I believe it is quite certain that 'homosexual' (people

>>1452759
Because back then even gay people needed to have gaybies.

Modern society destroyed traditional family values, which were, marriage for the joining of families, arranged marriage by your parents or family, spawning heirs and progeny, and women being wombs for this purpose.

Someone introduced this stupid concept of marrying for love, and eventually, gay men with gay lovers wanted to also marry for love.

Because being exclusively homosexual is a meme and is a result of modern day identity politics.

>>1452801
Only because high rates of reproduction are no longer called for in post-industrial societies.

>>1452801
>Because being exclusively homosexual is a meme and is a result of modern day identity politics.

This is an idiotic view to hold. There were doubtless individuals who exclusively preferred members of their same-sex.

>>1452801
I'm extremely conservative and despise modern day identity politics. How do you explain my exclusive homosexuality?

File: Pringles_face.png (6KB, 875x669px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 875x669px

>>1452801
t.Christcuck

>>1452779
>Someone introduced this stupid concept of marrying for love, and eventually, gay men with gay lovers wanted to also marry for love.

Romantic mariage was invented by the upper classes 200 or 250 years a go.
Copied by the lower classes 100 years a go.

Is it possible everyone is bi to even the tiniest degree?

Like, girls say other girls are cute but have no intention of ever being sexual with them. Some dude can admit when another dude is attractive without ever being gay by societies standards.

>>1452801
I have to sort of agree with this one. There is a great deal of pressure in the modern day for people to define who they are as rapidly as possible.

If you even have the slightest attraction for the same sex, society makes it a big deal and demands you to take a stance whether you now identify as homosexual or not.

>>1453011
>Like, girls say other girls are cute but have no intention of ever being sexual with them. Some dude can admit when another dude is attractive without ever being gay by societies standards.
Wouldn't it only be be if they would feel any sort of sexual attractiveness to them though?

This entire "homosexuality didn't exist back in the day" is the worst line of thinking I have ever seen in my life.

>>1452759
>I believe homosexual persons have existed for all of human history.
Wait, what?! But, how did you think of that, you brilliant genius?! By God no one has ever thought of this before... But it explains so much! Amazing! Give this man the Nobel prize!

File: 1467244573698.png (556KB, 750x720px) Image search: [Google]

556KB, 750x720px

>>1454390
There's people above you claiming homosexuals never existed until they magically appeared in the 20th and 21st centuries, idiot.

>>1452759
When are you gonna realize that sexuality in general is a spook? If it is a nice looking hole you wanna stick your dick in it, the rest of the body is a spook, it does not matter.

Because in the past, most people could bring themselves to fuck a woman and have kids.

Only the absolute gayest of fags couldn't stand women, like Hadrian.

>>1452759
I believe Lenin legalized it, maybe Tito? Idk

>>1454435
Most people aren't attracted to holes. The idea that sex must involve penetration is the real spook.

>>1454446
>Only the absolute gayest of fags couldn't stand women, like Hadrian.

You say that as though it were a bad thing. Homosexuals are superior to heterosexuals in their aesthetic preferences: men are better for love :33

>>1452819

Maybe, but they weren't 'homosexuals'.

>>1452993
> citation needed

I agree with homosexuality if only for the fact that it could be a decent population control. I'd prefer it if people didn't use their sexuality as personal identity though, but only because sex to me should be extremely private regardless.

>>1453011
There's a difference between finding members of the same sex aesthetically pleasing and finding them sexually attractive. Even so, I'd say bisexuality is probably the most prevalent sexuality, if not heterosexuality.

File: sullivan.jpg (31KB, 652x365px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 652x365px

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2012/11/gay_marriage_votes_and_andrew_sullivan_his_landmark_1989_essay_making_a.html

I find it strange that those most uncompromising about homosexuality as deviance are completely unwilling to make any concessions even if it would lead to a better outcome than ignoring this dilemma. Conservative Christians would literally rather gay men go out in flamboyant parades, have wild and non-monogamous sex, do drugs and what's more, mainstream all of this than try to create a moral framework for homosexuals to operate in. Before all the Christians come out of the woodwork to dispute this point, I'm not saying in principle that you necessarily believe this, but as far as policy preferences go, actions speaking louder than words. The status quo was sexual anarchy. Opposition to same-sex marriage is ipso facto an endorsement of that anarchy over the establishment of some kind of order, however detestable you find that new order to be.

I get the whole "muh principles, preserve traditional marriage," but if the outcome of that obduracy is actually more damaging to traditional morality than any concession would be, then which is honestly worse?

>>1452759
>I believe it is quite certain that 'homosexual' (people who were exclusively interested in their same-sex, rather than opportunists or those engaging in formalized, ritualized homosexuality) persons have existed for all of human history.

No shit sherlock

>My question is: why is it that only until the 21st century has there been a call for integration of homosexuals into mainstream society
Spartans, your point is invalid
For bonus points, s class relationships in japan, possibly the celts according to the romans, most of what the greeks did, and we have no records of what bronze age societies thought about the issue.

The much better question is; are there any identifiable individuals who claimed to be trans pre-1960s without an associated genetic condition?

>>1455531
>No shit sherlock

I suggest you read the entire thread, because there are people in it that are actually arguing homosexuals didn't exist until the last century.

>Spartans, your point is invalid

Nice meme response: the Spartans were actually known for their revulsion to pederasty and homosexuality, unlike most of the other Greek city states.

Sodomites are never interested exclusively in their own gender
>My question is: why is it that only until the 21st century has there been a call for integration of homosexuals into mainstream society
Because we live in a global Sodom

>>1452842
Die sodomite scum
Get AIDS bugchaser

>>1456345
>>1456349
>t.samefag

Go away, Christcuck.

>>1456349
>sperging out

opponents to homosexuals sure are intelligent

There were a few gay movements before the 1960s that demanded decriminalization and so forth. The marriage movement seems to be genuinely new, however. I would related it to the general shift in understanding of marriage that happened over the course of the 20th century, from being fundamentally about creating a proper environment for the socialization and education of children to being about serving the emotional needs of adults. Once that shift happened, gay marriage was basically inevitable.

>>1452801
LOL, there are tons of documented cases.

>>1452759
>why is it that only until the 21st century has there been a call for integration of homosexuals into mainstream society (legalizing same-sex marriage, declaring discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation to be illegal, etc.)? Why did no one in the past ever attempt to take this step?
Reading all other posts so far to fit in, I'd say special preferences were considered a problem before and in the 21st century. All time of course, but a little more before 21st-came from the middle ages. Where all kinds of things were prosecuted and God knows what. Like this mad thing here in Spain, just to illustrate it somewhat. It can't be about what is true or even logical. Who would say: well, it is known this way, so it must be the truth. So this? How are these things not unreliable as something from the middle ages and elsewhere like in Spain as here?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpZpgx0VI-o

>>1457222
And this https://desuarchive.org/his/thread/1430662/#1434323 all have the same basic feelings about all the specialities.

>>1457188
>there are tons of documented cases.
So where do you look for this?

>>1457259
Actually reading history.

>>1457259
rictor norton would be a decent starting point.

>>1457413
ok