What are the best arguments againts homosexuality?

File: 250 KB, 680x638, 827.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Wed Apr 4 19:51:05 2018 No.10951779 [DELETED]

What are the best arguments againts homosexuality?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 19:55:14 2018 No.10951816 The extension cord plug argument

Anonymous Wed Apr 4 19:57:02 2018 No.10951829
File: 14 KB, 501x501, 1522759973953.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

If you've got good arguments to justify scripture as a source of morality, scripture.
Or you could argue that they're bad for the common good of society with statistics for higher prevalence of aids, child abuse, ect, though one would counter-argue that that's due to external factors.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 19:57:39 2018 No.10951836 >>10951779 Aids :-DDD

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 20:02:00 2018 No.10951860 >>10951836 This. What if I like accidentally use a gay dude's toothbrush and he bled a smudge while brushing? Not cool dude.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 20:02:02 2018 No.10951861 File: 297 KB, 1200x863, 1475312422980.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 20:03:44 2018 No.10951870 File: 589 KB, 1155x628, jezebelllls.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10951861

Anonymous Wed Apr 4 20:05:01 2018 No.10951878

>>10951779

The "best" argument against homosexuality is that homosexuality cannot exist within a socially conservative framework that values the family unit. Today we believe that by pretending homosexual couples are "just like" heterosexual ones we can assimilate gay people into what is otherwise a socially conservative society. In truth, the acceptance of homosexuality necessitates the acceptance of gender identity, moral relativism, non-reproductive sex, the non-importance of the family unit in society, etc. Basically the notion that homosexuality is a Trojan horse for larger social changes that not everyone wants.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 20:06:57 2018 No.10951890 File: 148 KB, 1080x1080, 1522753530513.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10951878 As a gayboi, i'm sorry desu.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 20:07:56 2018 No.10951897 >>10951878 shut up nerd

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 20:08:59 2018 No.10951905 >>10951890 do

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 20:11:48 2018 No.10951923 >>10951878 except you're wrong, and homosexuality was present in many cultures in which none of what you described was even thought of yet

Anonymous Wed Apr 4 20:14:36 2018 No.10951936
File: 139 KB, 1200x1200, Memri_491a70_6410902.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10951878
homosexuality exists within a conservative framework in the same way other non-sexually viable adults do
My grandmother may take care of children and donate money out of shared biological interests towards my children, my lesbian sister may too, and my children gain the advantage of having an increased support network compared to other children who lack an additional income provided for their benefit
likewise, the lesbian aunt benefits because despite having no children of her own, her close biology to mine mean that it's evolutionary viable for her to favor my children and the aunt also benefits from having a family unit to an extent she may otherwise lack (children)

You're welcome to replace 'lesbian aunt' with 'infertile aunt' and the argument is the same

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 20:14:41 2018 No.10951937 >>10951923 >muh greeks liked boipussy argument Where the greeks at now nigga? Turks replaced their gay ass

Anonymous Wed Apr 4 20:14:44 2018 No.10951938

>>10951878
I'm somewhat curious as to what alternative people would proffer as opposed to the family unit. It seems difficult to separate parents from children, and slightly less difficult to separate monogamous couples, simply based on how human biology works.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 20:15:11 2018 No.10951945 >>10951878 You could make the same argument with prostitution and it never destroyed the societal framework or conservative ideology

Anonymous Wed Apr 4 20:15:19 2018 No.10951946

>>10951779
they would collapse any population without breeders or technology that requires hetero breeders+engineers

they have high rates of mental illness and suicide

in small doses they produce high culture, in high doses they melt the superstructure and bleed into everyone’s subconscious, see: uptalking lisping vocal fry boygrill cuck bugs

the pedo thing, overstated by /pol/ and christfags (who have so much pedo shit going on in their own house it makes you wonder why they fixate), but totally ignored by libs and leftists because they don’t get gay sexuality and its fixation on young nubile “men” (boys)

they’re weaklings, most of them are physically inferior, ugly, short, failed males. the idea of fit, handsome, high iq muscle hunks being most gays or healthy, trim twinks is fucking stupid. most of them are out of shape, ugly fags. skinnyfat or burly fat creeps

there’s no evidence that they provide any fitness benefit besides protecting female fertility indirectly through sexually antagonistic selection

they’ve basically hijacked social discourse like Jews, Blacks and Women have and this is self-evidently a bad thing for sharing information or expressing the thoughts of the public

they are basically disease factories

they encourage rampant female promiscuity and hypergamy, make men feel subconscious about their dick size, excuse infidelity, are horrible judges of character

they’re ugly

they’re annoying

they often smell weird, even when not bad, its offputting

gays are bad for male morale

the spartan-theban-athenian homofaggots had wives, fucked women and would never make a public display of their gayness. our gays do the opposite: sterile, misogynistic, anti-strength, ostentatious degenerates

the drug abuse, specifically uppers

they’re a liability when dealing in contracts because they can be coerced or coerce with sex in ways men cannot. applies to women in contracts, litigation as well

disloyal

egalitarian minded but also sociopathic capitalist strivers

there is more, but im not a religious faggot and i see no reason to invoke God or anything to do with “family values” to prove my point

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 20:16:13 2018 No.10951950 >>10951937 >Turks replaced their gay ass boy-lovers replacing boy-lovers

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 20:16:46 2018 No.10951955 >>10951936 Her "benefit" would be greater if she had her own kids, due to them being genetically closer to her.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 20:17:16 2018 No.10951957 >>10951937 >muh if they were so smart, how come they're dead? not an argument; also the greeks aren't the only example

Anonymous Wed Apr 4 20:24:35 2018 No.10951996

>>10951923

In all of those cases homosexuality was an institution that existed separately from heterosexuality and still fit into heterosexual gender roles. For example in ancient Greece male homosexuality was a stepping stone before heterosexual marriage, and men who continued to have homosexual relationships into their marrying age were looked down upon. Lesbianism was unheard of or looked down upon. In most of these cases we're talking about institutionalized male homosexuality where the bottom is a younger man giving pleasure to an older top in exchange for tutelage, protection, etc. Or it is a phase that extends from male bonding before men go off and start families.

The notion that a person can just "be gay" as an alternative to "being straight" is a new one and a product of modern industrial society. The idea that two people who cannot have children can get married and live as a heterosexual couple would is new.

>>10951936

Infertility is not a challenge to socially conservative society because it does not represent a choice by the individual. Infertility is seen as an unfortunate predicament much like other forms of "disease". The decision to be with people of your same sex when you have the capability to reproduce is entirely different. It also challenges societal gender roles, the meaning of the family unit, the socially accepted way of child-rearing, etc

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 20:29:00 2018 No.10952015 >>10951905 >do ?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 20:32:21 2018 No.10952027 >>10951779 Anal sex gives you ass cancer

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 20:34:02 2018 No.10952032 >>10951861 How is this not a good argument in favor of female homosexuality tho?

Anonymous Wed Apr 4 20:35:15 2018 No.10952042

>>10951955
Evolution doesn't care about individuals but of trends and multi generational groups
Additional support, traditionally, nearly guarantees that the children will be biologically successful - passing on either (a) a potential genetic predisposition to homosexuality since my sister had it OR (b) perpetuates a culture that accepts homosexuals as part of the extended family unit because communities operate under similar pressures as individuals do [those that can reproduce continue, those that hamstring themselves unnecessarily are

Anonymous Wed Apr 4 20:39:30 2018 No.10952056

>>10952042

lol I actually hate this argument. I know it's supposed to be in favor of homosexuality but it presupposes that i) homosexuals are interested in adopting and raising kids and ii) homosexuals are magical charismatics beings who increase social harmony by virtue of existing

Anonymous Wed Apr 4 20:42:36 2018 No.10952070

>>10952056

Just to be clear, my problem with this argument is that if neither of the above are true, then homosexuals suddenly don't have a right to exist. Basically childless antisocial homosexuals have no right to live, which is exactly what I am lol

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 20:42:37 2018 No.10952071 >>10951779 It's straight up hedonism and unhealthy for everyone.

Anonymous Wed Apr 4 20:47:07 2018 No.10952080

>all of these arguments both favoring and opposing based on some contrived effects on human evolution
I do not understand this philosophical obsession with natural selection. We don't fashion our society around what's evolutionarily advantageous, and we shouldn't. Natural selection is not our job. Why does this one issue hinge on it so much?

Anonymous Wed Apr 4 20:49:17 2018 No.10952088

>>10952042
"evolution" doesn't care period. If your criteria for evolutionary success is "does it work in the long term" then, congrats, every species is an evolutionary failure eventually. The only criteria for evolutionary success is "did my genes outlive me." This can be somewhat extended with the concept of genetic distance, so that two of your kids is worth one of you, 4 of your grandchildren are worth one of you, etc.

Let's suppose additional support from the gay aunt guarantees the success of her nephew. Her nephew is 25% related to her. Her kid would be 50% related to her. It requires twice as many nephews to generate the same degree of reproductive success, and thus twice as much work. Alternatively, she could consolidate her efforts on her own children, who are 50% similar to her, and enjoy a more efficient success rate.

That's a back of the napkin analysis of course; perhaps it's so much work to raise a child that it's better to just help other people raise their's, but at that point we run into a tragedy of the commons scenario.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 20:49:25 2018 No.10952090 >>10951937 Wasn't Greek "homosexuality" paedophilic?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 20:51:33 2018 No.10952094 >>10952088 This is what I'm talking about. "Evolutionarily successful" does not equate with "virtuous and just" automatically, why are we acting like humans are insects and we're trying to breed the strongest?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 20:52:53 2018 No.10952095 >>10952094 Because some people like to believe that's what we're doing (curiously they always think of themselves as belonging to the "strong" group)

Anonymous Wed Apr 4 20:53:41 2018 No.10952098

>>10952056
no, not through adopting children, but by (a) helping their own siblings children (b) reducing pressures their siblings would otherwise be obligated to do, such as caring for the families elderly
>>10952080
Societies fashion themselves through the same economic principles as evolution functions on groups
It's not your job but should you choose to act against it's interests your group will be lost to a group that ignores/embraces biological economics (selection)

Anonymous Wed Apr 4 20:54:49 2018 No.10952103

>>10952080
we’re dying off because of ignoring natural selection and we absolutely should heed its power
>>10952090
it was both kinds of gay, see Thebes and Sparta
>>10952094
we are you feeb and always have been, the upper middle class is one big eugenics program. hence handsome, and the women are getting hotter over time from aggressive sexual selection. upper middle class is where beauty standards come from, athletics achievements come from, most of the professionals, who run society, come from and they are all selecting with vicious discrimination. you don’t care or don’t notice, I do however

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 20:55:15 2018 No.10952106 >>10952094 So if homosexuality is not virtuous or just we should not practice it?

Anonymous Wed Apr 4 20:58:18 2018 No.10952118

>>10952103

How are we "dying off"? Humanity is far bigger than it has ever been before

Also the upper middle class is not one big eugenics program, it is largely concerned with preserving its own economic superiority. Nepotism, a common practice of the upper class, goes directly against any eugenic aspiration.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 20:58:32 2018 No.10952119 >>10952094 virtue and justice are derived from feelings of empathy and fairness(and whatever, you get the point) that evolved for some reason or another

Anonymous Wed Apr 4 20:58:32 2018 No.10952120

>>10951779
If it's purely two adult men able to consent, who in addition don't base their entire identities on sexuality, then I can't really see anything wrong with it beyond missing out on children (which is fine if you don't want them). The problem is so much of homosexuality revolves around making your personal sexual impulses into some sort of retarded "gay identity". There's also a ton of predatory behavior in the gay community, which is particularly immoral/evil for homosexuals since homosexual acts with a young man unable to consent are robbing the boy of his developing masculinity by placing him in a feminine role.

Anonymous Wed Apr 4 21:02:02 2018 No.10952131

Straight men are normally disgusted by seeing two men kiss. This is despite prevailing political ideologies. In fact it's even true among many who say otherwise:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/19419899.2017.1328459
>The results of the current study suggest that all individuals, not just highly sexually prejudiced individuals, may experience a physiological response indicative of stress when witnessing a male same-sex couple kissing.

It's disgusting, and we haven't historically permitted it.
“Don't ever take a fence down until you know the reason it was put up.” (Chesterton)
Were the campaigns against homophobia, and inequality and such, really based on good reasons? Or good feelings about "liberating an oppressed minority"?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 21:04:00 2018 No.10952143 >>10952131 Straight men are also disgusted by childbirth, should be a real boon to the anti natalist movement

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 21:04:36 2018 No.10952145 >>10952131 why is the focus on male homosexuals and male transgenders but nobody gives a fuck about the female equivalent?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 21:05:37 2018 No.10952148 >>10952143 I don't think anyone likes childbirth, but without it the human race dies, so I'll get over it. Two guys kissing though? Pretty much just disgusting and pointless.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 21:06:07 2018 No.10952149 >>10952131 We aren't mindless retards, you idiot, we can ignore what we feel and act like rational people.

Anonymous Wed Apr 4 21:06:18 2018 No.10952150

I think all specific populations run the gamut of decency\indecency, etc. The whole point of existing as an American- ultimately, at least- is to evaluate others and be evaluated by them with respect to what they as individuals and YOU, individually, offer by way of action, speech, etc. The tribal nature and the often perceived character of these (political) groupings have forestalled the achieving of this end, however. Can these groupings be helped? No. They are sadly necessary.
>judge not lest ye be judged

Anonymous Wed Apr 4 21:07:36 2018 No.10952157

>>10952143
I think this is a completely absurd criticism. There is an extremely obvious reason for permitting childbirth. Plus, are people as disgusted by childbirth as they are by male kissing?
What are the fruits of childbirth? Children, though occasionally the death of the mother.
What are the fruits of homosexuality? Disease, disorder, anti-masculinity, etc.
>>10952145
One reason might be rarity. There's certainly that idea some have that female homosexuality might not even exist. You could imagine evolutionary explanations, but I don't think they're very relevant.

Anonymous Wed Apr 4 21:07:42 2018 No.10952158

>>10952145

Straight men find male homosexuality aesthetically unappealing and threatening to their social role, so they reject it

To straight men, to women having sex is at best sexually titillating and at worse, like, meaningless. Why would women have sex without a man involved? Lots of straight men wouldn't even consider it cheating if their girlfriend had sex with another woman. Sorry to sound like a pink haired lib arts student but it really is entirely patriarchal

Anonymous Wed Apr 4 21:07:49 2018 No.10952159

>>10952118
They already have the strongest genes, and they only breed among one another. If you had even the barest inclination to do research on human genetics you’d come across mutational load and the depressed g, visual acuity, grip strength, test levels, fecundity, sperm count, color acuity of the white population in America. mutant gay ants aren’t human. We’re falling apart biologically because of dysgenics and techne. There is no way around this and the growth of homosexuality is exacerbating this

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 21:09:03 2018 No.10952164 >>10952131 Fuck any PDA especially from fags

Anonymous Wed Apr 4 21:09:52 2018 No.10952168

>>10952157

>I think this is a completely absurd criticism

Your argument against homosexuality was literally, "It shouldn't be allowed because it's gross"

You know what's gross? Forcing a non-being into conscious existence, physical suffering and pain without their consent

Anonymous Wed Apr 4 21:10:22 2018 No.10952171

>>10952158
I like being around fags though since I'm not sexually threatened and there's no competition. Dykes on the other hand piss me off since they're either typical empty-headed women with added bitchiness or smart, intelligent women that I have no hope of ever getting with

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 21:11:45 2018 No.10952175 >>10952171 So basically your approval of homosexuals' existence orbits entirely about how you feel they affect your sexual self-esteem Definitely a reasonable, non-emotional reponse

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 21:11:56 2018 No.10952176 >>10951878 Slippery slopes are logically fallacious. If this is supposed to be the "best" argument that can mustered against homosexuality then I think we're fine.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 21:12:03 2018 No.10952178 >>10952118 he's a white nationalist who's against gays because he thinks they're a detriment to the group on the basis of evolutionary advantages

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 21:12:57 2018 No.10952181 >>10952168 >oh god there's nothing grosser than this abstract concept! His argument against homosexuality was that it's gross and doesn't have any benefits

Anonymous Wed Apr 4 21:13:01 2018 No.10952182

>>10952149
This is a fairly dumb and naive post, quite frankly.
I'm not sure where to start.
>we can ignore what we feel
I don't think we can, for a start.
>live like rational people
I don't think you really would be a person, if you were "truly rational", in the sense you mean it.
Your rationalism is self defeating, but that's another alley.
>>10952150
Fortunately I am not an American
>>10952168
I said, "It is gross AND we haven't historically permitted it". I elaborated on why it was a ridiculous comparison, and there was quite clearly that historical perspective there. Plus, I'm not sure people are as disgusted by childbirth as you say, nor are we in a position to do anything about it. (Unlike tolerance of homosexuality.)
>Forcing a non-being into conscious existence, physical suffering and pain without their consent
Are you a teenage white girl?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 21:13:44 2018 No.10952184 >>10952175 I never said that. This has exactly nothing to do with morality, I was just addressing anons claim that males are threatened by homosexuals

Anonymous Wed Apr 4 21:14:08 2018 No.10952186

>>10952158
>Lots of straight men wouldn't even consider it cheating if their girlfriend had sex with another woman.
I think that this has less to do with patriarchal notions of gender norms than just basic sperm competition. Male sexual possessiveness has to do with men not wanting to raise kids who aren't their direct biological offspring, and their wives being in lesbian relationships don't really affect that at all.

In fact, the origin of a lot of gender norms comes from the fact that men were historically required to work to support children that they weren't 100% sure were actually theirs.

Anonymous Wed Apr 4 21:14:17 2018 No.10952188

>>10952176
>Slippery slopes are logically fallacious
Classically, of course. Now can you tell me that the people who gave slippery slope arguments a few decades ago weren't right on a number of things? That people don't go around giving POSITIVE slippery slope arguments in the form of "it's 2018"

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 21:14:20 2018 No.10952189 >>10952176 slippery slope arguments aren't logically fallacious at all. I'm sure you use the 'appeasement' argument when talking about Nazis and modern Fascists, that's the slippery slope argument

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 21:14:46 2018 No.10952191 >>10952168 >Forcing a non-being into conscious existence, physical suffering and pain without their consent You have to be over 18 to post here

Anonymous Wed Apr 4 21:17:42 2018 No.10952199

>>10951779
Why don't they just chose not to be gay? I'm not feel sexually attracted to ugly girls but I know I could fuck one if I tried and I would cum just the same. Why can't they just do that? To me it looks like they just like the attention of being victims.

Anonymous Wed Apr 4 21:20:33 2018 No.10952212

>>10952176
There is no slippery slope in his argument. The acceptance of homosexuality necessarily requires the acceptance of new views on gender identity, morality, non-reproductive success, and the non-importance of the family. How can you accept homosexuality without accepting that men don't have to have sex with woman, that one can be a biological male and not act like the typical biological male, without dissociating gender identity from biological sex? If your morality included a ban on homosexuality, how could the acceptance of homosexuality not necessitate moral relativism? How can you accept homosexuality as tolerable if reproductive success of individuals in your society is important to you? How can you accept homosexuality if you think that the only appropriate relationship is between a mother and father who raise their kids in a family? The introduction of homosexuality necessarily requires changing our views.

The only question is if those changes are beneficial or not.

Anonymous Wed Apr 4 21:22:05 2018 No.10952215

Historic instances of socially instituted homosexuality fit into a hetero-normative social role. Homosexuality in ancient Greece, medieval China, feudal Japan, and even modern-day rural Africa all take the same form: young boys assuming the roles of girls in order to gain protection or tutelage from older men. These boys then go on to do one of two things: continue to live in the social role of a woman or a sexless "third gender", or leave homosexuality behind and live as heterosexual men.

These practices did not threaten the social order; they reinforced it. But the modern understanding of "gay", of a person who chooses to live a non-reproductive lifestyle that imitates heterosexual unions and families, is new, and clashes with traditional social organization.

The LGBT lobby has done a very good job over the past decade to rid itself of its original revolutionary and subversive elements, and presented gay people as "just another flavor of normal straight person", with any differences in lifestyle being superficial. It's the same thing.

But to accept homosexuality as a valid "life path" that runs parallel but separate to heterosexuality is, ultimately, to accept the following things:

1. Gender roles are not fixed
2. Gender identity is at least partially constructed
3. Non-reproduction is a valid choice
4. Your personal feelings trump your pre-established social duties
5. Families are not necessarily the best units for raising children

All of these concepts directly run counter to what we currently understand as "civil society". In the 70s the queer movement was a lot more radical and linked to pedophilia, polyamory, incest, abolition of the family unit, anti-capitalism, and even crypto-fascist social structures inspired by Ancient Rome.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 21:24:25 2018 No.10952220 File: 146 KB, 640x480, 034076934.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10951878 /thread

Anonymous Wed Apr 4 21:25:11 2018 No.10952223

>>10952215
At one point some radical feminists advocated for polical lesbianism - complete separation with men. As you say about abolition of the family, many homosexuals didn't even want marriage.
Christian "slippery slopists" said, decades ago, that this would be bad for the family unit, that the end result would be individualistic lifestyles, and they were exactly right. Look at the divorce rates. These are pieces in a larger puzzle that you can't just separate.

Anonymous Wed Apr 4 21:27:05 2018 No.10952233

>>10952215
The existence of homosexuality in those historical scenarios does not necessarily imply that they "fit." For instance, Plotinus gets all buttmad when one dude suggests students should let their teachers fuck them. It's never something that people just accept as part of their lives.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 21:27:07 2018 No.10952234 >>10951779 That we're animals, animals reproduce to continue the chain of evolution. They can't reproduce so are an anomaly against nature. Also putting the penis in a place where shit comes from is just gross.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 21:28:09 2018 No.10952240 >>10951829 >though one could counter-argue that that's due to external factors. Not anymore. Being gay is hip and trendy now.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 21:29:17 2018 No.10952244 >>10952240 That is only the case in certain parts of the world, and has only been the case for a few years at most

Anonymous Wed Apr 4 21:30:40 2018 No.10952247

>>10952215
>Homosexuality in ancient Greece, medieval China, feudal Japan, and even modern-day rural Africa all take the same form: young boys assuming the roles of girls in order to gain protection or tutelage from older men.
If it's this ubiquitous and pancultural wouldn't that suggest that there are structures in our inherent evolved psychology that make these roles assert themselves? I have trouble buying the notion that any other norm could've been possible in an agrarian culture.

>1. Gender roles are not fixed
>2. Gender identity is at least partially constructed
All it suggests is that these things aren't immutable, not that they don't exist and aren't influenced by one's biology.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 21:31:09 2018 No.10952252 >>10952244 Even in the third world, homosexuality (willing or rape) is partly responsible for AIDS.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 21:31:37 2018 No.10952255 >>10952215 I disagree with the tone of this post, but I do agree with the content. I think our modern concept of homosexuality naturally leads to a post-gender, post-reproductive society and shit is going to be cash

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 21:31:37 2018 No.10952256 >>10952234 >all sterile people should be pariahs >women with uterine cancer >men with erectile dysfunction >send them all to the gas chamber

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 21:31:49 2018 No.10952257 >>10952234 i dont even remember how was having this misconception of natureď

Anonymous Wed Apr 4 21:32:50 2018 No.10952264
File: 47 KB, 720x576, 29683955_2001696299845372_3275208413432250368_n.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10952255
>I think our modern concept of homosexuality naturally leads to a post-gender, post-reproductive society and shit is going to be cash

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 21:32:52 2018 No.10952265 >>10951996 Good post, adding clarity to a common misconception about the ancient world's homosexuality and how it doesn't compare to today, but my understanding was that anal sex was rare in Greek societies, and they would fuck their boys' thighs.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 21:33:50 2018 No.10952269 >>10952244 >>10952240 Yes it's only the case in white countries where the birth rate is already near non-extant. Really makes me think.

Anonymous Wed Apr 4 21:33:57 2018 No.10952270

>>10952256
There are obvious problems here
1) Fertility issues are more prevalent, see the decline in testosterone levels. "Diverse views on gender and sexuality" might have a share in the blame.
2) These are unintentional. Even if you think homosexual attraction is biological, such a "homosexual" man can still choose to marry a woman and have children.
3) This is clear exaggeration.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 21:34:29 2018 No.10952271 >>10952080 The fuck are you talking about? The world is an overpopulated mess exactly because we don't apply the laws of nature to man.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 21:35:04 2018 No.10952272 >>10952080 >I do not understand this philosophical obsession with natural selection. We don't fashion our society around what's evolutionarily advantageous, and we shouldn't. Why not?

Anonymous Wed Apr 4 21:35:29 2018 No.10952274
File: 83 KB, 750x923, 1510893596301.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10952234
your arguments rely on having non-reproductive family members isn't beneficial to continuing to pass on your shared genes, if there was no benefit, or that homosexuality is genetically harmful to biological success, you wouldn't see homosexuality in every culture and in many animal species - it's either neutral or potentially beneficial to genes to have passed itself on so successfully
common occurrence across all cultures is evidence for a genetic basis, so for arguments sake we'll assume it's partially genetic

also, you never fuk your gf in the butt?

>>	Jeff Mangum Died For Your Sins !rAl8Mz2mp2 Wed Apr 4 21:35:48 2018 No.10952276 >>10952255 >post-reproductive society i.e. a society that lasts for a single generation before it gets overtaken by a fecund and heavily structured society. Islam really is the future, and that's a good thing.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 21:35:59 2018 No.10952277 >>10952264 Post-gender does not mean you have to be ugly, anon. It just means you no longer have to suffer the social burdens and expectations assigned to your gender. You can still be traditionally masculine or femenine

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 21:37:10 2018 No.10952280 >>10952274 homosexuality is genetic? what about in asexual creatures? or creatures that don't have sex for pleasure?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 21:37:30 2018 No.10952283 >>10952264 How come The Tugboat looks less feminine with glasses?

Anonymous Wed Apr 4 21:37:36 2018 No.10952284

>>10952276

Not really. A post-reproductive society reproduces in the most efficient way because it is no longer the imperative. It also produces the most capable and best-educated children. At any rate, I don't see why you think we are in competition with Islam, when this post-reproductive society will be a natural byproduct of the coming post-scarcity economy

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 21:37:47 2018 No.10952285 >>10952277 >It just means you no longer have to suffer the social burdens and expectations assigned to your gender. You can still be traditionally masculine or femenine Imagine being this stupid, the mind boggles.

Anonymous Wed Apr 4 21:38:00 2018 No.10952287

>>10952274
>also, you never fuk your gf in the butt?
anal sex passes on disease more frequently and gives you ass cancer. I'm serious. Look at the rates of rectal cancer, particularly among the gay community. Stephen Fry was recently diagnosed with it. My fag brother too.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 21:38:57 2018 No.10952293 >>10952080 >We don't fashion our society around what's evolutionarily advantageous, and we shouldn't. Yes we should. The poor should starve, they provide nothing but an eyesore. You can't provide a single reason why this is not true.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 21:38:58 2018 No.10952294 >>10951779 Why are people bothered by the thought of society ending?

Anonymous Wed Apr 4 21:39:08 2018 No.10952295

>>10952277
It might sound nice in a fantasy or in a porn flick, but in reality it's quite disgusting and destructive and doesn't have good consequences at all.
>>10952274
You didn't see them nearly as frequently and homophobia makes this point moot; you might conclude homophobia also has some benefit. Also it could be an accident, evolution isn't perfect.
>>10952284
No, for a number of reasons. I could directly address it, or I could point out how frequently homosexuals are in favour of equality. It is inequality and social stratification that produces the most capable children - monarchy for instance.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 21:39:51 2018 No.10952302 >>10952143 Is it that men are disgusted by childbirth or simply reacting to an often traumatic and painful event the woman is experiencing?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 21:40:38 2018 No.10952306 >>10952294 Why are you bothered by the thought of society ending you? Why should your society care about you who doesn't care about it?

Anonymous Wed Apr 4 21:41:47 2018 No.10952316

>>10952188
>now can you tell me that people who have used this logical fallacy have not been correct in the past?
Sure, but that doesn't make less fallacious. You could argue that the sky is blue because the patriots won the super bowl, you would be correct but that doesn't mean your reasoning was sound or that it should be used elsewhere.
>other people have use this fallacy
Yeah I noticed. I don't see what that has to do with anything.
>>10952189
>slippery slope arguments aren't logically fallacious at all.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 21:42:27 2018 No.10952320 >>10951860 This post gave me AIDS. Skipped HIV and went full blown AIDS

Jeff Mangum Died For Your Sins !rAl8Mz2mp2 Wed Apr 4 21:42:49 2018 No.10952323

>>10952284
First of all, all biological organisms, including human beings have an inherent need to replicate themselves. People will always want to have children whether or not society deems it fit that they do. Second, in order for the birthrate to stay at replacement levels every couple needs 2-3 children, and in a hypothetical society where procreation is no longer considered imperative, that wouldn't be possible.

Anonymous Wed Apr 4 21:43:05 2018 No.10952325

>>10952316
>>10952316
>>Sure, but that doesn't make less fallacious. You could argue that the sky is blue because the patriots won the super bowl, you would be correct but that doesn't mean your reasoning was sound or that it should be used elsewhere.
But there's no correlation there but there clearly is one here. How is that even a relevant response?

Anonymous Wed Apr 4 21:43:16 2018 No.10952327

>>10952316
>that doesn't make it less fallacious
Classically. Of course nobody actually follows classical logic, they follow a much more elaborate logic in which many of these "fallacies" have appropriate times and places.
Scientific induction is a slippery slope fallacy.
Classical logic does not imply that just because a thing has happened 1000 times, that it'll probably happen another time.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 21:43:35 2018 No.10952328 >>10952176 Slippery slopes being a fallacy is a fallacy in this day and age. Never before has a culture been so radically transformed in short-order than America over the last 100 years, and it took subversive steps to get us to where we are today.

Anonymous Wed Apr 4 21:43:36 2018 No.10952329

>>10952306
>Why are you bothered by the thought of society ending you?
That question has a much more obvious answer anon

>your society
Society isn't possessed nor does it have concerns of it's own, don't be a literal hiveminder, you're just dodging my question.

Suppose your kids didn't want to have kids. Not even gay, just don't want to have kids. What's the issue? And then suppose a whole generation decided they didn't want to have kids. Again, what's the issue?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 21:44:37 2018 No.10952331 >>10952325 >How is that even a relevant response? Because he had to explain to you that correctness is not validity

Anonymous Wed Apr 4 21:45:56 2018 No.10952339

>>10952323

We are at the very edge of being able to produce children independently of men or women. The issue of whether people want to bear children or not is close to being irrelevant. The real issue is how to raise those children and how to give them the resources to grow healthy and productive. And that can be better-organized through a society that doesn't have to provide aid to unprepared, poor, or unwilling parents. Society will change dramatically, children will not necessarily be raised by nuclear families anymore.

And if the population drops, that isn't exactly a bad thing. We are overpopulated as it is, and our lifespans are only increasing. Worrying about humanity dying out is just about the most useless, remote concern.

Anonymous Wed Apr 4 21:46:04 2018 No.10952340

>>10952277
>It just means you no longer have to suffer the social burdens and expectations assigned to your gender.
Masculinity and femininity are performed in order to maximize sexual choice. Only people who are born wealthy, people with exceptionally beautiful faces, or young women have the sexual leeway to not perform gender.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 21:46:36 2018 No.10952343 >>10951890 You must be punished for being gay. Did you bring your own paddle, or do I need to provide one for you?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 21:46:46 2018 No.10952344 >>10952070 If it makes you feel any better, you have as much right to live as a childless antisocial heterosexual

Anonymous Wed Apr 4 21:48:16 2018 No.10952350

>>10952329
>it isn't my society
Ok boy, so you don't have a society. Nevermind that you were raised in a society, and have been given a lot by it, you're never going to pay it back because "i never asked for this". Also, no sane and successful society will accept you because you're a radical individualist who hates those nasty hiveminders. Now naturally, all of the foundations for your beliefs are also part of your social inheritance, but nevermind that too.
>What's the issue
It's pretty fucking obvious the issue is no continuation of your family or society at large - that is, assuming they don't have kids. They might do it against their personal wishes.
Plus, I don't know if there's a name for this, but it's a classic case of the argument where an extremely bad thing has already occured, like the abortion/1000 embryos one.
If an entire generation don't want to have kids, something has gone very fucking wrong.
In fact even if your kids don't, something has gone wrong. Most, even those that say they don't when they're young, do.

In conclusion, you are selfish.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 21:48:41 2018 No.10952351 >>10952212 You are right and I misread the argument.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 21:49:39 2018 No.10952354 >>10952325 >he thinks arguments should be based on reason and logic we're in a post-fact-gender society, get used to it bigot

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 21:50:14 2018 No.10952360 >>10952351 Wtf, don't imitate me to win the argument jackass.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 21:51:11 2018 No.10952362 >>10952325 >>10952354 see>>10952331

Anonymous Wed Apr 4 21:51:56 2018 No.10952366

>>10952350
>Nevermind that you were raised in a society, and have been given a lot by it,
I was raised by my parents actually, and not having kids won't really hurt them given that they're dead.

>Selfish
For not producing something that consumes more of society's resources? Again, if a whole generation decided they didn't want kids, how is not having kids hurting them? T-h-e-m, the people, not the """"society"""" ghost you're hooked on.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 21:53:28 2018 No.10952374 >>10952256 False equivalence. You're putting words in my mouth. And I don't think homosexuals should be killed. I just think it should not be normalized, as they are anomalies

Jeff Mangum Died For Your Sins !rAl8Mz2mp2 Wed Apr 4 21:54:01 2018 No.10952377

>>10952339
Spoken like someone who hasn't studied the effects a declining population has on the welfare state. Europe isn't importing migrants from the third world out of the kindness of its own heart, they're importing those workers because they're hyper-away of how an atrophying populace makes their current social and political dynamic impossible.

>And that can be better-organized through a society that doesn't have to provide aid to unprepared, poor, or unwilling parents.
People still want to have and raise children. It's delusional to think that that innate instinct can be stomped out in the name of efficiency. The immortality of propagating one's genes is the one source meaning that even poor people have access to. A world where that isn't possible is a world with rampant crime and nihilism.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 21:54:24 2018 No.10952379 >>10951878 lol, I'm gay and I wrote this post as an exercise. Can't believe so many people took it as an invitation to be homophobic instead of a prompt to look at our social mores more closely.

Anonymous Wed Apr 4 21:54:29 2018 No.10952381

>>10952366
>I was raised by my parents
Yes, and they are part of both a smaller society (your family) and a broader society. They too got things from society, in fact your entire family did.
>Having kids consumes resources
Naive post-hoc justification for anti-natalism, if you believed in this you'd be against the third world having kids, and wanting to outbreed them. (In the long run would result in a lower population, because they would be replaced.)

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 21:55:32 2018 No.10952385 >>10952379 This is either bait or homosexuals know exactly what the homosexual problem is, and are actively out to get society.

Anonymous Wed Apr 4 21:57:51 2018 No.10952392

>>10952381
>Still dodging the question
Again, if a whole generation decided they didn't want kids, how is not having kids hurting them? T-h-e-m, the people, not the """"society"""" ghost you're hooked on. You need to learn the difference between a set and its contents anon.

Anonymous Wed Apr 4 21:58:52 2018 No.10952394

>>10952377

Declining birth rates will not erode the welfare state because any deficit in children can be covered by a society that produces children where it is necessary, and allocates resources to raise those children correctly. As a society's wealth increases, its childbirth rates decrease. Being poor necessitates children, being rich turns them into a burden. Theoretically, we can achieve a society that self-regulates its population growth by covering for population deficits. As for explosive overpopulation, we have seen that increases in quality of life, access to abortion, rights for women, etc always lead to drops in childbirth.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 21:59:27 2018 No.10952397 >>10951996 >The decision to be with people of your same sex when you have the capability to reproduce is entirely different. >drawing some arbitrary distinction between a "physical" incapability and a "neurological" incapability c minus

Anonymous Wed Apr 4 21:59:40 2018 No.10952398

>>10952276

Besides the good thing, this is the current trajectory. When you have two groups, and one is heavily individualistic and one with a very strong group identity, the group identity group is going to end up dominating. The progressives are so fucking dumb and digging their own grave. That part is good at least.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 21:59:44 2018 No.10952399 >>10952385 He put "best" in scarequotes. Maybe the post you're replying to specifically is fake, but the original is clearly not advocating homophobia, just pointing out why people don't like it.

Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:01:00 2018 No.10952402

>>10952385

It's not bait. I am gay. I put "best" in quotation marks. I think homosexuality IS the herald of a new society, but the LGBT movement pretends it isn't in order to gain easier mainstream acceptance. Same reason we abandoned trans people on our way to obtaining rights. Too controversial, "they're not ready for it", etc.

Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:01:21 2018 No.10952407

>>10952392
If you have abstractly removed yourself from society, you have already hurt yourself. Your atomisation is no different from a branch cutting itself off a tree - is that branch "free"? You reveal your contempt for society in your even contemplating this naive and childish nonsense. Do you share the same contempt for your parents? Do you wonder how hurting your parents hurts "Y O U", the you that has been abstractly separated from them? And at the end of the day, aren't you just saying "I am selfish"?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:01:46 2018 No.10952409 File: 649 KB, 846x776, 1500419456454.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10952343 Bring yours, daddy.

Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:01:58 2018 No.10952410

>>10952103
If our population were to continue to grow exponentially then it would be completely unsustainable. This "dysgenics" you're seeing is a natural result of the progression of our society. At some point we're gonna have to level out and start "dying off." If you want to ensure your survival maybe you should try being more gentically competitive.

Jeff Mangum Died For Your Sins !rAl8Mz2mp2 Wed Apr 4 22:02:09 2018 No.10952411

>>10952392
It's hurting them because fertility is temporary (especially for women), and the decision to not have kids is often made in the height of one's youth when one doesn't face the prospect of dying alone without family around to oversee one's end. If I don't have kids, i'm probably going to commit suicide at 70. A can't imagine going through what my grandpa did without my family around me.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:02:23 2018 No.10952413 >>10952402 Are all homosexuals aware? Is the "Gay Agenda" conspiracy real?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:02:39 2018 No.10952415 >>10952397 I do not draw that distinction; society does.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:02:40 2018 No.10952416 >>10952410 >Malthusians >2018

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:02:42 2018 No.10952417 People who have their children out of obligation usually don't love their children

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:03:33 2018 No.10952421 >>10952392 >>10952411 Oh boy I forgot about this too! Don't have a family, your old age will be hell. You'll probably just answer "lol i'll kill myself". Pensions are unsustainable, by the way. >>10952417 Source?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:03:51 2018 No.10952424 >>10952413 No. Most are just pawns in the propaganda game.

Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:04:37 2018 No.10952428

>>10952407
>you
>you
>you
Answer the question directly. An entire generation decides not to worry about it. Society ends, everyone eventually dies in their sleep. What's wrong here?

>>10952411
>state explicitly in the example that they don't want to have kids
>"But if they wanted to have kids-"
are all tripfags this retarded?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:04:38 2018 No.10952429 >>10952424 How many gays are unwittingly the vehicle for a new paradigm they are totally opposed to?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:05:55 2018 No.10952436 >>10952409 Not having your paddle is punishable by extra time in the straps. Keep this up, and you won't get any whipped cream.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:06:45 2018 No.10952441 >>10952366 I can't believe people have become so disconnected from reality they think they're free of the massive amounts of influences of being born in a certain time and place, a society. Try being a hermit.

Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:06:47 2018 No.10952442

>>10952428
Am I actually arguing with a teenager right now?
>What's wrong
Have you changed from talking about "t h e m" to what is good and what is bad? You need a society to even have a notion of right and wrong that extends beyond yourself, and if it doesn't extend beyond yourself then it doesn't stop someone else from forcing you to have kids anyway.

Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:06:56 2018 No.10952443

>>10952421
>Marry your wife because it's your job
>Have kids because it's your job
>Sit down for dinner because it's your job
>Kiss your wife on the cheek the next morning before you go to your job
>You live your life as only a job
>"I-I love this, really"

Jeff Mangum Died For Your Sins !rAl8Mz2mp2 Wed Apr 4 22:07:13 2018 No.10952445

>>10952394
Again, predicated on the notion that people don't want to keep hold of their reproductive rights.

>Declining birth rates will not erode the welfare state
What the fuck are you smoking? A declining birthrate would necessitate the current population having to pay an increasingly higher percentage of their current income to the state in order to take care of the retired and dying population.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:07:32 2018 No.10952446 >>10952429 Couldn't give you an exact number, but if they share Ellen clips and/or take BuzzFeed quizzes...

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:08:48 2018 No.10952454 >>10951779 Honestly, why do you care? Its someone else's life. Let them live it and live yours. >>10952294 >society ending >because of homosexuality

Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:09:31 2018 No.10952457

>>10952215
>But to accept homosexuality as a valid "life path" that runs parallel but separate to heterosexuality is, ultimately, to accept the following things:
>1. Gender roles are not fixed
>2. Gender identity is at least partially constructed
>3. Non-reproduction is a valid choice
>4. Your personal feelings trump your pre-established social duties
>5. Families are not necessarily the best units for raising children

Good, because those things are all true, though I don't see why 5 necessarily follows from your argument.
Also, the surrender of the gay movement to pro-capitalism is a lamentable development and we're setting ourselves up to be fucked over and used as a prop for corporate power. I do understand why this would happen, since most gay people just want to live a normal life and are willing to compromise as much as necessary to achieve this, including pandering to the wealthy and conservatives. Gay people are some of the first to be blamed whenever social-economic disasters occur, you can see this going back to the middle ages when social disorder would lead to jewish pogroms and homosexual executions as a nice scapegoat pack.
Personally, I used to be optimistic about this, but I no longer believe that we will ever be passively accepted without struggling for it and winning political power. Sexuality is very political and will remain so, so I have no qualms about forcibly wrestling society to benefit my group. Homophobes never did us any favors until they were forced to by the civil rights movement and leftist allies, so fuck them. I fucking hate polacks and their retarded narratives about the degradation of society, as if homosexuals have a great time outside of a couple of first world countries.

Jeff Mangum Died For Your Sins !rAl8Mz2mp2 Wed Apr 4 22:09:44 2018 No.10952461

>>10952428
>>state explicitly in the example that they don't want to have kids
I'm saying that that's a decision that's made with partial knowledge and that one can change one's mind about it after they're no longer able to actually have children. At no point can a young person reasonably decide to not want to have children for the rest of their lives.

Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:09:46 2018 No.10952462

>>10952441
I don't think you're free of those influences, but a bundle of influences is not a living creature that's deserving of care.

>>10952442
>Have you changed from talking about "t h e m" to what is good and what is bad?
No, I'm still asking the same question, and you still haven't answered. What would be bad if your children unanimously decided to be the last generation? Assuming they turned the lights off before they left, etc, so as not to harm the environment.

Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:09:59 2018 No.10952465

>>10952443
It's not just your job, it's part of your purpose in life, and it's part of what you're supposed to do. It only goes along with your natural instincts of love.
Not to mention that by being around someone for so long, you can fall in love anyway. Plus, if you see your purpose together, you're more likely to do what's best than if you only see them as an object of arousal.
Sure, maybe there are a tiny number of people who really are genetic accidents, and would be unhappy, but whatever.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:10:47 2018 No.10952469 >>10952461 >still changing the example Suppose they don't change their mind. Answer.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:10:48 2018 No.10952470 >>10952443 >do nothing because "muh freedom" >die alone, penniless and alienated

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:11:48 2018 No.10952473 >>10952465 >It's not just your job >it's what you're supposed to do. having fun on thesaurus dot com?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:12:29 2018 No.10952475 >>10952462 You're not going to like the answer >>10952473 Job = occupation, not life's purpose Or do you think your boss is God?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:13:03 2018 No.10952478 >>10952470 >assuming doing things cannot be done for reasons other than obligation imagine being this person

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:14:04 2018 No.10952483 >>10952475 Is god not your boss? Would you actually say, to god's face, "You're not the boss of me" anon?

Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:14:12 2018 No.10952484

>>10952462

Not him, but concerning your "so what?" question about society ending, neither of us can "prove" why one is right and the other wrong. I would say I want to see beauty and goodness in this world, for humans to further their evolutionary journey and life to continue.

You don't even seem human to me, just an overly intellectualized mind.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:15:48 2018 No.10952493 >>10952484 >overly intellectualized really reaching for those insults

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:16:01 2018 No.10952494 >>10952483 You're not the boss of me now You're not the boss of me now You're not the boss of me now And you're not so big

Jeff Mangum Died For Your Sins !rAl8Mz2mp2 Wed Apr 4 22:16:29 2018 No.10952497

>>10952469
I'm saying that you often can't possibly know whether or not you're going to change your mind about it until it's too late. I was anti-natalist until I started talking to a girl who worked at a retirement home. Nothing sadder than an atomized old person.

Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:16:56 2018 No.10952499

>>10952457

>though I don't see why 5 necessarily follows from your argument.

I think what he meant is male-female nuclear families.

I agree with everything you've said, but the truth is that as a social movement we are very hypocritical. We are not uniformly marginalized because gay people can be born into any and every social class. We have different interests and are willing to sacrifice different things for them. In the end homosexuality cannot be fully accepted in a heteronormative society, at best we will be regarded as interesting diversions. LGBT has to bring about full social change in regards to gender roles, reproduction, family structures, etc.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:17:24 2018 No.10952501 >still arguing about homosexuality in 2018 >when liberals won the culture wars ITS OVER REACTIONARIES, I HAVE THE HIGH GROUND

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:18:15 2018 No.10952504 >>10952501 It's not about homosexuality anymore. If you can't see that you're retarded.

Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:19:51 2018 No.10952511

>>10952497
Still dodging the hypothetical. If I ask you "If A, what follows?" you aren't actually meeting the demand by responding with "but I don't know if A." It's like if I were to ask you "what would happen if we poisoned the water supply" only for you to say "but we haven't poisoned the water supply." It's a dodge.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:20:08 2018 No.10952513 >>10952493 Okay, then you seem like a mind, rather than a whole person, and people strive for a purpose in life. In short, you just seem nihilistic.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:20:15 2018 No.10952514 File: 510 KB, 620x384, church.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10952501 blocks your path

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:20:41 2018 No.10952517 >>10952402 Literally how tho, would yall just knock up the dykes?

Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:21:22 2018 No.10952520

>>10951779
The best base-level argument against it is that it's unnatural in the sense that it's impossible to reproduce through intercourse with the same sex. That's basically it. Homosexuality has been recognized and recorded in societies throughout history, so that it's some new "problem" is a retarded notion pushed by people who don't know what they're talking about.

Homosexuality is not to blame for the current state of social affairs and does not make for a dysfunctional society - demonization of masculinity and the idea of "woman empowerment" is/does. The problem isn't that homosexuality is being normalized, it's that it's being normalized in conjunction with the idea that masculinity is, in itself, "toxic," when in reality a balance of masculinity and femininity (and the respective roles each play in a societal context) is what allows societies to prosper in the first place. The modern social fabric has devolved into "us vs. them" in virtually every respect, the gay/straight argument included, and nobody wants to take a step back and have a rational discussion about it, it's always "WE NEED LEGISLATION TO PROTECT US" and "MUH RIGHTS" from both sides of the aisle, and politicians eat that shit up and pretend to care.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:21:51 2018 No.10952524 >>10952520 Read the thread

Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:21:54 2018 No.10952525

>>10952497

Agreed completely. It's so sad. My poor granny even told me how she's just more or less waiting to die now that nobody needs her. The elders should be there helping to raise the next generation, like still happens in a lot of the third world. The west's hyper-individualism is destroying us morally and physically.

Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:23:30 2018 No.10952527

>>10952513
I'm really not. I'd fight for my life because I value it, but I don't act out of obligation. I'd advise people to have kids because I'd expect it to make them happy, but the idea that there's a job to be done is a boldfaced lie. If noone felt like having kids and could die in their sleep happy about it, there would be zero reason to have kids whatsoever.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:23:48 2018 No.10952529 File: 5 KB, 235x215, 1518211088599.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10952504 then what is it all about then >>10952514 face it, he ain't coming back

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:24:55 2018 No.10952533 File: 41 KB, 475x395, 1516241404806.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10952529 >the same communion now has gay priests, likely against the will of its members life isn't fair

Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:24:58 2018 No.10952534

>>10952517

There is never going to be a shortage of people having children. But the traditional family unit will no longer be the only way to raise them, because we will not organize our lives according to systems of parentage. And we will not organize our laws or economies around it, either. Ideally we will arrive at a society where children are raised by communities, not just by the two people directly responsible for their birth. In the process we will have dismantled the sexist aspects of institutions such as marriage, and demolished gender roles that arise from the reproductive family unit.

Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:25:34 2018 No.10952536

Question for the scholars in this thread:

In what ways would society likely be different if by anal sex, one would be impregnated with an "anus baby"? Babies of the anus variety would at first appear non-human in subtle ways, but later in life they become indistinguishable from normal humans.

Would they be demonized? Would they forever be marked as second-class people? Would they be accepted? Would they be seen as superior?

Discuss, with attention to the alternative development of society as a whole.

Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:27:09 2018 No.10952540

>>10952534
>Ideally we will arrive at a society where children are raised by communities,
Holy shit when I was 17 I had exactly the same utterly stupid opinions

>>10952536
You need to give more details. Is it exactly the same as regular, except that fertilisation can be anal? Or can men get pregnant, in which case it's totally biologically different?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:27:20 2018 No.10952542 >>10952533 >the bible >legitimate form of history this is why you were held back a grade kiddo

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:27:34 2018 No.10952545 >>10952536 If anus babies had always existed, they would be regarded as a natural aspect of life. If they suddenly began to exist, they would quite obviously be the next step in human evolution, and likely exhibit ESP abilities.

Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:27:58 2018 No.10952549

>>10952499
Well, I think it's true that transsexuals have it a lot worse than me, for example. Theirs is a directly economic struggle in the way homosexuality isn't, they are fundamentally fighting for acess to adequate health care.
But I also think that there probably can't be such fundamental changes that you mention without at least a planned socialist economy and I'm not sure what role we will play in getting there.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:28:05 2018 No.10952551 >>10952540 Men can get pregnant through some imaginary alternative biological mechanism.

Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:28:22 2018 No.10952555

>>10952534
>>10952540
Also, I'm not saying the community is bad, I'm saying that the anti-parent part is bad, i.e. having children without parents. Obviously the community should play a role in the child's life.
>>10952542
If it's not real, where's Sodom? Checkmate sodomites.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:28:24 2018 No.10952556 >>10952536 Can you imagine shoving a baby out of your ass?

Jeff Mangum Died For Your Sins !rAl8Mz2mp2 Wed Apr 4 22:28:27 2018 No.10952558

>>10952511
I understand exactly what's happening. I don't want to legitimize your premise by responding to it. I mean even if were to indulge you and accept your proposed notion of an anti-natalist who gets old without changing their mind, i'd just say that organizing a society around exceptions probably isn't tantamount to developing healthy cultures.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:28:42 2018 No.10952559 >>10952534 >Literally fully automated luxury gay space communism raffing @ you m8

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:29:24 2018 No.10952562 >>10952559 Literally nothing wrong with that

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:29:25 2018 No.10952561 >>10952551 This is totally alien biology. We can hardly even contemplate.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:30:00 2018 No.10952569 >>10952556 I've taken some shits that I imagine are like that.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:30:14 2018 No.10952574 >>10952527 >that there's a job to be done is a bold-faced lie The body's reproduction urge begs to differ.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:30:27 2018 No.10952575 >>10952562 Except for the fully automated part, the gay part, the space part and the communism part. Also, for Christians, the luxury part. Why even be human at that point?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:30:35 2018 No.10952576 >>10952555 Sodom is a state of mind, idiot

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:30:56 2018 No.10952577 >>10952574 >have an urge to scratch my butt >IT IS YOUR DUTY, ANON

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:31:01 2018 No.10952579 >>10952561 Please use your imagination. I am interested in your thoughts.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:31:24 2018 No.10952580 >>10952534 The gay conspiracy in action, right here. He spilled the beans gayanon was talking about.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:32:01 2018 No.10952584 >>10952576 It's a state that doesn't last very long before being smitten. >>10952579 I can't even contemplate. In many ways it's quite disgusting, I would be against it. At best it's a weapon against homosexuals.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:33:23 2018 No.10952590 >>10952577 Having children is a thing you're supposed to do. When you realise that people naturally want to have children, you stop seeing it as one for the other but both as part of the same thing.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:33:38 2018 No.10952592 >>10952575 >Why even be human at that point? The future is obviously transhumanist, anon Or are you some primitivist pleb? Not even trolling, those are your only options

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:34:19 2018 No.10952598 >>10952534 >people don't want to raise their own kids >people don't want to propagate their genes What are you going to do to the people who produce children outside of your proposes system, steal their babies?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:34:43 2018 No.10952601 >>10952592 >Not even trolling Sure but but keep going I'm havin a giggle

Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:34:44 2018 No.10952602

>>10952577

Why are you saying duty? Maybe the other anon you were talking to said that, but I wouldn't use that term. I'd just say it's a natural process, both scratching the itch or reproduction.

You have disconnected the human mind from the body for some individualistic fairytale. Do you honestly think that the alliance between radical progressivism/individualism and international capitalism is on a trajectory for the happiness of people?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:34:47 2018 No.10952603 >>10952545 I have an interest in the advancement of the human race. Do you think there is a way we could unlock this next stage?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:34:56 2018 No.10952604 >>10952580 Nah, I'm a radicalized homo. A lot of gay people are quite socially conservative, and just want to live in peace.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:35:26 2018 No.10952608 >>10952534 >gays literally want to take our reproductive rights away from us This post made my sexist and homophobic. Good job.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:35:40 2018 No.10952610 >>10952592 You're wrong. At best, transhumanists naively seek to overemphasise human traits and end up taking away humanity because of it.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:35:44 2018 No.10952611 File: 48 KB, 400x400, sod.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10952584 its a state of pure fuckin metal

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:36:42 2018 No.10952616 >>10952611 more like fire and brimstone

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:36:50 2018 No.10952618 >>10952584 >At best it's a weapon against homosexuals. How so?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:36:53 2018 No.10952619 >>10952604 How attracted are you to adolescent boys?

Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:37:01 2018 No.10952620

>>10952598

Nothing will prevent people from having and raising their own kids, simply that society will have a larger role in their development. Being against this would be like modern-day parents being against sending their kids to school or fraternizing with other children.

The driving principle is that children will no longer be treated as their parents' property, nor will parents have the right to limit their children's development.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:37:30 2018 No.10952624 >>10952534 >gender roles arise from the family unit fucking faggots, families arise from the same source as gender roles: human biology

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:38:38 2018 No.10952630 >>10952624 Basically everything we know as "gender roles" exists in service of, or as a product of, the reproductive family unit

Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:38:47 2018 No.10952631

>>10952602
>You have disconnected the human mind from the body for some individualistic fairytale. Do you honestly think that the alliance between radical progressivism/individualism and international capitalism is on a trajectory for the happiness of people?
Not my point. The point is that if it weren't for the fact that people want to have kids, there would be no point. Biological want or not, the reason why there's a point is because they want to. Ergo, if they don't want to, then there's no point.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:39:08 2018 No.10952633 >>10952616 aren't you clever

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:39:47 2018 No.10952639 >>10952620 I get it your'e a pedo. kek

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:39:56 2018 No.10952640 >>10952620 >simply that society will have a larger role in their development. This is too vague to mean anything unless you actually says what this entails. It also sounds suspiciously close to indoctrination, which is immoral.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:40:26 2018 No.10952642 >>10952639 absolutely abhorrent if truthful

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:41:13 2018 No.10952646 >>10952620 >give gays rights >they want to steal our children if we don't teach them the right things holy fuck the conservatives were right

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:41:35 2018 No.10952647 >>10952631 Okay, but we don't live in that world.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:41:35 2018 No.10952648 >>10952646 The gays in this thread are the best fucking argument against homosexuality

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:41:41 2018 No.10952649 >>10952639 Not sure how my worldview is pedo, considering that 90% of child abuse cases come from parents abusing their kids

Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:42:20 2018 No.10952655

>>10952524
I have, and here are the issues:
>Homosexuality in itself only becomes problematic when more people are homosexually active than heterosexually active.
>There is a level of validity to, "Weak men/hard times, hard times/strong men, strong men/great societies, great societies/weak men" soundbite. As I said, the normalization of homosexuality doesn't affect the general character of men - the idea of gynocentrism and a society based around it does, hence why there are men turning into "women"; heterosexuality (particularly in men) being demonized; and the idea that America currently has a "masculinity problem", does.
>Slippery slopes are the direct result of political hijacking and next-level pandering in the name of obtaining/maintaining power. "Homosexuality is a problem" = stupid; "The current political system is a problem" = now you're getting somewhere.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:42:24 2018 No.10952657 >>10952648 And the Christcucks in this thread is proof that god doesn't exist, for in his infinite mercy he would've allowed their mothers to get those abortions

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:42:57 2018 No.10952660 >>10951779 Because that shit is gay.

Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:44:10 2018 No.10952665

>>10952158
most men would dump the woman if she cheated with a woman. You’re confusing single women hooking up, threesomes and the male sexual preference- pornography dialectic with the mechanics of masculine jealousy. This is also laughable, because other men devalue you by fucking your women, its clear you cannot command the attention of her pussy, women view cheating from an emotional-resource oriented perspective. For men its dominance-genetic, we are bound to want to kill those who challenge us or cut off our genes from propagating.

I still want to kill men who talk(ed) to my exes and former lovers

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:44:24 2018 No.10952666 >>10952657 >Christcucks >lmao abortion >btw your mother wanted one Nice argument, by the way, most women haven't historically wanted to murder their children and the women you know who did are abominable

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:44:26 2018 No.10952667 >>10952647 Say that to someone who doesn't want to have kids

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:44:43 2018 No.10952670 >>10952649 And in this magical society were everyone is basically a parent in some way won't abuse kids ever?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:45:10 2018 No.10952673 >>10952657 There has yet to be any arguments against homosexuality from a Christian scriptural or moral perspective; it's mostly been Darwinian and what holds a civilization together.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:45:41 2018 No.10952678 >>10952655 Nothing you said holds any weight at all, which is why you didn't engage in any actual responses or quotes, you just posted abstract "thinkings".

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:45:45 2018 No.10952680 >>10952666 Satan is right

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:45:57 2018 No.10952681 >>10952670 Considering that one single person will no longer be a child's role model, sole source of safety and sustenance, and authority figure, seems at least more difficult to do

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:46:12 2018 No.10952682 >>10952667 There's always exceptions and there's always the majority.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:46:42 2018 No.10952684 >>10952680 Are you the "lmao who cares about society" kid from earlier?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:47:55 2018 No.10952688 >>10952666 Don't talk about your mother like that

Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:47:56 2018 No.10952689

>>10952158
>Lots of straight men wouldn't even consider it cheating if their girlfriend had sex with another woman.

Slowww down sister, we most certainly would. Women seem to forget that men liking lesbian porn means we're okay with girls fingering girls. No, we're okay with pornstars fingering pornstars. Maybe I speak for myself, but I would not be okay with my girlfriend having sex with a woman. That would end the relationship for me. Likewise, if she caught me having sex with a man, I don't think she would be okay with it.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:49:14 2018 No.10952696 >>10952688 This isn't the type of board where "lmao i bet your mom wanted an abortion" gets you an upvote.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:49:29 2018 No.10952699 >>10952681 Favoritism wouldn't arise? Where do these kids even live?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:49:29 2018 No.10952700 >>10952681 The corollary that a caretaker is less likely to genuinely care about a child who isn't directly related to them also holds true. Look at the rates of sexual abuse by step parents in proportion to how often children are raised by them.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:50:33 2018 No.10952706 >>10952673 In what fucking timeline are we in now that those who argued for scientism and rational are arguing against homosexuality, despite it being prevelant in every single species on the planet. And it's the Jesus boytoys who are silent

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:51:06 2018 No.10952709 >>10952684 Naw I'm just goin back and forth with the homoutopia guy

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:51:36 2018 No.10952714 File: 79 KB, 446x960, 1518468950558.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10952696 Yea but it gets me those spicy (you)s and you're still responding

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:51:56 2018 No.10952715 >>10952706 It is possible to put forward a narrative associating paedophile scandals in the church in the past 100 years with homosexuals. I have seen such a case made. I am just putting that out there for you.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:53:03 2018 No.10952719 >>10952706 The timeline where that research and statistics have been kept out of the public eye because it doesn't follow the overarching narrative.

Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:53:04 2018 No.10952721

>>10952247
> there are structures in our inherent evolved psychology that make these roles assert themselves
It's just a standard mode of societal decay. Just because a dynamic system is collapsing doesn't mean that the collapse doesn't follow established patterns/archetypes

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:54:17 2018 No.10952729 >>10952715 Do you know why the Church has a huge child abuse issue? Because the Church has a hard-on for classical beauty. And do you know what classical beauty had a hard-on? Young boys. The Greek tradition is perpetuated.

Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:54:51 2018 No.10952733

All animal would be extinct if they gone full straight homos.

I could imagine if all animals have 'gender identity crisis', looked all confuse and just fuck each other in the ass. I know there are several animals that had portrait homosexual behavior in nature, but it's still an unhealthy and an abnormality. Luckily the retard don't preach the mentally healthy population to practice homosexual acts, or else the entire species sooner or later will be doom to existence.

I don't think it's natural to fuck someone butthole, I mean we have a whole fertile pussy for that, why do you need that feces tube for?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:55:04 2018 No.10952736 >>10952678 OP asked a question, I supplied an answer. >Refuting none of the points Classic.

Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:56:05 2018 No.10952744

>>10952715
Pedophiles are strictly homosexual, most kids who are diddled are girls. But baaad gay priests fits my narrative.

>>10952719
People love to pull out "I have stats etc" but they aren't scientifically literate, they find the answers they want and run with it

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:56:18 2018 No.10952745 >>10952729 That’s not why anon, its because of ceibacy and secrecy, along with sensuality being repressed and then associated with purity, which is ascribed to children. a perfect breeding ground for pedos

Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:57:10 2018 No.10952749

>>10952744
>most kids who are diddled are girls
What happened to your "boytoy" nonsense?
Or are you just making it up as you go along?
It's not my narrative, but it's a consistent one that is just as believable as the "nasty evil church has been doing it for 2000 years" one.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:57:34 2018 No.10952750 >>10951779 Homosexuals? Who is responsible for this barbarity?...It's half Greek and half Latin!

Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:57:36 2018 No.10952751
File: 36 KB, 300x381, joseph De Maistre.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

All societies created by man depend on a number of irrational social structures that are assumed to be infaliable and axomatic in said society.
This structures that are deeply rooted in arbitrarieties gain legitimacy over time becoming part of the traditions of a people and thus their society.
Societies start to crack down when said pilars are put into question as from the ashes of those rocks,arises the ashes of uncertainty,conflict and disunity that puts into question the existance of a society to its routes.
Those the acceptance of the non-traditional familiar unit is nothing but a direct threat to the existance of our civilizations. If a man can be a man outside of a family and can form its identity as a selfullfilling being that can spend all its time and effort into egoistically pleasing himself through a clear corruption of our understanding and conception of sex,then other men would follow suit replacing marriage with vanity and lust and with it putting in jeopardy the structures that bond society together.
Everytime that a faggot is allowed to get his asshole ravaged but a hairy greasy effimenate antropomorphic decadence a child is born in a single household, men start to commit fraud and an innocent infant is murdered scrupuously in a clinic where murder of the most inocent of beings has been bureocratized and controlled by the gigantic big brother that has being formed that tries to keep the rotting corps of this society from smelling like death while the faggots moans silences the crier that its calling for its funeral as he is the only person that knows that the only thing that can come from the death is christ himself

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:57:42 2018 No.10952753 >>10952733 >why do you need that feces tube for? for fulfilling scat fetish fantasies I guess, but it's verily unhealthy too.

Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:58:34 2018 No.10952760

>>10952706
animals have all sorts of mental illnesses. Homosexuality is harmful for the fag who partakes in it b/c it almost always revolves around creating an identity based on sexual acts. Not only that, it also destroys social health b/c males prone to homosexual behaviour tend to fit a pattern that gets stereotyped by others, effectively pushing people who fit superficial characteristics of that type into their deviant sexual habits when they could otherwise live a healthy existence

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:58:37 2018 No.10952761 >>10952749 I'm calling Christ lovers boytoys it's joke that they treat god like a boyfriend

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 22:59:47 2018 No.10952766 >>10952760 you realize your entire post in an ass-backwards attempt to justify to yourself your irrational hatred of effeminate men

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 23:00:32 2018 No.10952772 >>10952760 Yes because all gay men are exactly alike in. Nice generalization.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 23:00:41 2018 No.10952773 >>10952766 Not him >irrational hatred of effeminate men I don't fucking care if it's rational, I share it 100%

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 23:01:25 2018 No.10952779 >>10952766 >irrational Nothing wrong about irrationality brainlet

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 23:01:36 2018 No.10952780 >>10952766 As a gay. Effeminate guys are dreadful.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 23:02:25 2018 No.10952782 >>10952766 I don't hate effeminate men, I hate men who think along the lines of "I'm a bit effeminate therefore I should suck dick" seems rather irrational to me but, whatever floats your boat

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 23:02:28 2018 No.10952783 >>10952773 >>10952779 >>10952780 From an aesthetic perspective I agree, however I do not go around making pseudo-evolutionary arguments that justify my distaste

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 23:03:06 2018 No.10952786 >>10952782 Who tf thinks like that, other than you're own weird imagination

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 23:03:12 2018 No.10952787 >>10952783 >From an aesthetic perspective I agree Then there's nothing more to be said. Gays are disgusting and tolerance of them is unjustified.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 23:03:18 2018 No.10952788 >>10952783 You don't need to justify dislike.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 23:04:12 2018 No.10952791 Does anyone besides women who OMG LOVE GAY PEOPLE HEHE like overly flamboyant faggots?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 23:05:22 2018 No.10952798 >>10952791 Even if they aren't gay, men with "gay voices" are an abomination.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 23:05:26 2018 No.10952799 File: 17 KB, 414x600, mishima-02.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Homosexuals are the most powerful race in the world.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 4 23:05:47 2018 No.10952801 >>10952791 Women see gays as their own.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/lit/ - Literature