Which is a recipe for criminal elements, the spread of disease, sluggish laborers, the loss of skilled laborers via emigration (their gay asses won't stay in a homophobic country) and unadopted orphans who have a higher chance of becoming criminals as they age.

It's big waste of money not just in the short term but long term. Total cuckoldry.

>>10542136
this reminds me of Patrice's joke

"why is being gay a preference, but tieing and peeing on a bitch a fetish"

>>10542173
If suppressing sexuality makes people miserable, then are all priests "unhappy"?

Are all Tibetan monks "unhappy"?

>>10541982

Homosexuality = sodomy.

Hunh. I wonder where that guy I know who
is only attracted to men but only frots and jerks
off with other men fits in, then.

>>10542210

The same place that virtually every homosexual woman fits in. But women don't count because reasons.

>>10542201
Unhappy isn't the right word. Agitated is closer. There is unresolved tension that works its way into a persons mind.

>>10542201
Giving into sexual pleasure has caused more harm than good.

>>10542093
>Read the Symposion.
You missed the point of that guys post entirely.

>>10542130
>the text explicitly endorses gay assfucking for the purpose of education of both fucker and fuckee
why is this horrendous misreading of symposium so common?

>>10542226
But they meditate on the nature and value of that agitation and most are able to successfully rid themselves of it.

>>10542251

>You missed the point of that guys post entirely.

I sure did.

>why is this horrendous misreading of symposium so common?

Because it's funny.

>>10542201
This would be the difference between a voluntary virginity and an involuntary virginity. If you chose to not have sex you'd probably be okayish with the blueballing. If I came and beat you with a police club every time you wanted to get your dick wet you'd become a pretty dysfunctional person.

>>10541727
This was an attempt by some anon. What are the thoughts on this work?

>>10542258
Is that why pedophilia is so rampant in Catholicism?

>>10542275
I will rape this silly in a little bit, keep it lubed ok? I just gotta wrap somethings up first and that is a whole wall of text to fondle. It'll take a moment.

>>10542172
>and having a female child is just as worthless as having no children at all amirite
idk, ask the chinese. Betas have daughters, Alphas have sons.

>>10542282
>So rampant
It's a small percentage
>Pedophilia=homo
Lol because heteros never fuck children.

>>10542293
>It's a small percentage
It's a consistent and dangerous trend among abstinent priests across the globe and religion fampai. A suppressed sexuality is rarely healthy. But I'm also >>10542270, so I understand that some of these volcels are fairly well adjusted because it was a voluntary decision that they are dedicated to handling.

Other people who were maybe lukewarm in their commitment or of greater sexual appetites than they imagined don't handle abstinence so well. Just add an innocent image and a position of power and bam! Instant rapist, easy as making kool aid.

>Lol because heteros never fuck children.
Yeah you only misunderstood me here, I'm not making any kind of defense for homophobia. And correct me if I'm wrong but aren't the majority of pedophiles "hetero"?

>>10541751
That's rich coming from a man who's so in love with himself he won't even try to pretend he knows shit about art or aesthetics anymore because he can't conceive himself being wrong.

>>10542289

>Betas have daughters, Alphas have sons
>Living in a fragile, terrified fantasy universe where big penises are the only virtue.

>>10542275
Interesting post anon

What are the reason non gays are obsessed with gays?

Because they are afraid their son, nephew, cousins, if homosexuality is accepted, will have greater chance of considering being gay (not a choice whatever), will think its more acceptable to be gay, if they are on the border.

Dont like seeing men kiss or hold hands or walk down the street together. Dont like the gay voice. Dont want the town to become full of rainbows. Dont want family members seeing 'weirdos'.

Feel that gays are fundamentally nihllistic, as if they have escaped all rules, and so their intellect and reason cannot be trusted: if they are willing to so go against nature (i know i know) and so give up tradition and the standard and love pleasure more than anything else, and at any moment give in to primal temptation, to give up their body to harm so flamboyantly and on display to all: for the gays that you can tell they are gay walking down the street, it is a walking advertisement billboard yelling: I am so irrational I dont care about the saftey of my anus! So how can they feel comfortable driving around in the street in cars, a gay person could fender bender them at any time, not even for creation, but just for fun.

These are the only reasons I can think of

>>10542142
>Oprah running for president is currently a real possibility

Do you not see our trajectory since the 2011 lgbt cultural insurgency? Cultural warfare is real and the dynamism of social media has been invigorative in our progression toward increasing jeopardization of stability.

>>10542145
I skipped the greeks because it's boring and worthless and started with Descartes.

My interests only go as far as that which is experienced [entails all real things] (i.e. what actually matters). Your fantasy world of ideas and philosophical tradition is a story you're telling yourself and as long as that old crusty story isn't bearing practical fruit it's a waste of your limited time.

Fuck the Greeks, their approach (the most important part for new students) has no connection to us and their ideas aren't interesting enough to obsess over for more than a day. Their only relevance is revealing the order of questions and observations on the tree of philosophy. All the relevant parts are gleaned in the broad strokes, the rest is useless information particular to the works themselves. 10 hours on wikipedia plus the good parts of major texts is more than enough.

This meme is gatekeeping bullshit and you're a faggot for spreading it. Starting with Discourse on the Method is actually good advice for anyone who wants to get something useful from philosophy and enjoy themselves.

>>10542309
oh yeah bud how's he wrong then

>>10542326
Do you think that Oprah's possible presidency is more related to gay people slowly getting fewer rocks thrown at them or Donald Trump (a reality tv star and personal brand merchant with 0 political experience) winning the presidency only a year ago?

>>10542305
Is becoming a priest not a voluntary action?

You're saying here that certain people will choose become priests but due to urges outside of their control, they will inevitably end up raping a child. So sometimes people have free will but other times they don't? Either we are in control of our sexual appetites or we are not.

>>10542326
>I skipped the greeks because it's boring and worthless

>>10542305
It's a consistent and dangerous threat in education and pre schools and the medical field too. It's a problem for any institution with access to children. sexual repression of a pedophile will always be a constant factor in today's society too.

>>10541882
You can turn any well-thought out argument into a stupid all-caps sentence, that doesn't invalidate the perfectly reasonable points he laid out. This isn't /b/.

>>10542326
>see pic

>not fulfilling your duties as a husband and making sure your wife is constantly pregnant, while at the same time rogering the stable boy on the side like a good Byronic hero.

>>10542282
>Is that why pedophilia is so rampant in Catholicism?
The proportion of pedophiles within the Catholic clergy is actually less than the proportion of pedophiles in the general population. But my theory is that the forced celibacy attracts men with unresolved sexual disorders since it provides them an excuse to repress themselves.

>>10542342
>Is becoming a priest not a voluntary action?
Usually sure. But you can misunderstand your own commitment to abstinence, your devotion to a higher ideal. You can be convinced by others around you to become a priest and later regret your decision.

>You're saying here that certain people will choose become priests but due to urges outside of their control, they will inevitably end up raping a child.
Not quite! Im saying it possible that a repressed sexuality can lead to that. It's inevitable but it can be happen and it's almost assuredly a sign of a person who has repressed their sexuality and can't handle it so they seek a target.

>So sometimes people have free will but other times they don't?
We have free will to make decisions based on our judgement. Our judgement is altered by chemical, psychological, social, economic, etc forces. And our ability to act out our decisions is dependent on our surroundings as well and whether they allow for the decided upon action. Decisions that require a constant commitment to repeating that decision are subject to the same forces as before but are constantly called into question resulting in a higher variety of forces exerted on your decision making process and enforcement.

>Either we are in control of our sexual appetites or we are not.
Nothing is ever this black and white

>>10542282
I'll be waiting.

>>10542326
If you skipped Greek philosophy how do you know it's boring and worthless?

To paraphrase Socrates, to think one knows what he does not know is nothing more than thinking oneself wise when one is not.

>>10542371
Exactly. To argue that any institution "creates" a pedophile is stupid. To argue that we know what creates any deviant is dumb because it's probably very different on individual level and we don't have an empirical consensus on human sexuality now anyways so how could anyone assert they know why adults are attracted to a deviant act?

I'm not reading through all the replies here desu but it seems like the secular argument in opposition to gay sex is not being given an adequate account. I'll try to simplify it in greentext

>there are homosexuals
>they did not choose to be attracted to the same sex
>however they can choose to engage in sexual acts of their own free will
>nobody forces a homosexual man to have homosexual sex
>gay sex, freely chosen, violates the categorical imperative
>being attracted to the same sex does not violate the categorical imperative
>gay sex violates the categorical imperative precisely because if everyone did it, it would mean the extinction of the humanity and existence is a good in Kantian morality

That's the gist of it. Homosexuality is neither bad nor good, it just is. Freely choosing to engage in gay sex is bad, because that is a choice. This isn't even getting into the teleological/natural law argument against homosexual acts, which I hope is obvious to most people.

>>10542450
being a police officer violates the categorical imperative because if everyone was a police officer the human race would cease to exist shortly

>>10542275
So will anyone talk about this?

>>10541824
What argument is there in favour of homosexuality that isn't rooted in fee fees?

>>10542450
Bad argument. You can freely choose to have sex with women and with men. Your formulation should be if everyone was exclusively homosexual. As everyone knows, and you should know which makes you duplicitous, its common for homosexual men to have children with women. Your argument doesn't explain that homosexual sex is wrong. Everyone having gay sex doesn't mean no one would have straight sex.

>>10542282
It's been a little while fairy, where are you at?

>>10542471
For what reason? The guy claims in the first post gays take you through a journey of fallacious logic but then claims his entire foundation of being against gays is a feeling that they're in error. He destroys his own position from the outset.

>>10542450
>gay sex, freely chosen, violates the categorical imperative

Two problems with this:

1) The categorical imperative has big problems and even if you accept Kant's metaphysics (which you have to) it is unfunded.

2) It does not violate the categorical imperative since you can still procreate in vitro without sex or you can engage in heterosexual sex just for procreation out of duty, while keeping your gay lovers.

On the other hand forcing gay people to be hetero because of procreative needs goes against the imperative as you are using people as means to an end (population) instead of ends to themselves

imagine if you really liked chocloate chip cookies, loved them extremely, but your whole life everyone looked at you angrily and mean: you cant like chocolate chip cookies, you cant have any, you cant love them, everyone hates you and ostracizes you and thinks you are strange and dumb and crazy and stupid and wrong if you think you like them, or want them: and then one day you say, who cares what other people think, I am going to accept my love for cookies and celebrate it, without hesitation or shame, I am going to enjoy it and go seek to eat cookies: imagine how good that will feel, to finally be free and true, without the tension of a million faces angrily peering in your soul at each what they say wicked thought. And then a few months later you die of diabetes.

>>10542471
whats more harmful to the human race: gays or alcohol/tobacco?

>>10542479
your argument against homosexuality is that every man should seek a woman to marry or live their life alone?

>>10542479
I put one out there didn't I? >>10541863

>>10542489
Ive been triangulating your position. In t minus 400 seconds I will be knee deep inside your boipuss-puss and I will turn your shithole into a Haitian nightmare. I will put so much seamen in your rectal regions you will swear you were a prosperous coastal city with a flourishing port.

I just got home, gimme a moment to make my lunch and I'll get you. This is an imageboard not a chatroom. I can do lil posts p easily on my phone but a big whole hunk like that stud you posted takes a keyboard.

Lesbianism is encouraged in Christianity.
Also, Eve and Lilth.jpg

I think a lot of you guys wouldn't be so uptight if you just touched your prostate once in a while. But you won't because you don't want to prove the bullies who used to call you a faggot right.

>>10542517
Why does that matter without resorting to an argument rooted in feels

>>10542523
That was my first post in this thread retard. I live in Seattle where scum like you are 12% or so of the total population, don't worry nigga. Hope you off yourself.

>>10542530
We are talking about law and freedom: what do you feel the law should be regarding gays?

>>10542552
No we're talking about the arguments win favour of homosexuality which aren't rooted in feels

>>10542551
Omg I live in Seattle too, consider yourself fucked kiddo. I'm pocket meat rocket salad here to toss you up and down like a fucksketball. I will swish my prick into the net of your soft lips. I will bend your rectum, like beckham.

what region are you? Youre in for a pounding~

>>10542514
Finance

>>10542514
trannys

>>10542559
there is only law and freedom: do you believe homosexuality should be against the law? If not...you just...feel... that they shouldnt have sex?

>sick homosexual threatens his interlocutors with rape
ah yes

>>10542598
You're the one arguing against the natural order of things so you need to justify your position

>>10542606
not every man produces offspring, are they against the natural order (not even ones that are infertile, but fertile men, who get married, sometimes dont have kids, are they equal to gays?)

>>10542605
It's a metaphor. It's meta, for I will rape him in his degenerate heterosexual mouth hole.

It's called SHITPOSTING grandpa, you put it on your posts to be cool on 4chan dot com

>>10542606
I double dog dare you to prove that homosexuality isn't natural.

>>10542606
"the natural order of things" LOL

>justify your position
How about this for a justification. You can't stop me. No open your mouth and be sure and smile when you swallow =p

>>10542574
I'll be in Capitol Hill in an hour, you still live in that apartment where Mayor Murray raped you? I'll bring the boys around and a few bats, have a great time, like the good old days.

>>10542622
>>10542574
please shut up you cringelords

>>10542616
How would it be evolutionary beneficial to have a species that doesn't want to proliferate itself when it has a surplus of resources?

>>10542326

>Starting with the paradigmatic case of the forgetting of Being that led philosophy into the dark ages for centuries is a good beginning

>>10542616
>this reddit/millenial/tumblrgirl typing style

>>10542627
You'll stay out of this if you know what's good for you

>>10542618
Haha, you're an absolute madman!

No but seriously, if homosexuality offends other people it's unethical to display it in an obnoxious manner.

>>10542631
>evolution
I agree, but for different reasons entirely.

BEGONE HEATHEN. THE HOMOSEXUALS ARE BETTER THAN YOU

>>10542551
Why don't you move to a different city then instead of being buttflustered on 4chan?

>>10542643
What if heterosexuality offends people? You can't be this tarded

>>10542514
Anime

>>10542651
>What if heterosexuality offends people?
That's only true in one country. (Sweden)

>>10542657
This

>>10542669
Funny, you have a Swedish mentality in that being who you are should be repressed if it offends others.

>>10542275
Homosexuals CAN reproduce however, but an infertile person can't. A homo just needs a surrogate or test tube.

Homosexuality is more comparable to heterosexuality than an oral fixation.

Friends can have sex with each other, but homosexuality is more comparable to a heterosexual relationship than a friendship.

If heterosexuality is safe, why do heterosexuals have unplanned pregnancies, yeast infections, transmit STDs and literally apart vaginas?
In addition, the long history of criminalized homosexuality drove it underground and made it difficult to receive safe sex information, get tested for STDs and receive treatment. How familiar was this cuck with the 80s lmao

Romance =/= breeding, are the infertile or willingly childless or adoptive couples devoid of romance? No.

Nature isn't an anthropomorphic father figure passing down judgement. And if we followed this logic hetero acts like oral sex would be lillegal

Sex =/= love, you'll learn that when you're older. And gay marriage is recent, no surprise there is inertia within the community. Promiscuity is also not a basis for criminalizing acts. If it was pussyhounds would need to be thrown in jail.

If there is nothing inherently wrong with being a male, why would an entirely male society cease to exist beyond a single generation? He's playing a cute lil logic game that only has superficial value to justify his emotions.

Children are not immune to cultural effects, if homosexuals are introduced to you as perverted outsiders you can't understand that will affect your childish perception of them. The opposite is also true. Furthermore the perceptions of a child aren't the basis for law. A youthocracy sounds shitty.

This definition mental illness encompasses hobbies and interests of all sorts. In fact, any contribution to society that isn't reproduction or simple survival is mental illness. This is a call for a society of mouth breathers.

Biology and psychology are linked

His assertion of homosexual being non biological would require a complete overturning of neuropsychology's understanding of sexual interests which encompasses genetics, neural structures, hormone levels and social conditions with nothing to replace it or justify this overturning.

Tommy hates the taste of bland foods
Tommy only eats chili in private
Tommy only eats turkey and mayo sandwiches in public
Does Tommy like spicy or bland foods?

If marriage is about childbirth then the infertile should not be allowed to marry, senior citizens should be instantly divorced and federal fuck inspectors should be mandated to make sure couples are at least TRYING to procreate.

The nuclear family structure is incredibly modern and was named only in the 1940s. It become the norm in the 1960s. Many other cultures have had same sex elements in childrearing. Fa'afafine are a good place to start reading about that, then expand into the broader Two Spirit position.

Social institutions are affected by political ones.

>>10542728
fag

>>10542728

>Caucasoid
lmao
we can tip toe around this for now to stay focused, im so curious as to who this goober is tho

Incorrect, homosexual couples receiving the benefits that heterosexual couples do would result in an increase of adoptions, taking a big dent out of our orphan population.

Polygamy has a minor case for legal recognition but its complicated by the amount of people receiving the benefits and the low number of practitioners. Pedophilia is explicitly harmful and can never include consent.

I have only used economic and logical arguments.

Homosexuals merely point out that marriage isn't a sacred institution like homophobes like to pretend it is. The rest is mental gymnastics to erase the role of women's liberation, capitalism and sexual liberation have played in the erosion of marriage longevity. Not that it was ever a sacred institution devoid of abuse. It's actually improved in that regard. What this cuck doesn't understand is that divorce is a way out of a shitty marriage. Staying in that marriage is just cheating yourself out of happiness.

Family values change decade to decade. This is just virtue signalling.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/2016/02/20/myth-mind-altering-parasite-toxoplasma-gondii/#.Wl1FvqinHcc

I can't even imagine how dumb this guy was.

>>10542622
Are you hitting on me qt? Yeah, bring "the boys" and your nice hard "bats". I'll "play ball" and make you think of the "good old days", I'll make you think of the "good old days" all night long baybee

Quit larping lmao

>>10542631
Homosexuals aren't competing for dominance with heterosexuals so the species still has a majority of traditionally reproductive couples. Homosexuals can also reproduce artificially and adopt children, the adoption of children is actually a historical usage of homos in society.
https://www.advocate.com/news/daily-news/2010/02/05/study-supports-gay-super-uncles-theory

>>10542636
i no rite
can you imagine how embarrassing it would be to be losing an argument to a total fucking cringelord dopey dummy like me? id off myself if i lost to someone like me desu, couldnt live with the shame of looking dumber than the fella who saves a picture like this

that or i am having a good time at the expense of others while belittling dumb emotional appeals and mental gymnastics.

>>10542606
If you think homosexuality is against nature, why is it so hard for you to say what the law against gays should be? I have heard many times people say gas the fags, or gays should be killed, stuff like this: should gayness be punishable by death? A man cannot marry a man, a man cannot hold a mans hand, a man cannot kiss or have sex with a man; yes?

>>10542750
Your homophobia only makes my dicc harder
My poz stronger
My liberal politics more radicalized and inspired by obama
I will fucc you in your pretty pink republihole
I am a nightmare of your worst, I am your worst night ok?
You think my shitposting was cringey?
It will not compare to the cringing you will do when my POST is buried deep in your SHIT chute.

>>10542606
also respond to this: are there any other reasons gays should not be allowed to do their thing?
>>10542318
Its not natural is not a good argument, because you can say cars and clothing are not natural:
If you say cars and clothing are natural because...they...are...things...that....are...possible...for....people....to....do......then..........

>>10542728
>Nature isn't an anthropomorphic father figure passing down judgement.
it still judges, even with no personal god doing the judging, homos are low fitness and a sexual strategy that females employ to offset fitness costs to the community and also lowers the number of males competing for pussy. its a fate, not an orientation or a lifestyle
>Sex =/= love, you'll learn that when you're older
inextricably linked together anon, homosexuals, as has been alleged for centuries, are incapable of experiencing monogamous love due to their lifestyle, life expectancy, brain morphology
>Promiscuity is also not a basis for criminalizing acts. If it was pussyhounds would need to be thrown in jail.
You misunderstand, feminine sexuality has to be criminalized, controlled by male hierarchies or else society and breeding rituals collapse. Male pussy hounds are only pussy hounds because they're high fitness and carry valuable genes that will further flesh out, differentiate, propagate the species. Female promiscuity is always linked to birth control, sterile sex, destroying families, ending whole lineages, lesbianism
>Children are not immune to cultural effects, if homosexuals are introduced to you as perverted outsiders you can't understand that will affect your childish perception of them. The opposite is also true. Furthermore the perceptions of a child aren't the basis for law. A youthocracy sounds shitty.
all culture is downstream from biology and certain biological events humans misconstrue as language constructs, like oppression causing epigenetic adaptations, mutations, degeneration, are capable of altering neurology. however, there is more reason for believing that children become homosexual when homosexuality and promiscuity are blatant, flaunted in the open than that there is any harm to the 5-10% of people who will become homosexuals by repressing their instincts. This is 1/20 people in every population who are fags anon, they're functionally irrelevant to society
>The nuclear family structure is incredibly modern and was named only in the 1940s. It become the norm in the 1960s.
no its the foundation for all working societies, polygyny and polygamy are the only other models in high civilization and they both correlate strongly with massively underreported homosexual behavior due to low availability of females and incredible rates of male-male violent competition, tribalism, theft of property and women
>many cultures has homom parenting
no, especially not in the West and East Asia where high iq's are found, this is incorrect
>Fa'afafine are a good place to start reading about that, then expand into the broader Two Spirit position
How about some anth journal articles instead of books? Please defend your insanity, i'm curious why homosexuals shouldn't be banned from public positions and why their rights shouldn't be repealed immediately

>>10542806
good post

>>10542806
>i'm curious why homosexuals shouldn't be banned from public positions and why their rights shouldn't be repealed immediately
why should they be, I didnt see your argument as to why they shouldnt hold public position.

And what rights, should be repealed?

>>10542093
Christianity destroyed Roman Empire, dipshit.

>>10542806
is your main argument stemming from 'birthrates'? So there is the whole r9k and incel and mgtow and beta men struggling to pickupartist 35 year old roasties whove fucked more men than porn stars: and your solution to add into the mix is 'all the gays' who on average are quite fit and wellgroomed, so they can tame all the whores and produce white babies? And then there will be more white babies...less gay sex/porn...less rainbows in the town and in commercials...and everything will be better? This is the final solution?

ITT: cringeworthy fags deflecting arguments

if you just got here, do not read the whole thread. not worth it

>>10542847
>why
degenerate, self-interested, exacerbates intersexual competition, creates impetus for low status men to become social parasites
>what rights
access to military, political office, medicine, educational-academic positions (administrative or instruction), news media and children's media

>>10542936
>degenerate
Do you know if non gays are degenerate?
>self-interested
Do you know if non gays are self-interested?
>exacerbates intersexual competition
dont know what you mean by this... men should be happy a decent percentage of good looking fit well groomed in touch with their feminine side men are not on the dating market
>creates impetus for low status men to become social parasites
dont know what you mean by this, but that was all for my question about why not hold public positions.

>access to military, political office, medicine, educational-academic positions (administrative or instruction), news media and children's media
I dont entirely see the logical following: of going from: A man chooses to live with a man instead of a woman, therefore...... because.......

>>10542806
Lmao you're a gem. If I wasn't short on time Id do your whole post but you are rapidly expanding not just my penis, but the scope of our discussion and your delusions. Content yourself with these, if this is still up tomorrow Ill rape you more then, ok?

Homosexuals have a higher IQ on average than heteros, so your asia claim is ridiculous
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J082v03n03_10

The nuclear family wasn't the only variety of family, youre only playing pretend with "high civilization" woo.
Melanesian tribes had homosexual parents. Matrilineal families. Joint families. Israeli kibbutz. Fa'afafine. Fealty. Enbrotherment. Assyrian prayers for blessing homosexual relations. Il feminello. Only about 15 Roman emperors didn't have male lovers. China has a long history of homosexuals with documentation starting around 600 BCE.

>i'm curious why homosexuals shouldn't be banned from public positions and why their rights shouldn't be repealed immediately
>>10541863


If you have more wankery you want me to debunk or need more detail just be patient, ill getcha tomorrow honest injun.

>>10542971
>Do you know if non gays are degenerate?
>Do you know if non gays are self-interested?
lolworthy "argumentation"

>a decent percentage of good looking fit well groomed in touch with their feminine side men
what makes you think women would be attracted to fags? reminisce on the hugest slayer you've ever known, I'm pretty sure he wasn't in touch with his feminine side

>>10543011
>what makes you think women would be attracted to fags?
so why should fags not just be with fags?

>>10543011
>lolworthy "argumentation"
yes, your inability to combat lolworthy argumentation is lolworthy argumentation

>>10543004
>muh anecdotes n shit
nobody remembers the melanesians

and nobody cares about the deviant habits of nobles, they’re not representative of a civilisation’s lifestock

>>10543075
>>10543011
is it safe to say one of the biggest detractions against gayness is the possibility of a fathers disappointment in his son?

>>10543004
>Only about 15 Roman emperors didn't have male lovers.

[citation needed]

>>10541727
Read up on the origins of the queer theory movement that forms the ideological basis for these freaks. Raping children was part of the masterplan from day one. Wonder why these ''queers'' are so obsessed with targeting children for reeducation, child drag queens etc. ?


>Germany's left has its own tales of abuse. One of the goals of the German 1968 movement was the sexual liberation of children. For some, this meant overcoming all sexual inhibitions, creating a climate in which even pedophilia was considered progressive.


http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/the-sexual-revolution-and-children-how-the-left-took-things-too-far-a-702679.html

>>10542318
I think what pisses me off about the freaks is their sense of righteousness. You just know they think they are better and more progressive than you because they get fucked in the ass. They think their politically correct victim lifestyle is transgressive and edgy despite the fact it's aggressively shilled by all mayor corporations. many of them (perhaps even the majority) are technically not even 'gay' and are in fact mimarles who are faking it to virtue signal. Like the beardo who calls himself nonbinary in a desperate attempt to score some tumblr pussy. Also, they are highly disturbed and ideological freaks who look exactly like the creature in pic related.

>>10543307
>numales who are faking it to virtue signal

They bring in diseases. That's the main reason why homosexuality is frowned upon.

>>10543307
this post seems like a poor/good caricature, but if for real, the weakness of your claims and arguments do your side a diservice..whatever your side is

One just has to look at statistics to find the answer.

>The fulfillment of a function is good, it's frustration is bad.

First and foremost this implies that there is some sort of objective morality that interprets what is good or bad. But it's just an opinion.

It also implies the fulfillment of all functions are good and frustrations of functions are all bad. What about to fulfill the function of rape?

>As human beings who are capable of reason, it is immoral to misuse a bodily function.

An opinion and relies on objective morality.

>The function of sex is procreative unity.

Another opinion oddly worded.

>Any kind of sexual activity that is intrinsically non-procreative is therefore immoral.

..

I'm hoping this was just a lesson on how to point out non sequiturs, either that or it's just religion class. Just totally bizarre though.

>>10543356
ah yes, the statistics
>higher IQ than heteros
>higher income than heteros
>higher educational attainment than heteros
>higher sense of beauty and culture than heteros
>higher physical fitness than heteros
>higher self-reliance and self-efficacy than heteros
>higher work ethic than heteros
Are gays... better than us at everything that matters in life?

>>10543370
A world without objective morality will inevitably end up looking like a Hieronymus Bosch painting.

liking girls is gay...like...you actually want to spend time hanging out with a girl....thats so fucking gay..what are you gonna do paint her nails and do her makeup? go clothes shopping? or no...she just does that pretty stuff to impress you....what a fucking faggot

>>10543375
all the factoids you pointed out (the few that point to something quantifiable, not straight pulled out of your poz ass) come from the fact that outward faggotry is more tolerated in high society and upper middle classes. isolate that data for generational income and your argument falls to the ground

>>10543386
>ignore the fact that the smartest and most successful people in society tend to be smart and successful and your argument falls to the ground
This must be the famed hetero intellect I've heard so much about. Let me guess, you're white? That's another strike

>>10543412
cute. can't say I was expecting intellectual honesty from a mentally ill degenerate though

>>10543425
what is more important than high society and upper middle class?

>>10543425
Can't say I was expecting smarts from a 100 IQ cumskin

It is recognized that I have conquered your inferior mind. Now will conquer your ass

>>10541727
>the practical, rational and intended use of a sword is to kill and dismember humans
>not buying an unused sword and starting to kill and dismember people is therefore immoral and bad

>>10543386
This. There are no fags In dA HoOD

>>10543307
you need a safespace. You need to find all the likeminded people as yourself and designate a bunch of countys all bordering one another to have a nogaysallowed land

>getting a blowjob is immoral
>religitards actually believe this

I thought that I was gay because I have a cocksucking fetish but then I stopped watching porn and jacking off for a month and I became straight again. Imo homosexuality is a choice

everything in life is a choice

>>10543565
That's a fetish. I had the same experience with tranny porn.

>>10543565
You‘re retarded, bruh

>>10542643
Go bury your head in the sand than.

>>10543582
no, you

>>10543603
Nah man, I mean it
If you brainwash yourself with porn into believing you’re gay but then revert back to heterosexuality once you stop watching porn then it‘s obvious that you’re not choosing to be straight.
Pornography does have that effect

>>10543628
I dont believe that people are born gay. homosexuality is something thats learned. You can become more masculine and feminine over time. Also if you engage in faggot behaviour then you will become more faggot, simple

the only constant in the universe is change

>>10543469
>>10543307
>You need to find all the likeminded people as yourself and designate a bunch of countys all bordering one another to have a nogaysallowed land

you can have alabama, arkansas, idaho, indiana, iowa, kansas, kentucky, michigan, minnesota, mississippi, missouri, montana, nebraska, north dakota, south dakota, ohio, oklahoma, tennessee, wisconsin, and wyoming, all you have to do is not go to SF or LA

>>10543638
Holy fuck, dude, lost cause
Go drive a car into some prostestors

>>10543638
>You can become more masculine
How?

>>10543565
>>10543628
>>10543638

I could understand you guys having some weird thoughts because of porn and then finding that they subsided when you left that behind, that doesn't seem outside the real of possibility, but this need to then go that extra step to condemning all gay people now and saying "it's a choice it's all a choice" like some nervous mantra makes you sound like a couple of closeted moes. Just go and live your life in peace and stop finding pretexts to hate gay people because you regret feeling some type of way in the past. It still makes you seem sus.

>>10543674
lose some fat, stop jacking off so much and be less of a bitch in general

also stop caring abour irrelevant shit and do whatever you want

>>10543685
I dont hate gays Im just saying that its a choice to be gay.

>>10542093
>the dark ages
Opinion immediately discarded.

>>10543687
is this the gripspill?

>>10543693
Your posts read like you're trying to convince yourself of something out loud.

>>10543713
why did you assume that I hate gays?

This is the third time I've had to reproduce this post in as many weeks. I'll have to save it this time so I don't have to keep rewriting it.
Consider the homosexual. He posts ">tfw when no bf to play vidya with." What does he want? A partner, an equal to himself, a mirror, someone to play video games with, someone who will do with him what he already does, be with him what he already is. Consider the straight male. He posts ">tfw no gf." What does he want? An opposite, an inverse, an other, someone who will not play video games with him, someone who does not do what he does, but does the opposite; someone who will not allow him to be as he is. The homosexual's spirit moves, and encounters something like itself, and, returning to itself again, concludes: this is like me, possesses nothing I do not, therefore I am whole. And so the homosexual relationship is- is enjoyment of what one and the other alike are, video gamers as it were. The heterosexual spirit encounters something dissimilar to itself. It is confused, intrigued. She expressly will not play video games with him, she will not accept him as the boy he is, and he knows this, and hates it- not her expectation, but his inadequacy. So, upon returning to itself, the straight spirit concludes: I am incomplete, I lack, there is a feminine realm I know nothing of presently, and cannot hope to ever understand unless I change. So he changes, he puts away childish things, throws away his video games, and becomes a man, in a position to grasp and understand the divine feminine principle that exists in opposition to his own. He develops. He becomes a husband, father, progenitor, creator, that he may better approach the feminine and be complete, spiritual, whole. The homosexual knows nothing of this. He need not change to approach the mind of the other, because there is no other, just one like unto himself, and no movement is taken to bring him to where he already is.

>>10541727
>>10541747
>>10541739

I'll bet this dude was lynched

I wouldn't have the courage to make a point like that in a modern university

>>10543482
No except the most conservative Orthodox Christian believes this. Catholics are willing to be kinky as fuck as long as missionary remains the core of the act.

>>10543720
I don't think that you hate gays. But I do think there is a kind of desperation behind you wanting to dismiss their sexuality as a mere choice because you now feel that your sense of identity is heavily tied to your attitude on this particular matter out of a sense of lingering shame.

Which isn't the case, but you've subconsciously led yourself to believe that it is. You really should relax on the matter for the time being.

>>10543685
>>10543713
>>10543759
Thread already descended into freshman psychanalysis
time to purge the tab and move on heh

>>10543759
faggot

>>10543752
this is one of the gayest things ive ever read

>>10543784
>fuck this is getting too real
>stop the a-armchair psych y-you pseud
Stop being an overcompensating sus fuck and calm down. It isn't difficult to understand.

>>10543817
>doubles down on freshman psychoanalysis
wtf I love fags now

>>10541727

>ctrl+f "bible"
>0 results found

How about the philosophical work known as the Holy Bible, you absolutes?

>>10543756
I was just referencing the core argument made in OP's pic, that to go against the prime biological function of sex and do it just for pleasure's sake is immoral. it's like saying eating anything but the most nutritious food is immoral or listening to music or looking at paintings. If you're gonna try to argue against homosexuality, you've got to do better than that. To this day the best "argument" I've heard from anti-gay people is "you just KNOW it's wrong!".

>>10543759
it is a choice, noone forces a gay person to have sex, they choose to, they could choose to have sex with a women, that is physically possible choice. You are saying they dont have any control over their tastes, which is also questionable, there are many foods I did not like as a kid, I dont know if I chose not to like onions, or pickles, or anchovies, or jalepenos, or hot sauce, or shrimp, or fried calamari, or butterscotch, etc. but I chose to try these things again, and I guess I acquired a taste, a gay person likely could easily choose to stick their dick in a pussy, its likely the rest of what is attached to the pussy, the baggage that may come along with interacting with that pussy monster in someway, entertaining it, being the man, that makes them choose not to want to deal with that.

Homosexual, here. Any non-religious argument against homosexuality is actually just an argument against a specific behavior not inherent to homosexuality, AKA, unsafe anal sex, culture, societal position, etc. The only people that spend time trying to make them are cringey, pseudo-scientific neckbeards who have an autistic, self-described interest in "philosophy." Philosophy meaning, of course, why innocuous behaviors of other people are wrong. Not philosophy about virtue and societal contribution that would lead them to go do something meaningful with their lives other than sperg out about degeneracy online.

>>10543837
ok homo

>>10543829
>my denial is ironclad now, do your worst
Kek. Fuckin moe.

It doesn't take philosophy to explain why something is against nature.

>>10543837
You contribute more to society by being straight than by being gay.

>>10543831
Fair point, but there is a clear difference between an act that is one-part in line with biology, and an act that is no parts in line with biology. Straight couples have P-V; homosexual couples don't have anything, so they have to invent. I know it's a ridiculous argument to modern ears, but theologically it makes perfect sense.

>>10543582
>>10543628
>>10543669
>>10543685
>>10543713

>>10543864
> Rampant overpopulation
> Heterosex is somehow contributing to society by draining more resources and increasing the global carbon footprint

Elaborate faggot

>>10543638
Homosexuality has nothing to do with being feminine or masculine though.

>>10543879
>Rampant overpopulation
That is a myth.

>>10543864
Wrong. And even if it were true, that still wouldn't make a good argument

>>10543638
>spouts absolutely nonsense
>concludes by paraphrasing Marcus Aurelius

wow ur a gay

>>10543752
this post makes the ridiculous assumption that gay people will always seek out a partner that is nearly identical to them, which, while it may be ideal for having a conflict free relationship, it simply doesn't happen, as gay people experience relationships with people with different values in life and make it work. This post also makes the infinitely more ridiculous assumption that straight people will always strive to better themselves in order to find a relationship, and not just simply find a partner of the opposite sex who also embraces whatever moral weakness/degeneracy is being implied.

>>10543963
>gay people experience relationships with people with different values
They're still masculine values.
>straight people will always strive to better themselves in order to find a relationship
That was the image used, however, you misunderstand. It is the entering into a dialectic relationship with the woman that improves the man, directly, before even motivating the man to improve himself, in that he sees his lack, is made aware of it, is forced to acknowledge it, and thus is made aware of that which is beyond him. He is now conscious of the feminine, and has this new understanding. This the homosexual lacks. Now, this consciousness of the feminine is highly motivating towards self-improvement, this was my example, but this does not occur in every case. Regardless, the development man undergoes merely by contact with the woman occurs in every instance regardless of either's moral character.

>>10541727
Kant.
>what if everyone did it?

>>10541824
Literally all moral arguments are rooted in fee fees

>>10541727
>Putting it all together
Okay big boy.

>>10544262
And?

>>10541751
As an effete boy, I have more in common with a woman than I do a burly man.

>>10541727
>The function of sex is procreative unity

Proofs that this is the only function of sex?

>>10542334
>how's he wrong
What is an argument from ignorance?
Don't you think he should provide justification for the claim that a man fucking another man is like fucking himself?
Or is that part obvious to you?

>>10543752
I find it hilarious that you are not only constructing this entire argument from pathetic frogposting on 4chan but simultaneously trying to argue that only gay frogposters want to date people who will partake in their hobbies and that straight frogposters will actually stop playing videogames and grow the hell up

>>10544242
>It is moral to pair with your preferred sex as if everyone does this society functions perfectly
There, gayness fixed. You can fuck around with Kantian ethics so easily that saying they prove gays are evil is a retarded copout.
>If everybody in the whole world was a firefighter we would starve, so it is immoral to be a firefighter

>>10542136
>Fetishes aren't fully predetermined genetically, you can actually condition your brain to acquire new fetishes or to loosen current ones.
How do I do it?

>>10541727

>Being a moralfag

>>10545410
see >>10544222
You're confusing the illustration with the argument.

>>10541916
Kant argued against homosexuality with the categorical imperative. Here's how:

Assume it is permissible to engage in homosexual acts
A homosexual act presuppose the existence of at least two same-gendered humans.
If this act were generalized so that everyone only engaged in homosexual acts, humanity would cease to exist.
If humanity ceased to exist, homosexual acts would not be possible.
Thus homosexual acts are immoral.

The only real question is if Kant would have classified it as falling under perfect duty or imperfect duty. I'm guessing the latter.

>>10545821
This argument only goes for exclusive homosexuality and even then it is wrong because artificial insemination exists.

>>10545741
As he said by conditioning it, associate the fetish with something pleasant in your mind.

I've found that the older I get, the less tolerant I am towards homophobia and particularly anyone who wants to curtail the political rights of homosexuals.
With so many actual social and economic problems to focus on today, I can't see hating gays as anything other than extremely childish or betraying serious mental issues. I've met and interacted with gay and trans people, and it's such a fucking non-issue that it's amazing anyone could actually give a shit about it.

In general, the relevance of strict gender roles becomes less and less important in any sufficiently advanced civilization for perfectly understandable reasons, and I'm convinced that most people wouldn't give two shits about it without an external ideological influence telling them why they should.

>>10541727
>>10541751
b a s e d

>>10542728
>one is mentally ill if one is psychologically incapable of refraining from a biologically non-necessity (necessary) activity or desire

It's nice that everyone gets to see what bad-faith arguing looks like in your post. Hobbies, interests, and contributions to society don't fall under that definition. In truth, all of your points have the same veneer of looking like an actual response whilst failing to actually respond. It's almost funny really.

Homosexual activity is not immoral because the immoral is exclusive to acts committed with malice.

>>10545864
>the political rights of homosexuals.
Let's take a step back, and realise being a homosexual or transsexual is in fact not illegal even in Russia.

>>10545864
The opposite happens with me, I used to be cool with the gays and even the transgendered, but the more I grow up, the more I realize the whole LGBT agenda is a sinister conspiracy masterminded by paedo satanists, globalist megacorps and the new world order.

>>10545892

>>10545848
>associate the fetish with something pleasant in your mind
For example? just give me something to work with
And I'm actually trying to get rid of a shitty fetish that i got from watching porn

>>10545827
Correct. The categorical imperative considers the consequences of universalizing a behavior and seeing if it can support itself under the universal condition. "Pure" homosexuality defeats itself; it can only be logically supported if you are willing to admit that it is immoral for homosexuals to not artificially impregnate someone.

>>10545892
How about considering a less insane interpretation, and understanding that the LGBT movement was co-opted by neoliberal corporate interests to generate profit and legitimacy, like most social movements in the 20th century were?
If you are indeed an adult, one would hope you would drop the conspiracy angle and have some basic knowledge about socioeconomics. The same thing happened with feminism, which started with genuine grievances and ended with legitimizing surplus extraction from a larger workforce by pasting the face of a friendly female authority figure over it.
It doesn't require satanic hidden conspiracies to understand why this happens naturally in late capitalism.

>>10541758
> thinks of her vagina as welfare source and nothing else

>>10545875
>Hobbies, interests, and contributions to society don't fall under that definition
Explain to me why these things are more biologically necessary than sexual gratification.

Then if you are able, explain to me how the rest of my responses are bad faith.

Your handwaving just says "I am triggered"

>>10541727
>that cheeky smirk

balls of steel

>>10545884
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/07/03/the-gay-men-who-fled-chechnyas-purge

Furthermore, let's say that green shirts had been illegal. People wearing green shirts are usually attacked by the emotionally fragile in addition to authoritarian stooges. The government passes a new law saying green shirts are legal. If the feelings driven anti-greenites continue to attack the green shirts, does it really matter if the government pretends that wearing green shirts is allowed?

Natural law arguments are one of the most laughable antiquities in ethics. I say this as someone who sincerely read Catholic philosophy, took classes on Aquinas in addition to reading various scholastics in my spare time etc. It just doesn't hold up at all and needs severe mental gymnastics and rigid Aristotelianism to make it work.

As such, I would still recommend going into it to understand why I've come to this conclusion, maybe start with the SEP articles on natural law and go from there with the references if you're new.

>>10545930
> trying to get rid of a shitty fetish
I'm clueless about that! Maybe the original guy you replied to knows, best I can think of is ignoring it to weaken the 'attractive associations' over time, or replacing it with a new desire. Maybe also try to ponder your desire of why you like it, why you don't want to like it.

>>10545998
hold up
are you saying
hang on
are you suggesting right now
That philosophy has evolved past catholic teachings and that catholic philosophy was only ever a single entry in a global tradition and that it is now antiquated by the schools of thought that came after it?

WHAT THE FUCK
JORDAN PETERSON NEVER SAID THIS
FORTUNA SEAL MY VALVE

>>10545986
Nobody is attacking gays, you absolute hysterical maniac. We obviously live in different countries.

>>10546022
Are you talking about Chechnya or broader Russia now? Or the globe? I already educated you on Chechnya, so it's probably one of the later right? Just tell me which and I'll debunk your superstitious emotions.

>>10545425
Assume firefighting is moral
Firefighting assumes one is working to protect a population from the damages caused by fires
Engaging in firefighting protects a population from the damages caused by fires
If everyone was a firefighter, the population would be protected from damages caused by fires
Thus firefighting is moral

Being a firefighter does not preclude someone from growing food.

Pairing with your preferred sex is not a homogeneous action. It'd be like saying "do what you want", and trying to apply the categorical imperative to that. Kant specifies that the actions taken should be not refer to the particularities of the actor taking them, and should not care about circumstance.

So, taking pairing with your preferred sex as what it really is:
Having sex with the opposite sex or Having sex with the same sex.

Assume pairing with your preferred sex is moral
This assumes that Having sex with the opposite sex is moral, and that Having sex with the same sex is moral, otherwise it is not universalize-able (because either one could happen!)
Homosexuality assumes that humans exist
If everyone was a homosexual, humans would cease to exist.
Therefore homosexuality defeats itself, and is immoral.

One poster pointed out that artificial insemination allows homosexuals to possibly perpetuate humanity; then they would be morally obligated to artificially inseminate a woman (or be artificially inseminated).

>>10545951
Hey what if I just find the conspiracy/ end times worldview more reassuring in the face of the absolute chaos brought on by late capitalism and postmodernity? Most leftists are just dumb hedonist nihilists who believe in nothing, at least Alex Jones, Dugin and the flat earth crowd believe in something, it may be bullshit but hey it's something.

>>10546062
>Being a firefighter does not preclude someone from growing food.
It does prevent them from being engineers, teachers, fishermen, miners, scientists, programmers, etc

>If everyone was a homosexual, humans would cease to exist.
This is a specious dishonest argument because I nobody with any real power or pull with the LGBT community is demanding a 100% homo population. Nothing about not getting triggered by gays requires the rest of the hetero population to become gay.
This is just mental masturbation with no attachment to the material world

>then they would be morally obligated to artificially inseminate a woman (or be artificially inseminated).
A population of people that had 100% (or near enough) reproduction rates would swiftly run out of resources like food, water, non polluted earth, living space, metals, medicine, etc
This supposedly moral position of yours, regardless of the orientation of the population, would result in increased suffering.

>>10545967
read the definition of what makes one mentally ill on more time.

Whether or not hobbies/interests/social contributions are biologically necessary is only part of it. The first part of the definition specifies that one must be "psychologically incapable of refraining." If you cannot refrain from your hobby, congrats you have a mental illness. But typically people can refrain from their hobbies, which is why they're hobbies and not life-destroying obsessions.

You could argue that homosexuality is not a mental illness on the grounds that homosexuals are capable of refraining. This logically leads you to conclude that homosexuality is a choice, just like a hobby is a choice.

So, in this example I just laid out, you missed the first part of the definition and by doing so claimed that under his definition a hobby is a mental illness. On top of this misreading, you added some snarky point about how boring society would be under his definition of mental illness, which again missed the point he was making.

Now everything I just wrote was for a single line in your block of text. From my reading, it seemed that the points you made followed the same pattern of missing a definition or point made, and then adding a snarky quip on top of your own misreading. I'm not going to respond to every single one of your points, cause it's not gonna convince you you're wrong, and people following this conversation have already realized that you missed the point.

>>10546105
Giving up on what you know to be correct for what you know to be false because it's more comforting to you personally is irresponsible as fuck and a sign of weakness.

>>10546114
Nobody seems to know what's correct anymore, leftists can only tell you everything is relative and point you to the latest TED talk, deep state approved "experts", but we all know the Silicon Valley people are definitely Nick Land psychic vampires who hate humanity and want to bring on 2.0 in a very bad way, AI= Anti-Christ

>>10546112
>If you cannot refrain from your hobby, congrats you have a mental illness.
Hobbies bring about an important degree of mental satisfaction and personal expression. It relieves stress and cultivates a healthy psyche. A human being completely devoid of hobbies (who lives for work, food, reproduction and the expulsion of waste) is more demonstrably ill than a man who enjoys assembling model trains.
https://scholars.unh.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1025&context=honors

>You could argue that homosexuality is not a mental illness on the grounds that homosexuals are capable of refraining
I'll do you one much better, homosexuality isn't a mental illness for the same reason that heterosexuality isn't. And orientation isn't a fetish. I can't believe I need to link you such a basic website, but well, you seem to be lacking the basics of the sexual psychology
http://www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/orientation.aspx

>On top of this misreading, you added some snarky point about how boring society would be under his definition of mental illness, which again missed the point he was making.
Nonsense. There is nothing anymore biologically necessary about assembling a computer than relieving one's natural sexual urges.
A society that focused itself purely on what was necessary by that OP's vague parameters of biology and deemed any deviation from that as immoral would be devoid of complex language, decorations, technology designed for comfort, individualism, philosophy, literacy, etc.
Humans have been doing more than what is strictly neccessary for reproduction since the dawn of time, ever heard of ochre? Cave paintings? Shadow puppets? Singing? Dancing? Prayer and ritual?

>I'm not going to respond to every single one of your points, cause it's not gonna convince you you're wrong, and people following this conversation have already realized that you missed the point.
You may not want to hear this but I'm very open minded, if you could honestly convince me that I was wrong I would admit it. I might seek an alternative method of justifying not throwing rocks at gay people, such as my earlier economic points which have gone unaddressed, but I would ultimately cop to being wrong. I LIKE being wrong because it means there is some avenue of thought I don't know about and should really get around to exploring. And I'm oh so curious.

It really does just sound like you're handwaving my arguments away because you can't argue against them but we can narrow in on this single point if you like.

Riddle me this though, you didn't honestly buy into that copypasta's theory on sex controlling cat shit right? I'm just establishing a baseline for you, I'm guessing you kind of wish that part wasn't there.

>>10546110
Congrats, you missed the point of Kant's Categorical Imperative. The point isn't "bad things will happen if everyone did this." The point is "this particular action can only exists so long as other people don't do it; it can only exist in the presence of it's opposite, thus it is immoral."

So once the conclusion "firefighting is morally permissible" is made, you aren't supposed to say "now everyone go be a firefighter." The point is to see whether or not the action fulfills its end under a universalized context.

Again, the point I'm making isn't that humanity will die if LGBT was 100% of the population. The point is that the LGBT population can only exist in the presence of it's "opposite" so to speak. The behaviors engaged in by that population require non-LGBT people in order to be sustainable.

The point I was making with the artificial insemination is that homosexuality and artificial insemination would have to be a package deal in order for that action to pass the test posed by the Categorical Imperative. Independent of artificial insemination, homosexuality does not pass, but if homosexual acts were always coupled with an attempt at artificial insemination, then it would pass.

I'll say it one more time, I'm not actually arguing that we should universalize these behaviors. The point is to show that these behaviors require their opposite in order to exist, and that they are therefore immoral.

>>10546154
At no point in time, in no part of the world, has there ever been an unchallenged 100% objective conception of morality, the goal of humanity and the methods it must take to achieve these goals. That's a fantasy. At least as fantastical as Alex Jones' lucrative Y2K merchandising.

What you're calling the deep state isn't all that mysterious. The military-industrial complex is well known, corporate lobbyists are common knowledge, the intersection of wealth and politics is common knowledge, the imperialism of wealthy countries is a natural growth of a power structure; all the things that seem spooky to you and somehow "above" or "separate" from the material world is very much a part of it and banal as fuck.

Don't go around looking for the "great men" in history or the grand conspiracy in the shadows. The world is a clusterfuck of individual agents with their own agendas uniting and dissolving at a moment's notice both consciously and unconsciously. Most conspiracies are serendipitous and the coalescing of economic interests.

Silicon Valley techbros don't hate humanity so much as they are usually rich enough to be alienated from it and think of themselves as superior for clamoring to the top of the capitalist of pile because they were told that they did it through merit. This attitude is combined with their digital know how for bizare solipsistic nonsense and a fetish for technology as a cure all.

Ever look into Victorian nobles and their utopian projects? Or who usually makes up reactionary movements? You should because that's what's going on with silicon valley and dark enlightenment types.

>>10546154
>never trust experts
>leftist strawmen
>Silicon Valley psychic vampires
You need to take a break from the internet

>>10546159
Have you considered that I understood your point and was mocking it's lack of material underpinning?

So let's reexamine your feelings.
>The point is that the LGBT population can only exist in the presence of it's "opposite" so to speak.
This is incorrect. A purely homosexual population could reproduce artificially. And it could also reproduce naturally via bisexuals. In no way would it require an opposite.

And the opposite of homosexuality is trickier to define than you think. Is the opposite of having sex with the same sex having sex with the opposite sex, or is not having any sex at all? A society of sexual people would be more easily defined by the presence of asexual people than by the presence of other sexual people who preferred to have sex with different people than the dominant orientation.

I understand fully that you are using this as a mental exercise. That's largely my problem with your reasoning. You haven't factored in the real world at all and it renders this exercise meaningless.

In your mind this might seem airtight but what is it's actual practical application? If I find somebody of the same sex as me, do the nasty with them and then make a cursory call to a sperm bank to see what costs are like have I cleared myself of sin through the action? Or do I need to follow through? What if I can't afford this? Should it be subsidized by the government? Won't this cause an unstable population boom? Do I need to do this every time I participate in homosexual affairs? What if I have a bisexual threesome? How does this become law? Do we have federal agents to inspect attempts at reproduction?

It's just not practical.

>>10546154
you might have schizophrenia buddy get that checked out

>>10546157
Again, completely missing the point. It's actually fascinating. I agree hobbies are good. The point is that, if I wanted, I could stop engaging in a hobby. Let's say I'm a train enthusiast. I go home and play with my model train set for an hour every day. One day I get home and my friend calls me and asks me to come help him with something, but I tell him no because it's train time. That's starting to become a little weird. But, it's my time so no biggie really. But let's say he asks me a couple more times and I just keep refusing to help him because it's always train time when he asks. Eventually he stops being friends with me. Maybe he's just an asshole, so I move on. But let's say my parents come up to me and say "we're going to disown you if you don't stop playing with trains." I tell them "fuck you I love trains" and I kick them out of my life. Now it's really weird, it's gone beyond a hobby into something that's so integral to who I am I'm willing to lose my parents. If not your parents, imagine if the person who raised you and loved you told you to stop playing with trains.

Just so you can see what you're doing, in the event you are really trying but just incapable, let's just take your first paragraph. You take a statement I make about hobbies, and respond with statistics about how hobbies make you happy. My statement wasn't saying "you are obligated to refrain from hobbies" and it wasn't "you will be happier if you refrain from hobbies"; it was "if you cannot refrain from your hobby, congrats you have a mental illness." By selecting the particular statement you selected, you make it sound as though I'm telling you to give up a hobby. But anyone who reads my post will realize that's not what I said. So your response completely misses the point.

The other points you make in this post do the exact same thing, just like they did the first time, and just like they will assuming you respond.

I can tell you really like being wrong.

With regards to the cat thing, he doesn't actually say anything wrong until he makes the leap to saying that it does the same thing in humans. I'd be interested to see if any studies have been done to verify or deny it's effects on humans, but if I had to guess I'd say his explanation is incorrect.

>>10546231
I tackled the point about artificial reproduction. Homosexual action must be coupled with artificial insemination in order to exist by itself. Also the bisexuals wouldn't be engaging in homosexual action when they "naturally" reproduce.

I should have been clearer. Homosexual action can only sustain itself if it is coupled with heterosexual action, or with artificial insemination. If you take it by itself, it just doesn't work.

But I see your point about how in the real world we will never have to worry about these issues. This whole chain of comments starts with someone who claims that the categorical imperative can be manipulated to make certain claims, so my posts were in the context of assuming the categorical imperative was a valid criterion. You may not be that same person, or there may have been a miscommunication.

>>10542242
Define harm.

>>10542756
Not to mention all those healthy warriors with strong no family attachment and a fondness for each other.

>>10546154
Are you a neet by any chance

>>10546231
These kind of debates are exactly why I became a historical materialist instead of engaging in abstract ethical puzzles that lead to nowhere. Nice work anon.

>>10544222
>before even motivating the man to improve himself, in that he sees his lack, is made aware of it, is forced to acknowledge it, and thus is made aware of that which is beyond him.
>Now, this consciousness of the feminine is highly motivating towards self-improvement
you are right, but for the wrong reason; the feminine inspires the man to be better because the female is something the man wants (theorized, he does not have a choice in this want?) and if he is not good enough and better she will leave him

>>10546251
>I agree hobbies are good
My point wasn't that they are good per se, but that they could easily be seen as biologically necessary as an outlet for stress. This introduces the idea of pleasure as a biological function. So even if homosexuality was a fetish, which it isn't, running a train on men would justifiable by the same principles playing with model trains are.

Your argument about ostracizing is flawed too. It's about here that it's important to reintroduce the fact of homosexuality as an orientation. This changes some things.
To start with, forget just trains. Your friends and family in this scenario would be demanding that you have no hobbies at all or more accurately that you conform to the socially acceptable hobby of poker.
More importantly, this behavior with trains is supposed to be a stand in for homosexuality but it works just as well for heterosexuality. If you spent all day with the opposite sex like you would with trains here and began to avoid your friends as a result and later abandon your parents because it is always "hetero time" then you would have a mental illness.

>it was "if you cannot refrain from your hobby, congrats you have a mental illness."
Right, I understand this statement. Try to understand mine. If you have no hobbies at all and refrain from all leisure you also mentally ill by the same token. When you participate in a hobby your health generally speaking improves, it is healthy. Is it necessary to the species that you play with trains? Perhaps not. Does it improve your mental health significantly and make you a more able person to contribute to society? Certainly. By this token, a non harmful pleasurable act is perfectly moral despite the murkiness of it's necessity.

And that murkiness is important too. My lips become chapped if I don't use chapstick. Chapped lips are painful but won't kill me. Chapstick is therefore not biologically necessary and it is immoral to use it to prevent chapped lips; by this logic of course.

I don't if you've considered the idea that two people not fully believing in the veracity of the other's statements is the basis of an argument, but I think you should because that's where we are right now.

I like being wrong because it means new things.

I linked a n article referencing this study earlier, but here is the study proper:
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0148435
>Our results suggest that a positive test for T. gondii antibodies does not result in increased susceptibility to neuropsychiatric disorders, poor impulse control or impaired neurocognitive ability. Moreover, we found no association between seropositivity and aberrant personality functions.

>>10546284
A bisexual is still part of the LGBT population but it doesn't matter

I'm not the same person youre right, I think we're more or less on the same page

>>10546318
I'm going to say something very radical, bare with me.
I LIKE MARC BLOCH AND THE ANNALES SCHOOL

>>10541751

So this dude thinks about what it's like to have a pussy while he's having sex? TRANNY ALERT.

>>10541727
>ywn be based as that chink

>>10541727

Christian Philosophy, which is justified by how history developed, imo, in terms of the societies that have advanced into present-day supremacy. Re-routing the male libido to go entirely through womankind was a brilliant concept of social engineering.

If you want your society to move towards homosexuality, it would require further engineering to prevent yourself from being overwhelmed by the fertility of other nations.

>>10545097
nah

>>10546401
how so?

>>10541727
The maravelous argument of honesty.
Just say you're an inolerant piece of garbage like all conservashits are. You'll be fine.

>>10546038
Kadyrov is an antiimperialist freedom fighter, those gay rights NGOs are israel/NATO shill ops promoting cultural imperialism.

>>10546313
>>10546313
I actually have wife and 2 beautiful children, I made a small fortune on crypto and flipping houses so we are moving to colorado to build a weed farm/nuclear shelter. Can't be racist cause i'm a russian immigrant and the wife's a mexican hispanic, met her through the flat earth community, flat earth is biblical, alright? we gotta bring out the message. I'm a libertarian and I believe Christ is Lord.

>>10546678
>Kadyrov is an antiimperialist freedom fighter
KEK, yes the Putinite stooge is a freedom fighter alright. And he is definitely anti imperialism, that's why he can't stop sucking off the USSR and Russian Federation. And he is so pro freedom he wastes money enforcing laws that require women to wear scarfs over their heads. He is so good for Chechnya that they only need to take 464 billion roubles from the RF and steals vast amounts of it. He is a great guy.

>>10542728
https://youtu.be/BMYBl2uzXEw
This nigger destroyed your arguments now go suck a bunch of cocks

>>10542728
>Children are not immune to cultural effects, if homosexuals are introduced to you as perverted outsiders you can't understand that will affect your childish perception of them. The opposite is also true. Furthermore the perceptions of a child aren't the basis for law. A youthocracy sounds shitty.

then why do gays/ satanists do this? their out there teaching literal SATANISM to children! omg we gotta stop them

>>10546337
Hobbies are not biologically necessary. You don't need to have a hobby for the genetic sequence that makes up who you are to continue to exist. Eating food is biologically necessary. Drinking water is biologically necessary. Playing with trains is not biologically necessary.

Is heterosexual intercourse biologically necessary? From the standpoint of the individual no, but from the standpoint of the human species, yes, unless we engaged in mass artificial insemination and got into eugenics and stuff.

Is homosexual intercourse biologically necessary? It isn't necessary for either the individual or the species. So using the images definitions, this is the conclusion you come to.

The biological necessity of something isn't what makes it a mental illness using the definitions given very clearly. It's the biological necessity AND the inability to refrain from it.

You seem to be confusing his definition of mental illness, and automatically assuming that being a mental ill behavior automatically makes something immoral.

If you had really wanted to make a convincing argument against the image, you could have shown a behavior where his definition of mental illness fails in your eyes. Something that is biologically unnecessary, that people can't refrain from, but that we don't consider a mental illness. You probably could have said religion is a mental illness, and then you would have started making progress towards a decent argument. Instead you've posted three times or so an embarrassingly vapid "analysis" that completely fails to work within the framework of the definitions given, and that fails to refute the definitions in any way so as to encourage the use of a different framework. Instead you've tried to point out that hobbies make you feel good, as though that somehow means they are biologically necessary because otherwise you would go insane. If you had no hobbies, but somehow had a wife, a job, and a home, then you'd probably be really fuckin' bored but you would end up fine mentally, and you'd pass on your genes assuming neither you nor your wife are infertile. Who knows, maybe you'd kill yourself, but it wouldn't matter so long as you procreated under the definitions given.

>>10543004
>Homosexuals have a higher IQ on average than heteros, so your asia claim is ridiculous
This is insanely stupid and has nothing to do with what that """"Claim""" was regarding (are you suggesting that the asians and whites don't have the highest iq's anon?)
>The nuclear family wasn't the only variety of family,
you're right, often the extended family, as in grandparents and sometimes siblings of the parents would live with the family too. But, no homo households at all
>Melanesian tribes had homosexual parents. Matrilineal families. Joint families.
Subhumans don't care
>Israeli kibbutz
Homosexuality is banned in judaism so don't care
> Fealty. Enbrotherment. Assyrian prayers for blessing homosexual relations
Those aren't homosexual and the Assyrians didn't allow open homosexual marriage at all, nor was it endorsed as the model for their culture.You're mixing private homosex for bisexual aristocrats with having plebs with husbands
>Il feminello
this is an absurd whataboutism the Italians hate homos and open homosexuality was scorned by the Greeks, you were allowed to love boys in your care and you could fuck male slaves you weren't allowed to have a husband you twit
>nly about 15 Roman emperors didn't have male lovers
Yes this is a power thing
>China has a long history of homosexuals with documentation starting around 600 BCE
Again kept as pets under male rule, all these cultures homos are kept in their own quarters, restricted culturally and are watched, are an outcaste. Eunuchs are dickless holes. These are mostly slaves and functionally serfs or wage-slaves or servile classes. None of these except for the emperors, who again weren't homosexuals a lot of them (though not most of them) would fuck male slaves as a power thing and a misogyny thing. It wasn't because they were gay you retard.
>ou have more wankery you want me to debunk or need more detail just be patient, ill getcha tomorrow honest injun.
homofaggot affecting non-existent advantage

>>10546517
You've got man-brain.

>>10547316
Did you link the wrong video? I only saw a stumbling bureaucrat who thinks that laws are based definitions (which are descriptive rather than prescriptive) instead of economic and cultural factors combined with where the lobbying dollar is. He creates an abstract definition of marriage that has no basis in reality and pretends that this spook is the real thing. I didn't hear any actual refutation of the point, he just filibustered. Nothing that man said disproves the fact that marriage doesn't involve procreation and that it doesn't change the fact that procreation as an mandatory condition of marriage would result in widespread federally mandated divorces to try and mangle society into fitting his abstract vision.

Also, what if I was a dyke? So silly anon. Try harder. For one thing I love sucking on cocks so it's not really a bad thing. Are you offering to help me shore up these cocks? Do you know of any handsome young intellectuals? I like glasses, scruff and a solid frame. I'll accept any buxom babes you wanna throw my way too.

Thanks in advance!

>>10547351
Probably because children aren't immune to cultural influences and either be introduced to the fact that gay people are people or monsters because they're different.
kek at the satanism though, be sure to keep your kids away from deers and dungeon and dragons.

>>10547504
>You don't need to have a hobby for the genetic sequence that makes up who you are to continue to exist.
In the sense that it acts a safety valve for everyday stress you better believe it's necessary bucko. Try giving up all your hobbies and personal interests and see how appealing life is to you. You could easily die before procreating. You could also fail to attract a mate because you are a boring stiff.

>Is heterosexual intercourse biologically necessary?
Nope.

>Is homosexual intercourse biologically necessary?
Nope.

You know what else isn't biologically necessary by these parameters? And forgive me if I keep saying this, but conversation, computers, art, philosophy, literature, desk, chairs, fine food, alcohol, sports, medicine, hugging, kissing, oral sex, anal sex, handjobs, etc.
After certain point you need to accept that in that dumbshit's meandering logic we can either have:
>non-procreation related activities are biologically necessary in a nebulous way in that they facilitate breeding
>the only non mentally ill action that can be repeated with regularly is mindless heterosexual breeding
Frankly even sex becomes biologically superfluous by this framework. In order to live up to that anon's catshit obsessed ideals we would need to create a society that allows for automated artificial insemination (get that abhorrent sexual activity) and then live the rest of our human existence suppressing our urges to do anything more than be mindless sperm and egg donors.

He came up with a shitty framework that is totally divorced from reality my dude. Total feels over reals.

>>10547664
homosexuality has become a Religion. you could even argue it has displaced christianity as the official religion of the West. rainbows everywhere.

>>10547519

>>105475
If the idea is that the measure of a behavior's morality is the IQ of the people performing it, then homosexuality would be moral.

Extended family models aren't nuclear family models.

>Subhumans don't care
emotional handwaving
I double dog dare you to come up with a working definition of subhuman that precludes social influences

>Homosexuality is banned in judaism so don't care
triggered handwaving
The point wasn't judaism's acceptance of homosexuality but the fact that the nuclear model is only recently made normal. Same for fealty and enthronement.
I am sorry you're a brainlet btw

That's because homo and hetero and bisexuality are modern demarcations of orientation that have no place in ancient society. Also homosexuality played such a vital role in Assyrian religion that I can't even imagine being so dedicated to emotion that you would ignore that. Maybe you legit didn't know that the Suma alu says:
>"If a man copulates with his equal from the rear, he becomes the leader among his peers and brothers."
You make similar mistakes throughout this post so I'll just be assuming you aren't well read in LGBTQ history.

>Yes this is a power thing
KEK
Yeah the power of the erection you ding dong. It's almost like conceptions of sexual orientation change with setting.

>Eunuchs are dickless holes.
I'm sorry did you mean imperial officials with power surpassing that could surpass Grand Secretaries? Did you mean advisers to the emperor seen as virtuous? Did you think that harems were lacking in luxury or prestige? Or is this one of those things were the nuance of castration as an honor and castration as a punishment were both cultural norms?

>homofaggot affecting non-existent advantage
I watch ricc n shorty
succ my homofag peen if i even have one, I could be a dyke, i could be a bislut, i could even be a tranny. I'm your worst nightmare sport kek

>>10547686
You could argue that! If you were dumb and had no conception of what a religion was and wanted to score broad points by virtue signalling to backwoods chuds you could totally argue that on twitter for the support of your incel kekistani buckaroos.


I'm think I'm doing p good fielding these questions, so I'd like to point out that my earlier economic justifications for homosexuality remain erect and throbbing.

>>10544666
Her statement is completely pointless and, at the surface level, misleading

>>10547751
>enthronement
enbrotherment, there's probably a few other typos there don't smoke and post kids you'll only look fucking rad when you dunk on conservacucks without even proofreading

You don't want that, it's a nightmare.

>>10541784
Not an argument tho

>>10547763
you and their discussion and argument is interesting, because you both seem to care and both seem to be trying: but I am not certain the exact point/s you are arguing. What exactly are the points you are arguing over?

Should gays be allowed to live in the same house?

Should being gay be illegal?

Should a man found out to kiss, hold hands with, make love with another man be put in jail for life?

Are these the main points being argued? And the person you are arguing against, believes they know the reasons why the answer to those questions is yes?

>>10547814
You make a great point, things are getting muddled. I'm glad I'm keeping you entertained, how is my shitposting btw? Do you like patter?

I think we can reduce our argument down to something even simpler:
>Should queers be allowed to exist
To which I fundamentally say yes for practical reasons. It would require immense amounts of state power increases, taxpayer money, propaganda and manpower to suppress queer behavior.

Not only would it be costly in this sense it would be even more expensive when factoring what we do with these faggots. Ever get a price estimate on a gas chamber? Expensive stuff. Ever try to round up an entire population of people and deport them? Like herding cats my dude.

Then you add in the real kicker of the economic devastation that follows. Cause the cunning and wealthy queers who are skilled laborers aren't sticking around in a shithole that wastes money on killing them. They'll fuck off to another country and give them their benefits. Remember the lessons WW2 and Einstein. The ones who can't leave, are born post homo-homocide or are closeted will become incredibly stressed and that much less likely to contribute meaningfully to society.

Meanwhile a whole gaggle of orphans that could have been adopted by these fags in addition to the ones they had to leave behind after the cockocaust will begin to turn to crime as they are without a family structure and support.

And we can also enjoy the poverty of entrepreneurship following the massive drain of wealth that the taxes for this would require.

Thats a pretty solid argument, wouldn't you agree?

>>10547896
yes, nice points, I will try to argue in place of the person you were arguing with.

I dont want my children to walk down the street and see gay people kissing.

I dont want my children to come across gay porn on the internet (all gay porn must be destroyed and prevented from being made).

I dont want my son to think its ok to be gay, and I dont want any sons to think its ok to be gay, they must not think so, they all must be put in jail and terminated, no matter the cost of money, once the world is pure again, that new leaf will be worth all the paper in the world.

I dont want gay parades to exist, they must not exist, I dont care if I dont go to them or see them, but sometimes pictures are taken and placed in the newspaper, or online, or tv, they cannot exist.

We live in a democracy, and the majority of men are rightfully homophobes and the majority of men will vote no gays allowed in america. The majority of men rule america, and what we say goes. And the majority of men all over the world will say the same thing, so no gays on earth. Gays are like terrorists, and we will liberate any country from their scourge who tries to accept them.

>>10548014
I like role play, you got it chief.

>I don't want
This is an emotional appeal with 0 rational explanation. We should not base laws, especially ones with effects as far reaching as a carpet ban on homosexuality, on mere feelings. There are practical considerations to be made that come before your delicate sensibilities. Contrary to how you might feel about gays, their rights don't end where your feelings begin.

If you can't justify the massive tax hike, state power and economic damage that would result from us placating your wounded pride then there is no reason to lend credence to your ideas.

>We live in a democracy
This is true

>and the majority of men are rightfully homophobes and the majority of men will vote no gays allowed in america
This is false
62% of Americans support gay marriage:
http://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/

While third world attitudes towards rights do exist, they are only valid within their own spheres of influence. For the same reasons we don't hurl rocks at women not wearing burkas, value the right to bear arms and believe that a government must be representative of the people, we will not base our laws on the laws of other nations. Especially not nations financially worse off than our own.

I've got 2 points I need you to understand before I combine them:
>Cultural attitudes are malleable and the opinions of the populace can be changed over time
>Our economy is fundamentally global and an increase in skilled labor across the world will by it's very nature provide us with greater riches

Lets combine these two thoughts:
>By encouraging or at the very least not hindering the development of LGBTQ rights across the world we can become an even wealthier species and enjoy a greater standard of health, security and overall prosperity

What you are asking us as a society to do is to abandon our principles and (most importantly) our self interest so that we can cater create a safe space for you on the taxpayer dime.

>>10547664
You're 100% right. If I give up all my hobbies I MIGHT die. But I won't necessarily die. And I may not give up all my hobbies, but I could give up one hobby. If I couldn't give up any one of my hobbies, I would have a mental illness.

Heterosexual intercourse, up until very recently, and practically speaking, is necessary for procreation, and thus is necessary for the continued existence of the human species.

Homosexual intercourse, since time immemorial, has no bearing on whether or not the species is able to continue to exist.

Again, you're 100% right. None of those things you listed are biologically necessary. Who the hell would say they are? Sports being biologically NECESSARY?

>the only non mentally ill action that can be repeated with regularly (regularity) is mindless heterosexual breeding
Wrong! Under his definition Homosexuality can be considered a not mentally ill behavior, so long as you're willing to admit that there is a choice involved. You do not have to engage in homosexual behavior, even if you have homosexual proclivities. You just don't consider that a legitimate option for whatever reason.

>>10548067
The second point you make is contentious to a certain degree, and the combination of the two points doesn't actually result in the point you make.

A combination of those two thoughts would look like:

>Shifting cultural attitudes across the world in order to develop skilled labor will result in "more riches".

That statement makes no claims on how cultures should treats LGBTQ populations

Also it's kind of rich for you to be arguing as though society is a cohesive whole, considering homosexuals were willing to split the country in half over something as insignificant as gay marriage back in the day. Societal principles? If the LGBTQ community cared about societal principles, they would have stayed in the closet.

Would it really require a lot of expensive government intervention to suppress queer behavior? It seems to be the exact opposite actually...it costs the government a lot of money to pass legislation protecting queers, pursuing lawsuits against discriminatory actions against queers. And that's not even considering all of the money that's wasted on HIV research and other such diseases where queers are so heavily over-represented against the population at large. To be quite frank, it might be cheaper for the government to remove LGBTQ rights and simply treat them as normal citizens. Plus, if we got rid of the right for them to marry, the Government would get more tax dollars since they wouldn't be able to file jointly. Financially speaking, removing LGBTQ rights could save U.S. tax dollars billions, especially since LGBTQ tend to have a higher income!

>>10548067
>This is an emotional appeal with 0 rational explanation.
Rational explanations can be emotionally based, and why can a law, or why should a law not be made based on emotional appeal? People being ejected out of their windshield in a car accident hurts my feelings and their loved ones, therefore it should be a law for people to wear their seatbelts.


>We should not base laws, especially ones with effects as far reaching as a carpet ban on homosexuality, on mere feelings.
Why not, I dont want my son to think its ok to be gay. Maybe my son is bisexual, or maybe many males are bisexual, and maybe if there is an aire in society that it is ok to be gay, my son, and other mens sons will be more inclined to pursue that. I dont want my friends and family judging me and my son negatively for being gay (and no amount of commericals and rainbow flags and parades are going to stop John Jones and the guys at the bar from bringing up my sons facebook feed and scrolling through it with the bartender and patrons). We want to see him have a wife and children, and be like all the normal people. We dont want him to be a weak sissy who cant change a tire or doesnt like camping. We dont want to imagine cum in his ass...the ass we spent so much time and money wiping all those years. The majority of people in the world do not want gayness to exist or be allowed (lets imagine this were true), do the majority of people have the right to enforce the unexistence of gayness? Or would the right thing be for an or some allotted areas in the world that accept gayness?

America is huge, and information easily covers much ground, with the internet and tv........culture.... a big point of contention it seems "I have 3000 tv channels and on one of them there are some queers talking to kids, and if my kid sees this everything is ruined, and its just gay and wrong...this wrong thing cant seep in and infect the status quo of normal traditional society, via these modern fandangled means"
>There are practical considerations to be made that come before your delicate sensibilities. Contrary to how you might feel about gays, their rights don't end where your feelings begin.

We are working under the assumptions gays do not have rights, gayness is illegal: and I am asking you, why that stance should be changed?

>>10548163
>You just don't consider that a legitimate option for whatever reason.
Because it isn't a choice to be homosexual. It isn't a choice to be heterosexual or even bisexual.

It's an orientation, a sexual orientation. Regardless of whether or not it is acted upon a homosexual will always be a homosexual. There is no choice involved.

Now that heterosexual intercourse is no longer necessary for us to procreate, it is either a mental illness because you can't refrain from it or something you chose to be. So within this framework all sexuality is a decision and there is no reason to demonize homosexual intercourse as any more sinful than the now biologically superfluous heterosexual act.

>>10548067
>If you can't justify the massive tax hike, state power and economic damage that would result from us placating your wounded pride then there is no reason to lend credence to your ideas.

A certain percentage of the female population that is undesirable would receive government sponsored breast reductions, free haircuts, and given free strap on dildos, and free testosterone, and anyone that 'thinks they are gay' will go done to the warehouse and pick one out from the lineup they will marry. Dont have to reproduce because all heteros dont have to reproduce, but you will act under the guise of traditional normality, and look the part, everyday the sunday best will be worn, and the grandparents and joneses and fathers will live in peace and harmony on this here gods great earth.

>This is false
62% of Americans support gay marriage:
http://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/

I dont trust (((polls))), and in this moment of time the masses are not of their right mind, entirely brainwashed, intoxicated by inane garbage and filth, you would not trust the judgement of someone after drinking 300 beers would you (the equivalent of the average intellect of the average citizen? dont try to be cute with that answer because it will only shine a dark light on your integrity)

>Especially not nations financially worse off than our own.
Are finances the most important thing? Is a stable, upstanding society of healthy (mind, body, and spirit) citizens not more important than finances? I know that money can more easily lead to happiness and fulfillment, but does it always, and in these most decadent, empty, nihilistic, depressing, psychopathic zeitgeist times, is that really the rubric you want to use?

>>10548067
>Cultural attitudes are malleable and the opinions of the populace can be changed over time
not always for the better? Who and how defines better? Who and how knows they know?

>By encouraging or at the very least not hindering the development of LGBTQ rights across the world we can become an even wealthier species and enjoy a greater standard of health, security and overall prosperity
In the eyes, minds, and spirits of the overwhelming majority of (key point: proper thinking humans): "wealthier species and enjoy a greater standard of health, security and overall prosperity" falls way short in worth and value, compared to the existence of even a single man sexing another man. If a single man exists that sexes another man, than all is for naught. Humanitys wealth, prosperity, health, security equals 0, if a single gay person exists.

>>10548315
Of course it's a choice. The orientation isn't a choice; a person can't help that they want to have sex with men, but they can choose to not have sex with men. Homosexuality is not a choice, but Homosexual Acts are.

Heterosexual intercourse is is likewise a choice. You can choose to be celibate if you like. However, even with artificial insemination being an option, it's much more practical in the real world to simply have heterosexual sex. If anything, it is impractical and irresponsible to try to set up a fantasy world where everyone utilizes artificial insemination since it's simply so expensive and requires so much more effort.

All sexuality is not a decision, but sex itself is always a decision (unless you're raped or something). Now, if you're willing to admit that homosexual acts, and that living a homosexual lifestyle, is a choice under his framework, then he goes on to show that it is a bad choice for various reasons. The studies he cites are from the 1990 ish era, but for your reading pleasure here is just one recent article which shows that Men who have sex with Men (so gay or bi) are significantly more likely to have used crack or cocaine and have a significantly higher mortality rate than men. One major reason for the higher mortality rate was due to death from HIV infections.

So, if it's a choice, which it seems to be under his framework, it's a choice that statistically correlates with an unhealthy lifestyle.

>>10548259
>Also it's kind of rich for you to be arguing as though society is a cohesive whole,
Cohesive, no, fundamentally linked, yes.

>considering homosexuals were willing to split the country in half over something as insignificant as gay marriage back in the day.
It only seems insignificant because you are ignoring the economic benefits and the importance of the law to the people being shut out of society.

>
Would it really require a lot of expensive government intervention to suppress queer behavior?
Yes you would need to:
>create a a propaganda campaign
>remove homosexuals from office
>remove homosexuals from the media
>remove homosexuals from official history (not too hard given the erasure already desu)
>charge police officers with arresting gays
>pay to have the homosexuals punished for getting laid
>crackdown on homosexual porn
>censor the internet of homosexuality

>simply treat them as normal citizens
This already happens. What special rights do you imagine homosexuals have that a heterosexual does not?

>And that's not even considering all of the money that's wasted on HIV research and other such diseases where queers are so heavily over-represented against the population at large.
There is nothing wasteful about furthering medical science. You would abandon swaths of people because of where their genitals have been and cuck us out of additional workers. And not just queer workers, but heteros too.

>Plus, if we got rid of the right for them to marry, the Government would get more tax dollars since they wouldn't be able to file jointly
This is correct but only in the short term. Everything else I laid out would still fuck over our economy.

>LGBTQ tend to have a higher income!
That's they because they tend to be skilled laborers. If you want to increase the income tax be my guest.

>>10548311
>People being ejected out of their windshield in a car accident hurts my feelings and their loved ones, therefore it should be a law for people to wear their seatbelts.
People being ejected out of their windshield in car accidents also lowers the population, slows traffic, causes property damage, psychologically scars onlookers, etc
There are better reasons than feelings which can be nebulous and trick you into harming yourself. Like voting against gay marriage.

>Why not, I dont want my son to think its ok to be gay. Maybe my son is bisexual, or maybe many males are bisexual, and maybe if there is an aire in society that it is ok to be gay, my son, and other mens sons will be more inclined to pursue that.
It doesn't matter what you want. If your kid is homosexual you have two choices for your kids future: happy, open and self-fufilled versus scared, secretive (especially towards you) and self hating. Would you appreciate your father demanding you fuck another man? There is no evidence that suggests that LGBTQ acceptance tricks heteros into being gay.

>I dont want my friends and family judging me and my son negatively for being gay (and no amount of commericals and rainbow flags and parades are going to stop John Jones and the guys at the bar from bringing up my sons facebook feed and scrolling through it with the bartender and patrons).
This is only an argument for supressing the power of John Jones and teaching your kid the valuable lesson that his life is his own to lead. As acceptance increases which will continue to happen with the normalizing effect of legislation the number of bigots like that will decrease.

>We want to see him have a wife and children, and be like all the normal people. We dont want him to be a weak sissy who cant change a tire or doesnt like camping. We dont want to imagine cum in his ass...the ass we spent so much time and money wiping all those years.
A gay man can be masculine, a lesbian woman be feminine, a bisexual can be faithful, etc. Any queer can raise a family, in fact if you want to see your kid raise a family then in the event that they are gay you should be supporting his right to that.

>The majority of people in the world do not want gayness to exist or be allowed (lets imagine this were true), do the majority of people have the right to enforce the unexistence of gayness?
They have the ability to enforce a supression of LGBTQ people but they won't be able to wholesale eliminate it. And while they would have this ability, it wouldn't make it any more economically viable.

>Or would the right thing be for an or some allotted areas in the world that accept gayness?
That seems like a double standard that will only cost us global wealth.

>>10548335
>A certain percentage of the female population that is undesirable would receive government sponsored breast reductions, free haircuts, and given free strap on dildos, and free testosterone, and anyone that 'thinks they are gay' will go done to the warehouse and pick one out from the lineup they will marry
I'm genuinly impressed by the ingenuity of this because it is honestly not only creative but kind of erotic in a twisted way. Still, cute it is in it's /d/ish way it's still crazy expensive. In fact even more so. Do you have any idea how much money you're asking us to spend to masculinize these unwilling women? At least get FtMs. You'd need a federal agency of female collection, a standarized algorithm of female beauty, cash for all those surgeries, federally subsidized haircuts for life and federally subsidized dildos for life.
Not to mention that giving women testosterone renders them infertile.
Also what's your solution to lesbians, mass forced feminization? Sterility again fampai.
All you've accomplished is trade in portions of the gay community and portions of the hetero community for an increased number of transsexuals.

>I dont trust (((polls))),
what did (((she))) mean by this?
to be frank with you I don't trust anti semites because they live in a fantasy land. I'm sure that's unrelated though. Those were probably just emphasizing ((()))s.

>and in this moment of time the masses are not of their right mind
The world has never been more intelligent, literate, skilled and educated.
https://ourworldindata.org/global-rise-of-education

>Is a stable, upstanding society of healthy (mind, body, and spirit) citizens not more important than finances?
If you care about people's minds don't force chunks of them to deny their sexual urges because of your feelings and don't force feminize/masculinize chunks of the population because it's your kink. You should also enjoy a wealthier society because wealth and education go hand in hand.
If you care about people's bodies you should be happy to see a richer world because that means better medicine, improved access to medicine, increased research, access to gyms and more free time for excercise.
If you care about people's "spirits" you'll want to stop trying to erase LGBTQ people because of the emotional damage this bigotry will cause in those people, their families and their supporters. Regardless of your (((feelings))) towards polling, that's 62% of the US population you're dicking around. Furthermore wealth and psychiatric care are linked for the same reasons wealth and general medicine are.

>>10548350
>not always for the better? Who and how defines better? Who and how knows they know?
I wasn't making value judgements, just asserting that attitudes can, have and will change not only in relation to culture and legislation but also to economics and technology.

>In the eyes, minds, and spirits of the overwhelming majority of (key point: proper thinking humans):
Pause: define and substantiate this.

>"wealthier species and enjoy a greater standard of health, security and overall prosperity" falls way short in worth and value, compared to the existence of even a single man sexing another man.
Pause: justify this. And also, what about lesbians, trannies and bisexuals?

>If a single man exists that sexes another man, than all is for naught. Humanitys wealth, prosperity, health, security equals 0, if a single gay person exists.
Pause: why would intercourse between two people of the same sex invalidate a smarter, healthier, wealthier, safer and more durable (wealth = resources for preventing our extinction) species?

Phew! You guys really love me, I'm honestly thrilled. I may not be able to get everybody next time so please make sure you bring your Ayyyy game. If it's something that doesn't even look logical I can't promise you I'll bother to respond to it, I like shitposting but not that much. At some point I will need to masturbate.

>>10548553
>>10548555
checked, and golden pics; threads gonna die though reached bump limit: maybe someone will make a new one

>>10548553
By Jove, and they call us "Soy boys". Look at that head width to arm width ratio...

>>10548562
how long will i be trapped in this hell of forever jacking off my ego by dunking on conservacucks? I get too into the intellectual bullying desu, that's my problem.

>>10548572
ironically he could be a cute twinky sort if he put effort into himself. Like that dude could haul puss if he set aside his inferiority complex but his overvaluing of masculinity renders him incel

>>10548552
>Yes you would need to:
Lets imagine tomorrow the world passed a law that gayness was illegal: you are saying all that money would need to be invested, but dont you think it would be more that, gay people just wouldnt be as open about their gayness? Because if police or neighbors or coworkers saw them they would be put in jail?

>>10548588
There is the POSSIBILITY of that. But have you ever studied prohibition era USA? In the beginning nobody took the law horribly seriously (they never got too serious about it in general) and it took major figures getting ganked by the feds to cement it as something the nation had to work around.

And that was in the fucking 1920s, the average American is so much less likely to take this seriously.

If you don't do the legwork of actually criminalizing homosexuals and convincing heterosexuals to turn them in, you'll have an impotent law on the books.

>>10548615
My argument was merely that it likely would not cost nearly as much money as you were suggesting, so I believe that entire point is moot: and I also dont think its appropriate to compare it to alcohol, as it was quite easy for the known bars to be shut down. And yeah people did lots of things to sneak it around underground: key point: That is almost precisely what the homophobes would want and be satisfied with: all the gays having to sneak around underground, out of the publics view.

>>10548562
>>10548615
cant respond to those posts now: and by the time I do tomorrow thread will likely be archived: so if noone else makes a continue of this thread tomorrow I will quoting those: and you can look out for it and read it and respond or not. But nice fun interesting and I think productive valuable discussion.

>>10548755
Nah I think you misunderstand my point or maybe just don't know a lot about prohibition (which is fine, its niche history). It took the actual prosecution of brewers and distillers alike (the distinction was very important) to make any of the public give a shit. Some known bars were taken down, some. Many remained opened by bribing officials who were often patrons. Natch, homophobes would be satisfied with driving homos underground though.

And it might not cost as much cash to criminalize as to genocide but the longterm economic fallout will be there.

>>10548763
I'll try to be there, I had a fun time too. We should really do this again sometime. I like to think I'm an unconventional proponent of this stuff. A-and your posts were pretty cute too. Call me?

>>10541727
Dude teleology lmao

>>10548804
>I'll try to be there, I had a fun time too. We should really do this again sometime. I like to think I'm an unconventional proponent of this stuff. A-and your posts were pretty cute too. Call me?
my thread will be my call to you, unless someone else makes it. Also any other topics you like to discuss/argue about?

>>10548924
I'm mostly just stretching my homodebate skills, I can also do trannies pretty good but that's more study based than anything philosophical. Theoretically I guess we could skip the medical foreplay and just go straight to morphological freedom.

>>10548951
cool, you have no other controversial or passionate views on things other people might disagree with?

I think the gay discussion is quite tired and boring, and a waste of time, though I think our convo was good and fun, and tried to milk it of all so can stop talking about it, aimed to finalize an understanding of the biggest and smallest picture.

I believe in an authoritative group of philosopher kings who oversee all citystates/townships, so that township A can decide they dont want gays allowed and township B can decide they do: but interfering when township C decides they want to be allowed to have sex with 3 year olds: and then quitting when township C argues that the 3 year olds were rescued from 3rd world tribes in extreme brutal poverty who would have been fated to a life of daily garbage swamp dump pilfering for their daily eat, and that the price of some occasional loving passionate intimate gentle making love to is well worth the life of proper raising and luxurious care.

No, they would not quit then, they would say the only solution to this quandary must be to insure there are no 3rd world shitholes of such degrees to allow such advocately devilish arguments. And then mass produce small animatronic sexdolls.