/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11365798]

Romans 1:24-27

I have found meaning and i consider myself to be a christian but I have a hard time coming to terms with this one. Why does God forbid homosexuality? what harm does it do to others? I want to spread the word but I don't know what i'd say when asked of this.

[Anonymous No.11365885]

>>11365798
it is abominable because it is contra natura. Men fucking other men in the ass - this does violence to God bc it violates the laws of nature

[Anonymous No.11365889]

Ephesians 5:22

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

[Anonymous No.11365931]

>>11365889
what is the relevance? I get devotion.

[Anonymous No.11365979]

>>11365798
It’s more about lust than the gay stuff.

Romans 1:27. ἐξεkαύθησαν, were all in a flame) [burned] with an abominable fire ( πυρώσει, viz., of lust.)— τὴν ἀσχημοσύνην, that which is unseemly) against which the conformation of the body and its members reclaims.— ἣν ἔδει) which it was meet [or proper], by a natural consequence.— τῆς πλάνης, of their error) by which they wandered away from God.— ἀπολαμβάνοντες), the antithetic word used to express the punishment of the Gentiles; as ἀποδώσει, that of the Jews, Romans 2:6. In both words, ἀπό has the same force.

[Anonymous No.11366012]

>>11365798
Love is not wholly "not hurting anyone". It's loving in the order which God gave which means that some things you'll find culturally acceptable today may be 'loving' in every human sense but not in God's intentional sense. It's one of those presuppositional things. If you believe homosexuality is benign, then it hurts no one. If you believe it's against God's prescription (as I think the NT makes clear) then they *are* hurting eachother and encouraging eachother's disobedience.

Talk to your pastor about it, anon. If you don't have one, please find a good church family. Christianity doesn't exist outside the church.

[Anonymous No.11366015]

if this is really your only hangup about professing christianity, please kill yourself asap.

[Anonymous No.11366141]

>>11365798
1. Causes health problems. There are piles of studies that show the anal sex causes permanent damage to the anus. "Adult diapers" were literally invented for gay males because most elderly gay males are incontinent due to a lifetime of getting fucked in the ass. Most elderly prostitutes have the same problem for the same reason.

2. Spreads AIDS. Contrary to what the KGB wanted everyone to believe, the CIA did not create HIV. STDs are spread much easier from homosexual behavior.

3. Causes rampant promiscuity due to the fact that homosexuals fuck constantly since they don't have to worry about pregnancy. This causes a breakdown in social order. It is not a coincidence that califagia is the most fucked up chaotic state in America and arguably the most fucked up place in the world.

4. Homosexual behavioral inclinations are due to neurological defects. This is why 25% of homosexuals are pedophiles. Because 1 neurological defect will usually overlap with others. By nature, anyone who has abnormal sexual preferences will be a pervert in general. This is why you see so many foot fetishists in (((hollywood))), as that is another deviant sexual behavior that generally goes along with other much more dangerous criminal sex offenses.

4a. Since homosexual behavioral inclinations are due to neurological defects, this also means they are (generally) caused by genetic defects. Allowing homosexuals to reproduce means that they spread their genetic defects and that leads to widespread genetic defects in general.

[Anonymous No.11366148]

>>11366141
>gay sex should be forbidden to keep homos from reproducing
damn . . . . .

[Anonymous No.11366432]

>>11365798

[Anonymous No.11366449]

>>11365798
You realize sodomy is outlawed too. Ergo you're not even supposed to fuck your wife in the ass, that's not what that hole is purposed for. So if a man love's another man, they can only purpose to commit sodomy. You can be a gay person without acting on it. Go ahead and like men (not you, but rhetorically), just don't follow through with it. Similarly you can and naturally will be attracted to multiple women, but don't follow through with that baser impulse (lust as an active versus a passive motivation). Higher consciousness and religious devotion is in large part about suppressing all of these baser, animal impulses, because you are not in league with other animals, you are higher than them and likewise would seek achieve being the most high that a man can be.

[Anonymous No.11366460]

>>11365798
Woman was created from man, and man and woman reunite into one flesh through the covenant of marriage. Likewise man was separated from God, but is reunited through the mystical marriage of Christ and the Church. We become one body with Christ as our head, as in marriage man and woman become with one with the husband as head. Marriage is the turning away from yourself to love the other. Homosexual relations, rather, are loving yourself, turning inward, and rejecting God. It is man's duty to obey God and fulfill the purposes for which he is created. If acting contrary to that "doesn't harm anyone" you still are forbidden from doing it as our ethics are not based on this nonsense.

[Anonymous No.11366792]

>>11366141
>California is arguably the most fucked up place IN THE WORLD
Imagine actually believing this.

[Anonymous No.11367085]

>>11365798
It's not that if you're gay, you are condemned. If you go about fucking people in the ass ad then go have a parade about with with 10yo boys marching in it, then it becomes a problem.
Same goes for straight people. If everyone would stop lusting for rihanas niki minajes and katie peries, instead clinging to the old way of marriage and family for life, the world would be a better place.

[Anonymous No.11367198]

>>11365885
Appeal to nature fallacy. Nature is not inherently pretty, and unnatural medicine is pretty good.

>>11366141
>Ruins anus.
Nope, I've been doing anal for a long time and know others who have too, nothing ruined about my butt at all.

>Aids
It's pretty easy to avoid actually if you just happen to be the type of person who sleeps with somebody you haven't had tested for this. You can also test for it btw, and it wont magically appear.

>Homosexuals are pedos
So basically you're pointing to a different bad thing, then using it to discriminate the first not bad thing? Slippery slope strawman, and your numbers don't even make sense. How would you take the gay community and find out whether they are pedos? Ask them? It doesn't even make sense.

>Spreading defective genes.
Life has evolved for billions of years, and homosexuality is found often in nature, you think if gay people stopped shagging then that would stop something as complex as particular abberations in sexuality? Well if you want to try, just let gay people shag each other instead of women, problem solved.

>>11366449
Appeal to nature fallacy. Argumentum ad Verandicum fallacy. Grapes weren't ''made'' to be turned into wine, and trees weren't invented to be turned into books, and silicone wasn't invented to be made into semiconductors in the computer you use to Jew your religion on either. And yes we're animals, literally evolved from primates, you have any idea how naturally horny Bonobos are?

I do think you fuckers are trolling, I just want to give this board a bit more respect than the other boards, plus when it comes to religion, Poes law becomes particularly relevant. People actually think it's immoral to consentually love another grown person.

[Anonymous No.11367206]

>>11367198
Meant verecundiam, I always fuck that word up in my head for some reason.

[Anonymous No.11367222]

Because it's discussing and degenerate.

[Anonymous No.11367226]

>>11365798
Cause religion focuses on societal benefit anything which doesn't gives society benefit is unholy homosexuality causes you to differ from the society you will start acting differently than others making yourself standout you will hate others and others will hate you so yeah god wants us to be a normie

[Anonymous No.11367229]

Gay sex is 100% recreational rather than procreational. In a future with eugenics or gene manipulation, the LGBT would be prime candidates for removal as they have no use in propogating the human species.

[Anonymous No.11367234]

>>11365798

Really interesting what social engineering can do to people that they can't perceive homosexuality as unnatural and sinfull.

This liberal pestilence has to end.

[Anonymous No.11367255]

>>11367229
Ackchyually, it's hypothesised that homosexuality has a genetic component and has some fitness advantage. It may help with kin selection, as the more effeminate homosexual males would help the females care for young relatives and wouldn't be seen as a threat by the other males, and bisexuality may be even more so as a less dominant bisexual could still mate with females but avoid confrontation with the other males as he was with the women most of the time. Additionally, homosexual sex may have had a social role as it does in Bonobos, where it's a bonding activity that keeps social cohesion.

[Anonymous No.11367274]

Non-Christian here, but I despise homosexuality.

If homosexuality is fine because muh two consenting adults, so should incest. You can go further and argue bestiality (with technology advancing, we can quite literally prove consent by analyzing certain centers of the brain) since it's not harming anyone per se.

Most sane people would not try to refute this. You might get a hard time on 4chan though

[Anonymous No.11367289]

>>11365798
>religion based on suffering and transcending the flesh
>why can't I get gaped all the time its doing no wrongs
So this is the power of gay intellectuals.

[Anonymous No.11367302]

>>11365889
Cucked by YHWH.

[Anonymous No.11367304]

>>11367198
>and homosexuality is found often in nature
Appeal to nature fallacy.

[Anonymous No.11367310]

>>11367198

What do you think you're doing throwing accusations of fallacies around when you say shit like

>Nope, I've been doing anal for a long time and know others who have too, nothing ruined about my butt at all.

Which is obviously anecdotal evidence being applied in a limp-wristed attempt to evade actual scientific and widespread research? You are the worst kind of pseudo-intellectual. Either engage in intelligent debate seriously or don't do it all.

[Anonymous No.11367322]

>>11365798
Is it not obvious why God wouldn't allow homosexuality? Are you really that retarded to see how it would cause problems? If got had put man's beginning settings with homosexuality on default they would be gone asap

[Anonymous No.11367329]

Judaism and Christianity both advocate for a traditional model of society. They didn't think about morality in a "if it doesn't hurt anyone else, who cares?" framework. Most of it is unintelligible to someone who approaches morality with liberalistic assumptions like yourself.

[Anonymous No.11367359]

Just make sure you confess lmao

[Anonymous No.11367381]

>>11366012
Christianity is about a personal relationship with the divine, how can you say it doesn't exist outside of the Church?

[Anonymous No.11367504]

>>11367304
I'm actually trying to prevent that fallacies use as an argument.

>>11367310
What science? There has been none in this thread, other than inexperienced assertions. A lifetime of buttfun factored with the lifetimes of buttfun of literally every fucking person I've ever known who does buttfun, is pretty fucking scientificly evidence based actually.

[Anonymous No.11367511]

>>11367322
>doesn't know the difference between 'allow' and 'mandate'

the absolute state of /shit/

[Anonymous No.11367845]

>>11367198
biggest brainlet post of the fucking month

[Anonymous No.11367853]

Because homosexuals are hedonists who want to maximize the pleasure in their short life. By banning homosexuality, the church gets a trove of self-loathing homosexuals to rationalize even more ridiculous reasons to control the masses.

[Anonymous No.11367866]

>>11367504
>What science? There has been none in this thread, other than inexperienced assertions.

Regardless of whether or not there is, the fact remains that you are a retard for considering anecdotal evidence to be solid grounding for a universal conclusion. I'm not going to drudge up research for you, either use Google or go skim /gif/ until that one anon spontaneously posts the literature on the dangers of anal sex.

> A lifetime of buttfun factored with the lifetimes of buttfun of literally every fucking person I've ever known who does buttfun, is pretty fucking scientificly evidence based actually.

Fucking lmao, do you even understand what science is? There is absolutely nothing scientific about you and your friends conversations or anecdotes. You are a retard.

>unironically posting an insult meme like its 2010 /b/

Way to top off the embarrassing display.

[Anonymous No.11367870]

>>11367866
>using science to assign moral values to actions
fuck off retard

[Anonymous No.11367874]

>>11367870

I never once attempted to even associate science and morality brainlet.

[Anonymous No.11367897]

>all homosexual acts are sodomy
>sodomy is not allowed because it is purely an indulgence in worldly pleasures
Hmmmmm

[Anonymous No.11367900]

>>11367085
>clinging to the old way of marriage and family for life, the world would be a better place
Like how David had two wives and Jacob made a child with his slave?

[Anonymous No.11367924]

>>11367900
Exactly. It's not like David or Jacob were ever punished for their sins at all...

[Anonymous No.11367925]

>>11367900
>David had two wives
Literally described as a sin. David was no holy man.

>Jacob made a child with his slave
You mean Abraham? He and his child payed the price for disbelieving God.

[Anonymous No.11367973]

>>11367381
>Christianity is about a personal relationship with the divine
This is a modernist interpretation that you probably inherited through a theologically defunct reformationist church

[Anonymous No.11367978]

>>11367198
>ruins anus
it will

[Anonymous No.11368012]

why would you want to have gay sex? sex is about having children not pleasuring yourself.

[Anonymous No.11368102]

>>11367381
How could you think that's all it is after reading the NT? The great commission and the undeniable goal of the apostles under Him to establish church communities is so blatantly clear.
Christianity is a personal relationship with a divine that expresses itself in personal relationship with other Christians which expresses itself in love and evangelising the lost.
Or you can take the Buddha-Jesus of much of /lit/. He's less scary.

[Anonymous No.11368107]

>>11367900

Apologists aren't in the habit of pretending that OT figures were moral paragons.

[Anonymous No.11368138]

>>11368102
>that expresses itself in personal relationship with other Christians

Humanistic blasphemy.

[Anonymous No.11368154]

>>11365798
I'm going to try to give you a clear answer anon.

Marriage, isn't just a "social cerimony", it's a vocation. The essential part of this vocation is to be image of the Holy Trinity on earth. Man and Woman unite to create something: life. (Just like in the Trinity the Holy Spirits proceeds from the Father and the Son) Homosexual relations well..they can't create life, just pleasure. It goes against the natural law. Proof of this is the diseases sodomy can cause.

[Anonymous No.11368159]

>>11368154
I meant the Holy Spirit*

[Anonymous No.11368165]

>>11367381
Apostolic Tradition. Relationship with the divine trough the Church Jesus Christ founded.

[Anonymous No.11368179]

>>11367198
How do you address this?

[Anonymous No.11368184]

Gay sex is inherently carnal and lustful, as it has no purpose (such as procreation) outside of the fulfillment of lust. Paul didn't even really encourage marriage unless you're so horny you can't hold it in

[Anonymous No.11368215]

>>11368184
>Paul didn't even really encourage marriage unless you're so horny you can't hold it in

He went so far as to actively discourage it. Paul seems to consider marriage a tool used to manage lust, something most Christians would probably be shocked to realize. Or maybe not, I'm not sure how many of them care about the source literature nowadays.

[Anonymous No.11368249]

>>11368215
I'm not sure about that. Plenty of passages in the NT talk about marriage as a boon. I think Paul might be saying the ideal is to live a celibate life, much like Jesus when he was asked how to achieve salvation listed his commandments, then was asked further said "If you would be PERFECT then sell your possessions and follow me". Living a celibate unmarried life is the ideal, much like living as an ascetic is the ideal, but it's not absolutely necessary.

[Anonymous No.11368342]

>>11367255
Fucking a man in the arse won't bring about the baby. Simple as that. Whatever you're clearly nibbing. Fuck off

[Anonymous No.11368348]

>>11365798
It was means to an end. Same reason fapping is forbiden: Its the waste of the seed what is punished, not the act itself.

[Anonymous No.11368354]

>>11368348
>fapping is forbidden
Not true

[Anonymous No.11368369]

>>11367866
>you go find the evidence of why you're wrong cos I don't have it lmao
No, burden of proof. And yes I know what science is. If your hypothesis is that anal sex causes inability to hold in a poop, well that has been explicitly proven wrong in every single thousands of times where I've and many friends have put it to the test, literally 100% failure rate. Anal sex not causing what you claim is a probability that rivals the probability that the gearstick of a car being set to ''reverse'' means it goes backwards when you start to drive, but perhaps you think that's anecdotal and an unscientific observation too.

Pls troll better, you are ez mode.

[Anonymous No.11368461]

>>11368012
If you enjoy a social life, music, food, art, then grats cos you're basically a hypocritical ascetic Buddhist monk that can't realise that people loving others of the same sex would be a complete net positive thing, if it wasn't for religious people treating them like sin anyway. Creating babies is not a necessary goal, people have to find their own meaning in life, which is what religious people do when they turn to scripture and decide how it speaks to them. Interpretation and all that ya know?

>>11368154
Heterosexual sex also spreads diseases. Proof it's unnatural?

[Anonymous No.11368689]

>>11368369
>No, burden of proof.

Burden of proof is on anyone advancing any kind of claim, whether it is positive or negative. Also I don't give a shit, I'm not digging up studies for a brainlet who will probably just do mental gymnastics once they're shown to him anyway. In case you haven't realized, I'm not here to try and convince you of anything.

> If your hypothesis is that anal sex causes inability to hold in a poop, well that has been explicitly proven wrong in every single thousands of times where I've and many friends have put it to the test, literally 100% failure rate.

It's like your brain shorts out whenever the word "anecdotal" is used, like there's a 15 second flash of white fuzz around the term instead of a collective experience.

Also, when did I ever advance a hypothesis? I've done two things:

1. Criticize you for trying to pretend that anecdotal evidence is scientific.

2. Indicate that there's scientific literature in existence that makes the case that anal sex is dangerous.

I'm 100% right in both.

>Pls troll better, you are ez mode.

I'm not trolling anyone, I'm just pointing out that you are a retard.

[Anonymous No.11368697]

>>11368369

Also, just for fun:

>Anal sex not causing what you claim

I never claimed anal sex caused anything.

> rivals the probability that the gearstick of a car being set to ''reverse'' means it goes backwards when you start to drive, but perhaps you think that's anecdotal and an unscientific observation too.

False equivalency.

[Anonymous No.11368721]

>>11368249
>I'm not sure about that. Plenty of passages in the NT talk about marriage as a boon.

Was I talking about the NT as a whole, or was I talking about Paul?

> but it's not absolutely necessary.

This is obvious from Paul's statement itself, so I'm not sure what misconception you thought you were clearing up.

[Anonymous No.11368798]

>>11368689
You just have no idea how science works, people and even animals initiate the scientific method unwittingly all the time, even for something as simple as trying to work out how shitty i-Phones work. You interact, hypothesize, test, establish theory if hypothesis correctly predicts many results. No need to publish peer reviewed fucking papers on it to establish how some things work. The way you're using anecdotal in this context can be used to describe the anecdotal experiences of scientists and also many others that corroborate their potentially flawed views.

>Indicate that there's scientific literature in existence that makes the case that anal sex is dangerous
No you didn't, that's much more vague and arguable, what you originally claimed was that gays become incontinent, go back and actually read your post you alzheimers tier pleb.

>False equivalency.
Fallacy fallacy. What I claimed was equivalent between the two hypotheses was that I've been exposed to thousands of evidences of both statements, and they have 100% track record of accurately corroborating said hypotheses. Heck, the amount of times me and other friends have taken it up the arse and still kept a tight sphincter would probably be far more thorough and large in sample size than the studies and purported data on numbers into gays that you wish existed.

[Anonymous No.11368804]

it's clear that OP isn't a christian, move along.

[Anonymous No.11368883]

9/10 troll thread
Makes me sick. Sage.

[Anonymous No.11368929]

>>11366141
„Promiscuity is poison to society.“
I firmly believe the only reason so many guys are so adamant about this is because they can‘t get laid. You don‘t really care about society or anything outside of your own ego, the second a girl showed sexual interest in you you would throw all your supposed ideals into the gutter. You guys are basically Lieutenant Gustl.

[Anonymous No.11369128]

>>11365798
Cause it’s gay

[Anonymous No.11369144]

>>11368929
>haha VIRGIN
Can you try using some arguments?

[Anonymous No.11369197]

>>11368929
>being ruled by the thought of sex so much you'd abandon all your morals for the taste of that sweet pussy
>y-you're a desperate virgin
lmao find some self respect

[Anonymous No.11369226]

>>11369144
I‘m not trying to debate wether or not monogamy is good for society or not. I‘m just saying I believe that many of the people who say so wouldn‘t turn down casual sex if it were offered to them.

>>11369197
You are projecting stuff onto me you don‘t know. I‘m in a steady relationship, so I‘m not even promiscuous. I‘m not abandoning any of my morals, and even if I was promiscuous I wouldn‘t, because I don‘t believe it to be immoral.

[Anonymous No.11369231]

Repent, fag.

[Anonymous No.11369236]

>>11369226
>y-y-you're projecting stuff, said the guy who claimed everybody who disagreed with him was a loser
Based brainlets, where would we be without you?

[Anonymous No.11369238]

>>11366141
>meme parentheses
lol and I was about to actually acknowledge your "points." Thanks for saving me the time.

[Anonymous No.11369245]

>>11369226
Well there are lots of hypocrites around, thank you for pointing that out. That really has no bearing on what's actually moral and immoral, and anybody that is immoral/lustful in their heart, according to the NT, is also at fault. This is pretty basic stuff, Christ's followers strive for a higher ideal than simple abstinence.

[Anonymous No.11369247]

>>11369238
Spoken like a true (((tribesman)))

[Anonymous No.11369250]

>>11365798
>what harm does it do to others
I imagine this is mostly targeted to man and man, by nature, have strong sexual desires that unlike women are hardly tempered by societal influences. Thus, the unrestrained Eros of man results in baseless and a multitude of sexual partners and engagements leading to a plethora of sexually transmitted diseases. Moreover, it is not natural for it is the Dharma or telos of man to be fruitful and multiply. In a homosexual relationship, this commandment will not be upheld.

[Anonymous No.11369257]

>>11365798
Marriage is matrimonia. A insurance to the woman to ensure that she will not be left alone with the baby suckling at her breast. It is a covenant between man and woman to ensure the future of God's children.

[Anonymous No.11369272]

yo i was reading this shit on a techbro forum where some chick like estimated the number of skulls in old mexico city and it actually confirmed the 100k or so count of human sacrifices by cortez or whatever, but the interesting shit was in the comments where this dude mentioned that they found in the ruins of carthage a tophet filled with infant reminas some prenatal others up to two years but also many animal bones like goats and other beasts used for sacrifice, i was like woahhhh i read a lot of bullshit about the ancient world how come no one told me this until now? far out man

[Anonymous No.11369282]

>>11369257
it's a contract to secure the male lineages property rights bro, dont be so sentimental

[Anonymous No.11369309]

/lit/ and gay sex is like flat earthers and geography

[Anonymous No.11369387]

>>11369236
It‘s not projection if it‘s true. Also, correct me if I‘m wrong, in my understanding projection means seeing in others what you actually despise in yourself. I don‘t see how that would apply in this situation. Also, I just realized I missused the term too. I should have said ‚you‘re supposing things about me you don‘t know‘.
Isn‘t it unfair to draw a parallel here? I was making an observation about what I generally think most people who hold this belief actually would do if that belief was challanged. This >>11369197 guy supposed things about me specifically which are untrue. I think there‘s a difference between a generalisation which isn‘t true 100% of the time and a false claim about an individual whom you don‘t know anything about.

[Anonymous No.11369399]

>>11368929
I should precise this: I‘m sure there are people with genuine religious beliefs about this. But the whole ‚enforced monogamy‘ crowd, meaning incels, ‚moral/cultural christians‘ etc. in my estimation mostly driven to this view by their own sexual frustration. Does that sound any more plausible?

[Anonymous No.11369429]

I do not think that it's about sexual frustration. I like to think that it's about the definition of sex that the person upholds. If sex is a mechanism of control for a person, then I can see a reason why he would be reluctant of giving it up.

[Anonymous No.11369438]

>>11365798
Let us first concede that any behavior, even behavior that is induced by our genes, is maladaptive if it so dominates a person’s life that he can not otherwise function. Someone who cannot hold a job because he is obsessed with sex, or with hating an ethnic group, or with fighting hatred of an ethnic group, probably has some psychological problems. Is racism, homophobia, etc. maladaptive, even if it is not obsessive, so that it could be described as a “mental illness”?

Homosexuality was in the DSM until 1973, when it became fashionable to the left and was removed. Homosexuality is hardly adaptive since it does not induce sexual behavior that passes on one’s alleles, and any argument that it is not maladaptive will be devious at best. It is not contagious and it is not a threat to heterosexuals, other than the possibility that it might reduce the number of mates available to the opposite sex. Science is now uncovering more and more evidence that homosexuality is genetic, epigenetic, or due to exposure to the mother’s hormones in the womb and is not a chosen behavior (except when the opposite sex is unavailable, as in prison). But a great many conditions in the DSM, such as schizophrenia, very likely also have a genetic basis, so that by itself should not keep homosexuality out of the DSM.

What about homophobia, a hatred of homosexuals? Should it also be in the DSM? Homosexuality is accepted by some cultures and condemned by others, so there is unlikely to be a genetic inducement towards homophobia. But if homophobia is not so severe that it impairs a person’s ability to pass on his own genes (e.g., by physically attacking homosexuals and ending up in jail), it is probably less maladaptive than not liking broccoli.

Racism and ethnocentrism, however, are different. Certainly, caring for your family is adaptive, as they have more of your alleles than do strangers, so, by helping them, you help your own alleles to be passed on; conversely, it is usually maladaptive to not care for your family. Mathematical analysis of genetic distances has now shown - surprise, surprise - that your ethnic group also carries more of your alleles than do other ethnic groups, and the same is true of your race. Thus, using your resources to help people of your own race is adaptive and using your resources to instead help people of other races is, when there is no quid pro quo, maladaptive. In other words, it is the anti-racists who should be labeled “mentally ill” and worry about being put into the DSM, not the racists.

Like the taxonomists and many social scientists, the psychiatrists have been corrupted by egalitarianism.

[Anonymous No.11369522]

Even if homosexuality is maladaptive, what do you want them to do about it? Shock them so that they will try to fuck women with a limp dick just to appease the society?

[Anonymous No.11369539]

>>11368138
Not humanistic in the slightest.

[Anonymous No.11369547]

>>11366432
>1000 or more sexual partners
kek

[Anonymous No.11370072]

>>11368798
>No need to publish peer reviewed fucking papers on it to establish how some things work.

Of course there is. Present anecdotal evidence to the scientific community and see if they accept it for fact. Again, your stories and personal claims are not evidence. If you weren't such a neanderthal, you should have realized that because you personally have yet to face negative health repercussions from anal sex does not mean that the risk does not exist. But you're an idiot.

>The way you're using anecdotal in this context can be used to describe the anecdotal experiences of scientists and also many others that corroborate their potentially flawed views.

Jesus Christ, you really are stupid. Can you honestly not tell the difference between how the scientific community establishes truth and anecdotal evidence?

>what you originally claimed was that gays become incontinent

The original post claiming elderly incontinence wasn't by me you mongoloid.

>between the two hypotheses was that I've been exposed to thousands of evidences of both statements, and they have 100% track record of accurately corroborating said hypotheses.

The rear-drive example can be proven through an understanding of mechanism, there is no need to test and confirm through experiment. Even if there a need to test and confirm through experiment, such an experiment is easily testable and confirmable by anyone with necessary equipment. It also requires a short time frame to test. There is no need to accept anecdotal evidence when everyone owns a car and can see for themselves.

Your anal sex "hypothesis" is flawed and not applicable for several reasons. One, just because you have not experienced noticeable negative health outcomes from engaging in anal sex doesn't mean that no health risks exist. It also doesn't mean that you won't develop negative health outcomes in the future. The original post, if you had even the slightest perception to notice, regarded the elderly after all. Therefore your statement, even if accepted as true evidence, failed to disprove the original assertion. Again, if you're weren't a brainlet you would have realized this.

Thirdly, your evidence is anecdotal and difficult to test. It would possibly take a long time to see negative health outcomes, not everyone would be inclined to test this, and your "tests" are not being done in a controlled setting. I have to take your word for it when I have reason to doubt both your ethical commitment to telling the truth and your ability to perceive reality accurately yourself, since you seem deluded, untrustworthy, and unintelligent.

Honestly I am taken aback by how consistently stupid you've shown yourself to be. It's embarrassing that I have to re-explain to you over and over again the difference between anecdotal evidence and scientifically valid results, like you're some idiot child. Anons other than myself have said as much, you are an idiot.

[Anonymous No.11370186]

>>11365798
Is there a definitive version of the Old Testament out there? Spirituality isn't a concern for me.

[Anonymous No.11370196]

We should just use Landian retrocausality to clone jesus into a simulation and then have him give us his opinion.

[Anonymous No.11370375]

>>11370186
Yes. It's in Hebrew

[Anonymous No.11370754]

>>11370375
It's in Greek. The septuagint is the definitive Old Testament

[Anonymous No.11370826]

>>11365798
God hates homosexuality because homosexuality makes you a fag and God hates fags.

[Anonymous No.11370982]

>>11367226
>Cause religion focuses on societal benefit
>being this brainlet

[Anonymous No.11371092]

>Why does God forbid homosexuality? what harm does it do to others?
Because gay sex is not procreative, and thus life denying. It goes agains't God's command to "be fruitful, and multiply," and even Jesus cursed a fig tree because it wouldn't bear fruit. Other religions hold a similar sentiment when it comes to procreation.

>6. If a man see himself in the water, he should recite the following verse: 'May there be in me splendour, strength, glory, wealth, virtue.' She is the best of women whose garments are pure. Therefore let him approach a woman whose garments are pure, and whose fame is pure, and address her.
>7. If she do not give in, let him, as he likes, bribe her (with presents). And if she then do not give in, let him, as he likes, beat her with a stick or with his hand, and overcome her, saying: 'With manly strength and glory I take away thy glory,'-and thus she becomes unglorious.
>8. If she give in, he says: 'With manly strength and glory I give thee glory,' - and thus they both become glorious.
Brihadaranyaka Upanishad Chapter 6, Section 4

>"God's other name is 'father' because he is capable of making all things. Making is characteristic of a father. Prudent people therefore regard the making of children as a duty in life to be taken most seriously and greatly revered, and should any human being pass away childless, they see it as the worst misfortune and irreverence. After death such a
person suffers retribution from demons. This is his punishment: the soul of the childless one is sentenced to a body that has neither a man's
nature nor a woman's - a thing accursed under the sun. Most assuredly then, Asclepius, you should never congratulate a childless person. On the contrary, show pity for his calamity, knowing what punishment
awaits him."
Corpus Hermeticum 2.17

[Anonymous No.11371204]

>>11368461
Abhorrent post, consider killing yourself

[Anonymous No.11371216]

>>11367897
This post defeats the homosex

[Anonymous No.11371230]

>>11371216
The actual definition of sodomy includes all sex acts which aren't procreative, including oral sex.

[Anonymous No.11371894]

>>11366012
>Christianity doesn't exist outside the church
Fffffffffffuck you Paul

[Anonymous No.11371940]

>>11367198
>this whole post
really nigga?

[Anonymous No.11372291]

>>11366792
It is in the US, I live here.

[Anonymous No.11372484]

>>11367310
Lol widespread scientific research about anal stretching? Let's see it.

Anal is fine as long as you're safe about it. Everyone in this thread is acting faggy.

[SAGE No.11373138]

>>11365798
>what harm does it do to others?

[Anonymous No.11373341]

>>11368929
>I don't have religious conviction so no one else can
Dude you do know that people can have different backgrounds and beliefs than you right?

[Anonymous No.11373584]

>>11365798
In Catholicism its because sex is supposed to only be directed at procreation within marriage, everything else is sodomy basically

This is the argument I use at people when they ask me about it

But obviously there's a natural revulsion most people have to homosexuals anyways. If you don't have this revulsion you just have a lower disgust sensitivity or have been desensitized over time. Think of how you feel when you see a swarming pool of maggots, that's all you need to understand disgust.

Also ethics isn't about whether or not something harms somebody else, that's modern liberal thinking in which everything is made about contracts and consent. Duty trumps either of those from a truly Christian perspective.

[Anonymous No.11373630]

>>11366012
>Christianity doesn't exist outside the church.
This whole post was good until you made this point.

[Anonymous No.11373635]

>>11367198
People will justify anything anon. Homosexuality is the rejection of nature, it's literally as wayward as a sex change

[Anonymous No.11373658]

Homosexuality is banned because it is an act of waste. Marriage is the bond that is designed for the production and education of children. Homos cant have kids and therefore the act of homosexuality is forbid. Marriage isn't about love, its about kids.

[Anonymous No.11373670]

>>11368929
>I firmly believe the only reason so many guys are so adamant about this is because they can‘t get laid
how can you have this view on /lit/?

[Anonymous No.11373680]

>>11373584
>This is your brain on christcuckery
Christcucks confirmed brainlets

[Anonymous No.11373683]

>>11373680
Read The Sickness Unto Death

[Anonymous No.11373704]

>>11373683
Read literally anything not written by retarded Abrahamics