/lit/ - Literature

>>20477079
"Straight is the Way" by Jane and Joel French.

>Is there any book that has ever actually attempted to rationally and philosophically explain why homosexuality or even all non-procreative sex especially outside of marriage is bad?

No because it's retarded and incels and christfags need to stop coping

>>20477079
It's gross.
Case closed.

>>20477079

>is there any book that expains why degeneracy is bad?
Yes any book of political theory before 1945 and any theological book ever. But I'm sure you and your depressed friends know better

>>20477079
Good thread anon, I'm also curious. Natural law certainly offers a proper argument. I do not think the author here's objection of it being "reductive" matters much. I feel like there is the possibility of other approaches though. If you look at the Greco-Roman understanding of the sexual act, of the roles of passive and active and how that is tethered to a feminine-masculine dichotomy, there should be plenty of material to construct an argument against homosexual intercourse. In fact, when sodomy was criminalized in the East Roman Empire under Justinian I, the reason cited was the "defilement of males".

>>20477079
>The Stanford article on homosexuality seemed to imply that there is no real argument against homosexuality:
Shocking! I thought globohomo would be honest bros...

>>20477079
>I want an actual argument.

If everything evolved out of nothing, there would be no real, substantial argument against homosexual practice.

But if not, if there is a divine Creator, the matter is rather different.

In the marital act, a man and a woman become, as it were, co-workers with God in creating a new human soul, made in the image and likeness of God, which will live forever. As such, it is a sacred act.

However, our desires have been knocked all out of true by the Fall, and in particular, and in some special way, our sexual desires.

A man's erection, and the act of ejaculation have a distinct teleological purpose -- to plant the seed, and create new life.

This is a God-given ability, not a chance byproduct of evolutionary processes. When used contrary to that purpose, it is, accordingly, a grave sin. In the case of sodomy, it is an especially perverse action -- almost a mockery of the marital act. In the case of masturbation, it imposes psychological damage -- the sin becomes its own punishment, as it were, in the way it becomes compulsive, and traps the mind in a debilitating, unreal world of impossible sexual fantasy.

>>20477110
"Cope" isn't even a real thing. Incels are right and you need stop being a nigger

>>20477079
You get shit on your dick, that’s all the argument you need.

>>20477121
this is what it boils down to

i hate christians so much
the enlightenment was the best thing which happened to humanity

It’s pointless, has no fruits. It’s just pleasure. It’s gay.

>>20477079
dude just use your fucking noncoomer brain to smell the roses and not the hairy stinky poopy asscheeks.

get a life you stupid faggot

>>20480302
I love JEWS and FECES wow!

>>20477079
Homosexuality leads to atheism, relativism and nihilism.

>>20480641
And hedonism.

Its weird this thread exists.

In my journey away from pessimism and antinatalism based on what most people consider a fallacy, that this is how nature has made it therefor it is in some way "right," I have recently come to the conclusion that homosexuality is something deep-down abhorrent to even its practitioners.

On some level, reality hates fags.

Libido dominandi By e Michael Jones

>>20480688
>I have recently come to the conclusion that homosexuality is something deep-down abhorrent to even its practitioners.
As a bisexual, I can agree. There is something inherently disorienting about it.

>>20477079
Homosexuality is a deviance from natural Law, not a degeneration, and therefore it is not evil in itself. Deviations may be temporary or beneficial (bread is a deviation of the grain's nature, it is not evil even absent of God granting us dominion over Earth) However this is superseded by the command of God to procreate.

>>20481188
I know this is the common pleb objection but how does this not apply to infertile people? It is no way open to procreation and is consequentially equivalent to having anal sex, should infertile be commit themselves to celibacy?

>>20481223
Seems to me the only coherent argument against it is just God commanded us not to do it and any rationalisation is pure vanity

>>20481223
In my mind, anal sex isn't sex.

Its a sexual act, but I define sex as between a man and woman, not even necessarily for procreation.

The terminology really breaks down if you analyze. Say you're a stud that only ever got blowjobs from extremely hot women, well you're a virgin.

Now say you're a mentally ill man sticking his dick in another man's disgusting ass, you're a non-virgin.

I'd take the virgin label in that case desu~

itt: a bunch of people whose dicks are closer to a male rectum than they will ever be to a vagina arguing while gay thoughts are le bad and incels are actually right.

>>20481223
Matthew 7:19
> "Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire."

>>20477079
>>20477142
>>20480641
>>20480662
>>20480688
Start with the Greeks.

>>20481370
>>20481223
But more seriously tho, we are talking here of willful acts. The infertile person is handicapped. Contrast this with a tranny. Trannnism is a willful degeneration, you lose your reproductive capabilities altogether from your own choice, a choice which will likely consume your being in it's near totality.
An infertile person may well find a way to channel the time and energy otherwise spent on raising a family on something virtuous. She needs our pity and our help, if it is scientifically possible to do so. An homosexual can raise a family. He needs patience, a readiness to welcome him but also a constant reminder of his obligations as an son to his father. A tranny is just a disfigured human being living in a fantasy world. Absolutely nothing can be done for them.

>>20477079
Homosexuality is bad because it is a breeding ground for misogyny. Where an average straight men might dislike a woman, the average homosexual man will loathe her. All gay men hate women with a passion, and wouldn't mind a world without them. Why women and homosexual men pretend to get along is a mystery. Maybe because being friends with a woman is a good way to gain access to other gay men. A bigger social circle is important to their mating strategy. It could also be a way for the gay male to dabble in interests that aren't appreciated by other men. Gay men are the main drivers behind anything culturally appealing to women as well. Cosmetica, fashion, bodyshapes, lifestyles, media are all influenced by gay individuals and gay culture. This culture is very harmful to women and has increased depression, body dismorphia, malicious lifestyles, consumerism and more. A homosex man isn't bad on itself, he just wants to fuck some hole. Allow it to fester though will result in a world of increased women's suffering.

>>20481425
>Homosexuality is bad because it is a breeding ground for misogyny.
>Allow it to fester though will result in a world of increased women's suffering.
And that's a good thing.

>>20481430
Gay incel moid baka, this is why I hate (Gay) men.

>>20477079
Homosexual are usually:

A. Highly promiscuous
B. Into anal play

This results into:

Z. A much higher disease load.

>>20481425
>modern women are so shitty that even faggotry is an improvement
i can't really say you're wrong, but it doesn't feel right either

Disapproval of homosexuality is a sign of decline/modernity/Judaism/slave morality

Periclean Athens, Medici Florence, Medieval Islam, Samurai Japan—flowering embodiments of masculine love

>>20481460
I just think its unhealthy in every respect. The ancients did a lot of unhealthy shit.

>>20481460
Disapproval of obesity is a sign of blabla slave morality.

Kings and queens, reubenesque paintings, samurai warriors, Djingis Khon, America, Saudi Arabia. Flowering embodiments of power, wealth and beauty.

>>20477168
Trajan was gay and Romans saw nothing wrong with that

> I know, of course, that he [Trajan] was devoted to boys and to wine, but if he had ever committed or endured any base or wicked deed as the result of this, he would have incurred censure; as it was, however, he drank all the wine he wanted, yet remained sober, and in his relation with boys he harmed no one.

> Trajan celebrated a triumph and was given the title of Dacicus; in the theatre he held contests of gladiators, in whom he delighted, and he brought the dancers of pantomimes back into the theatre, being enamoured of Pylades, one of their number.

> Leaving garrisons at opportune points, Trajan came to Edessa, and there saw Abgarus[3] for the first time. For, although Abgarus had previously sent envoys and gifts to the emperor on numerous occasions, he himself, first on one excuse and then another, had failed to put in an appearance, as was also the case with Mannus, the ruler of the neighbouring portion of Arabia, and Sporaces, the ruler of Anthemusia.

> On this occasion, however, induced partly by the persuasions of his son Arbandes, who was handsome and in the prime of youth and therefore in favour with Trajan, and partly by his fear of the latter’s presence, he met him on the road, made his apologies and obtained pardon, for he had a powerful intercessor in the boy. Accordingly he became Trajan’s friend and entertained him at a banquet; and during the dinner he brought in his boy to perform some barbaric dance or other.

>>20481497
What I find odd about these discussions is their obsessive anality. As a homo I do not care for anal sex or think about it at all. It annoys me when people overlook the fact that a homosexual's entire romantic, erotic, aesthetic inclination is permanently oriented toward their sex. Everything you feel for the opposite sex we feel for the same sex. Every tender moment you can invoke from your memory has an analogue in the experience of a homosexual

>>20481505
There’s also a letter by M. Cornelius Fronto to Hadrian

> What of your ancestors who enlarged the state and empire of Rome with huge additions? Your great-grandfather,[1] consummate warrior as he was, yet at times took pleasure in actors[2] and, moreover, drank pretty stoutly. Yet thanks to him the Roman people often drank mead at his triumphs.

He claims that Trajan had sex with actors and

> Actors in Rome (with the possible exception of some non-speaking roles) were male. The Greek love interest of this passage is merely the corroboration it offers from an early date of Cassius Dio’s statement of Trajan’s fondness for boys (including an actor) and wine.

>>20481510
Don't forget Fronto's correspondence with Marcus Aurelius:
>Yet shall you never drive your lover, I mean me, away; nor shall I the less assert that I love Fronto, or love him the less, because you prove with reasons so various and so vehement that those who are less in love must be more helped and indulged. So passionately, by Hercules, am I in love with you, nor am I frightened off by the law you lay down, and even if you shew yourself more forward and facile to others, who are non-lovers, yet will I love you while I have life and health.
—Letter from young Marcus Aurelius to his teacher Fronto

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Correspondence_of_Marcus_Cornelius_Fronto/Volume_1/The_Correspondence#Ad_M._Caes._i._1

https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/M/bo3793334.html

>>20481507
You got me. It really is the anality that disgusts me primarily, even in heterosexual relationships.

I've engaged in homosexual oral sex, and while hedonistically it hits the right numbers, it does on some level feel an affront to nature. I can understand if an affront to nature doesn't bother anyone, but its there.

I simply can't feel for a man the way I feel for a woman. If you can, more power.

>>20481521
Not gonna try and talk you out of your subjective feelings of disgust with oral sex, but thinking critically I don't see how a behaviour regularly performed by macaque monkeys (supposedly in a socially productive manner) can be an affront to nature, who seems to produce all manner of organisms who engage in it. Oh, I reread your post -- I actually thought you said you'd engaged in heterosexual oral sex. Well, the argument applies anyway. It's worth noting that heterosexual oral sex used to be prosecuted as sodomy. i.e. that it was considered an affront to nature. I'm not worried about defending homosexuality anymore, I'm just being philosophically finicky. I feel like you haven't considered your views

>>20481539
I've engaged in both.

The thing about with other males is that there is a level of satisfaction that is just not there. Maybe its the whole "what we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly" thing. It never really compares to with some raven haired blue-eyed tomboy. There's levels to that that just aren't present in the homosexual case.

Just my subjective take.

>>20481505
>>20481510
>>20481513
What's your point? If you think I was saying that the ancient Greeks and Romans did not engage in sodomy, you misinterpreted me. My point was how christianized Romans changed their sentiment on the permissability of sodomy, but still culturally held to the metaphysics of sex, if I may use that phrase, that existed pre-Christianity. Namely how they saw sexuality as existing in this paradigm of dominance, masculinity, activity juxtaposed to submission, femininity, passivity. It wasn't until the 6th century that sodomy was completely banned, citing the "defilement of males" as I stated. This criminalization was a processes that began earlier through the banning of passive homosexual intercourse only. I.e. it was completely legal as long as you were not the receiver. The denigration of the passive participant was something that was continued from pagan Greco-Roman culture; adult men who let themselves be used in such a way were despised as catamite effeminates. The accusation of being such a man was the greatest insult on honour and a direct attack on the individual's masculinity, his virtus, which was not just an individual virtue, but a civic and political virtue, and thus a necessary attribute to be able to take part in political, social life.
The Greeks and Romans, however in many cases, considered the passive role as perfectly fit for the hairless youth, and expected one who has been sodomized as a boy to be able to completely flip to the masculine role upon reaching maturity, with no lasting effects.
The Christians must have viewed the catamite as a more permanent role. With this they justified the death penalty against them, and later they outlawed sodomy also for the active participant, not because he is endangering his own masculinity, but because of what he inflicts on his partner.

>>20477079
I say let us bring back Greco-Roman morality when it comes to homosexuality. Just don’t be a bottom.

>>20477079
Id argue that treating human sexuality as its only good if its for the purpose of procreation as absolutely barbaric and backwards.

Christian Morality is slave morality and quite frankly it doesnt matter if the jews or masons or satanists dont like christianity. I dont like christianity because it acts in absolute mockery of morality and having an aristocratic society.

I would say that the best of men are objectively better looking than women and we look to sex as a form of bonding and fun. Women look to sex as a way of gaining resources and binding a man with a child.

I can honestly say in my psychological and physical examination of women I find them absolutely repulsive, it is hard to believe we are of the same species due to the intense psychological divide. Women act like children of the worst sort their entire lives and obey authority without question. They are like Demon NPCs who beguile men.

Abramaic sprituality is low tier trash because its extremely cryptic while also shaming people for their human nature.

>>20481803
Damn each paragraph was worse than the previous one. You do know you must be over 18 to post here, right?

>>20480635
Jews are and will always be superior to christcucks

>>20481845
>t.

>>20477079
iirc it's about hypocrisy more than anything else, how many times people say that vaginas are icky but when justifying their own acts they say "oh you can wash it and...", or maybe like they want it to be not condemned but they go out of their way to act as queer as possible.

To say there isn't an argument against is very dishonest, if you know one personally it would become apparently clear how did they end up this way. From having a skewed of masculinity from past experiences which leads them to reject that part of themselves, to conforming towards their unhealthy life style because hey why bother anymore if it feels nice.
And on top of that to say they had no choice over the matter even though one always has the choice to decide how they want to react what happens to the in life (basic free will).

Anyway maybe Sexual Personae by Camille Paglia could be the book you're looking for, I didn't read it yet but it's highly regarded afaik.

>>20481858
>t.

>>20481223
A homosexual person in principle cannot procreate.
Whereas an infertile person can only not procreate incidentally, rather than as a result of a preceding principle.

It's for this reason homosexual "sex" isn't actually sex at all, any more than oral "sex" is.

>>20477079
bugchasing documentary

>>20477079
>Anal sex
Dude, you shit from there. You're disgusting. The argument against homosexuality is just being a normal person.

Mishima first ejaculation was on that pic of st sebastian lol

>>20481578
He's mentally ill and fills every thread even lightly pointing in the direction of Greeks or Romans with his spam

>>20481823
Also the reddit spacing. Horrendous.

>>20481993
Homos love him for some reason.

>>20481877
Ok I think it makes sense now

>>20481384
What? The Greeks refuted homosexuality?

It just is. Simple as.

>>20481384
No. Thank God Greece was Christianized so vigorously.

>>20481460
All degenerate epochs.

>>20481865
How I be lookin at the fags in this thread with their dollar store ass “trad gay” memes

>>20482628
Based. Childhood is idolizing Julian. Adulthood is when you realize Justinian makes more sense.

>>20481803
It's funny that Florence Nightingale should claim that women have no empathy. Why did she devote her life to helping people? Was it really just to become famous? I'm sure there were much much easier ways (e.g. she might have been a novelist) than what she chose. She believed in professionalism and actual care. She helped a lot of people. Why did she pretend like women were incable of sympathy? She was intelligent and caring wasn't she? She was a great figure in history? Was she just playing to patriarchal ideas in order to "balance out" her revolutionary place in history? This is honestly making me a bit upset as a medical professional.
> Although much of Nightingale's work improved the lot of women everywhere, Nightingale believed that women craved sympathy and were not as capable as men.[a] She criticised early women's rights activists for decrying an alleged lack of careers for women at the same time that lucrative medical positions, under the supervision of Nightingale and others, went perpetually unfilled.[b] She preferred the friendship of powerful men, insisting they had done more than women to help her attain her goals, writing: "I have never found one woman who has altered her life by one iota for me or my opinions."[57][58] She often referred to herself in the masculine, as for example "a man of action" and "a man of business".[59]
She clearly has a lot of self hatred, definitely a "Thatcher" thing going on here. Probably explains why she never married. Female incel.

>>20482066
NTA but that's not Reddit spacing, he's just placing a space after every paragraph.

>>20481384
The thing the greeks understood and for a while the romans too is that its not really being gay its just loving your bros a lot, only gay if you let it be

>>20481578
damn good post anon, I learned today

>>20482986
Reddit

>>20481578
Do you really think this doesn't cause harm to the active participant? someone being insecure enough about his strength that he needs to dominate and humiliate a weaker male? It's prison homosexuality in a way, except the jail is ones shortcomings that let's them decide their fate.

>>20482986
self post

>>20483069
>Do you really think this doesn't cause harm to the active participant?
The motivation given for the criminalization for all sodomy in the 6th century is, as I've said, the defilement of males. The law is speaking to the active participants here, not to the passive (for which there had already been promulgated laws centuries prior ordering beheading with swords): it is a law explicitly against those who lay with boys. It is seen as an evil thing to do. It is an act of illicit lust, first of all, second an act of malice, or at least hedonistic neglect, which is of course opposite to the great Christian virtue of charity, because you are defiling and emasculating these males for the purpose of satiating your own lust. Those vices create a base spiritual condition, where the soul is clouded with attatchments to the world, which is incompatible with the heavenly path.
However, as for myself I believe that even beyond all those things, sodomy in general, regardless of active or passive role, is abominable. There's something wrong with it, same as with beastiality, that neither this line of thinking nor natural law can suffieciently explain.

>>20477079
The sexual instincts exists to make babies, so if a man is attracted to another man, something has gone wrong in his development - there's a disconnect somewhere in his brain, often caused by being molested as a kid. There are also many social arguments that can be made against faggots. Look at what happens at any pride parade, how aggressively they groom kids, and the prevalence of child rape among faggots.

It's really not difficult to see why homosexuality was outlawed.

>>20483326
I happened to stumble upon some interesting tidbits when I was reading psychology books, in the "Facing the Dragon" by Robert Moore he goes over at one point that it is used as a means for the psyche to cope with severe grandiosity. Same goes with some business man that does cocaine, or a priest that turns out to be a pedophile after years of being praised and him being incapable of being humble despite that.

It simply struck me oddly how versatile that approach was, I even saw it in myself when in all honesty. All to simply reconnect with ones humanity it's kinda tragic really, I also remembered the story in babyn yar when they were executing people into a pit, how some nazi soldiers decided to rape some women while they were are then subsequently executing them iirc.
I fear that the hunch you have might true, I think you should check out the book yourself if you have the chance.

>>20482888
Read Wine-nigger. Only women CAN be nurses BECAUSE they lack the necessary depth of emotion to truly empathise with their patients; it's all surface level and false, to be thrown off the moment the man dies and the next patient lays in his bed.

>>20484168
> it's all surface level and false, to be thrown off the moment the man dies and the next patient lays in his bed.
Do you actually think health professionals are supposed to give that much of a fuck about their patients? How much of a bleeding-heart altruistic maladjusted overly-emotional unbalanced sissy freak do you have to be to become a fucking doctor in a war situation and breakdown after one of your fucking patients die? It's your job to learn to be desensitised to these things if you aren't already a psychopathy or something if you want to become a doctor. Most doctors, as it turns out, already are psychopaths! this occupation tends to attract their type for some reason. Imo, this work is a lot better suited for men and not women like you say. Men are cool, logical, and professional, which is what based Dame Nightingale seems to value in us, hence why she preferred working with men. Nursing might have been done by boys/young men instead of women in a different world. Still, do you honestly think that men would act more affectionately to their patients than a woman would? The reason we have female nurses is because no dying soldier wants to be tended to by a dude unless it's really serious and we wanted our women to do something so we could put our men to actual work--not because men break down when their fucking patient dies.

>>20480641
you need to be 18 to post here

>>20485141
Men become hollow as they see fellow men die. Women do not. Simple as that; the efficacy of these things and the relative division of (sexed) labour is not in dispute.

Men have empathy, women feign it to gain status.

>>20483493
debunked

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environment_and_sexual_orientation#Childhood_sexual_abuse,_molestation_or_early_experiences

>>20477079
>rationally and philosophically explain why homosexuality or even all non-procreative sex especially outside of marriage is bad?

it's gay

>Men who are sliced from the wholly male original seek out males, and being slices of the male, while they are still boys they feel affection for men and take pleasure in lying beside or entwined with them. In youth and young manhood this sort of male is the best because he is by nature the most manly. Some people say such males are without shame, but that is not true. They do what they do not out of shamelessness but out of confidence, courage and manliness, and they embrace that which is like themselves. And there is good evidence for this in the fact that only males of this type, when they are grown up, prove to be the real men in politics.
—Symposium, 191e-192c

straight bros...

your biography

>>20480302
The enlightenment is secularism Christianity
Without Christianity, there would be nothing you see as valuable
Everything you see as of being of value is valuable only through the lense of Christian metaphysics and aesthetics

Another faggot cope thread?
Imagine yourself as a kid again, that little guy had a dream. The dream for sure wasn't to become a pissed, snivelling faggot that takes dicks up his ass

>>20487033
>doesn't post the follow up where faggotry is made fun of
>doesn't post the part where only a woman knows what love truly is

Kys Sodomite

>>20487734
Post them yourself, if you actually manage to find them.
From what I remember, there never was a part in that dialog where homosexuality was made fun of and the part with a woman was only an introduction to develop on.

>>20487721

> Everything you see as of being of value is valuable only through the lense of Christian metaphysics

> people didn't know good before Christianity came along
> people didn't know aesthetics before Christianity came along

Theology of the body by JPII

>>20486893
Holy shit, you are a faggot. Do you honestly believe that women don't ever go through a process of "becoming hollow" or get inappropriately and overly-attached to their patients? You obviously have not engaged with people of this occupation (regardless of sex), anon. Women aren't inherently better at nursing because they are somehow more stoic, that's ridiculous.
Emotionality is simply not what makes a good practitioner. Nurses should comfort their patients, yes, but this business of becoming emotionally invested with one's patient's outcome is ridiculous. The most manly attribute a doctor can have is to look on death as something regrettable, especially when preventable, but not as something overly affecting. Why do you think so many practitioners suicide? Some of it is stress, yes, and some of it is the nature of the work. Men must be able to handle both. You really need to talk to a practitioner about their experiences because they are nothing like you imagine.

>>20488261
>Women aren't inherently better at nursing because they are somehow more stoic, that's ridiculous.
You don't understand me. To be stoic is to let emotions be they positive or negative to flow through you. You do not resist them, but acknowledge and acquiesce in their rising and passing equally. Women cannot be stoics. They have no rationality in their emotionality. Men compose a mental schema through which they view and interact with the world, and the emotions it produces. Most men's schemas are of the type I've illustrated, in that they rationally examine the magnitude of the experience that nursing a dying man denotes.
Women possess no rationality, and thus no schema. They naturally are solely their emotions, solely their hysterics. The emotion may seem to be that of men, the outpourings of grief may seem to be produced by similar events as that produce the same outpouring as men; yet this is not the same emotion. Men cypher it through their schema, and then act it out. Women IS her hysterics and her emotion. As it passes it ceases to exist, as if it never had happened, and correspondingly fails to affect the mental schema which it would've done to a man. Man can be stoic in that he ALLOWS his emotions to pass over him; Woman acts in a manner that SEEMS stoic in that they are incapable of being anything other than their emotion.

>>20488349
You are saying that women are not affected by their emotions? that they are all psychopaths and only pretend to be affected by emotions? yet, at the same time, that they on average cannot control these false emotions like a psychopath can because they are controlled by them and not the other way around? That women are literally incapable of experiencing the effects of trauma after a traumatic experience? Okay? So how exactly is this helpful for nursing then? How is unbridled hysteria more useful than the cool, measured, rational approach of men, who feel no emotion in excess of that which is professional and who can only regret mistakes, never lament upon them?
Furthermore, you want to say that it is inhuman to not be affected by the death of your patients but most doctors from my experience only cry a handful of times within their career over the death of a patient, and often that is the first time someone dies in their care and some time later due to some personal experience or connection--they don't usually cry the second time someone dies in their care because by then they've already been "hardened".

>>20488445
You aren't even bothering to read my post, as evidenced by how much you've misinterpreted me. Women are nothing but their emotions. They do not control them, they ARE them. Men have emotions which they interact with rationally.

I presume you're a women. Read my posts again and meditate on them, perhaps when you've calmed somewhat. I don't expect you to accept them—how could any women?—but if you can glean any substance from them, and then implement them into your life, you might be able to portray a woman better than women are.

>>20488673
Did you read my post? No where in my post did I ever say that women are in control of their emotions? Quite the opposite actually. Also, If you can, point to a part of my post where I misinterpret you. Until then I just have to assume that you are purposefully being disingenuous to ignore my argument refuting you contention that only women can be nurses because they lack the ability to empathize with the patients who cycle in and out of the hospital's (death)bed despite women being highly emotional and hysterical as well.
> OMG You're not even listening to me!
> Refuses to demonstrate why and cowardly leaves the argument after dropping an ad hom.
Ironic that you tried to call me a woman, faggot.

>>20486897
Ven Diagram. Not all men who were abused in their childhood turn out to be faggots, but all who turn out to be faggots were abused. Half of them have the guts to admit it.
At the end:
>Scientists are now looking for biological reasons
We found the left handed gene before we did any sort of gay gene.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11501300
https://www.bitchute.com/video/3XMVnM5kMHKi/

>>20477142

>source on male homosexual partner count is conveniently cherry picked immediately before AIDS

OTOH, of course they're promiscuous and the pre-AIDS number can be argued to be a more accurate count of how they would like to lead their lives, all other things being equal. AIDS itself could be argued to be a recent historical aberration (how do you even set aside the time to suck a thousand dicks over the course of your life?)

>>20477079
>Please, no books that just says shit like "da byebowl sez so" that's just fucking retarded, I want an actual argument.
This is like asking for a an explanation of something in calculus but without using any arithmetic or algebra.
Even going beyond the fact that God forbid it (which should be enough) the philosophical explanations about masculine and feminine natures, of the propriety of the male and female anatomy and how they are clearly designed for each other, and how marriage is a symbol of God's love for His creation, are ultimately rooted in religious discussion and divine revelation.
You've stuffed your ears and then demanded a symphony.
In regards to your specific greentext, reduction of marriage to procreation because it is one of its important functions is a straw man.

>>20477220
>incels are right
Didn’t even deny it kek

>>20477079
The bible.

>>20487830
unironically true

>>20488809
Back when i was a smoker i'd go to a bar to get drinks and burn through an entire pack of cigarettes in a time of less than 4 hours of conversation. Considering that there are 52 fridays in any given year it's not hard to get to the conclusion that i'd easily get to 1000 cigarettes in a single year even if i had limited myself to only smoking at the bar.

Now i can't speak for all men and especially can't speak for homosexual men but a cigarette lasts about 7-10 minutes and it can take quite a lot less time than that to come from a well-given blowjob. I think you can already see my point there.

>>20490044
It only follows: you are unironically dumb.

>>>20490422
i got the higher dubs so that's where you're wrong

>>20488790
>We found the left handed gene before we did any sort of gay gene.
So retarded. Intelligence is one of the most heritable human traits but there is no "intelligence gene". The fact homosexuals and heterosexuals are physically and behaviourally distinct from birth, the older brother birth order effect, the stable rate of homosexuality across populations (even ones with pederastic initiation rites) -- all point to biological explanation

>>20477079
lesbianism is by far the most patrician and /lit/ sexuality. so much that biological males are currently clamoring to claim it.

>>20477079
simply put, if you cant reproduce you cant push society toward a genuine state of bliss or heaven cause nothing would exist, and no one would exist if there are exclusively homosexual/sterile relationships.

>>20491510
so celibates and homos like Plato, Michelangelo, St. Paul, Newton contributed nothing to society?

Saint Peter Damian, The Book of Gomorrah (Liber Gomorrhianus)

>>20491731
>using celibate as a synonymous of homosexual
you don't understand a shit

>>20492073
Neither reproduce.

>>20492074
celibates abstain from sexual intercourse while faggots masturbate furiosly and have buttsex, it's not the same thing.

>>20492079
Did you read the comment I was replying to? His argument was that anyone who doesn't reproduce fails to contribute to "human bliss", whatever that means. Anyway, there are plenty of celibate homosexuals. Michelangelo did not fuck men, but his art and poetry was heavily informed by his erotic temperament. If you are religious you should abandon this way of talking about homosexuals.

>>20492087
>Anyway, there are plenty of celibate homosexuals
there are or there were?

>>20477079
>there is no real argument against homosexuality
STDs and the demoralization of an easy sexual life

>>20492107
Well, if there are not anymore, it's not the homosexuals who are to blame! When I think of the religious sceptics who inaugurated modernity, it seems like a thoroughly heterosexual list...

>>20481384
>men without women are destined to greatness

>>20492117
faggot incel cope

>>20492121
seems to be borne out by the evidence..

i will stop being a fag when i turn 25 and become a strict roman catholic

>>20492130
>by the evidence
by a gaycel is an evidence now? wow

>>20492140
the heterosexual seethes and copes, knowing he is tethered by his base sexual impulses to the inferior sex. knowing that he must enter into communion with these irrational, child-like creatures all his life; must deliver his hard-won finances, his home, even his offspring, into their clutches, because of nothing more than the stirrings of his groin. how does it feel? screech, stomp, kick and scream all you like... you will never escape...

>>20492159
>the heterosexual seethes and copes
while the faggot is having shit on his penis and getting AIDS

>>20492167
uhh women pee from da vagina

>>20481877
But it still doesn't explain that an infertile person cannot procreate. Sex for an infertile person is indeed quite different than sex between homosexuals. However, both will still not procreate. Then, there's no other reason for an infertile person to have sex.

However, the accepted reality is that married individuals are allowed to have sex as many times as they want regardless if their intentions to procreate or feed desires. Similarly, an infertile person -- or, in fact, any other person -- will still desire to mate, even if they cannot procreate. A built-in system created by God to ensure procreation happens. A homosexual with deviant behavior will still have the same drive, just like the infertile.

Suppose you accept the notion that it is acceptable for an infertile person to perform the act of sex to satiate the inner drive to mate, just like the married couple, rather than its functionality strictly to procreate. Then, there shouldn't be any reason why a homosexual with deviant behavior, albeit not natural, be exempted from satisfying that same drive.

Also, I believe it's unnatural for a man to use a condom while performing sex. Yet, that's a common trend. Going against the notion of procreation.

The mental state of "homosexuality" does not exist. Grow up.

>>20492159
I agree with this, but I'm not fucking a worm-riddled asshole either, I'll never bend the knee to the whims of women because I want pussy and fucking men is to demoralizingly indulge to your worse animal instincts.

The only reason to tolerate women is if you want to have a family and that's that, you're lucky if your partner isn't a wretched cunt and that's what life is about

>>20488852
Wait till you hear this next one...
>Not cringestain
I hate fags but trying to say that because the "bible said so" is not any sort of argument at all to anyone who doesn't worship Rabbi Yeshua and the evolution of the Canaanite war god El.
>Inb4 gay greeks were pagan!!1!
Germania by Tacitus. Faggots get hanged and tossed into bogs.
t. Pagan if it wasn't clear

Captcha was HH HH 5

>>20491103
>the stable rate of homosexuality across populations (even ones with pederastic initiation rites)
How can you just dismiss the existance of historical societies in which homoerotic behaviour, or at least desire, was not only commonplace and socially accepted, but expected, as "pederastic initiation rites"? You vastly misrepresent the nature of homosexuality (or rather bisexuality) in the Ancient world. Even among its critics, such as Phile, the existance of homoerotic desire was never questioned.

>>20492130
>>20492159
Are you aware of just how many children this Christian chad had?

>>20491149
Lesbianism isn't even a sexuality. There's no dicks, nothing to penetrate and nothing penetrated hence no contrast or contradiction.
It's a more degenerate form of chastity really. Men can be heterosexual, chaste or homosexual, women, however, can only be the first two.

>>20477079
https://archive.org/details/TheCoiledSerpent

>>20494296
His lineage is extinct. It's literally impossible to preserve one's genes coherently beyond a few generations. "Just breed bro," is a retarded het-shit cope attempting to invoke, poorly, and vulgarly popular naturalism. All is vanity, my boy, the difference is that my vanities feel better.

>>20494869
read dawkins, retard

>>20477130
>https://www.josephnicolosi.com/
This is a gay man whose dad was so homophobic that he repressed himself into thinking he could cure gayness and thus himself. Honestly sad.

>>20480641
>Homosexuality leads to atheism, relativism and nihilism.

>>20481989
>Vaginal sex with penis? You know you both pee from there, right? Disgusting!
???

>>20489885
>The bible.

>>20487721
>Without Christianity, there would be nothing you see as valuable
Why are christards so obsessed with value, meaning, and purpose? Would it be so awful to to have enjoyed your life without it having been part of some grand design?
>Christian aesthetics
Churches are fucking creepy. It's the only place where it's acceptable to have images of a man being tortured to death on your walls.
>Christian metaphysics
"Because God said so" ah so interesting

>>20487721
Tell me you've never been outside your home country without telling me you've never been outside your home country

>>20495161
Let me explain for you, my little friend of disadvantaged stature.
>Homosexuality leads to atheism
Put in the context of Abrahamic religions, this is not difficult to understand. One can not engage in homosexual acts and also not drift away from the teachings of the Abrahamic religions. Moving away from the core teachings of an ideology or religion leads to the loss of that ideology or religion.
>Relativism leads to nihilism
He means ideological nihilism. If morality is relative, for instance, there is no "morality." Morality is not real. The same can be said for the multitude of other things which are "relative." Anyone who is relativist must necessarily also become nihilist or else they are no longer logically consistent.

>>20495210
Morality which is simply derived from authority isn't morality. Also, subjectivity enters in whenever a human being apprehends a moral code anyway, as evidenced by the fact that the number of different interpretations of "objective" morality matches the number of people in question. You don't get to claim objectivity by saying "a non-corporeal being said so". Also, apprehending the subjective nature of morality does NOT necessarily lead to nihilism, since the subjective experience of negatives is as real as any objective thing is /for the individual feeling it/. Therefore, a system of morality based on the understanding of the avoidance of negative experiences in dialogue with those whose society you share can be, and is, the only reasonable basis for a real mortality. Everything else is based on lies and manipulation.

>>20495334
>Morality which is simply derived from authority isn't morality.
Actually, it is a system of morality based on the understanding of the avoidance of negative experiences in dialogue with those whose society you share, those negative effects being the eternal torments of hell.
>Also, subjectivity enters in whenever a human being apprehends a moral code anyway, as evidenced by the fact that the number of different interpretations of "objective" morality matches the number of people in question.
There is objective reality. Thrre can be objective morality. Human beings are imperfect in knowledge. Their imperfection leads to variances in belief. This can be likened to the blind men and the elephant.
>You don't get to claim objectivity by saying "a non-corporeal being said so"
Actually, you can. This is because system of morality based on the understanding of the avoidance of negative experiences in dialogue with those whose society you share, those negative experiences being the eternal torments of hell.
>Therefore, a system of morality based on the understanding of the avoidance of negative experiences in dialogue with those whose society you share can be, and is, the only reasonable basis for a real mortality.
You really can't understand. I'm sorry your brain got destroyed.

>>20495695
>the eternal torments of hell.
Ah, I see you are a victim of a pernicious ideology which was imprinted on you as a child. My condolences. We adults speak of real consequences in the here and now, in the only world we know is real, not in make-believe land.

>>20494380
Imagine being at this level of retardation and still being expected to keep up in the modern world. Sorry bro.

>>20477079
>Is there any book that has ever actually attempted to rationally and philosophically explain why homosexuality or even all non-procreative sex especially outside of marriage is bad?

DICK IN POO POO HOLE DOES NOT MAKE BABY YOU ACTUAL MONGOLOID

>>20496750
so?

>>20496757
NO BABY NO SPECIES. YOU GRUGS DIE. MY GRUGS LIVE

>>20496776
female relatives of homosexuals are more fertile

>>20496778
Listen, faggot. I'm already fucking your mom, you don't have to convince me.

Perverted faculty argument

>>20477079
If you look at it either through an evolutionary or religious lens, it doesn't make sense. There's a reason why the male and female bodies complete each other so gracefully and are able to procreate. With sexual perversions, you have to create an entirely separate reasoning for your behaviour.

>>20496741

No one here pays your indignation any serious attention. Categorially eliminating lesbianism itself as authentic sexuality is both a correct appraisal of the psuedo-seuxal nature of lesbianism itself, and also a correct re-affirmation of the Victorian paradigm equating "actual sex" with penetration which my old kike history professor lady once complained of, carrying real explanatory power. No, rubbing bits together doesn't count. In order to count, the bits must be rubbed in such-and-such a way, and this is the metaphysical cutoff for anything that might approach to a sex act, even a pseudo- or- backward sex act, i.e male homosexual sex. Short of penetration via fisting, dildos etc, lesbian "sex" fails to arrive at this point. It's always silly little girls being silly at each other. And this is precisely why lesbian bed death is a thing.

>>20494380
df

>>20487721
>Without Christianity, there would be nothing you see as valuable
>Everything you see as of being of value is valuable only through the lense of Christian metaphysics and aesthetics
Woah .... didn't realize this taco I'm eating was caused by Christian metaphysics. Or these dollar bills in my wallet. This is some next level delusion.
Humans have existed for hundreds of thousands of years, civilization for thousands. And how long has your little cult existed?

>>20477079
"Straight is the Way" by Jane and Joel French.

>>20477079
The creator of the heavens and the earth (universe) saying so is an argument.

>>20480302
>>20481845
Gay capital of the middle east is TelAviv.

>>20481865
>the schizo is still posting chudjak
This website is shit because mods never ban retarded jews like you.

>>20497332
Since the beginning, you should actually read the Bible before trying to attack it. Even satan knows it better than you, fag sodomite. Genesis 1, Exodus 3, John 1, John 8. I'm not going to specify which verses, just the chapters, you'd know which I'm referring to if you weren't just an internet fedora troll who shits up every thread at the mere mention of God or Christ. You're all the same and you're all dumb ignorant liars.

>>20497776
Calling people fag is not Christian behaviour

>>20496778
Because "homosexuality" is just a high sex drive in combination with a perverted culture.

>>20498429
Kek, cope

>>20497776
Haha, this dude fell for Jewish fairy tales. Shouldn't you be out here turning the other cheek or spreading them or whatever that ancient Jew told you to do?

>>20496778
I'm genuinely curious where this is from and why nature made this a common occurrence

>>20501131
I told you. Everything about them is easy to explain when you understand they're just horny perverts. They're from historically repressed cultures so the feeling of breaking a taboo is amplified. In less developed cultures now and historically people tended to view masturbation, sodomy and bestiality as roughly equivalent. The sodomite identity comes as a reaction to it being shunned.

God one of the busiest threads here and it’s about whether men can stick their penis inside other men for pleasure. What a fucking waste of time. Not a single useful reasoning was made here. You should all be examining the trajectory of your lives very closely.

>>20481521
The feeling of disapproval and distaste you feel towards homosexuality is not natural to you.
It's literally a trauma scar left by a lifetime raised in a homophobic society. It's a cultural construction, nothing more.
You were taught to hate homos from a very early tender age, we all were. And by tbe gods, you learned it well. We all did.

>>20501484
You seem to have all the answers, anon. What's your reasoning then?

>>20496862
I wanna book that says this and more on it. Because I agree and I don't want the mental note to fade away and be lost to the sands of time.
Not lesbian bed death, but I suppose what you refer to as "Victorian paradigms"