/lit/ - Literature

come out of the closet bro

>>16971285
Shouldn't you be looking for arguments for disgust or pro disgust? 'arguments against homosexuality' seems like a very narrow way to look at it. But It'd be interesting to see someone pose such a dumb argument.

>>16971285
>which philosophers argue against homosexuality
>posts a homosexual

that's just your conditioning.

>>16971285
Plato.

>>16971354
I mean if he posted a philosopher whom argue against homosexuality, he wouldn't need a thread, right?

>>16971285
Roger Scruton?

>>16971285
Aristotle.
Kant.
Plato.
Hegel.
Marx and Engels.

>>16971285
You don't need a philosophical argument, unless you want to engage in a philosophical debate, which you're not required to do. "They just disgust me on a visceral level" is a perfectly valid position. Most philosophical arguments are nothing but rationalizations of feelings anyway.

there are some interesting theories about the causes of homosexual in research papers... prenatal hormone exposure and things like that. not an argument against, but an argument that it is an error that occurs in the womb.
as for your disgust I think most heterosexuals feel that way, it's just an instinct we evolved so that cavemen put their penises in the correct hole

>>16971285
>Which philosophers argue against homosexuality from a secular/a-religious point of view?
Me. You should justify from a place of examining how it reduces reproductive and therefore evolutionary success, biologically it shouldn’t be encouraged. I’m bisexual and was perfectly happy with my sexuality but I accidentally philosophised myself into a position where I can’t find it in any way justifiable. I don’t feel shame for it now and I also don’t feel any disgust at gay stuff, if I think back on my time as a twink in my late teens it’s a lot more arousing than disgusting, in a way I miss it but I cannot rationally justify it and I don’t need it to be happy so I have to say it’s wrong.
>>16971351
Wrong, arguing from emotion is very cringe and is easy to be brushed aside.
>>16971354
I think that’s probably why he posted him.

>>16971393
>Most philosophical arguments are nothing but rationalizations of feelings anyway.
hard cope.
>>16971390
do elaborate on that

>>16971389
this

>>16971405
>it reduces reproductive and therefore evolutionary success,
>I accidentally philosophised
>philosophised
>justifiable
Autodidacts always make me laugh

>>16971285
>I couldn’t say anything beyond “it disgusts me” which he said carried no weight because it’s just a feeling
Why would this carry no weight? Visceral disgust is as good a reason as any to be opposed to something, there's probably a good reason why it causes so much disgust in so many people

>>16971359
but the conditioning he received is the opposite...

>>16971285
it's not uncommon. not sure why but most people are lightly disgusted by it.

>>16971395
>most heterosexuals feel that way
I don’t know. It seems like everybody is accepting of it these days, as if it’s just another “lifestyle”. I was the only one against it during the debate at my workplace.

>>16971426
>no critique of the idea
Cope, pro-homo

>>16971405
>is very cringe

>>16971451
>frog poster complains about use of meme words

>>16971469
dfw posters are hundred times worse than frogs

>>16971438
>but the conditioning he received is the opposite...
if he's older than 20 he grew up in a deeply homophobic society

16 year old me thought men kissing each other was disgusting and unnatural as well. last year I fucked a man in the ass and thought nothing of it. it only confirmed I wasn't gay.

you let old men control your sex life. you are pathetic.

>>16971538
letting older men control me is my sex life. what do now?

>>16971596
that's a different thing and it's probably okay

>>16971285
try sucking some cock fag

>>16971448
I have no problem with homosexuality at all and I even have a gay roommate and gay family. But if I see gay pornography posted here or men kissing I have a disgust reaction, similar to seeing gore. It's just instinct and not a problem. Completely separate from my attitude towards homosexuality. Disgust reaction is genetic and there are some interesting studies about it, people with stronger disgust reactions tend to be more "conservative"

>>16971538
>16 year old me thought men kissing each other was disgusting and unnatural as well. last year I fucked a man in the ass and thought nothing of it. it only confirmed I wasn't gay.
yo... this guy is next level

>>16971285
>yet whenever I see two gays engaging in romantic/sexual activity I feel a great sense of repulsion and disgust to my core, like I’m witnessing something depraved and unnatural.
That's how society trained you to respond

It’s metaphysically wrong. Men and women were clearly meant for each other, not for themselves. The penis is literally designed to go into a vagina which is designed to take a penis. Male cum is literally designed to impregnate a woman. Women’s submissive and responsible personalities are designed to counteract the dominant and more reckless personalities of men. Love can only exist between a man and a woman, which is why you see faggots trying pathetically to replicate the Male/female dynamic in their relationships. Love between a man and a feminine man is a degeneration from true Love, which exists only between real men and women, but at least it’s not as big a degeneration as “love” between two masculine men. This is the worst form of “love” and the most repulsive.

>>16971767
Every civilisation in history except our own has looked down on faggotry.

>>16971338
kill yourself tranny faggot fuck

You could find arguments against homosexuality but what's the point if your real motive to be against it is your spontaneous feeling of repulsion?

>>16971840
wrong, and also not an argument

Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Feser. This book explains it.

Natural, untrained disgust does carry immense weight. We feel disgust towards things that are unhealthy so we stay away from it.

>>16971714
I can’t imagine how brainwashed you have to be to outright deny your nature and instincts like this.

>>16971714
Your brain is telling you to be disgusted because it's unhealthy. You know it's wrong. Stop supporting it.

>>16971840
More like every civilisation except our own has praised and institutionalised it

>>16971395
I think that it's only disgusting because it's anomalous and relatively rare. It's perfectly natural, though not necessarily good, to be wary (or worse) of the unfamiliar.

>>16972109
The only reason these instincts could apply in the way you are implying is that if homosexuality was a contagious disease. It is not. Morbidly obese nude women trigger a disgust reaction as well, and I could get one pregnant. In fact when you think about it, many of our instincts are misfiring in the modern world. Overeating is the flip side. Programmed to lust after sugar and salt, programmed to avoid gore and men's assholes. There's nothing moralistic about it, these are just instincts. I resist hating gays like I resist eating an entire cake before bed every day. Takes little effort.

>>16972120
Accepting reality is what I'm doing. I don't think gays are special, in fact I think they probably got hit with something nasty in the womb. That's no reason to hate them or attempt to purge society of them or closet them. They should be taught to stop fucking so many people though, that is unhealthy.

>>16971393
>>16971429
>>16971999
>>16972109
>>16972120
>bro you think it’s gross, that’s basically as valid as reasoning to reach a conclusion about what’s right and wrong
This board man

>>16971828
>women
Ought/is

>Happy the man who’s got boys for loving and single-foot horses, hunting dogs and friends in foreign lands. The man who doesn’t love boys and single-foot horses and dogs, his heart will never know pleasure.
—Theognis, poem c. 500 BC

>Every dumb animal only screws. But we reasoning men have this over other animals: We have invented butt-fucking. But those who conquer women, they have nothing over dumb animals.
—Straton of Sardis, poem c. 120 AD

>>16971828
The male prostate can be stimulated via his rectum, penis appears to cause this pleasure most naturally.

>>16971285
I had same.
Realized my feelings were dictating my opinions.
Stopped being a retard, and am more aware of my emotions now, and try to suspend my first impressions sometimes.

>>16971405
>this is the kind of person arguing against homosexuality

>>16971982
be honest, do you actually think this epistemologically coherent

>>16971285
>When I argued with my gay coworker about it today he asked me to give him an actual argument as to why it’s bad, but I couldn’t say anything beyond “it disgusts me” which he said carried no weight because it’s just a feeling. It seems like barely anybody else shares the same feeling as I, so I’m looking for some actual philosophical arguments against homosexuality.

what argument do you have against any sexual perversion and deviancy?

>>16971448
>It seems like everybody is accepting

no they aren't. They just don't want to express their true feelings to people they don't trust.

>my reaction of disgust against gays is natural and validates my opinions
>a gay persons feeling of lust after the same sex is wrong, because his reactions / instincts are wrong, according to me / my culture / my religion
>biological determinism being argued seriously in 2020 on the internet of all places

>>16972291
>>my reaction of disgust against gays is natural and validates my opinions
you bunched together a true fact with an opinion here, it is natural

>>16972215
To be fair, gay men all think everyone would enjoy gay sex, or at least fantasize about banging straight dudes

>>16972341
How is it natural? I think most people today would argue its a learned behavior.

>>16972291
accept faggots are the defective odd ones out in this scenario

>>16972341
what if I have no reaction of disgust against gays

I just saw a guy who lost weight and felt resentment towards him, because I am not losing weight.
What a natural reaction, and completely validates my opinion of not liking that guy.

Following this thinking is incidentally what the stereotypical woman, described by incels on here, does in all their greentexts. It's very ironic.

>>16972402
Poignant observation. They will lean on visceral response and invoke some form of bastardized darwinism to explain their petty generalizations as intelligent "pattern recognition." Well put though.

>>16972402
based

>>16972352
It's genetic. They've done twin studies. A good chunk of homophobia is literally that you're born with a brain that goes "Ew gross" when you see men having sex.

>>16972291
>>a gay persons feeling of lust after the same sex is wrong, due to biological, and stem from abuse

>>16972433
its not there was plenty of evidence it was due to abuse before the libtard purge of academia. Homos don't breed so if it was genetic they would be wiped out of the gene pool in a couple generations.

>>16971285
Why would you need a normative philosophical argument to explain and justify your inner feeling? There is nothing wrong with feeling strong sense of repulsion when you observe male homosexual sex, and no doubt this reaction at least in part is based in either natural propensities or social norms you were grown into. The trouble only arises when you want to make this inner feeling normative, or to convince others that they too must, in some way, share this same feeling you hold when you see gay people, as opposed to, say, feeling sexual arousal. I might be naive, but I don't see a straightforward way to make this step from emotive to normative without accepting some religious or grossly illiberal additional premise.

>>16972433
could you link to that study?

>>16971922
>You could find arguments against homosexuality but what's the point if your real motive to be against it is your spontaneous feeling of repulsion?
The feeling preceeds the reasoning, don't you know?
This is true in every field, even in maths.

>>16972352
downs syndrome is naturally occurring. early exposure to hormones or a pathogen could do it. homosexuality is more common the denser the living conditions, so it's a good bet a disease is involved (maybe mom gets strep in the first trimester or something innocuous like that)

>>16972355
I'm not a psychologist but do you have disgust reactions to gore, fecal matter, spiders? some people have weaker disgust reactions. could also be lessened with exposure. can you imagine yourself kissing a man without feeling disgust? don't forget to imagine the smell and all that but some pretty anime boy i mean like a man man with a beard

>>16971389
>Roger Scruton
His anti homo arguments are worthless

>>16972433
>It's genetic. They've done twin studies.
Twins studies on identical twins with the same DNA you dumbass. It's not genetic
Yes there are identical twins where one is gay and one is straight and neither was molested (I assume). This is why we can suspect a pathogen or some other occurrence in the womb. There are small structural differences in the breaths if gay men, on average. They should examine the brains of identical twins with one straight and one gay

>>16972250
>>this is the kind of person arguing against homosexuality
That guy made a point.

>>16972543
if kissing a man is akin to "gore, fecal matter, spiders" then why the fuck would a woman ever want to kiss a man

>>16972598
The twin studies show that identical twins are significantly more likely to share sexual orientation than non-identical siblings. Two people can have identical genes which manifest or activate differently (epigenetics). Personally I think genes, hormones, personal experience, and culture, can all play a part: there’s no reason to think all homosexuality ever is all produced by one single cause. In one society the average normal male is exclusively heterosexual, in another he is married and pederastic.

you're not doing it, so what do you care?

>>16972624
>identical twins are significantly more likely to share sexual orientation than non-identical siblings
yes, which points to sobering happening in the womb. the fact that sometimes one is straight is bizarre.

>>16972624
>Two people can have identical genes which manifest or activate differently (epigenetics
100% chance you do not understand epigenetics though

>>16972624
>In one society the average normal male is exclusively heterosexual, in another he is married and pederastic.
in which society was marriage + pedastry the life of the average man?

>>16971285
Feel whatever you want my man, but you’re only making yourself unhappy. You would be in a much better place if you would stop letting others dictate your feelings and just live and let live. Also perhaps consider the possible reasons you might have to feel such negative emotions.

>>16972672
Based and truthpilled. This is no way to live your life, OP. Accept your revulsion and move on, don't try to rationalize it with some post-hoc bullshit. Arguing "against" homosexuality is like arguing "against" Asperger's or red hair.

>>16972665
Ancient Athens, Islamic golden age

Holy fuck, since when this board is a sodomite dominion?

>>16971285
I think Voltaire argued against it from a secular point of view.

>>16971395
I’m heterosexual and I couldn’t care less about anyone doing anal, man or woman. I couldn’t care less who’s fucking who when it comes to everyone agreeing to it and being old enough to understand it. I am slightly disgusted that so many people do care. Hate to say it but you guys are clearly in the wrong and probably projecting

>>16971429
I am disgusted by your argument

>>16972109
My nature and instinct have lead me to many stupid decisions. It is the duty of humanity as the smartest beings we know of to learn to know better than our stupid instincts and use reason to steer our lives instead

>>16972700
you're projecting your narcissism. how wonderful and wise you are oh great accepting young man. wow, it's incredible. such beautiful platitudes.
straight anal disgusts many people, for good reason. does analingus disgust you? is it healthy? do you judge those who engage in it? what about people who eat feces? does that disgust you? do you judge them?

>>16972684
>Islamic golden age
ISLAMIC??
Prove it.

>>16971840
Hahaahahahahahahaha ahahahahahaahah hahahahahaahahahaha

>>16972684
>Ancient Athens, Islamic golden age
do you have sources that the average man did this? i do not believe an society had even 51% of the men practicing something that ridiculous

>>16972120
Completely unironically our instincts are outdated, we would do better to be rid of them

>>16972341
It’s learned bro, the sooner you accept that the sooner you can move on an get those silly gays out of your head, or at least charge them rent

>>16972402
This. you guys are pathetic

>>16972804
it's not learned. anti-gay sentiment exists across cultures and time. I remember an account of hunter gatherers laughing at the concept when it was explain to them, they had never considered the possiblity of homosexuality. when they figure out the cause of it, which we now know it's neither genetic nor learned preference, they will correct the issue. then homosexuality disappears in a generation. that's just how it is

>>16972691
Literally always, I walked in on two guys fucking in the bathroom during the last meet up

>>16972750
I don’t care what any of those people do, how does it affect me in any way? If I cared about everyone who’s doing something that I wouldn’t do I would go crazy.

>>16971285
>When I argued with my gay coworker about it today he asked me to give him an actual argument as to why it’s bad, but I couldn’t say anything beyond “it disgusts me” which he said carried no weight because it’s just a feeling
Hahaha. Stay btfo, pseud.

>>16971285
It's contra-natura. Your intuition tells you the same thing, but it's disgusting because it's contra-natura, no the inverse as your vision might be implying. If you want to argue à la Kant, if you made faggotry/sodomism the general rule of behavior, the human race would go extinct within a generation, since penis with anus don't make babies but a aberrant mixture of semen, shit and blood. Faggots play dumb with their depraved form of sexual intercourse, but everyone knows that shit is painful as hell and you have to be dilating and washing your rectum constantly, not to talk about lubrication that the vagina produces naturally and the rectum doesn't for obvious reasons.

>>16972804
>It’s learned bro
If so, the next question you should ask yourself is WHY is it learned?
What do you think is the repulse's function in our societies?
Also, why do you think that even in the societies that were somewhat more tolerant toward it they absolutely NEVER allowed same sex marriage?

I'm more interested in the last question. Answer me. Don't run away, fags.

>>16972433
>A good chunk of homophobia is literally that you're born with a brain that goes "Ew gross" when you see men having sex.
Are you going to make a just so story to go along with this "explanation" of homophobia? Lol

>>16972850
nice backpedaling. keep that ego safe big wise boy. study and snug from social pressure and criticism

>>16972758
Yes the Middle East from pre-Islamic times until the 19th century was a hotbed of pederasty and still is to a smaller extent. The long tradition of ghazal poetry attests to this: lots of poems about wooing an adolescent boy and mourning the appearance of his first beard. Abu Nuwas is perhaps the most notorious, but many respectable poets and clerics wrote these kind of things too. The Islamic satirist Zakani has a story about a Christian boy who converts to Islam and, after his father asks him about it, replies “ These Muslims are strange people. In daylight they circumcise you. At night they sodomize you!”
>>16972772
It’s more about the social roles. It is taken for granted in that a man will be attracted to a youth. In Charmides everyone is bewitched by the titular character including Socrates. In the dialogue Lysis he tutors an older boy who is in love with a younger boy on how to speak properly to one’s beloved. In Symposium the main frame of reference for their discussion of love is pederasty, and in that dialogue as well as Protagoras and others, much is made of Socrates’ pursuit of Alcibiades. It is the same in many societies, engagement in homosexual and heterosexual behaviour and relationships are not considered mutually exclusive. Like in those tribal societies where boys are initiated into manhood by having sex with the older village men. It is, in their traditional belief, how they gain the virility necessary for heterosexual courtship and marriage. Or, if you want further example of the ridiculousness of sexual traditions, there’s that African city where like 90% of the boys have their first sexual relations with goats before moving on to normal heterosexual relationships.

>>16972850
>I don’t care what any of those people do, how does it affect me in any way?
Atomized is the book for you, anon.

>>16972830
What about all the other tribes where homogay was rampant

>>16972890
>if you made faggotry/sodomism the general rule of behavior, the human race would go extinct within a generation
The same argument could be made against priestly celibacy

>>16972936
The difference is that priests are not meant to be a universal institution, fag. HOMOS believe their behavior can have a status of equality with heterosexual couples, lol. And you still can have kids while being in celibacy, it's not like your dick falls off when you're giving the priesthood, but the chance of having a pregnancy while engaging in sodomy is 0%.

>>16972893
>Also, why do you think that even in the societies that were somewhat more tolerant toward it they absolutely NEVER allowed same sex marriage?
You fags always run from this question. Why in all these cross-cultures not even a SINGLE ONE allowed same sex marriage???

>>16971285
nigga you're just homophobe and that's ok
no reason to justify it; emotions go beyond reason
why would you waste time with something you hate? focus on others things that are more important to you

>>16973002
Bizarre thinking. A homosexual’s penis is just as capable of impregnating a woman as a priest’s, but neither are engaging in heterosexual sexual intercourse, so from that vantage point their situations are equivalent. And a homosexual believing their relationship is equivalent in worth to a heterosexual relationship says nothing about the universality of their condition. If a priest were to believe that his vocation were equal in worth to (or, per St. Paul, superior to) married life, that would still have no implications about its universality, generally since the priest considers himself a special class of person specifically called apart.
>>16973012
Because homosexual relationships had distinct social functions. They didn’t lack same-sex marriage because of a lack of tolerance, it just didn’t ever conceptually make sense. Modern thinking is startling unique in this regard. From the 20th century homosexual thinkers on the right and the left have been critical of the liberal approach to homosexuality: that is, of simply absorbing homosexuality into the existing institution of marriage.

>>16972910
How did I backpedal? Maybe it’s narcissistic, but I don’t care if people are out there eating shit or fucking men or that you hate homos or any of it because none of it affects me in literally any way. My emotions aren’t the playthings of strangers

>>16973057
>nigga you're just homophobe
One more thing. I think we should dispute this expression "homophobe". We're not AFRAID of gays as this term hints. We are simply DISGUSTED. When I see an homosexual act I don't think that sight is gonna kill me or something like that. I'm just slighly shocked and repulsed.
Also, another thing:
Why should we give a damn about all this?
I'm gonna care A LOT if someday a children of mine come home mutilated because suposedly he's living in a body that is "not his" or some other related non-sense.
You guys will never stop. Even if we conceded all the rights and privilegies you want right now, you would always come back for more.
That's why I care MILDLY.

>>16973092
>A homosexual’s penis is just as capable of impregnating a woman as a priest’s
I'm not against homosexuality as a feeling per se, I'm against SODOMY.
>And a homosexual believing their relationship is equivalent in worth to a heterosexual relationship says nothing about the universality of their condition. If a priest were to believe that his vocation were equal in worth to (or, per St. Paul, superior to) married life, that would still have no implications about its universality, generally since the priest considers himself a special class of person specifically called apart.
That's the thing. Priests don't go "normalizing their vocation", because the same Church didn't create the priesthood in opposition to married life, but to be complementary. The Church understands that not everyone is suited, that's the thing, "vocations" are meant to be reduced and particular. An universal priesthood is oxymoronic.
Homosexual couples by saying that their disease deserves the same treatment as straight relationships, they are acknowledging that a world with 100% heterosexual couples and a world with 100% gay couples are equally respectable. WHen in fact a world of 100% gay couples would be SODORRAH for a few decades and then humanity would disappear from the face of the Earth.

>>16972911
buy none of that implies a majority of men engaged in this. these were elites. I'm very thankful you've shared it though you obviously know a lot.

>>16973092
>it just didn’t ever conceptually make sense.
Then why do you think it "makes sense" now?
Why do you think it was pushed so hard with gay families and so on?

>>16973128
You said I was projecting. The only thing I'm arguing in this thread is you can both be fine with homosexuality and experience a physical repulsion to the thought of it. I assume you have a repulsion to the thought of eating human shit, even if you do not judge those who do it. So why are you preaching anonymously about how you don't care about what anyone does and everyone who feels disgust towards homosexual activity is projecting?

>>16973175
Well priests, monks, and nuns did have to “normalise their vocation” at one point because among pagan Romans their celibacy was considered abnormal and deviant. They were sexual outsiders. Hence the vast amount of Christian apologetics literature from the period.

I think there are much more cogent ethical arguments against homosexuality than categorical imperatives, but these tend to be rooted in a particular Catholic social doctrine or anthropology or whatever.
>>16973188
That’s true, and it’s difficult to draw implications about the broader society from these primary sources. The elite culture is nevertheless the ruling culture and what we moderns primarily think of when discussing antiquity. I have heard different arguments about the attitudes of the general populace. Generally these are made with reference to plays and popular oration. One argument is that the mockery of effeminacy and anal sex in Aristophanes plays appeals to a populist homophobia. A different argument is that the positive depiction of pederasty in the plays of Aeschylus and Sophocles appeals to a universal appreciation of homoeroticism. And there are conflicting interpretations of Pindar. I haven’t read nearly enough to make any judgement about these and I’m not sure if there’s any consensus about them in academia. One ancient source argues for the latter position but it has to be taken with a grain of salt since it comes many many many centuries afterward:
>Stesichorus, another man of strong passions, composed the particular kind of lyrics that were called “boy songs” and “boy love.” No one used to despise those who had a passionate nature: love affairs were such an open and everyday matter that the great poet Aeschylus, and Sophocles too, put sexual themes on the stage in their tragedies, Aeschylus showing Achilles’ love for Patroclus, Sophocles love of the boys in Niobe (which is why some people call this play Paiderastria)—and their audiences enjoyed such themes.
—Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae c. 200 AD
>>16973189
It’s a different conceptual framework. Marriage has been, in a sense, desexed. Things like abortion and the pill have, to put it one way, emancipated heterosexuals from their own heterosexuality. Pregnancy has become optional. Not to mention the general decline in fertility overall, a trend which predates those things by about a century. In Ancient Greece no one would have suggested that pederastic relationships be expressed through marriage contracts because the particularly heterosexual and procreative function of marriage was so obvious and unavoidable. Today it is virtually invisible.

>>16973175
Not that guy, I just wanted to argue against a point many people made here.
Assisted impregnations are super easy and super cheap, a completely gay humanity could still easily survive. Or they could just agree to creampie a woman every once in a while even if it is icky to them. Properly speaking, heterosexual attraction is not required for the human specie to survive.
>>16973002
Equality doesn't entail that gays desire a 100% gay world. I'm pretty sure most gays in the western world are fine with the current ratios.

>>16972850
>IT DOESN'T AFFECT YOU

>>16972402
Fat animals aren’t people and your opinions don’t count faggot.

>>16973280
>I think there are much more cogent ethical arguments against homosexuality than categorical imperatives, but these tend to be rooted in a particular Catholic social doctrine or anthropology or whatever.
The categorical imperative I'm using is Kantian i.e secular, you have no excuse. You're being un-ethical in here fag.

>>16973314
Yes but I said I think it’s unsatisfactory freak.

>>16972202
Yes.

>>16971285
I’m not gay but I’d go to the bath house with Byron

>>16973322
Yes, and the fact that you get you're cock covered with shit every time you have sex is also unsatisfactory, right? Continue acting like your absolute lack of ethics and your dismissal of rational thought won't be perfectly repaid in the future, fag.

>>16973549
Not him. But. Wtf, I became bisexual because of philosophy and rationality. I had a moment of deep reflection following a period of obsessive study of Descartes. I thought about my entire life and tried to think about my identity and my deeply held beliefs and convictions. I realized that I had always had sexual thoughts and feelings towards men, but repressed them and dismissed them as transient random thoughts similarly to "staring at the void." When I began to explore them in greater depth though, I realized, that I personally had no issue with homosexuality, and in fact, the idea seemed appealing to me. Why woul I deny my honest thoughts and feelings if thdy cause no harm to myself or others.

>>16973589
>Why woul I deny my honest thoughts and feelings if thdy cause no harm to myself or others.
Yes, and if I want to eat a big piece of my own shit, why don't? Are you sure that the pathway that drove you to bisexuality is the one of philosophy instead of pure sophistry? Because you're giving the same normalfag response that anyone could give me.

>>16973549
The categorical imperative, under your interpretation, obliterates priestly celibacy too, so I do not accept it

>>16973623
And I have told you that they aren't comparable since celibacy is not universalizable, you just did like that didn't mean anything to you.

>>16972218
>The male prostate can be stimulated via his rectum
That's just faggot cope.

>>16973637
Celibacy is as universalisable as homosexuality.

>>16973646
What don't you understand that vocations are PARTICULAR i.e it is God who calls you and therefore not universalizable since God doesn't and won't call everyone?

>>16973663
Then we’re no longer talking about the categorical imperative. You want it both ways. You want to eat your cake and have it too. The categorical imperative is simply the maxim "I will it should be a universal law" applied to any action, including celibacy, which, were it made universal, would result in extinction. It necessarily violates the categorical imperative. If you’re going to ask for ‘exceptions’ to the categorical imperative then you neuter it and may as well not talk about it at all, for you cannot justify excepting priests on the basis that vocations are particular, since only some are called by God, when it is also true that homosexuality is particular, and very few people are made, either by God or nature, homosexual.

>>16973620
It wouldn't be anymore helpful for me to say I deeply studied Descartes' Method of Doubt to first reject all of what I thought I knew about myself. Then with rigour, recollected the ideas and beliefs that held up to intense scrutiny and self-honesty. My bisexuality was simply one of those.

I would suggest you don't eat a stick of shit(though you seem the type)because the idea of doing so doesnt hold up to even basic discretion. Of course, some people have their heads so far up their own ass that they begin to enjoy the taste of the shit they spew relentelessly.

>>16973705
>applied to every action
The categorical imperative is for MORAL actions, of course if everyone was a priest or everyone was an engineer the world would implode in one way or another.
>If you’re going to ask for ‘exceptions’ to the categorical imperative
Yes, because anywhere in the categorical imperative says that you can universalize whatever the fuck you want.
>homosexuality is particular, and very few people are made, either by God or nature, homosexual
Then why calling for "normality", fucking fag? Don't you know what a norm is?
>noun
>something that is usual, typical, or standard.

>>16973759
>>homosexuality is particular, and very few people are made, either by God or nature, homosexual
Also, who is saying that being homosexual you should engange in sodomy, that again, it's the core of what we're talking? Or is your nature unavoidably impelling you to sodomy too? Are you an animal incapable of self-restraint?

Me OP. I argue secularly against homosexuality. It’s disgusting, degenerate and insulting. Is pussy not good enough for you homosexuals? Get outta my face. I should rape you where you stand.

>>16973759
>>16973779
Homosexuality is only a moral action, as contrasted with, say, doing engineering, if you consider it to have some special moral property in the first place. Under a religious worldview, celibacy too has moral character since a priest must not violate it. Also I don’t care about normalisation or whatever, do you really have to impute random opinions to people in order to win arguments? If you care about norms so much then you should become a simp for gay rights given that that is the political cultural legal and moral norm currently extant in the West. You are simply demented. Low IQ probably ESL.

>>16971285
It sounds like you’re just a bitch

>>16971405
This is the dumbest fucking thing I’ve read.

>>16973828
>Homosexuality is only a moral action,
Sodomy is a moral action.
>celibacy is moral since you cannot violate it
Then the act of violating it is a moral action, not celibacy by itself. Being celibate is not even an action, it's the lack of action.
>Also I don’t care about normalisation or whatever
Perfect, I don't care as well. Sodomy is not normal and never under any circumstances will be normal. Enjoy your abnormality.
>probably ESL
And you besides being a fag it seems you're also an anglo, which is almost redundant. I pity your existence. At least taking cocks in the ass is optional.

>>16973803
The only degenerate thing I see here is your disregard for the Oxford comma.

>>16973645
Cry about it

>>16971405
Your argument fails because it doesn't make homosexuality not exist, meaning that the evolutionary and reproductive fitness stays the same, except now gay people are less happy. Additionally, you're assuming natalism as a prior.

>>16971828
Socrates would directly disagree with all of this

>>16971999
So that's why i don't like vegetables. Because they're unhealthy. Thanks

>>16973235
I don’t mean to preach if anything I’m more just curious as to why people feel disgust. I probably shouldn’t have said you were projecting since it’s a very pic related. That being said I still don’t understand the disgust, but I’m also numb to it at this point. I’m pretty sure I could watch someone eat shit while I’m eating chocolate pudding, I’ve completely desensitized myself to quite a bit

>>16973300
Yes

>>16972781
we are our instincts, you retard. nothing in us is a blank slate or functionally general. it's all highly specific functionality aggregated into one system.

>>16972274
yes i'm surprised op wasn't punished with losing his job and shunning.

>>16971285
>I want someone to provide an argument to retrospectively justify the retarded belief I have
Why don't you just accept the fact that your coworker is right and you are the problem

Remember to wear your diapers, my homofriends! An intense discussion on how normal sodomy is may harm your already devastated sphincter, so better to get one of these good fellas before causing a mess!!

Oh no no no we got too cocky homophobe bros

>>16971285
Anyone who does not see OP as purposefully loaded with a desired conclusion is dumb.

OP is here to spread propaganda.

>>16974308
*punches you hard as possible in the liver*

>>16974337
Kek. /thread

>>16971390
The rest I can see being probably true, but when did Hegel, Marx and Engels argue against it?

>>16974337

>>16972202
This is David Hume’s ethics in a nutshell lmao

>>16971389
Now tobacconists are philosophers too?

>>16972936
There’s actually been a few sects of Christianity in England that completely died out because they followed this rule. Pretty sure their souls are saved though

>>16971285
Homophobia is a result of sociobiology and evolutionary psychology. People are homophobic in the same way that ants exile old and dying ants, because they don't serve the colony.
Tribes under heavy survival pressure need to reproduce to perpetuate their existence. Homosexual sex in these circumstances is like freeloading, you're having all the pleasures of sex without the corresponding commitment to reproduction and rearing children. Tribes facing survival pressures therefore punish homosexual acts, because they need to encourage higher birthrates. This imperative gets encoded in various religious doctrines, but the underlying psychobiological motives are the true cause.

Evidence for this can be seen in the fact that shithole countries where life is cheap tend to be more homophobic, while rich developed countries tend to be more lax about it, and this correlation has been constant throughout history,

>>16974474
Is there any empirical evidence for this? There is widespread documentation of homosexuality among primitive tribes.

>>16974237
I respect your honesty, poop eater. Perhaps we are not so different, though your poop eating disgusts me I respect your lifestyle

>>16974508
Poop eating is actually quite dignified.

John the Baptist and Jesus Christ went down to the river on a friday night. They talked about Mary, like a couple of boys. With nothing to loooosssee but too scared to tryyyy(any funny business)(because they of all people know how the old man feels about funny business.) (In fact they are both primary and reoccurring characters in the old mand long winded rant about the repercussions of funny business. There's a case to be made that the intimacy of theory friendship borders just a little bit on what may be considered "funny business.")

>>16974546
Theory friendship? Is this what the kids call it?

>>16974563
Idk. Its a beautiful story though, and you should read it.(unless you have to)

>>16974237
Pornography has destroyed your disgust reflex

All the deracinated moderns with their leftover Jewish morality hating on pure love between men... sad!

>>16971285
You can't argue against homosexuality, because the moment you accept nineteenth century ideas of sexuality is the moment you accept the framework that guarantees its acceptance.
https://www.firstthings.com/article/2014/03/against-heterosexuality

>>16974617
fucking judeocristians, they don't let us touch the little boys!!

>>16971285
Jung is pretty clear about it being a disorder. But it's important to note that there's a distinction between being anti-gay and considering homosexuality to be a result of developmental issues. In the same way, you wouldn't hate someone because they had PTSD, but you would still consider PTSD to be the result of trauma.

This distinction is important to make. There's a major difference between the causal debate and the intrinsic morality of homosexuality; though, most fags will call anything that isn't painting rainbow flags everywhere homophobia, so believe whatever you want, and say whatever you want, because you're both fags who are and will continue to act like massive faggots.

>>16971390
>Plato
Have you read Symposium?

>>16971395
>it's just an instinct we evolved so that cavemen put their penises in the correct hole
This is the biggest lie I've read all night. "Straight" men put their dicks into all sorts of weird shit.

>>16973873
>And you besides being a fag it seems you're also an anglo
Fucking anglos. EVERY TIME, man!

>>16974606
>Pornography has destroyed your disgust reflex
So he is in his way to Nibbana. I suppose.

>>16971285
It's really hard to argue against a permissive attitude towards homosexuality without falling back on religion. The most compelling secular argument against homosexuality is essentially an appeal to nature. It's all well and good to say that our biology is oriented towards the propagation of our species via sexual reproduction, and that therefore homosexuality goes against our nature, there being no chance of conception, but this is ultimately a weak argument considering our species's success is literally predicated upon rising above our biology. If we used this logic with a strict scrutiny, we'd never have electricity, computers, writing, the wheel, domestication, agriculture, medicine, or any real long-term optimism for our species's ultimate survival over evolutionarily-relevant timescales.

>muh "facts over feelings" /pol/tards are arguing that their feelings are facts and therefore admissible in court

>This thread
So much garbage itt. Why are homophobes so incapable of reasoning?

>>16975210
Have you?

I have no problem with fags and I think some just generally can't help it, that's perfectly fine. However saying sodomization is somehow normal and natural because "muh bonobo monkes do it". Is shitty rationalization at best. Just like fucking whores on a regular basis isn't normal or healthy (an issue I have).

I think the worst though is when things like I just mentioned are pushed onto kids as being normal and should be accepted to be fucked. I would never tell a kid, a friend or even my own son to go fuck a whore. It's a horrible addiction I want to break that started because I never got any during my teen years.

>>16975398
Your ethics is the ethics of pleasure.

It's pretty weird to see such a a strong pro-homosexual stance here. What exactly is wrong with zoomers and millennials that they feel no disgust when seeing two men kissing?

>>16971285
If a philosopher is caught up in arguing against homosexuality he probably doesn’t have anything useful to say

while I do think homosex is a part of a broader culture of sin that dominates, I think it is backwards to pick out this one aspect of modern life and say "here and only here will I draw the line". the real, original problem is that people don't love God anymore, and you're not gonna make anyone love God by running after them with a bunch of nitpicky rules. If it is a sin, then call it out, but don't bring anger or heat into the argument. These are children of a sick society, so they are sick. Try to be loving and supporting, but be clear that it is sin. Like Jesus would, I think, such as in the metaphor of the lost sheep. The way to get people to love God is to show that a life with God leads to love. If it does not, then I have to suspect this would be "believer" is himself quite lost, and can lead no one. Blind leading blind, clearing your own eye first, etc. That's the key I think: you have to show that your way of life is better by your conduct. No one is going to say "I am still a materialist, but I'm gonna leave this facet of hedonism because an angry religious person told me to". Love one another anons, and stretch out a loving hand to your lost brothers. Otherwise what you are doing is worthless and harmful.

>>16975784
Ah yes, the faithful old /lit/ standby. The implication of an argument is not an argument, and the statement of your personal bogeyman does not create that bogeyman in reality.

>>16973155
When are you fucking dumbasses gonna figure out that the “phobia” suffix doesn’t just mean fear. This is a fucking literature board and you fuckers are too dumb to open a fucking dictionary.

Homophobes are the dumbest people on the planet.

>>16975813
We’re not little snowflakes that let inconsequential things upset us.

>>16975911
>Homophobes are the dumbest people on the planet.
Keep pretending you are smarter just because you fuck another man.

>>16975918
>inconsequential
Look around you. See how many people cut their dick off. I would be upset if it was my children with "worm in their heads". Misguided by the political climate doing changes in his body that simply won't go away if afterwards he change his mind.
And then we risk going to jail if we don't ascribe to the newest fashionable jargon.
But surely, "Dude, it like... doesn't matter AT ALL".
All right, man.

>>16975929
Cope

>>16975994
baiter

>>16975972
Bahaha.

> Muh it’s not inconsequential if people cut their dicks off

Who gives a shit? How does that affect you?

>>16976003
>Who gives a shit? How does that affect you?
Then are you saying that if it was my children mutilating themselves I SHOULDN'T CARE?

>>16976012
Literally yes. Why would you want to control the lives of your adult children?

And don’t give me that “they make kids cut off their dicks” because that’s bullshit and you know it.

all my incels in the chat: think of how sad it makes you that you may never be in a loving relationship. Now consider that someone told you that your having a loving relationship is against the law. Say what you will about it but I can understand the desperation in this. I think something happens when you have a big enough society, especially one with weak family values. Soon enough you'll have a large enough pool of confused individuals that they will demand rights, and start organising and so on. My understanding from my religious background is that point blank men going to men with lust is a sin. I've thought for a long time that the reason why is because it is a part of a culture of hedonism that comes with it, because when you combine male-male sexuality, and there are no children to think of or anything, you get a free-for-all. And I think a society can't have as a sexual culture an acceptance of the free-for-all, and I think it is inseparable from male homosexuality being normalised. But modern times are confused. I don't feel.. I wouldn't, under circumstances being what they are, want to persecute anyone, or go after anyone in any way. Everything about the modern world is confused, so applying pre-modern rules, especially if these are quite severe... I don't like it. I don't like the idea of condemning someone for ending up a gay, because I think it is a crazy time, and it is going to have crazy outcomes.

Idk, I wrote this >>16975886
but then I prayed and I thought about it and I don't genuinely have a bone in my body that wants to persecute gays in any way. That's the reality. May God forgive me if I'm astray.

>>16971390
>Plato
Anon Plato is only against buttfucking, as most Greeks were, but falling in love with boys is absolutely natural for boys. Literally all his love dialogues are about homosexual love.

>>16976017
You're talking to me that if my children start doing drugs and I know for a fact this is gonna hurt them in the future I shoudn't talk them to stop????
Because that's precisely your logic here.

If so, what kind of loving father do you are?

>>16971405
>evolutionary success
Reminder that this is the biggest cope, nobody succeeds at anything, especially evolution. Teleology is fiction, nobody goes nowhere, enjoy your books.

>>16971405
>I miss it but I cannot rationally justify it and I don’t need it to be happy so I have to say it’s wrong
Just like masturbation, ice cream, pizza, playing video games ecc. They must be wrong as well.

>>16976041
> I know for a fact this is gonna hurt them in the future

You’d be wrong about that you dumb bitch.

>>16971285
Anon how about you examine the only true object that you can actually examine - yourself? Elaborate on the source of your discomfort. You will discover that the you that is discomforted is but a contingent identity, and that your true you is the you overlooking all identities, which is untouched, un-disgusted, and unchanged. Yes, in the sensible realm people may like buttfucking each other, but isn't Intellect fragmenting itself in time and space and becoming Soul the biggest buttfuck of all? Isn't it better, instead of focusing on such matters, to dive into yourself and go back to the ultimate source of all being? The untouchable, unbuttfuckable One?

>>16976064
>You’d be wrong about that you dumb bitch.
Even if I was, you clearly can see from my point of view WHY I should care, can't you, MAD FAG?

>>16976081
No, because none of what you said is true. You’re just making stuff up to justify your fragile feelings. Textbook coping.

>>16976097
Anon, tell me something:
Do you think self-harming is wrong??
I know you think, coz even in your prized gay cringe romance book of yesterday the loved ones of the crippled fag stagged an intervention on him based mostly or solely on this.

Then you can see my POV.

>>16976122
Gender transitioning isn’t self harm.

What in the goddamn hell are you even talking about? Gay cringe romance book? What? Literally what the fuck are you trying to say?

>>16976146
>Gender transitioning isn’t self harm.
To me is, anon, to me is. I deliberately equal them. Now you see my point of view.

>Gay cringe romance book? What?
Is a contemporary book we were talking about like... yesterday. Ask around, some anon here might know it. I can't recall the title, unfortunately.

>>16976177
I don’t give a shit if you think they’re equal. They’re not equal. Anyone who thinks they’re equal is the dumbest fucking person on earth. Your point of view is that you’re a fucking dumbass.

I literally don’t give a shit about whatever book you’re talking about it. If some random fiction book is your entire scope of lgbt knowledge then good lord please do any real research.

>>16976058
Unironically yes, certainly masturbation and video games are not good for you.

>>16976259
Cope

>>16975610
Yes.

>>16976146
>Gender transitioning isn’t self harm.
If gender transition isn't self-harm, what is it? Hell, what's self-harm itself? If cutting your penis off because you feel like a woman isn't self-harm, then burning your eyes out isn't self harm if you feel like a blind man, and neither is cutting yourself because you feel like a dead man. I'm not saying transitioning should or shouldn't be done, but I don't understand your viewpoint.

>>16976355
How is it self harm if it doesn’t harm you? If someone had a tumor surgically removed, would you consider that self harm?

>>16976362
I'd call it justifiable self-harm, if I were supportive of trans issues. I'd call it unhealthy self-harm if I weren't, and probably something like "mutilation" if I were a dick.

>>16976380
If you were smart you wouldn’t call it self harm at all, because it’s not self harm.

>>16974337

>>16976395
Not exactly a convincing argument.

>>16976427
The only argument I’ve seen in favor or considering it self harm is “WelL I view it as self harm!!!1!!”

Which is the least convincing argument I’ve ever seen.

>>16976233
>lgbt knowledge
Kek. That's how I know you're baiting.

>>16976455
Keep crying about gay people

>>16976441
>Which is the least convincing argument I’ve ever seen.
Anon, I offered to you some premises.
You error consists in thinking YOU don't have you OWN PREMISES to think the way you think. At least I'm aware of my axioms, YOU on the other hand is too far deep into ideology to see another perspective.

>>16971285
If you can't find any arguments for your beliefs then it's time to reconsider them.

>>16971285
i view homosexuality and especially lesbianism as outdated and based around conservative forms of social structures. the heterosexual is the ultimate libidinal power, now with the advent of the internet and sexual simulcra.

>>16976501
Because the other perspective doesn’t make any logical sense.

Gender transition isn’t self harm because it doesn’t fit the definition of self harm. It’s literally that simple. If you can’t figure that out, get help.

>>16976441
Well, consider that you are removing a part of your body. Normally we consider amputations "harmful" in and of themselves. Sometimes they're necessary, but in the case of medical amputations, the doctor will make every attempt possible to obtain consent, because removing a part of someone's body is generally considered to be harming them. With consent, it becomes a well-advised, necessary form of assisted self-harm, but it becomes self-harm nonetheless. You seem to have a negative moral view of self-harm, and that's not where I'm coming from. It's a behavior that has specific causes that should be looked at. It's way above my paygrade to pass judgement on the justice of assisted trans self-harm. Because I am not trans and have no personal experience with the psychiatric/psychological considerations of SRS, I do my best to avoid having a concrete position on it. But it is self-harm. If you want to address my points in >>16976355 viz. eyesight et al

>>16975784
Ignore the pleasure part and just try to think what society will gain if people get locked up in jail for sex. What's the point? A few non-reproducing people are fine, plenty of people don't reproduce i.e. priests and permacels. You seem to be worried, like so many others, that gay is somehow contagious and nobody will have children if the "choice of degenerate homosex" exists.

>>16976579
> With consent, it becomes a well-advised, necessary form of assisted self-harm

No it doesn’t. It just becomes medical treatment. Medical treatment is not harm.

>>16971338
>dude the reason ur repulsed by gays is bcause u r actually gay lolol
(((Psychoanalytics))) was a mistake.

>>16976608
Looks like we're not going to be able to come to an understanding.

>>16976624
You should look up the definitions of the words ‘self’ and ‘harm’. Because gender transition surgery is neither of those things.

>>16976608
>Medical treatment is not harm.
>Medical treatment
>Medical
So...interestingly enough, you're saying trans-people are actually ILL????

Don't you think this in some way is, funnily enough, somehow a return to a protestant view of the issue?
Check your head.

Also, there's something really important you'd have to prove:
That is, you're a woman in the body of a man. I NEVER saw a coherent/compelling philosophical explanation for this.
And since, YOU are the one promoting so drastical changes in the body of people, it is YOU who should prove you point of view.
Thus, there's a fundamentally wrong burden of proof going on here, lad.

>>16976622
Cope.

>>16976747
Gender dysphoria is an illness, yes. A treatment of that illness is gender transition surgery.

Thank you for proving my point.

> you're a woman in the body of a man. I NEVER saw a coherent/compelling philosophical explanation for this.

That’s because you haven’t done the bare minimum amount of research. Brain scan research showed that people who were born male but identify as trans-women are more likely to have brain patterns that resemble cis-women instead of cis-men.

>>16976788
>Brain scan research showed that people who were born male but identify as trans-women are more likely to have brain patterns that resemble cis-women instead of cis-men.

Gender is a social construct. How would it appear in a brain scan?

>>16976806
Because our brains have social functions.

Are you fucking dumb? Did you really need me to figure that out for you? Do you even think about things before you say them?

>>16976788
>Brain scan
>Brain
>scan

Is this the power of trans-people?

I wanna a PHILOSOPHICAL argument, you fag. Isn't that the "reason d'etre" of this whole thread?

If you really have studied that as you're appearing, you surely might have a pretty convincing talking point about this question, isn't true?

I wanna see some pretty SOLID and MOVING faggot metaphysic
like right NOW!

>>16976829
So you're saying it's not a social construct then? Gender is biological?

>>16976860
Who the fuck cares about philosophical arguments for a psychological/biological phenomenon?

That’s like saying “I’ve never seen a philosophical argument that says apples are red.”

>>16976829
What if someone who wants to transition gets a brain scan and it says they have a male brain? Can their insurance company deny treatment?

Just admit you're a resentful little bitch. I'm a guy in my early 40s. I regularly confront homophobic people. I'd love to confront each of you in person. I'm only 5'7, but I'm 195 lbs of fitness. Every person I've approached has either fixed their opinion or bent over. Your opinions only work with anonymity or in masses. When I get in your face, you'll bend over.

>>16976866
Social constructs are created in our brains. That’s literally how it works. Idk how dumb you have to be to not get that.

>>16971285
feels=reals

>>16976870
No, because while brain scans present a good argument in favor of trans people, it is not always conclusive, and it does not present the full picture of the trans experience.

Ultimately it just comes down to what the person wants to do.

>>16976890
>Ultimately it just comes down to what the person wants to do.

So it's a choice not a medical treatment?

>>16976739
Infantilizing, condescending nonsense like this is really aggravating. I've been respectful as I possibly can be, even presenting my argument in a way that's value-agnostic. Your responses have been characterised by summary dismissal and complete refusal to engage with the logic. Then you go on to insult my intelligence with that snide little insinuation that I don't know the definitions of self or harm. Why are you like this? I have done my best to present myself as open-minded as I could in the hopes that we could have a discussion, but you don't seem to be interested in engaging in ANY capacity except to state your disagreement in various ways.

>>16972202
OK then you give us a rational foundation for morality/ethics and you will be the most important philosopher since Kant.

>>16976912
It can be both. Just like how a person can choose to have a tumor removed or choose to keep it.

It’s a choice but it’s also a medical procedure.

>>16971448
>It seems like everybody is accepting of it these days
They're virtue-signalling.

>>16976774
Dilate.

>>16976913
Cope.

>>16976941
This thread sucks.

>>16972781
>it's the current year guise!

>>16971448
>it’s just another “lifestyle”

I would prefer it if trans people just said it's their personal expression, rather than all the pseudo-medical bullshit to justify it. If I want to wear a hoodie to work instead of a suit, I don't say my brainscan shows I was born to wear hoodies, I just tell HR I will seek employment elsewhere if I'm not allowed to be myself at work.

>>16976945
Anyone that thinks that something that isn’t done by themselves and isn’t harmful can be classified as “self harm” sucks.

>>16972192
You're a fucking idiot.

>>16976957
Is assisted suicide murder or suicide?

>>16976956
> I just throw away scientific research because it hurts my personal beliefs

That’s what you sound like.

>>16973942
yes

>>16976964
Post source since you have so many.

>>16976963
Neither

>>16976966

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/05/180524112351.htm

Took literally less than 10 seconds to find this.

>/lit/ - Literature