/lit/ - Literature

>>17975676
http://www.newnownext.com/ive-contracted-my-third-gastrointestinal-parasite-from-rimming-and-i-cant-be-the-only-gay-man-suffering/01/2018/

>>17975676
Why not consult the philosophers first, see their various disputations, and then make up your mind? Rather than enter into them with a preconceived idea, for which you want justification.

>>17975676
I think you should take a step back and rethink the categories that you have inherited.
https://www.firstthings.com/article/2014/03/against-heterosexuality
There is neither homosexuality nor heterosexuality in Catholicism.

>I told him it's disgusting

No more disgusting than fucking a slimey hatchet wound. Don't kid yourself, hetero sex is every bit as disgusting as gay sex.

>>17975689
Because it's fucking disgusting and I don't need to read about "the other side" much in the same way I don't need to read about "the other side" of people eating their own shit. It's disgusting. It makes me want to throw up. It makes me want to destroy the people who do it.
>Anti-faggotry is a Jewish invention
Are you stupid? If you called a Viking a gay he would be honour-bound to fight you to the death. In Ancient Rome it was considered a great stain against one's honour to be considered a homosexual. And if I recall correctly Plato isn't even pro-homosexuality.

>>17975710
>he doesn't knoe
Vikings were Jews

How does he justify faggotry as being right? Press the issue into insanity. Be willing to use mutually assured destruction.

>>17975676
>rational arguments
there are none, and they dont work. Let your faggot brother live his faggot life in peace and asssex

>>17975723
He doesn't. He just says "that's how I am" with no fucking justification. It's heartbreaking because I used to bully him when we were going through our adolescent phase and I just can't shake the thought that it is my fault, that I have made him mentally deranged.

>>17975710
So you're basically a nigger ruled by impulses and prejudices you can't even justify? You don't even have a moral or religious rationale. Shit-eating is very easy to argue against, but you, despite all your disgust, cannot muster a good argument against love between two people who happen to be of the same sex.

>>17975710
actually in ancient rome it was a great stain to be a bottom gay, but if you were doing the sodomizing and facefucking, you were quite manly.

>>17975737
That’s insane.

>>17975676
Just stop talking to your brother.

>>17975676
Why is it that people read the word “literature” and they think it means “advice”?!
Your feelings are not “literature”.
Your family Could be used as a starting point for writing this or that, But you would have to be a creative person.

I think the Romans had it about right. There is no loss to social status to the man committing the penetration, only the one receiving. For there is no loss in dominance for the one giving, the virtue of man is upheld in this sense

>>17975676
Anal sex isn't viable in a natural envorment. Hygine, lubrication and other problems make it unviable and thus, unnatural. It's as natural as trannyism.

>>17975742
>Shit-eating is very easy to argue against
No it's not if you consider valid all of the arguments that are used in support of homosexuality. You can just as easily say "let them live", "they're not hurting anybody", and so on. I find it disgusting. And it's my own brother I'm talking about so yeah I'm emotionally invested.
>cannot muster a good argument against love between two people who happen to be of the same sex
If I had to try I would say that it is wrong because men and women were obviously created for each other. A man's phallus is designed to enter into a woman's vagina, much in the same way that a screw is designed to enter a bolt. When the phallus ejaculates in the vagina, conception occurs, so there we have what Aristotle called "the final cause", the purpose. And women's personalities are designed to counteract those of men. Women are sensible, submissive, temperate, and so on. Men are reckless, dominant, fiery. Of course this is a very simplistic analysis but it is obvious to see that love was designed to be between men and women.
Even faggots can see this, in fact! They try to replicate the male-female social dynamic in their relationships all the time. One acts like a man, the other a woman. Why go for this mimicry instead of the real thing?
Anyway I'm looking for arguments from actual philosophers who can express this better than I can.

>>17975784
No. It's degenerate. Love isn't all about dominator and dominated. It's a dance of two souls complementing each other. The masculine and the femmenine. Men and women. If a man is capable of fucking another man, he should be morally reprehended.

>>17975802
See
>>17975697
You are confusing a set of acts with a set of proclivities. So long as you continue to attack your brother for his proclivities, he will refuse to listen and you will continue to wallow in your own low-grade unintellectual filth as you have done in this thread.

>>17975802
A teleological interpretation of nature only makes sense in a theistic universe. Scientists try to avoid using terms like "design" and "purpose" in biology except for ease of communication. Besides, there are plenty of hypotheses made to explain the continued existence of homosexuality (since you'd expect it to select against itself), namely that it may confer certain evolutionary advantages. I believe the female relatives of male homosexuals have been demonstrated to be more fertile, for instance.
>>17975806
>It's a dance of two souls complementing each other.
Any reason why it must be masculine and feminine? The Greeks esteemed the dance of two male souls just as much as, and sometimes more than, male and female.

>>17975810
Why has he got these proclivities? I understand having a proclivity towards sloth or greed or lust for a beautiful woman, which you can suppress. But proclivity towards faggotry? This is a mental illness. Stopping him from actually engaging in faggotry is solving only half the issue.

>>17975806
I mean, biologically speaking, that bullshit you're spewing about a spiritual dance between two souls is plain retarded.

>>17975833
>But proclivity towards faggotry? This is a mental illness.
Why do you believe that? What does calling it a mental illness do for you, him, or anyone else?
>Stopping him from actually engaging in faggotry is solving only half the issue.
You cannot actually stop him from doing whatever he likes. What you need to do is calm down and sort out your own thoughts and feelings on the matter.

>>17975821
In an intelectual sense, because in a sensual sense, male and female complement each other. It's THE structure for positive human relationships because of the simple fact it's designed (deliberately or not) to be that way. Comradery is one thing reserved for men only, love is for the male and the female.

>>17975821
>A teleological interpretation of nature only makes sense in a theistic universe.
Then why do faggots attempt to replicate the male-female dynamic? They know that it is the true form of love instinctively, yet they always settle for a cheap mimicry.
>muh science
Science doesn't solve ethical and metaphysical questions, moron.

>>17975838
If you don't like the way I say it great, but the message comes accross. A man wanting to fuck another man doesn't have a purpose, aswell as wanting to be fucked by a man as a man. It's clearly a deviation.

>>17975859
>>17975867
>Then why do faggots attempt to replicate the male-female dynamic?
In many non-romantic and non-sexual relationships there is a power distinction, there is one person who is more invested in the relationship than the other, who has more to lose, is dependent upon the other, etc. Often non-romantic same-sex relationships are like this, whether they be the relationship between teacher and student, a person who considers one friend his best friend while the best friend only considers him a friend, and so on. I do not think it is necessarily a male-female thing so much as a human thing. And besides, there are plenty of homosexual relationships without an obvious "man" and "woman", where they are equals.
>Science doesn't solve ethical and metaphysical questions, moron.
I didn't say it did. I only pointed out that, without some underlying metaphysical justification, you can't read "purpose" "design" or "intention" into nature. What is, is natural.

>>17975883
But if we return to the routes of sex being purely an act of domination and power, then it makes perfect sense. More so, this view of sex is more than rooted in reality.

>>17975794
naturalist fallacy, regardless the claim is wrong. There is gay sex in the wild look at giraffes. Also ass sex can be very clean if you do it right.

>>17975867
dominance and submission isn't a male-female dynamic since it's something that happens across species.

why anyone would dress and larp as a woman is a different, unrelated set of autism

>>17975737
You did. He now acts out the trauma you inflicted on him as sexual fetish. In a way you were the first to have gay sex with him in the imaginal plane.

>>17975921
yeah, imagine mentally sodomizing your own brother, your own flesh and blood ... OP is truly a perverse faggot

>>17975686
i know who you are

>>17975771
because this is a /pol/ propaganda thread made by some loser neo-nazi. /lit/ has always been liberal, pro-lgbt and anti natalist if anything. so sorry little poltard but your thread and samefag replies were just a waste of time.

>>17975912
>>17975901
It's not just about power though. You see these faggots talking with elongated vowels and affected lisps, trying to sound as much like women as they can. They walk with limp wrists. They're sassy. They usually prefer the company of other women. Then their "partners" always act like the male of the relationship. Plus the male-female dynamic is not just "men in power women submissive". Women often assume power in the relationship as well and act like a sort of mother to the man (the "Homer-Marge" archetype). In every way faggots try to mimic this as much as possible.
> there are plenty of homosexual relationships without an obvious "man" and "woman", where they are equals.
Those are the most repulsive. It's like looking at your best bud who you hang out with and wanting to fuck him in the ass. What the fuck.
>you can't read "purpose" "design" or "intention" into nature. What is, is natural.
>Yeah bro cocks totally were not designed to enter into vaginas even though there is every indication that they were.
You might as well say screws were not designed to enter into bolts.

>>17975902
What makes a man to want to fuck a man instead of a woman? It's clearly not domination as heterosexual people exist, and they also dominate.

>>17975910
Giraffes are not a good comparison as ALL of them display homosexual tendencies but not preferences, while humans don't. Anal sex isn't viable as an outlet for constant sexual pleasure. The kind a man and a woman can have. An ass can't lubricate and it is dangerous to have anal sex in a primitive setting, as we've lived in for most of our existence, suggesting it's a relatively new phenomenon.

>>17975910
>in the wild look at giraffes
>we’re no better than wild animals

>>17975970
Screws and bolts were designed retard.
>>17975987
The question is about what is natural, not what is moral. First people say "homosexuality isn't natural." Then some fag says "umm ackshually it is look at these trillions of beasts that do it." Then the first person says "Omg you want us to live like animals? sick freak"

>>17976000
So you're unironically asking me to believe that cocks were not designed to enter into vaginas?

>>17975676
Your feeling of disgust didn't just pop out of nowhere, though; it's an instinctual prejudice against maladaptive behaviour. You're reacting to a mutant—an abberation. If the majority of a society didn't have such feelings (or they were suppressed/criminalized by the govt., say), it would allow maladaptive people to proliferate much to the detriment of that society. We are seeing this happen with the clown world that the West has become.

Now, a small reserve of freakazoids isn't necessarily harmful to society (and can even be beneficial), but when they are permitted to advertise their behaviour and even normalize it... That's a serious problem. Even a fag would have to admit—if they were at all rationally minded—that the dramatic rise in rate of homosexuality over the last two generations is a sure sign of societal malaise.

>>17976000
>The question is about what is natural
Is it really tho

>>17975970
Many gays are big, hairy and masculine, and worship being built, working out, etc.. (also true in history, btw)

wanting to larp like a woman has very little to do with homolust, altho, some fags are too scared to embrace their faggotry and larp as a woman because "being a woman" is the most acceptable way to fuck men

>>17976018
Cocks and Vaginas weren’t “designed” for anything. They evolved certain ways to better preform the tasks we used them for. They existed before we gave them the purpose of putting it in a cunt. There is no instruction manual for your cock. A hole seems designed perfectly for a puddle after the rain.

>>17975676
There are two ways you can deter your brother from homosexuality. The first way, and the way you are currently insisting upon, is to remind him of the evils and negatives of mansex in a faggy, moralistic way - this simply does not work in the current year. Alternatively, you could lend your an ear, and ask him why he pursues gaysex, then systematically negate whatever response he comes up with until he is left with no particular reason to have mansex. Call this the Socratic method or the disarm manoeuvre; you do not wish to mount an offensive against homosexuality, but to demoralise and demotivate the opposition. If, for example, he pursues homosexuality for the sake of pleasure, do not counter with a statistic or a namecall or an appeal to God like a religious cunt, but instead remind him that hedonism by itself is not a suitable axiom for human imperative, for otherwise he would pursue every pleasure (your brother most likely does not), therefore your brother must have gay sex for some other reason. Repeat the process as many as necessary. The beauty of this method, infact, is that he may profer a reason you cannot disagree with, and so this whole matter may be resolved instead by a greater understanding of the homo question and empathy for homosexuals. It is certainly a better conclusion than to forever be in contradiction with your closest sibling.

>>17976018
Yes. Is that difficult to comprehend? Assuming a non-theistic universe, they emerged entirely through blind unconscious processes. At no point was intention or design ever involved.

>>17976046
If You deal with a relativist, there are only two possible arguments, the naturalistic one and the theological one.

>>17976073
"Blind unconsiouss processes" ARE the design.

>>17976038
>Now, a small reserve of freakazoids isn't necessarily harmful to society (and can even be beneficial), but when they are permitted to advertise their behaviour and even normalize it... That's a serious problem.
It appeared to be widely and publicly practiced in several of the Greek city states to no detriment (rather, to an advantage).
>Even a fag would have to admit—if they were at all rationally minded—that the dramatic rise in rate of homosexuality over the last two generations is a sure sign of societal malaise.
Is there any evidence for a dramatic rise in the incidence of homosexuality? as opposed to simply its visibility in the media, and the openness of its practitioners to their social groups.

>>17976092
so holes are designed for puddles?

>>17976050
That's pretty stupid. No they weren't "designed", but their biological raison d'etre is reproduction; they wouldn't be there to utilize in more 'creative' ways if our biology hadn't evolved them to fulfill that function.

>>17976092
That's not really a design, any more than a sun is "designed" by the clumping together and subsequent interactions of various gases and chemicals. You're also operating on the unspoken assumption that to deviate from the "design" is in itself bad or harmful. This isn't true even with things that are expressly designed, such as screws and bolts. If I find a handy use for some screw, which it wasn't designed for, my "deviation" incurs a reward rather than a disadvantage. This is the case with a lot of socialisation, enculturation, and technology.

>>17975676
I worked on a documentary about this, not in english tho.

Watch this vid:
https://youtu.be/w37JvIcQg8c

Read Plato's Symposium (Aristophanes and Socrates monologue at least) and Aristotle's Politics (first two books at least), look into nazis, protestantism, Kant, Fichte, Mishima and Spengler.

>>17976073
It doesn't matter if there was a god or not. Even if we assume pure atheist materialism, cocks exist in such a way that their telos (in Aristotelian sense) is to fuck vaginas. It doesn't really matter if someone designed them that way or not, what matters is if that is their inherent purpose. For example, if a screw and a bolt appeared due to a series of random processes (for example matter colliding), and had no designer behind them, we could still say that the purpose of the screw, its telos, is to enter into the bolt. This is the case regardless of the INTENTION or AGENCY behind them.
If we simply take into consideration the structure of cocks and vaginas, we immediately see that the purpose of a cock (along with all the libidinal systems) is to enter into a vagina and shoot its semen inside, thus causing conception.

>>17976154
The telos of my cock is also to rape your arse.

>>17976107
No, but frogs live in puddles. They can live in an aquarium, but frogs live in puddles.
>>17976122
While I do agree on that, one has to admit the inferiority of the homosexual state and, as such, not glorify it. Everyone can do whatever they want because of any reason, but considering homosexuality as something not as good as heterosexuality, like a badly fitting bolt, the individual can decide on weither or not to act on those impulses.

>>17976169
No, the ass is not meant to be fucked, clearly. This is why faggots have to use loads of lube and force. Clearly the purpose of an ass is to shit.

>>17976178
>one has to admit the inferiority of the homosexual state
One does not. Certain texts from antiquity (like Plutarch's Amatorius) argue for the superiority of the homosexual over the heterosexual relationship.

>>17976197
That is like saying that the telos of a human vagina is not to give birth, because of the pain and risk of death involved (because human infants have such large heads, compared with other animals).

>>17976103
What advantage, exactly? It would've been a major vector for STDs, which are very harmful to fertility. Any benefits I can think of would seem minor when compared to that malus. I don't see how widespread homosexuality could ever be healthy in the long term.

It's possible that there were always loads of crypto-homos, but the issue is more complicated. Homosexuality can't be entirely genetic, since it would snuff itself out as an inherited trait. This means that there is considerable social epistasis effect upon rates of homosexuality, and the very openness and visibility you speak of is 'breeding' more fags.

>>17975689
But is homoeroticism separable from homosexuality?

>>17976219
The female body might not be perfectly designed for giving birth, but its telos is obviously to give birth. You can see this in the way the various parts interact for this purpose (milk for breastfeeding, periods, eggs, womb, so on). Then men compliment this procedure with their sperm. It may be a poor design given the amount of pain and discomfort women experience but poor design doesn't mean no design.

>>17975710
>If you called a Viking a gay he would be honour-bound to fight you to the death.
Vikings were retarded, no reason to emulate anything from their "culture".
>In Ancient Rome it was considered a great stain against one's honour to be considered a homosexual.
Romans were retarded. Why would you follow the advice of a people who thought it was a good idea to import crocodile shit from the Niles and splatter the inside of their women's pussy as a contraceptive? (hilariously, it was more likely to increase fertility than decrease it).
>And if I recall correctly Plato isn't even pro-homosexuality.
Athens was retarded. A bunch of boy-lovers shaming each others for boy-loving. and that's when they weren't electing their generals by a draw.

>>17975676
Nothing wrong with fags, it's the troons that are the problem. That's some real decline of the West shit. Although if you really want an argument, just point out the various episodes of Queers like Foucault, Gayle Rubin, de Beauvoir, Judith Butler, blatantly defended pedophilia/pedophiles.

>>17976200
I may have to read on his arguments, but male and female complement each other romantically the best, and can actually reproduce aswell as have intercouse without compromises. Untimately, it's a personal choice based on the individual's priorities. I search the natural, the good, what's meant to be, so I have My opinions based on that.

>>17976219
No. Because there's a reproductive aspect to it, the Essence of life whereas anal sex is
merely a way to hedonism that only brings negatives (aside from, arguably, the psicological) to those involved.

>>17976103
No, greek homosexuality wasnt widespread nor advertised. The recievers where shunned and plato and his socrates described such acts as unholy.

>>17975838
>biologically speaking
shut the fuck up materialist scum

>>17976338
>greek
Athens
>greek
Athens
>greek
Athens
>greek
Athens
You fucking retard.
> The guys from Colossus who let their dogs eat their 50+ years old have exactly the same outlook on life as the philosophers of Athens.
This is (you). Go fucking hide in shame.

>>17976338
>No, greek homosexuality wasnt widespread nor advertised.

>It seems to me that something must also be said about the love of boys; for this too has a bearing on education. The other Greeks either do as the Boeotians do, where man and boy are joined as couples and live together, or like the Eleans, who get to enjoy the charms of boys by making them grateful; there are also those who wholly prevent boy-lovers from conversing with boys. [...] in most of the Greek cities the laws do not oppose men’s desire for boys.
Xenophon, Constitution of the Lacedaemonians

>And many men, overall, prefer love with boys to love with females. In the very cities of Greece that have the best laws by comparison with others, this is the mode of behavior that is fashionable.
Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae, Book XII

>Give me some philosophical arguments against homosexuality
Requests like these are a steady reminder that conservatism is irreparably cringe

>>17976491
why's that then?

>Give me some philosophical arguments against homosexuality

imagine being such a cuckservative you can't even formulate arguments yourself for your retardation. kys

>>17976513
Do I need to explain that? ‘Philosophical arguments’ to confirm your alt-right incel faggotry? What’s next, ‘philosophical arguments’ in favor of you deserving pussy for being a nice guy?

>>17976338
>Because there's a reproductive aspect to it
Fags do not lose the ability to reproduce by being fags.
>anal sex
Only a minority (albeit a large one, I think it's 40%) of fags go for anal. Usually they blow and masturbate each other.

>>17975676
The issue is with anal sex which brings forth the impurities of Ahriman. People poop from their butt, and this is nasty and possess evil powers when one puts that which does not belong into it. Sodomy is a way to connect to the evil spirit or mentality of Ahriman called "Angra Mainyu".
Anal sex with women is likewise bad. One's penis must be placed in the vagina, nowhere else. This is what the spirit of Ohrmazd, Spenta Mainyu, intended for healthy and functioning individuals.
The impurities brought forth by anal sex are very difficult to cleanse and purify, hence why many homosexuals embrace deeper vices like pedophilia. They become degenerate and agents of Ahriman.

>>17976491
Ths unironically. Conservatism is pro-gay and therefore cringe.

>>17975676
Sage this gay thread.

>>17976538
He's posing an ethical conundrum on whether it is wrong to be gay or not, obviously he's looking for arguments against homosexuality with this debate in mind. YOU were the one who framed it in the false left-right dichotomy you dimwit

I like how you jumped straight to calling people 'alt-right' 'incels' and the like, I won't repay in kind and call you a tranny you'll be glad to know, buzzword-using ass nigga

>>17976377
What do people think they’re proving by posting these quotes? I can also find quotes about how plentiful gays are in San Francisco from the modern times. It doesn’t prove that homosexuality is right. Besides, they are specifically talking about love with “boys”, ie. pederasty. Are faggots really sure they want to associate themselves with this sort of pedophilia?
Plato and Socrates were categorically opposed to homosexuality
>one certainly should not fail to observe that when male unites with female for procreation the pleasure experienced is held to be due to nature, but contrary to nature when male mates with male or female with female, and that those first guilty of such enormities [the Cretans] were impelled by their slavery to pleasure. And we all accuse the Cretans of concocting the story about Ganymede [story about Zeus falling in love with a boy].
Homosexuality has been universally condemned throughout all civilisations. Finding one example of a decadent society where pederasty was practiced among the upper classes (mostly due to the social exclusion of women) doesn’t justify it. Plus the Greek pederast is not the same as the modern homosexual. The Greek pederast never married another man, nor did he have sex with manly men but with boys. And the wisest of Greek society such as Plato condemned it as hedonism.

>>17976587
>YOU were the one who framed it in the false left-right dichotomy you dimwit
Just about the only ones interested in the ‘wrongness’ of homosexuality are right wing retards, and since no one gives a flying fuck about ‘IT RONG CAUSE GAWD SAID SO’, you people have to rely on outdated semantic bullshit, which is framed as ‘philosophy’. What a pitiful bunch the right has become. Their belief system is devoid of credibility, their representatives are yelling retards, and their Messiah is an orange fornicator.

How embarrassing

>>17976178
>one has to admit the inferiority
>not as good
How so? On what grounds are you making the value judgement that a frog in an aquarium is not as good as a frog in a puddle? We can say that something can conform or deviate from it's naturally intended function, but there needs to be more said here.

>>17976607
>Homosexuality has been universally condemned throughout all civilisations. Finding one example of a decadent society where pederasty was practiced among the upper classes (mostly due to the social exclusion of women) doesn’t justify it.
It was practiced in Greece from at least the 7th century BC to the 2nd century AD, i.e. the entire time it was civilised, and the period practically all our ideas of its art and virtue and grace come from.
>Plato and Socrates were categorically opposed to homosexuality
Plato by the time of the Laws, yes. With Socrates it's more ambiguous. His commentary on the ascent of love from body to soul to form isn't applicable only to pederasty, but to physical love in general. I don't know where this "upper classes" meme comes from either. I haven't seen a primary source describing it as being a class-based phenomenon, and the presence of pederastic relationships in popular myths regarding the gods, or great heroes like Hercules and Achilles, or popular orations like those of Pindar, or plays like those performed by Aeschylus and Sophocles, seems to contradict this. Not to mention we find it practiced in Imperial Japan and China, Renaissance Florence, and the Islamic world, during their most fertile periods.

>>17976652

>>17976000
watch this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucn2KzCDnOY
it's pretty common on /lit/ to misunderstand what people mean by "natural." It most certainly isn't "it occurs in nature"

>>17976704
I'm not watching youtube crap. I'm aware of the distinction between 'natural law' natural and biological natural, but most people in these debates aren't speaking in the former sense.

>>17976377
>if we translate it to sound gay it means they were gay

>>17976725
cope.

>>17976716
they should be speaking about it in the former sense

>>17976732
>haha see look I used the word "love" now it sounds like the ancient greeks wouldn't have thrown me down a well. I guess it's okay for me to eat man ass and contract GRIDs haha

>>17976788
The word being translated into 'love' is 'eros'