If a father and a daughter fucked, you'd have no birth defects either. It takes way more inbreeding to have any consequences. Secondly, making a baby isn't necessary. You can abort it in case of an accident, can't you?
Thirdly, normal couples make babies with birth defects, should they be made illegal too?
She is. Now explain what the problem is? Because, so far, all you have is "it grosses me out" which homosexual marriage does to plenty of people and you never considered that an argument, so why should be an argument now?
>>559874225 >So? Father and daughter don't HAVE to make a baby. Condoms exist. Argument rejected. Father and daughter CAN make a tard baby. You rejection is invalid. Meanwhile, if father/daughter were legal, fathers would: a) "groom" their daughter for marriage b) worry that they were unintentionally "grooming" c) be accused of "grooming" d) all of the above
Well personally I support the abolition of all marriage laws and am in favour of marriage instead being regulated by the existing contract laws which already means everyone involved would have to be of legal age and sound mind and so on...
So yes, I would gladly let father and daughter get married if they were both of legal age and had undergone the genetic counselling that is required when close relatives want to get married in countries with more liberal laws.
That being said the genetic argument is a fully valid one for the purpose of this thread, and OP is just being a faggot that will reject any argument to keep the bait going.
>>559871345 Incestuous relationships can be ones based off of manipulation from a Seat of power (I.e. dad over daughter, mother over son, dad over son, mother over daughter). also, there are genetic defects that come from incest. How foes one protect themselfs from their mother or father raising them to be their husband/wife or just fuck toy from when they were young? You cant. It doesnt work.
>>559879083 Many individuals in the first generation of inbreeding will never live to reproduce. Over time, with isolation, such as a population bottleneck caused by purposeful (assortative) breeding or natural environmental factors, the deleterious inherited traits are culled.
you can argue with wikipedia, i won't give credence to this dribble
>>559878335 >Not more than any other couple. Inbred problems only happen after quite a few generations with the same genepool. > >Believing what you believe is comparable to the idea that homosexuals are pedophiles. Same urban legend. Argument rejected. Did you fail genetics or something? inbreeding increases the number of homozygous allele pairs in our genes, causing more recessive genes to be expressed. This ALWAYS happens right away, to some extent, though yes it does increase dramatically down the line. But we all have a certain number of lethal recessive alleles in us, six on average, waiting to be paired up with another recessive allele and produce a genetic disorder. That's why people get them even when they don't inbreed, there's always a chance. But since fathers and daughters share a huge number of common alleles, the chance of their offspring expressing any lethals goes up dramatically, even in the first generation. In pets and livestock it's not a big deal, people not so.
>>559879550 Fine I'll do sometging simple. Assume dad is Tt and mother is TT. Let's also assume t is gene for schizophrenia. Now the likely out comes of parents is: TT,Tt Tt and TT Now daughter is born Tt. Dad and kid. Its likely outcome is Tt, TT, Tt, tt. Far more likely of being a carrier of t or even having it. Continue down the incest line and in only a few generation genetics are completely fucked.
>>559880373 >Legal marriage has absolutely 0, jack, nothing to do with sex.
That's true. But I think OP's argument was different. Let me put it this way... why can't I marry my 80-year old mother? Obviously (to most, even on 4chan) it isn't about sex. It would be about being able to give her the benefits (health insurance, taxes etc...) of being married.
For that matter, why shouldn't I be able to marry my father for the same reasons? The argument behind gay marriage is to be able to give benefits to someone you love, regardless of sex. SO if I love a parent (assuming the other parent is deceased), shouldn't I be able to marry them to give them greater benefits?
I agree, and this is why agree with OP, and this is why I have always been in favor of civil unions for everyone. If some neckbeard wants to get in a civil union with his mom, I don't care if he's fucking her or not, let him.
Christians desperately fought civil unions because they were afraid it would hurt "marriage," now marriage is going to become exactly what civil unions were going to be - any two people who want to set up the arrangement can have one.
>>559881138 This. I've gota GF and a suck buddy and I've fucked 3 different traps so far. Pussy, tits, cock and ass are all fun as fuck and your prostate is there to be stimulated. Yall faggots missing out.
People are going to fuck whoever they're going to fuck. Getting your panties in a bunch over it is stupid. You don't see animals getting mad at other animals having sex aside from when there's a dispute between who gets to lay who.
>>559881761 Now you're combining the two; good on you! The thing is, the way you wrote it first, it sounds like there are two scenarios: a relationship between family, and a relationship between homosexuals. In that case, you're not related to your homosexual partner.
>>559880648 Homosexuality doesn't dilute the gene pool by producing individuals with a less-than-sterling genetic record. In fact, it doesn't really do anything harmful to anyone, whereas incest creates people with genetic abnormalities. See why it makes sense to make one illegal and allow the other one because it's harmless?
>>559881914 One person loves Potato Salad. The other calls it revolting. One person loves Death Metal. The other calls it just a bunch of shitty noise. One person enjoys a nice BBQ feast. The other is a vegan.
What's disgusting for you may not be disgusting for others is all I'm saying.
>>559881513 It's two people giving eachother pleasure, company and sharing all or parts of their lives. It decreases the net suffering of the world. That is a fucking benefit, often literally. And even if it wasn't, it's not doing any harm. 4chan is more of a contributor to degeneracy than homosexuality. Prove me wrong.
>>559882505 >Implying there is a difference as all are integral parts of life >Not knowing what preference is, and how one can't choose what turns them on any more than they can choose what they like to eat or listen to >Not knowing all of that is subconsciously controlled >Calling me stupid when you clearly can't grasp my higher logic
>>559882447 No damage was ever done, it's consistently being undone to a flawed original idea of marriage based on merging land properties and setting inheritances. >>559882226 Traditional marriage will not magically disappear when non-traditional forms are allowed. Why do people think this? Are you still treating marriage as a business? Are you afraid of the competition? And how much can your traditional marriage really be worth if it can be threatened so easily? Jackass.
>>559882949 lots of straight men like trannies, they're just women with a little something more. Finding dick interesting doesn't make you gay, dreaming about some guy's muscley, hairy chest and arms lovingly cradling you or having a crush on a man does.
>>559883227 >Separation of church and state was instored to protect religion from the state, learn your fucking history, faggot.
No idea what instored means. Clarify?
I'm well aware of the intent of the 1st amendment.
It made the legal defense of recent marriage laws laughable. Lawyers for traditional marriage showed up in court and they had to rely on the weakest-ass arguments imaginable. They couldn't say "your honor, marriage is and always has been the union of one man and one woman as modeled in Genesis and sanctioned by the church", instead they had to say "marriage between a man and a woman is...um..better because...you can have babies that way and...that's the way we've done it for a long time."
If you believe in the Genesis definition of marriage, you have nothing to fear, because then it doesn't matter what laws are passed, it will remain unchanged.
it doesn't. Healthy women are fertile. It's not hard to understand:
- you don't sanction someone who's already sanctioned by nature
- homosexuals can reproduce if they choose to
Homosexuals had the same rights as everybody else. They too could marry a woman and have children.
Since when is it mandatory to feel sexually attracted to your partner? Why is sex at the center of marriage when it actually isn't?
A man and a woman, if both are healthy, CAN reproduce, this is why ALL women and ALL men were granted that right (duty, in the past). No homosexual ever has been able to make a baby with another man because it's not possible. Do you get it?
>>559883714 We learned to purify our water, so alcohol stopped being the safest thing to drink Take a trip to Afghanistan and you'll find everything you're looking for, they still to the pedo boy "mentees", incest with their daughters, and you know a few of them fuck their goats
OP, I'm a bit confused. So, incestuous marriages don't have to involve breeding, sex or even romance. The thread is about the marriage alone, as a contract of sorts, between two individuals, from which the two can reap benefits like comradeship or legal "stuff" (i assume) and the irrationality of preventing the coming together of the two because they are related. Is that about right?
>>559887220 I feel like the "it's none of out business" line of thought should be applied to far more that incest if it were to be actually applied. eg. pedophelia where the child consents, that one case where a dude volunteered to be eaten by a cannibal, Mexican stand-offs and fist fights to the death. As long as no external party is directly affected ("OMG think of the children" being set aside") any action between two or more people should be accepted . I could be pushing it but the aforementioned are things we frown upon rather instinctively, so i think this scaling-up is playing fair. Are you willing to go that far?
I'll re-explain: all women can marry and all men can marry based on the fact that a normal woman and a normal man can make children together. This grants every woman on earth the right to marry a man. Period. Women who don't want children also have the right to marry based on that biological function that applies to all.
Homos also get that right: a homosexual man can marry a homosexual woman and they can both have children too. They CAN "create" a baby too.
For two homos not to be able to make a baby together is NORMAL because it can't be done at all, while a sterile woman is an EXCEPTION. We write laws based on NORMALCY not exceptions.
>>559883367 "because we are used to it this way" is not a valid reason to do anything. Its not a valid reason to, say, continue human sacrifices in mexico because "Its for the best, i mean we always did it this way, ever since before the white man came."
>>559880648 How about this: what's your legitimate reason for declaring that gay marriage is worse than incestuous marriage. Religion, by the way, is not a valid reason since that's a personal alignment and subject to different interpretations.
>>559871345 I don't think your point in >>559887220 is fair: if one were analysing this practically (say, with a view to passing laws), one would have to admit that a large proportion of marriages do in fact, involve breeding - the law would not work on a "chess or anal" basis, right? Would you then add a caveat regarding breeding, just for this particular case? Is this about getting the legal benefits of marriage? Also, I think you need to capture all (or as many) of the specifics of this proposed marriage, mainly because some of the things implied by marriage between relatives is problematic: 1. If it is legal to marry a relative once they are of normal marital age, what prevents me from grooming them when they are underage? 2. I'm not sure of the exact mechanism of homosexual attraction vs. familial attraction (Westemark? effect notwithstanding) - apparently homosexuality is epigenetic - but you would presumably not want to increase the group-wise proclivity to family marriages for the aforementioned baby risks (i.e. gay marriage may not promote more homosexuality, but family marriage may promote more incest). So, what's the idea here?
>>559889925 >Gay couples are denied the rights like insurance and dependant status afforded to most couples, because they cannot be legally married.
That's a lie. They can marry a woman and get the same benefits. You just have to adapt to society and not expect society to adapt to you, especially when you're only a ridiculous percentage of the population.
What kind of arrogant prick wants everyone else to adapt for them?
Why would you want to deface a beloved tradition with your own prissiness? I don't get it.
>>559889167 Sure, society should do loads of things but aren't individuals built for self fulfilment? (I'll just take your word for the immigration). We do what we want if we are able to and willing to accept the re precautions. Even if an act is perilous for the society if popularized, why would you intervene in the life of the individual? (silly question) We are all supposed to be free right?
Besides, as a sidenote, inbred hillbillies fucking their children don't into legal documentation or health insurance anyways, so I don't see how having legal marriage would benefit them in any way that simply living in the backwoods and breeding flipper babies would not.
There is not an inherent power disparity between the individuals as a general homosexual couple. The same can not be said in incestuous relationships. Certainly in father/daughter and mother/son (and even same sex parent/offspring relationships) there is a degree to which the parent is most commonly the authoritative figure. Brother/sister less so; a different argument is necessary there.
>>559884680 FUN FACT. I've done a lot of research on that time period. Not only was Jesus one of many doomsday prophets, his 'son of god' stuff was reconnected to make him more like the divine roman emperors, and the virgin birth was for the gentiles to get the 'god likes fucking mortals' that the roman-etruscan gods were so fond of. Finally, Jesus may very well have been a militant rebel, concerning his method of execution and the records of the roman courts.
Society needs to man up and force its citizens. We're currently in the phase that immediately precedes fascism, as explained by Socrates. In a democracy, people get freedom and want more freedom. We're currently reaching the excesses of freedom as people's freedoms are conflicting now. It'll cause tensions, as it does now, and eventually people will crave freedom no longer, but order and authority and discipline. That's when fascism sets in.
Tumblr is the best promoter of fascism there ever existed. I cannot read a fucking page of it without praying on my hands and knees for a new Hitler to come to purge this filth and this retardation.
People need to understand that the society they live in was built by people who sacrificed a lot and didn't complain like fucking pussies. People worked hard for this comfort of yours and your right to express yourself and be heard, and you're just pissing it all away by being a faggot and spreading your legs for Muslims.
I didn't equate sexual "liberation" to Hitler you moron, I took a shot at your stupid argument about "time means improvement of everything".
It's the most fallacious shit and I see it all the time.
Unlike you, I don't believe that we are forced to "go with the flow" and agree with any opinion or mainstream idea "because it's 2014!" That's fucking retarded. My point was that YOU don't like Hitler so YOU wouldn't have said that in 1933, proving that you're full of shit, since "time improves everything" but only when it goes the way YOU want.
>>559890593 >People are made for society, society is not made for people. Selfish. That amounts to "I have what I want/need from society, other people not getting what they want/need does not matter."
Thought experiment: do you get to generally fall in love with someone, and then reap benefits from being with that person? Straight people can generally answer yes. Homosexuals can not. They can fall in love with someone, and they can reap benefits from being with A person, but they can not reap benefits from being with the person they are in love with. Therefore there is an inherent disparity that needs correcting.
>>559891424 I'm from >>559890543 I know the passage you're talking about, it's fantastic! Funnily enough, the the first time I read it was after it was cited on the blog of one Mencius Moldbug. Sometimes I feel dirty for knowing about him, but, eh, do you know of him, perchance?
>>559890878 The Athenians got in on those humpfests too. The Spartans and the Thebans were just the most flamboyant. Plus the Theban gay soldiers kicked the shit out their enemies. The exclusively gay ones, that being the Sacred Band.
Do you actually believe most couples function on equality? How naive. Most couples have a rather clear authority and the other person submits to it. Most of the time it's the man, but not always. You need to get out there and live, my friend. I've never been in a relationship where we were equal on anything.
And the idea that a daughter is always submissive to her father is retarded. I've seen many children who bully their parents around like no tomorrow, at age 5.
>>559891331 >So, if society democratically decides that gay marriage is fine, then you have no objections, since your saying that society is your only backing for your claim?
I'd still have objections on the grounds that the society that built the society we live in now were against it and that the current society hasn't shown its quality yet.
That said, there are no countries in the world where homosexual marriage was democratically accepted. Only the government forced it on everywhere.
Take women and their right to vote. If you don't force it on the people, they'll take decades more to accept it. Homomarriage might have never gottan accepted in the USA if it had been a democratic vote, instead of a republican vote. How ironic.
>>559891424 1.I think you need to chill 2.Society, a large group of individuals, is unlikely to find the incentive to force it's members to do something. You'd need an external input as in the case of the experiment with the monkeys and the banana link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-PvBo75PDo
>>559892235 nigger can you read? >generally >most commonly I am saying that while there is not usually equality, there is not an inherent inequality to homosexuality, whereas there will be pretty much every single time in a parent/offspring incestuous relationship.
Also, did you just equate homosexuality to heterosexuality and then oppose both of them to incestuous relationships? What an utter shitshow.
>>559892685 Legitimate historical research over several years, not pop shit. I do my research firsthand, from the direct text translations. The religious context of the times was, for one that many believed that the Judaic apocalypse was coming, and flocked to doomsday prophets.
>>559892541 Id respectfully disagree. I dont think i have ever met anyone irl who was against gay marriage, everyone from classmates to coworkers to my grandparents. In the society I live in, the society made up of the people I know, its perfectly fine to be gay, and to be in monogamous gay relationships. The state I live in hasn't forced that on us, in fact its illegal for them to marry, but our society accepts it.
>>559878335 Your line of reasoning is SO weird. Allowing, legally, father-daughter marriage creates the opportunity to do something technically illegal (which is always a possibility) with the bonus of if not being illegal after a period of time. That argument can NOT be used for homosexual marriages. Also, "grooming" is not fucking. Fucking your daughter while underage is still illegal, and would not stop being illegal if familial marriage were legal (unless the case was dropped by the daughter and no one pursued it as a criminal case).
>>559893001 Money doesn't have an inherent value...Result of people's faith...everything is interconnected,,, If you can see the argument i would have used that's good, if not oh well ( it would have been long and probably pompous)
>>559893805 Oh boy. you picked the wrong history nerd to get anal (hah) with.
The roman empire fell because of it's own size. The lack of instantaneous messenger systems meant that the legions were stretched thin. Soon, the local tribesmen, or European barbarians were admitted entrance into the legions, not just natives of the Italian peninsula and roman Gaul. These barbarians eventually subverted the army to the point of it requiring reform by the christian emperor Constantine, who ended up making it even worse than before, directly leading to it's laxity, the moving of the capital to Byzantium due to his religious convictions and visions and the fall of rome.
The roman empire fell because of Christianity, genius.
I try, but you guys piss me off so much I just have to insult you all, which isn't an ad hominem argument because I'm not arguing shit with my insults, I'm just insulting you. Learn the difference. Faggot.
>>559891795 Actually, you did equate sexual liberation to Hitler, at least on a subconscious level. In an attempt to define why being accepting of sexual liberation is not ok, the example you chose to provide was Hitler. In your mind, both are egregiously vile and unthinkably reprehensible and as such sought to use the idea of Hitler - who was not in any way related to the subject at hand - as a way to disparage my statement. In your mind, mass genocide and world war is subconsciously on par with sexual liberation, which is why you chose to use Hitler as an example of why time doesn't equal improvement of everything, instead of something more akin to, say, Civil Rights, which is much more similar to Sexual Liberation as it is the social acceptance of a group of people.
>>559893672 Okay, you cited that there is usually a dominant person, and that it is usually the man. Homosexual relationships have two men. Congratulations, point made and point taken as "it could be either person being dominant in a homosexual relationship"
next up: blah blah some parents bullied by their kids. Care to give me some numbers on how much that relationship turns into an incestuous one? I would venture to say almost none; feel free to correct me. My claim (that I'm holding until proven otherwise) is that parent/offspring incestuous relationships are dominated by the parent an overwhelming amount of the time.
Lastly: you totally did. You demonstrated the power dynamic of a straight couple while I was talking about homosexual couples (this would equate the two), and then showed how alike it was to incestuous relationships. To your credit, you hold them all to be similar in power dynamic, but the simple fact that you are willing to equate homosexuality with heterosexuality in terms of power dynamics in relationships shows an interesting bit about your mindset in this argument.
>>559894254 Not that guy, but I think you need to read the text (so that we may agree on its interpretation, or discuss it at the very least - no one is really claiming he's predicting the future). Remember, Athens had a functioning "democracy", and a lot of that text has to do with the things that can be observed in general in democracies given certain stipulations.
Socrates was right all the same. His predictions happen in human history. Democratic Germany gave way to Nazism exactly as Socrates said it would.
It'll happen again, but far, far worse. The excesses of today are fuelling the fires of tomorrow. All the faggots, feminists, Liberals, and the rest of these degenerates will be kicked to the curb and cast away as they deserve.
Muslims will be expelled back into their countries and you faggots will be sent along. The worse nations become, the more it fuels the fire. The fire rises my brother. It won't be pretty and it'll all be your fucking fault.
I love how these leagues of fucking faggots are throwing themselves literally at this one dude trying to reconcile the fact that what he's saying is completely raping their naïve, over-entitled social perceptions, all just fucking failing and eating their own shit in the process.
Gay politics is a chimera, it's built entirely on lack of complete information or scrutiny thereof. The second a person actually looks at all of the data and peruses the literature, he sees how incredibly tenuous and unsubstantial it all is. At that point you become deeply ashamed at the fact that this is the society we live in, one where literally a complete fucking unsupported exaggeration/lie can mutate into an entire fucking Zeitgeist.
>>559894772 Hm. Have my friends debased any women to animals recently? nope. Don't think so, even though I live in the supposed land of terrorists, I see a burqa about once every two months, while I see christian missionaries once every two days.
>>559895130 Gay people give back to society economically, as well as being caregivers. A huge number of gay people work in medicine, as well as the phenomenon of the "gay super-uncle". Where single mothers with gay brothers have a male influence with a lot of disposable income lavish extra attention and funds on their children. Look it up.
To add to your nice stuff, do know that the Barbarians were also Christians, having been evangelised quite a bit by a number of missionaries from Rome. You're right about the part where it's stretched thin, but I think Romans fucked up because they focused more on orgies and fun and assassinations of all great Roman families. This led to the collapse of power.
There's a theory about lead pipes that poisoned countless people but I can't confirm.
>anal sex was a euphemism for people focusing on personal pleasures more than empire-management
What you're failing to understand is that this isn't optimal. It's a constipated type of socioeconomic reciprocation which would be better off if those 'gay uncles' were simply themselves heterosexual fathers.
>>559895781 That was mostly Nero (who admittedly dressed like a hooker) and Caligula and a little bit of Commodus. They were dead and buried long before Constantine took power and screwed everything up. By which point the entire empire had become an irreconcilable bureaucratic mess.
But gay marriage had nothing to do with it. In fact during the 'gay hedonism' period, Rome created the Colosseum, Nero's Palace and other such cultural treasures. And don't forget how they were pretty much unstoppable militarily at that point.
>>559894710 >Okay, you cited that there is usually a dominant person, and that it is usually the man. Homosexual relationships have two men. Congratulations, point made and point taken as "it could be either person being dominant in a homosexual relationship"
What the fuck am I reading... I don't even see what your point is and how it contradicts anything I've said.
I'm pretty sure you're mentally retarded at this point.
>>559895661 >Gay people give back to society economically, as well as being caregivers.
That's if they work, and that has literally nothing to do with their sexuality. Heteros can do as much. Heteros, however, don't spread AIDS as much and as fast as you assblasters. There's a reason why hospitals refuse gay blood, too filthy.
>>559897170 Polygamous unions are generally illegal in the US because they include child brides, but that's a whole 'nuther can of worms. I'd say go for it myself. It's only a matter of time before it's legal anyways.
>>559879014 This. Really I'm not against incest. The whole reason humans made those laws was because they realized you make downs babies that way. If you're a Christian then Adam and eve's kids had to bone but they had perfect genes so all was well. I have no problem with two sterile people going at it even if they're dad/daughter.
I don't think either homosexuality or incest is right but since in America we believe in the pursuit of happiness I support both group's rights to a marriage as long as it doesn't harm anyone (including the probable unborn).
Another argument I haven't seen is gays don't get rights with regards to medical care. If a gay gets hit by a car only relatives or spouse gets rights over their care. father is already a relative so that's not an arguable reason.
>>559897893 >gay people spread STDs >STDs were spread to their current extent by heterosexual couplings. >STDs in the US are mostly spread by amorous heterosexual minority groups >Gay people tend to be more comitted to one partner, as another may be difficult to find
>>559898461 >Gay people tend to be more comitted to one partner, as another may be difficult to find
You gotta be fucking kidding me. Homos have a much easier time to find partners than heteros. Faggots don't need to take gloves with each other as they're the same sex. As a fag, you can go to a fag bar and a backroom and get sex within minutes. Try finding a place where you can do the same as a hetero without paying for it. I dare you.
Faggots can fuck 15 faggots in a single day, for free, simply by going to the right places.
Yes, pf course, all Muslims are privy to a secret plot to destroy america and all that's good, free and full of republicans in the world. There's no chance at all that they might just be people of another religion who are mostly decent human beings.
OP was raped by a gay Muslim when he was a kid, it's he only explanation for his mind-blowing hostility to both parties.
Well, maybe he's just stupid, but give him a chance. Faruz touched him in his naughty parts.
>>559899397 Incest leads to genetically poor offspring that fail to survive. That is why it has been bread out of us. Homosexuals have, throughout history, still chosen to have kids. Thus they still breed so their numbers are larger.
Do you not understand the definition of checkmate? You have no argument against me. None at all. Resistance is futile.
>>559884913 >American separation of church and state was put in the law because early Americans were persecuted for their religion. Not to know this is to be fundamentally retarded.
To think that is to be fundamentally retarded. While the 1st amendment was meant to protect people from religious persecution, it was also meant to keep religion from fucking up the gov't, which was a big thing with Machiavelli and the enlightenment thinkers, all of whom were read by the founding fathers.
However, it's worth noting that Machiavelli's support of stability at all costs didn't sit well with the founding fathers.
Your last 2 lines are irrelevant and serve to show that you haven't read enough on this subject.
>>559871345 Marriage doesn't have much to do with breeding nor sex. In the US it's a legal status. Social Welfare, Tax codes, Guardian ship of parents, Life Insurance, Inheritance, and health care all change. We went through the same shit with intteracial couples a few decades ago. If niggers can marry, why not fags? Why not niggerfags? Given an incestuous relationship, most of the tax/government benefits are already there simply by being related, or having other such legal status as guardianship assigned either with parent or child.
Homosexuality is logically and categorically superfluous. That's what a crime of nature is. Nature means efficiency, parsimony (hence Occam's razor; natura nihil agit frusta (nature does nothing in vain)). A crime against nature is therefore a crime against efficiency, and homosexuality is exactly that, as there already exists an efficient sexuality prior to homosexuality, and that is precisely heterosexuality. No this does not mean that the only type of sex one must therefore engage in is heterosexual missionary under the sheets with the lights off for the sole purpose of procreation, that's nothing but a fallacious explosion in the reticence of the logic, it simply means 'heterosexuality' (whatever that could possibly imply as a general category).
So there. You literally have no possibility to argue now. What I've just explicated to you is airtight.
>>559871345 because a homosexual marriage will not lead directly to inbreeding, which a father/daughter marriage would. Inbreeding makes retarded kids (e.g all sandniggers) which we have no practical use for on the planet currently.
You're mistaking 'nature' with the concept of naturalness. They are homonyms, but, in the sense in which you're using them, nature actually means the exact of opposite of natural. Nature denotes the chaotic aspect of the universe (and so you are therefore correct in stating that nature makes people gay, because homosexuality is, in essence, nothing other than sexual chaos), but the concept of naturalness denotes the opposite of chaos: efficiency, in which case, absolutely not, there's nothing efficient about homosexuality in and of itself. It only ever becomes efficient due to some interaction within an extrinsic reason (and it is within this extrinsic reason, the evolutionary and sociocultural aetiology of homosexuality, which most expressively describes its true nature).
Nature (in the general sense (i.e., precisely the process of evolution via natural selection)) utilises and makes advantage of everything, even all that which is ultimately disadvantageous. You can never mistake relative advantage with real advantage. Homosexuality (really just perversion in general) can be said to be advantageous only ever in some relative sense. Homosexuality in and of itself is however absolutely disadvantageous (as can be clearly seen if we replace 'homosexuality' with its parent class of 'sexual perversion', or even further 'chaos').
Please support this website by donating Bitcoins to 16mKtbZiwW52BLkibtCr8jUg2KVUMTxVQ5 If a post contains copyrighted or illegal content, please click on that post's [Report] button and fill out a post removal request
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows an archive of their content. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.