Are there any actual moral or philosophical arguments against

it's bad

>>3211522
Eventually it all boils down to gynocracy. Females cannot stomach having to compete for men with other men. I'm not even going to shill for faggotry but you can see the discrepancy between attitude towards male homosexuality and female homosexuality, even though both lead to zero children. Females are fully responsible for the hostiliy.

>>3211522
No, but I have heard the idea the homosexuality is just a sexual fetish, like transsexuals. Which is why you'll see them be more mentally ill or have other fucked up fetishes as well.

>>3211530
>Females are fully responsible for the hostiliy.
And I'm sure you can demonstrate this with facts/figures.

>>3211534
That's not a consequence of society being antigay for very long making it convinent for gays to go with fetishes and lifestyles to go against the norm?

File: 1499496090916.jpg (133KB, 500x424px)

133KB, 500x424px

>>3211522
What you posted is pederasty. That's kinda bad since it preys on minors.

Otherwise homosexual coitus between consenting adults is ok. There are really no good arguments against it except "hurr it's bad because i said so".

>>3211530
>>3211534
not philosophical arguments though

>>3211540
OP here, I consider men more of a "taste" to be honest but that might just be being a special snowflake.

>>3211540
>muh bigotry
Gays are fucking celebrated in todays society. I've seen stats suggesting most gays were molested as children, same as transsexuals and pedophiles. Obviously this kind of trauma seems to have a profound impact on a persons sexuality later in life.

>>3211534
It's not like sexuality isn't fluid.

>>3211564
kill yourself

>>3211557
I remember seeing stats proving that wrong. "gay culture" was formed when homosexuality was still widely opposed and just because the media loves them that don't mean the more religious nornal people of traditional society does.

>>3211570
post stats

>>3211569
Why are you triggered?

>>3211530
I'm pretty sure this is just wrong though

I would bet money that the majority of hate and especially violence towards gay men comes from other men

I found this out literally an hour ago but

King James I of England was so open about his boyfriend that he had the Protestant Bible translated from Hebrew to English. This meant he could get the church off his back with his own authorised rules from God.
So in turn, this Bible was translated back into the most homophobic way possible, which is the one most Americans as well as Evangelicals and the Congregation use!!! King James just wanted to fuck his boyf and the Bible is homophobic because of that!!!!

>>3211570
>I remember seeing stats proving that wrong.
Than show me, otherwise I have a feeling your just saying that
>just because the media loves them that don't mean the more religious nornal people of traditional society does
Vast majority of people don't live in the kind of places where that still happens in the west. They haven't seen any significant discrimination since the 80's. And no marriage and military service don't count, that's not exactly traumatic.
>>3211577
>Why are you triggered?
reddit please leave

>>3211584
>reddit please leave
I'm not from reddit though.
Are you going to answer me why you think sexuality isn't fluid or are you gonna keep throwing buzzwords?

>>3211522
>moral
It spreads disease, esepcaiily in the time before plumbing. Micro bits of shit everywhere.
>philosophical
It distracts from the bonding of male female love, and yes that is an argument against the act itself. As it's an act of lust, that degrades trust that can't be put toward a greater propose (kids). Of course this last part applies to all foracation outside marriage.

>>3211587
>I'm not from reddit though.
/leftypol/ please leave

>>3211572
you first buddy

>>3211591
So you have no arguments? Good to know then.

>>3211522
>why were Christians so zealously agaisnt it to the point where it was considered a reason to burn people alive like in Ghent
protestant lies to justify the """reformation"""
lutherans OUT

>>3211589
>It spreads disease
So does heterosexual intercourse.

>>3211522

— IT PERMANENTLY POLLUTES THE GENOTYPE OF THE ONE RECEIVING THE SEMINAL FLUID, EITHER ANALLY, OR ORALLY.

— IT PERMANENTLY DAMAGES THE PSYCHE OF THE VICTIM, CAUSING A COMPLEX OF PSYCHOLOGICAL PROBLEMS, AMONG WHICH ARE INCLUDED SOCIOPATHY, MISOGYNY, PROMISCUITY, AND OBVIOUSLY, THE COMPULSION TO SPREAD THE CORRUPTION ONTO OTHERS.


THE QUESTION IS NOT HOW TO PROVE THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS "BAD", BUT RATHER HOW DO DEGENERATES JUSTIFY IT.

>>3211597
You never made one anyway, nobody outside a gender studies class takes your muh fluidity seriously.
>>3211599
Anal sex is way more likely to spread disease though

>>3211600
look at this fucking schizo

>>3211543
greek pederasty was usually between an older man and a young man that was still legal even by our laws, and was customarily not consummated. romans were the ones fucking little boys.

>>3211600
I take it you know a lot about psychological problems, lel.

File: FAGS=AIDS.png (219KB, 1437x793px)

219KB, 1437x793px

>>3211522
Well yes. Pic related.

>>3211592
I'm OP fag, post stats.

I'm at least bi and I was at least exploited, at most molested as a child, and so were many of my "queer" friends. So I'm curious to see the refutation stats since I've only ever seen the stats correlating it.

inb4 someone accuses me of trolling

>>3211603
why did you respond? why did you think it was a good idea to respond? why do you think that its okay to respond?

>>3211607
>>3211603
>Butthurt (pun intended) degenerates unable to counterargue.

>>3211602
Except sexual fluidity has been scientifically researched and proven. You are a fool if you think sexuality isn't prone to changes under enviromental influences.

File: Homosexual and Society.jpg (263KB, 800x480px)

263KB, 800x480px

>>3211522
Fuck off to /lgbt/.

>>3211612
Why do you always samefag without your trip once someone replies to you?

>>3211610
posts these fucking stats correlating anything you pathetic sniveling retard

>NO ITS YOUR JOB TO PROVE A NEGATIVE
you arent worth a human life

>>3211611
I wanted to express my displeasure at him.

>>3211617
Who's a schizo now? I'm not him, degenerate.

>>3211615
>scientifically researched and proven.
Yeah, academics aren't exactly at their highest nowadays now are they? A professor literally published a paper with nothing but buzzwords on purpose and he got praised to no end for it. And that was in the 90s I believe.

>>3211589
>It distracts from the bonding of male female love, and yes that is an argument against the act itself.
First prove this is a bad thing.
>that degrades trust
How so?
>that can't be put toward a greater propose (kids)
that implies kids are a greater purpose.
>Of course this last part applies to all foracation outside marriage.
I would argue a lot of fornication outside marriage could be put towards the purpose of kids if that's all you care about.

File: 1501398681806.jpg (54KB, 535x462px)

54KB, 535x462px

>>3211623
>degenerate
Yeah, sure whatever you say.
>>3211625
Just because you distrust the researchers doesn't mean they're wrong.

File: keyboard.png (10KB, 804x799px)

10KB, 804x799px

>>3211618
u fuckin w0t

Are there any actual moral or philosophical arguments against sex between an adolescent girl and an adult man?
A: no

>>3211630
>Just because you distrust the researchers doesn't mean they're wrong.
Doesn't change the fact that a majority of shit published in universities today is for a political agenda, and wasn't done with any scientific basis at all.

>>3211600
THIS

>>3211543
>'preying' (courting) is bad becuz i sed so
>consent is good becuz i sed so
Fucking idiot.

>>3211633
Don't derail my thread AnCap fag.

>>3211640
I'm not an Clap. I hate them passionately.

>>3211640
But what if they consent?

>>3211640
>dont derail my degeneracy thread with your degeneracy
&Humanities

>>3211643
>consent
Consent is irrelevant.

>>3211637
Yeah man it's all one big conspiracy, fucking universities plotting to plunge our buttholes.
>>3211639
There is a reason why minors can't legally consent in a civilized world. Not sure what you're aiming at.

>>3211650
>There is a reason why minors can't legally consent in a civilized world.
There being a reason does not mean there's a good reason.

>>3211650
>Yeah man it's all one big conspiracy, fucking universities plotting to plunge our buttholes.
You know what I mean. They're begin used to promote radical leftist activism and agendas. Anybody on the internet for the past few years is aware of this.

>>3211651
It is a good reason. Did you want to be raped when you were little?
>>3211654
Of course. Keep fighting the system, brother!

>>3211650
>There is a reason why minors can't legally consent in a civilized world

Pretty sure the age of consent is lower than the age of majority in most western countries, even America bar a few states.

>>3211654
>anybody on the internet

That's a funny way to say /pol/tards.

>>3211657
>[no reason posted] is a good reason. would you like to [non sequitor]?
dude could you at least try

Men don't like men that act like women because they (women) are not good to bring on hunts and we need all the men we got for the hunt.

that feeling has stuck with us since the stone age

>>3211659
Well intercourse between an adult and an adolescent still carries some amount of social stigma.
>>3211664
But it's a legitimate question.

>>3211650
>There is a reason why minors can't legally consent in a civilized world
muh civvylezashun
Not an argument, moral or philosophical. Legalist piss.
>>3211657
>raped
Sentimentalism
>little
II did say adolescent, you illiterate. The scientific term is 'fun-sized'.

File: fffff.jpg (207KB, 410x556px)

207KB, 410x556px

>>3211522
1.Your shithole is evolved for shit, not for dick.
If you put your dick into a filthy shithole which is not meant for you dick in the first place, then naturally you'll get sick easily.
2.You dick is evolved to fuck woman, not man, because human's biological structures and sexual characteristics are evolved to attract and intercourse opposite genders, not same genders, because we can only reproduce and keep our species alive by intercourse withe opposite genders, hence we have two opposite genders naturally same as most creatures on Earth.
3.If humans only have one gender like whiptail lizard, the of course we'll have no problem with homos. But we are NOT whiptail lizard, you fucking degenerate!

Pic related.

>>3211669
>stigma
Not an argument, moral or philosophical. Legalist piss.

Are you Chinese?

>>3211657
>Of course. Keep fighting the system, brother!
>That's a funny way to say /pol/tards.
Yep I guess those hundreds of videos on youtube showing black nationalist, and radical feminist politics being taught as fact in universities are just all made up. Anybody who isn't a marxist knows this /leftypol/.

>>3211657
>Did you want to be raped when you were little?

No, but I wanted to fuck my straight-out-of-college language teacher when I was 13.

>>3211669
In 'murica, maybe. College students dating highschoolers is nothing out of the ordinary here.

>>3211680
High schoolers are old hags; completely undesirable.

>>3211669
Would you like to continue shitposting?
Also a legitimate question, but not one that has any relevance to the topic.

Would I like to have had enjoyable sex with an adult that I felt comfortable with? Sure, care to offer an explanation why not?

>>3211676
Explain prostate orgasms being more intense than ejaculatory orgasms and having no refractory period?

naturalists BTFO

>>3211691
because you aren't ejaculating. ejaculation is a concrete and objective term, orgasm is subjective and entirely based on what you perceive an orgasm to be.

>>3211670
No, the term we're discussing about is pederasty.
>Not an argument
It is an argument though. Minors lack the emotional maturity to make right decisions. This is why they are considered minors.

Any attempt to drag a minor into bed is preying onto its immaturity and lack of experience.
>>3211680
fantasy !=real thing.

>>3211694
>anything i disagree with is subjective
W E W

>>3211698
ejaculation can be empirically measured. an orgasm is based entirely upon you reporting the sensation that you ~felt~.

>>3211697
>parents consent on the behalf of child for medical procedures
nothing wrong here
>parents consent on behalf of child for a relationship with an adult they feel is trustworthy
REEEEEEEEEEE

>>3211697
>emotional maturity
Not defined; not an argument.
>right decisions
Normative nonsense
>This is why they are considered minors.
It's actually to blame on the Ressentiment of old hags. Of course, Chinese bow to the loud.
>drag
Stop using loaded language.

If you want a proper anecdote (argument), I can explain a bit about the relationship I've been in for the last four years.

>>3211522
How about medical reasons?

It's a fact gay men have a variety of health risks directly attributed to their sexual preference. Should this mean it should be illegal? I don't know, but certainly many things are illegal for this reasons.

>>3211697
>This is why they are considered minors.
considered by whom? some places consider them to be capable at 14, some at 16, some at 18, and a few at 20. who's right?

>>3211709
>I can explain a bit about the relationship I've been in for the last four years.

Not him, but go on...

>>3211705
So because you can't measure a woman's orgasm empirically it isn't real?

File: 1496551576756.jpg (74KB, 640x640px)

74KB, 640x640px

>>3211705
Getting a medical treatment is far less controversial than a grown man fucking a kid. Are you seriously comparing the two?
>>3211709
>not an argument
>not an argument
>not an argument
Why don't you go fuck a minor if it's not an argument?
>Stop using loaded language.
Stop being a disguisting pedophile.
>>3211715
By society.
>who's right?
The law.

>>3211716
I started dating/flirting or however with a girl (13) that I've known since her birth just over four years ago, and we have had a 'healthy' relationship since despite the fact that I haven't really found her sexually attractive for the past two or so years. There was no 'dragging into bed'.
>>3211726
>muh society
>muh law
Chink detected.

>>3211717
because you cant measure something empirically you cant label it objective

>>3211732
You do know there's more to an orgasm than just ejaculation, r-right anon?

>>3211731
Society and law decide how you live.
You can choose to ignore them but that will eventually have consequences.

>>3211717
If something cannot be made into an object then it cannot be measured as an object. An object requires an experience.

>>3211584
Read Gay New York by George Chauncey.

>>3211741
Muscle tension can be measured during orgasm. Are muscles not objects?

>>3211726
>Getting a medical treatment is far less controversial than a grown man fucking a kid. Are you seriously comparing the two?
I'm highlighting that consent does not in and of itself make an act good or bad.
Are you seriously saying controversy gets to decide whether or not an act is wrong? Then gee, I guess two men buttfucking was factually wrong for thousands of years.

The point is that lack of consent in a situation (medical procedures) does not make the situation wrong, therefore consent is not the arbiter or right or wrong.

>The law.
So you're just mindless animal, or in other words, a populist.

>>3211739
>this is what chinks actually believe
>>3211745
Measured by what, a machine? A person has to measure it. It's redundant if the person having it is that person, so another has to.

>>3211600
>— IT PERMANENTLY POLLUTES THE GENOTYPE OF THE ONE RECEIVING THE SEMINAL FLUID, EITHER ANALLY, OR ORALLY.
So how do woman stay unpolluted when they receive that same seminal fluid?

>>3211735
subjectively, yes. i mean you could also measure dopamine levels, but at that point you might as well say heroin causes orgasms. you COULD say it, but most people wouldnt. thats subjectivity.

>>3211749
I'm not Chinese.

>>3211745
so if you measured your muscle tension during what you thought was an orgasm, and see that the rate falls under what you label as sufficient for an orgasm, does that mean you were mistaken in believing you had an orgasm?

>>3211522
>Are there any actual moral or philosophical arguments against homosexual sex?
Of course there are, if your moral values come from Islam or Christianity, also if you think spreading STD, pederasty and twisting human nature with sexual deviation are wrong like any normal people with conscience.

>>3211756
You clearly are.

>>3211762
>normal people
>conscience
Not arguments, Ressentiment. Are you an old hag by chance?

>>3211747
If you cannot distinguish right and wrong when comparing medical assistance to a child and having intercourse with it then i can't bother talking to you.

>>3211764
But i'm not. What now?

>>3211751

WOMEN'S GENOTYPE ASSIMILATE " Y D N A " ALSO; THE HUMAN BODY IS OVERLY MUTABLE AND REACTIVE; THE HUMAN BODY IS ESPECIALLY REACTIVE TOWARD GENETIC MATERIAL, FROM ANY SPECIES, VIRTUALLY INSTANTLY ASSIMILATING IT INTO THE ORGANISM, AND ULTIMATELY INTO THE GENOTYPE —THIS IS CALLED MICROCHIMERISM.

THIS IS THE ORIGIN OF THE PREFERENCE FOR VIRGINS; VIRGIN INDIVIDUALS, ESPECIALLY FEMALES —BECAUSE THEY USUALLY ARE THE RECEPTACLES OF GENETIC MATERIAL— ARE LITERALLY PURE DUE TO NOT HAVING ABSORBED ANY EXTRANEOUS GENETIC MATERIAL VIA SEXUAL INTERCOURSE.

>>3211747
>I guess two men buttfucking was factually wrong for thousands of years.

If you look from a juidicial perspective yes it was wrong.

>>3211771
You are, in your heart. That's why you resent that I've 'dragged' a minor while you're eating fish and dogshit.

>>3211767
yet you still choose to.

meanwhile i would say there's no worth in your existence as a populist whatsoever.

also lightning bonus round for your continued impotence and humiliation:
>referring to a child as it instead of them or they
the average pedophile is clearly more interested in the happiness and well being of children than you. you are a shameful thing.

>>3211779
So only Chinese people dislike pedophiles? Is this what you're implying? Interesting.
>>3211781
You can be interested in happiness all you want in prison.

>>3211786
Only Chinese are so autistic of legalists.

>>3211786
>adolescent
>pedophiles
Pick one.

>>3211788
Not really, any normal, sane person dislikes pedophiles.

>>3211691
Yeah, see if you gonna BTFO if your prostate get damaged in the end, especially when you're getting old.

Prostate is not a sexual organ you should stimulate it roughly and constantly, there is a very good reason that human prostate is grow INSIDE your body which you cannot directly touch. You fucking sick pervert! I bet you feel horny already when I call you pervert, right? You degenerated faggot.

>>3211790
>normal
>sane
Loaded language. Fuck off, Chink.

>>3211786
You can hold your breath waiting for your impotent revenge fantasies to come true all you want.

>>3211789
It's hebephiles, right? Totally not a pedo though, i'm sure.
>>3211794
You are not a normal person. You will never be.

>>3211799
More loaded language.

>>3211797
No need to take revenge on anyone, society takes care of it for me and anyone who's not a pedophile.

>>3211805
More pedophilia advocacy.

>>3211799
You're not a worthwhile person and never will be. But we get to enjoy knowing that you don't have to take it from us, your life makes it clear to see for all.

>>3211807
This much Ressentiment cannot be healthy
>>3211808
>13
>pedophile advocacy

>>3211807
>any day now
>aaaaany day now
your impotence is a sublime sight.

>>3211775
Auto-immune cells actively destroy material in the bloodstream that is not the body's own. You know otherwise viruses and bacteria can roam free.

>THIS IS THE ORIGIN OF THE PREFERENCE FOR VIRGINS; VIRGIN INDIVIDUALS, ESPECIALLY FEMALES —BECAUSE THEY USUALLY ARE THE RECEPTACLES OF GENETIC MATERIAL— ARE LITERALLY PURE DUE TO NOT HAVING ABSORBED ANY EXTRANEOUS GENETIC MATERIAL VIA SEXUAL INTERCOURSE.
So people have understood DNA and microchimerism for centuries? Why don't ancient health treatises talk about it?

>>3211809
I don't need to take anything from you. You already take away from yourself with your life.
>>3211810
>n-not a pedo i swear

>>3211807
>4 years into a relationship
>'society will KILL YOU REEE CONFUCIUS WILL BEAT YOU UP!'

>>3211818
>ANY DAY NOW, DAY OF THE ROPE, RACE WAR BETA UPRISING REEEE

>>3211816
That's right you don't, you can just take it from your father.

>>3211824
Sorry, i wasn't the one molested as a child. Nice projections though.

>>3211829
Your mother sucking your dick as an infant counts as molestation. It just doesn't count as losing your virginity.

>>3211835
>more projections

>>3211691
Do you even know what is the actual function of prostate? It certainly is not meant for you to have orgasm. You know stimulate your brain directly can also bring you orgasm feeling, so you gonna stick your penis or fingers into your brain as well, yes?

>>3211841
Stop using big Engrish words that you don't understand.
You're either Chinese or a woman filled with Ressentiment over the fact that girls are better at 13 and nearby.

>>3211844
Did some Chinese guy molest you in your childhood? You seem obsessed.

>>3211522
If one is willing to engage in homosexual acts, and knowingly contravenes biological imperatives, and offend established social mores, it follows that to the offender, other biological and social boundaries can be broken with little cost to themselves.

Homosexuality is a gateway crime, and encourages moral turpidtude.

>>3211847
No, stop projecting. I fell for young girls because they're lovely.

>>3211829
>i didnt bring up molestation, just implying your father understands how worthless you are
>you bring it up out of the blue
>but youre not the one projecting
thats like, meta projecting

>>3211850
And you're a pedophile then.
>>3211852
All pedophiles were molested in their childhood, it is obvious what he meant.

>>3211766
Of course, everything is not argument when it obstructs your fucking degeneracy.

>>3211857
Sorry Dung Pu, adolescents are not children.
>All pedophiles were molested in their childhood, it is obvious what he meant.
Extreme projection there, Dung Pu

>>3211860
>IF I DONT LIKE SOMETHING ITS DEGENERACY RA DEUS VULT

>>3211857
You should ask a psychologist that's studied and done research on pedophilia to see whether or not that claim is true.

>>3211861
>n-not a pedo i swear
>>3211863
>Among 747 males the risk of being a perpetrator was positively correlated with reported sexual abuse victim experiences. The overall rate of having been a victim was 35% for perpetrators and 11% for non-perpetrators.

>>3211870
Not an argument, Dung Pu.
Pedophiles hate any signs of puberty, by the way. I love them to bits.

>>3211870
So not only does that disprove your claim, but its also only about convicted offenders.

>>3211814
>Auto-immune cells actively destroy material in the bloodstream that is not the body's own.

EXTRANEOUS GENETIC MATERIAL TRANSCENDS THE BLOODBRAIN BARRIER.

>So people have understood DNA and microchimerism for centuries?

MILLENNIA, ACTUALLY.

>Why don't ancient health treatises talk about it?

EITHER BECAUSE IT WAS MERELY NOTIONAL/INTUITIVE UNDERSTANDING, OR BECAUSE DOCUMENTS THAT EXPLICATED IT HAVE BEEN DESTROYED.

THE TRACES OF THE KNOWLEDGE CAN STILL BE FOUND VIRTUALLY EVERYWHERE IN MYTH, FOLKLORE, AND ALCHEMICAL TEXTS.

PREVIOUS GENERATIONS KNEW THINGS THAT WE IGNORE, AND/OR THAT WE HAVE RECENTLY BEEN REDISCOVERING.

CONTRARY TO WHAT THE USURPERS WOULD WANT YOU TO BELIEVE, HUMANS HAVE BEEN DEGENERATING, NOT GENERATING —DEVOLVING, NOT EVOLVING.

>>3211871
I love women of almost all ages.

>>3211871
>not an argument
>not an argument
>not an argument
>>3211875
It shows that most pedophiles were sexually abused previously. Percentage is obviously much higher with non-convicted.

File: wut.jpg (124KB, 597x900px)

124KB, 597x900px

>ITT: People bashing homosexuality yet fine with sex with minors

Goddamn, you guys are REVOLTING. Is this the dungheap you want to die on?

And to any blind contrarians in this thread, that goes double for you, because you know perfectly well you're in the wrong.

>>3211871
Why do you think he's a chink? He's probably just an amerilard.

>>3211889
He was probably abused by one as a kid.

>>3211884
>women
Disgusting
>all ages
Fucking disgusting.
>>3211886
>Percentage is obviously much higher with non-convicted.
Not an argument.
>>3211888
ANYTHING I DONT LIKE IS BAD HOMOSEXUALITY IS GOOD BECAUSE PROPAGANDA SEZ SO
Fucking ideologues. You've prevented me from having a full relationship with my girl at her prime. You think that is fair?
>>3211889
He's posting legalist trash. He sounds terribly Confucian.

>>3211886
>It shows that most pedophiles were sexually abused previously.
11-35% is "most"
>11% is a higher percent than 35%
take a nap dude

also
>play baseball as a kid
>go on to enjoy baseball as an adult
>teach kid to play baseball
i guess baseball is a bad thing, now that we've established anything being part of a cycle is inherently a bad thing.

>>3211892
>women
>Disgusting
So you're an exclusive pedophile? That makes it much more clearer.
>>3211894
>comparing baseball to something as sexual abuse
Only a mentally ill person could do this

>>3211888
people that use the term "in the right/wrong" are automatically wrong

>>3211908
explain the difference
worthless populists like you shouldnt be making character judgements.

>>3211908
>exclusive
No, I'm just better than you. Women aren't even feminine.
>anything i dont like is sexual abuse

>>3211914
If you don't understand the difference by yourself then there's no point in explaining it.
>>3211915
>No, I'm just better than you
You're not, you're just a sad, twisted person
>Women aren't even feminine
Do you even realize how wrong this sounds?

>>3211921
>i dont like that i have to settle while you dont so your sad and twisted!!!
Women are masculine, not feminine. Females are only feminine for two or three years during early adolescence.

File: 143648372611.jpg (23KB, 387x461px)

23KB, 387x461px

>thread about homosexuality
>pedophiles swarm like flies to shit
Every. Single. Time.

I usually don't take /pol/ seriously with their degeneracy meme but for once i must agree with them. Fags and pedos should be shot.

>>3211921
you are incapable.

>>3211932
cry about it you sniveling impotent faggot

>>3211522
Homosexuality is a deviation from standard biological norms. That's it. We humans have evolved past that basic need to ensure survival via procreation, but that still doesn't make homosexuality anything but a deviation. A minor affliction. Dicks did not evolve to fuck anuses.

>>3211921
>the Ressentiment-filled chink is calling me 'sad and twisted'
>>3211932
>waaah this person isn't settling for an old hag h-h-h-h-es a pedo!

>>3211862
>IF I DONT LIKE SOMETHING ITS DEGENERACY RA DEUS VULT
This is your words, not mine, faggot.

>>3211940
>biology
>evolution
Fuck off with your STEMsperg memes.

>>3211879
>EXTRANEOUS GENETIC MATERIAL TRANSCENDS THE BLOODBRAIN BARRIER.
As do auto-immune cells.

>>3211959
Chink grammar, everybody.
No, they are your words.

>>3211530
Lesbians are hot, gays are gross. That's why. Real heterosexual men like lesbos so they're accepted, that's it.

>>3211879
So according to you, doctors of antiquity somehow know more than doctors now because they believed in homunculi in sperm, spontaneous generation, and humours? What kind of mental calisthenics does one have to undergo to see this natural progression of knowledge as 'devolution'? Furthermore, if it was that easy for 'extraneous genetic material' to get into the brain, we'd all be too preoccupied with meningitis to do anything else.

Speaking of which, your typing in all caps compels me to diagnose you with acute hysteria, with a prescription of blood-letting in accordance with 17th century medical protocols. About 2 gallons should do the trick.

>>3211974
>natural progression of knowledge
Fuck off, humanist chink.

File: 1483587632897.png (303KB, 627x317px) Image search: [Google]

303KB, 627x317px

>>3211974
>17th century medical protocols
>in gallons

>>3211974
>trying to argue with the /his/ residents schizo

for what purpose

>>3211965
Really? I didn't recall I'd said that?? Maybe you're a bit hallucinated due to brain damage caused by syphilis.

>>3211986
>spending an hour shitposting at pedos

for what purpose

>>3211522
>get certain utilitarian arguments like it leading to less babies, but that only applies if gay marriages are a thing and isn't an argument against the act itself.
This makes no sense what so ever. Gay people can, and do, bring offspring into the world even though they are in a gay marriage. Just because you can't genetically combine yourself with your spouse in a baby doesn't mean that you can't get a baby with a surrogate etc.This is especially true in an age where you don't even have to have sex to multiply any longer.

File: 1493199653813.jpg (119KB, 905x881px)

119KB, 905x881px

>>3211960
>science
>meme
you disgusting pedophile, you should be summarily executed, twice

>>3211522
>Are there any actual moral or philosophical arguments against homosexual sex?

Yes, if you like the act then it means your conscious isn't synchronized with your subconscious. Meaning you are leading your actions by uncontrollable impulses inside your mind which are there for whatever deranged reason, since you'd need to grow up in a specially fucked up environment to fetishes not only anal sex, but anal sex with men.

The moment we are born till the moment we die, life can be described as a patters beginning from a high entropy state, to a lower entropy state as we get lower.

A high entropy state of mind is when you're a child and your purpose is to feel as many experiences are possible in order to learn and therefor gradually lower your entropy.

When it comes to homosexuality, we've all been experimenting with ourselves when we were children, either with us or with other boys/girls, because we were exploring and accumulating knowledge to understand our sexual orientation. Homosexual people are simply stuck in this high entropy state where, even reaching an adult age they still haven't learned or became fully aware of how their sexuality works.

It's not bad in itself, but it's bad for your development if your plan as a conscious being is to grow wiser and knowledgeable both with your own self and other things around you

>>3211912
Cut the relativism and deal with the fact that you are unambiguously WRONG on this, and that no legal nor child protection authority is going to agree with you. Underage children are largely not fit to hold the responsibilities of adulthood, which is why age of majority is also a thing; like age of consent, it is designed to prevent exploitation of a child's ignorance and innocence (and no, tween paramours are the exception, not the rule).

>>3211892
>waahh, waahhh, it's not fair i can't be a nonce!

I see your temperament reflects your sexual predilections. Do you think it's any fairer for your 'girlfriend' to be charmed into a relationship whose implications and responsibilities she isn't prepared to tackle? Or for her parents who might not even know what their daughter's been up to? Be honest, have you ever dared to discussed these issues with either the former or the latter?

>>3212055
>Meaning you are leading your actions by uncontrollable impulses inside your mind


Lol, I bet you think breathing is deranged.

>>3211522
>almost every other animal of every kind engages in homosexual intercourse, we have done it in our past without much backlash, conservacucks ruined everything and muh religion.

>>3211981
>The joke
>Your head

>>3212065
Deoxygenation and subsequent brain damage would explain his comments, so it checks out.

>>3212065

Breathing isn't an impulse that's a contradiction between our conscious and unconscious , not an emotional one at least

Do you even Freudo-Marxism?

>>3212080
Nice arguments brah

>>3211977
The you of tomorrow is naturally more knowledgeable than the you of today, if not wiser. But pardon me for forgetting that you bang your head against the wall every morning.

>>3211522
>moral arguments
Top spook lad.
Poofs are repulsive though tbqh

File: 0017471490421274118.jpg (27KB, 480x480px)

27KB, 480x480px

>People unironically defending pedophilia, hebephilia and ephebophilia.

>>3212092
It's 4chan, what do you expect you dumb frogposter.

>>3212084
>Breathing isn't an impulse that's a contradiction between our conscious and unconscious , not an emotional one at least
Can you prove that gays wanting sex with other men is emotional instead of physical?

>>3211522
Did you come here to shitpost because you just found out you’re HIV positive from your STD examination and you think shitpost can make your deviant mind feel better? I know some fags will do this when they find out they get HIV.

>>3212097
An average development would see someone being brought up in an environment where a child grows up to connect emotionally to the opposite sex eventually, because he never lacked those emotions during his development in the first place, so he has felt them and knows what it means to him and to someone of the opposite sex.

People who lack or even get too much of a variety of emotion makes them develop in another deviant way from the average, meaning it can be traced to a set of specific things and circumstances that happened to you in the past which influences your decisions regarding your sexual orientation.

It's not even about gays that much, because it's a wide spectrum which is the reason why nobody is 100% normally developed, which ultimately give us our personalities i guess, but in the end, at each end of the spectrum there are some gruesome examples of what you can become from an excess emotion or lack of thereof

File: 1487991124609.gif (1MB, 195x229px)

1MB, 195x229px

>>3212092
>mfw they actually btfo everyone who disagreed with them

>>3211932
you can start with christianity and islam then, oh and the jews that marry 13yr olds off

religion is disgusting

>>3212068
>almost every other animal of every kind engages in homosexual intercourse,
Yeah, in your depraved, perverted and deluded ass.

>we have done it in our past without much backlash, conservacucks ruined everything and muh religion.
>we
Who's "we"? Ancient Greeks and Romans are not "we", Romans even condemned faggotroy before they're influenced by Greeks, besides, they also allowed slavery, pederasty and crucifixion, are you going to legalize them as well? Animals will also fuck their own children and relatives, even kill and eat their own kinds, are you going to normalize them, too? Are you beast or human?

You are ruining yourself by your own degenerated, twisted minds, and STD of course. And now your kinds even try to ruin half of the world with you. Truly a bunch of abominations.

>>3211932
There are some researches indeed show that homosexual is more easily become pedophile, believe it or not.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/12339526_Fraternal_Birth_Order_and_Sexual_Orientation_in_Pedophiles

>>3212476
>>3212476
Isn't it just the case that men are pedophiles more often?

Ancient Greek pedophilia was consensual, so it was quite different from today's pedophilia that prays on the weak. Also it was ages between 13-16 which were considered formative years before you became a man. I am not defending pedeophilia of course, but it was not that big of a problem for ancient societies.

Now Homosexuality was quite in ambiguous topic in ancient times, Aristotle condemned it as "unnatural", but in reality the idea of "eromenos" was quite widespread, so I am guessing it was still a taboo if you were the "taker" and not the giver, but enough that it was outlawed.

If you want to find out the Christian reasons for the outlawing of homosexuality just read Augustine, who was anti-sex in general. Christians of later times borrowed arguments from Aristotle concerning the nature of sexuality. But it really is a mish mash of different things. It always curious to me as to why Christianity considered sex so sinful when humanity is the only being on earth that has sex beyond just procreation, sounds to me like they are equating man with all other non-rational animals.

>>3211932

Lets face it pedophilia at this point is such a buzzword. Being attracted to 15 year olds is not pedophilia.

>>3213158
It is in a legalistic way.

There's /pol/ text screencap where somebody answers the question. If you're really interested you could find it in a redpill thread.

>>3213133
OP here, which Augustine book specifically?

It always seemed weird to me that they treated sex in general as sinful and that's the view that became proper. Monks would have probably had some pretty intelligent kids if it wasn't for that stupid belief.

>>3213158
Its ephebophilia

>>3213445
which is perfectly natural and has existed in every society

>>3211522
Homosexual sex is often dick in butt.

Butts are one way roads, and are only for moving things out of. Homosexuality is bad because it leads to anal, not the other way around.

>>3211792

>stop ramming your thick juicy propaganda down my throat you degenerate faggot and making me cup your lovely ideological balls

t: you

>>3211522
Yes, shitdick and infections

/thread

>>3211522
>Are there any actual moral or philosophical arguments against homosexual sex?

You're asking for a moral "argument". Perhaps one day you will realize that God is the only objective basis for morality, and what He says, goes:

Leviticus 22
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination. Nor shall you mate with any animal, to defile yourself with it. Nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it. It is perversion.

File: c62.jpg (136KB, 546x700px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 546x700px

>>3213734
>2017
>believing in god

File: whack-a-spook.jpg (31KB, 480x400px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 480x400px

>>3213734
>god

>>3211522
Bcoz it gay

>>3211522
Christians view sex that doesn't lead to procreation or eudamonia as being devoid of love, therefore homosexual relations are counter productive to both the individual and society as whole. On a moral basis the there are teleological purpose to the male-female binary that keep society and the preservation of our people alive that does not venture into ad antiquitatem either. Hedonism, as argued by these people, simply abuses dopamine levels that makes your life more and more consistently awful while you only have brief interludes of peace and happiness.

Homosexuality therefore is just the pursuit of carnal pleasure. In terms of health, sodomy greatly increases the chances of anal fissures, prolapse, and rectal cancer combined with a plethora of diseases.

File: 200_s.gif (25KB, 267x200px)

25KB, 267x200px

>>3213749
>>3213757
>Year of our Lord 2017
>Not believing in a higher power

>>3213749
>>3213757

You are in for such a rude awakening.....

>>3213767
Nah.

Sexual intercourse between a man and woman binds the man and woman into one being.

God only condones sexual intercourse between a husband and wife, because outside of that relationship sex brings more harm than good.

>>3211522

Within the purview and context of culture and sexuality, there has been no lasting society which allowed exclusive homosexuality to be practiced openly.

File: photo-1.jpg (15KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 900x900px

>>3211600
>THE QUESTION IS NOT HOW TO PROVE THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS "BAD", BUT RATHER HOW DO DEGENERATES JUSTIFY IT.

BTFO

BTFO
T
F
O

>>3213775
I believe in a higher power, just not one as simple as the Christian "God," nor one who is so enamored with our affairs that it would care who I fuck.

>>3213783
>Sexual intercourse between a man and woman binds the man and woman into one being.
I know , through eudamonia. Relationships that do not focus on the well being of the family unit and the flourishing of the community as a whole do not lead to flourishing they lead to dead ends whose only source of pleasure is through sex. This is counter productive for society

>>3213805
>that it would care who I fuck.
Why wouldn't a higher power care about your actions when it came to something as intimate as love? Sex is not a hobby Anon, and if you're using it as such then you're doing it wrong.

File: 1500362688375.png (100KB, 944x518px)

100KB, 944x518px

>>3213757

>>3213815
The question is more like why would they.

If you were God and you were in charge of holding the fabric of the entire universe together don't you think you would have more pressing matters to tend to than making sure people don't do anal?

Hell, wouldn't you have more pressing matters to tend to than people in general?

If there is a God he doesn't care about us that much at all.

>>3213806
No, spiritually speaking.

>>3213836
The real question is why simple people think God's too busy to do something.

>>3213836
>If you were God and you were in charge of holding the fabric of the entire universe together don't you think you would have more pressing matters to tend to than making sure people don't do anal?
No, if you are God then you take micro management to extremes that human consciousness can't begin to understand.

If you want a secular interpretation on God's wisdom, it's a form of wisdom handed down from generation to generation that expresses truths that come only with age and experience which one generation attempts to pass down to the next in order to give guidance/provide a warning not to follow in the footsteps of the foolish.

The reason not to engage in anal is usually chalked up to it being a waste of time, unhealthy, and self deprecating (self defecating if you're not careful). The concept that disapproval of sodomy is based solely on ad antiquitatem is a false notion.

>>3213846
Well yes, that is me using secular logic to try and explain a spiritual one, so that's true.

>>3211711
Smoking's legal in most of the world, and carries more of a health risk than butt stuff.

File: 1501995794845.jpg (21KB, 280x210px)

21KB, 280x210px

Homosexual individuals often stand out from their Hetrosexual contempoaries by their skills in leading and commanding populations, which is why, from GreeK and Roman Commanders to Frederik the Great to modern day Celebrities and Entrepreneurs are disporportionally represented by gay people.
Homosexuality also only tends to occur in societies with excess and growth, as soon as the Roman Empire started to collapse, homosexuality, which represented to society that you had so many ressources that you didn't need to secure blood ties and support from outsiders.
This is also the reason why homosexuality had survived in the various aristocratic courts of europe up until the 19th century on where the power balance shifted from the landed elite to the capitalist class and has since begun to surface again, now among the middle and upper middle class riding on the wave of the post-war economic boom.

>>3211711

If unhealthy shit was illegal, we'd have to start outlawing 90% of the food people eat, alcohol, etc etc.

I'd rather not have the government dictate to me what my vices should or shouldn't be, unless it's something that can inadvertently harm someone else (besides an informed and consenting partner). Not to mention straight sex has its own variety of health risks.

Smoking can be tricky because of second hand smoke, but you're not going to accidentally buttfuck the wrong person.

>>3213932
>Homosexual individuals often stand out from their Hetrosexual contempoaries by their skills in leading and commanding populations, which is why, from GreeK and Roman Commanders to Frederik the Great to modern day Celebrities and Entrepreneurs are disporportionally represented by gay people.
I feel like that's not true and you're just using an Apex fallacy t b h

>>3213943
>Not to mention straight sex has its own variety of health risks.
Compared to gay sex? Not really

>>3213944
*And cherrypicking

>>3211996
>syphilis
>from an 8th grader
You tell yourself that, Dung Pu.
>>3212029
It's a meme and it's ideology. It doesn't even take itself seriously.

File: 1389420533154.jpg (84KB, 405x727px)

84KB, 405x727px

>>3211849
Homosexuality isn't breaking social mores in any developed nation.

>>3212059
>legalism
Stop it, Dung Pu, nobody cares about 'muh law' or how Confucius is going to come down and EXAM us.
I've been married to her for over a year now mate, we have a daughter together. Her mother may not know how long we've been together, but she can't deny that we are.

Oh, please, Great Confucius! Don't EXAM us!

>>3212087
Not true btw
>>3212092
Back to /r/eddit, dumb frogposter.
>>3212335
*tips fedora*

>>3211522

Inviting death into one's body is generally seen as a sign of mental illness, yes.

God: Go forth and multiply.
Faggots: No, fuck off.
God:........have it your way.

>>3213133
muh greeeeeeeeks!!
Not an argument
>>3213158
>>3213445
It's old hag worship and it's disgusting.

>>3213920
>No, if you are God then you take micro management to extremes that human consciousness can't begin to understand.
That's a very Christian perspective anon, Epicureans among others would disagree with you.

>>3213805
>>3213836
Deists are fucking delusional.
God is omnipotent you fucking heretic, meaning every single action, decision, whatever, can be achieved instantaneously and simultaneously.

>>3213995
Who gives a damn what grEEKs think? Pagans are irrelevant. their 'gods' are impotent icons. Of course an icon does not care about anal, it's too concerned with standing straight!

>>3213996
>God is omnipotent
never said he wasn't
>every single action, decision, whatever, can be achieved instantaneously and simultaneously.
that still doesn't answer the question of why God would 1) care enough to try and stop people from having anal sex or 2) dedicate any energy to stopping it.

With that being said, the fact that homosexual sex continues to happen proves that if god is omnipotent that he both does not care about it, and does not expend the energy to stop it. And if God does care whether or not people have it but cannot stop it he clearly is not omnipotent, and therefore not worthy of the title "God."

Check mate non-deists.

>>3214033
>Of course an icon does not care about anal, it's too concerned with standing straight!
I think that sounded a lot more clever in your head than it really is, anon.

>>3214035
>proves
No, non sequitur. Read some theology for once you fucking teenager.
>HAHA BUTTSECKS NO GOD LMAO XD WHY DOES IT HAPPEN XD
This is all I can hear in my head when I read your stupid fucking post.
>>3214043
It's not supposed to be clever. It's poor rhetoric. That's how I post, Anon. Transparently. Maybe you would understand what I am implying if you didn't have such a dirty mind. I specifically am referring to a scene in the Qur'an where Abraham sets out to prove that the gods of rival tribes are impotent, by smashing the smallest and putting blame on the largest.

Again, pick up a fucking religious text for once in your sad teleiophile life

Two things come to mind.

1. Hampers the cohesion of the family unit. When a man or woman has sexual relations with another man or woman, this is likely a result of particular attraction to the same gender and thus furthers and instills attraction to the same sex. If this person doesn't marry as a result, as you mentioned, no children, cannot have a "typical" family, though they could adopt, but if gender roles are important in the society, this could hamper the socialization of those gender roles in the adopted child. Now, you may argue that those gender roles should not be socialized which is fair. However, I can say from personal experience, not having a father to socialize myself on what is masculine in a society in which that is important, is psychologically damaging. If this person with homosexual experience does marry heterosexually, their homosexual attraction remains. Their partner inherently cannot fulfill their entire sexual interests. This seems to, at least to me, increase the probability of adultery or non monogamous relationships which, I think, inherently damages the cohesiveness and security of the family unit. It inherently splits the full trust, commitment to, and adhesion of the two married. But, all of this requires that you, a priori, believe a nuclear family is worthwhile.

2. There is also a religious argument. If you believe that God is a good creator who designed men to be sexually related to women, which isn't an uncommon view, then homosexuality inherently breaks this God given paradigm. If God is good, then breaking with his design is, inherently, bad.

>>3214091
>posts a shitty strawman to my theological argument

Face it, God either doesn't care or isn't strong enough to do anything about it.

>>3211610
>muh anecdotal evidence
I'm gay as a $30 bill, and nobody ever touched my no-no area, I just like dudes. My bf was never molested, and neither were my last 2 boyfriends. So, post stats.

>>3214121
You didn't make a theological argument, you made a sloppy hanky-panky shitslop that you are trying to make into an argument. It essentially reduces to "GOD DOESNT DO THIS THING I WANT SO THERE IS NO GOD"
Read the fucking Bible if you want an answer to this, you stupid fucking teleiophile.

>>3214121

Different guy but hey. Uh, so basically, you're using a corrupted and ill applied version of the problem of evil without considering responses to that problem.

For one, what if God cares more about the ability of humans to make independent choices than if they make correct choices?

If God no longer allowed men to have anal sex with one another, he would violate their free will and, as C.S. Lewis argues, their ability to properly love. Which is a high price to pay and many, myself included, would argue is more valuable than humans being able to commit ungodly actions.

>>3211637
>moving the goalposts this hard
Sexuality is still fluid, faggot.

>>3213210
There is no mention of the word pedophilia in law. The law differentiates child abuse as, at least in the US, either child abuse of a child below the age of 12, or of a child between 13-15(or17). So even then the law differentiates between pedos and hebes.

>>3214121
Or what He is going to do about it is eternal and 2300 degrees centigrade.....

>>3214172
>grrrrrrr... god will punish you for this, after you die! i swear! he totally will!!

>>3211600
>SOCIOPATHY, MISOGYNY, PROMISCUITY, AND OBVIOUSLY, THE COMPULSION TO SPREAD THE CORRUPTION ONTO OTHERS
wait it is supposed to do that to me?

>>3211522
"When men lie together in lust, it is a surrender to the passions and does nothing for the excellence in us. Nor does any other excess, Cassander, jealousy among them.But when men lie together, and knowledge and virtue are passed between them that is pure and excellent. When they compete to bring out the good, the best in each other this is the love between men that can build a city-state and lift us from our frog pond. "
Aristotle in that Alexander movie, it's pretty much my opinion of it. I am only attracted by males if they are brilliant in some way. (And otherwise exclusively into women and regular traps)

File: 1488833393023.jpg (941KB, 991x1997px)

941KB, 991x1997px

invading the anal sphincter and ejaculating into the excretory system thus leading to the life-form being a genetic end-of-the-line proving that that behaviour is nefarious to the most important point of life that is spreading the genes. its voluntary defeat in the Darwinian wars, admission to having inferior genes, eternal death.

>>3214115

The Nuclear family is not that important long term wise, it is the particular formation familial units in post-war western societies have taken. The vast majority of families before WW2 were not nuclear. Now I do agree with you that family is important, and that gender roles are set, but that has little to do with homosexual practices. Bisexuality is a given fact of our human sexuality, getting into details about what that means is nitpicking, since psychologically it depends on each person how that bisexual attraction swings, or even his testosterone levels etc. Also I do not understand the point you are making here, if homosexuals are forced into unlovable hetero marriages, wouldn't it make more sense to allow free sexual association, as that would result in both less health risks,misunderstandings and general unhappiness?

Now on you second point, even according to the teleological argument men are are meant to only have sexual relations with women for the sake of procreation, then quite simply the same standards apply to those who have extramarital affairs, sex before marriage, and sex with a condom. If this was absolutely necessary for Christianity to exist, we would be living in a theocracy, but it is not, because marriage and sexual relations are only in principle binding and not in absolute terms. Also by using this absolute teleological logic one should also condemn childless marriages, since they also defy the teleological principle.

>>3214143
>hanky-panky shitslop
Is this more of your "poor rhetoric?"
>It essentially reduces to "GOD DOESNT DO THIS THING I WANT SO THERE IS NO GOD"
Point to the place I said there was no God. I'm only arguing that your view of God is flawed.

>>3214146
Well, if we're gonna use logic like the tard I quoted above then because God cares about the freedom to love more than sin he doesn't care about sin, because the world is black and white and clearly moral grey areas do not exist.

>>3214229
>if i make a soup of high-brow sounding words people will think i'm right

>>3214229

In most of human history very few individuals were born exclusively homosexual.

Also you forget that back then people had 5 or more children for economic/property reasons, so the Darwinian argument stands only when there is an astute demographic problem happening. I think it is understandable why Russia is carying its anti-homsexuality liberal propaganda laws, even though the way they are applying them are morally questionable. However even if you completely outlaw homosexuality, the most you would be doing is making it into a taboo, not eradicating it. In fact homosexuality is widespread in Muslim countries even though they are the most anti-homosexual places in the world.

>>3214155
>Sexuality is fluid
No, the Kinsey Scale is more pseud than the guy it's named after.

>>3213995
>That's a very Christian perspective anon,
Well, that might be true, but I'd have to disagree with the Epucurians, especially those who take God being largely neutral to such extremes as Deism, although Voltaire is brilliant.

>>3214261
'poor rhetoric' is a form of rhetoric that is clearly above your head.
My view of God is the view of God. Your retard-babble and navel-gazing does not change that.
>LMAO WHY DOESNT GOD KILL FAGS CHECKMATE LMAO
This is what you sound like.

>>3214261
Morality is a human construct, God is beyond good and evil.

File: i have seen the truth and it doesn't make sense.jpg (126KB, 658x384px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 658x384px

>>3214308
>My view of God is the view of God
Welp, pack up folks, argument over. His view of God is THE view of God and we are all wrong and will burn in hell.

Nice argument faggot.

>>3214189
Yes, yes He will. He always does what He says He will do.

>>3214324
Truth doesn't exist, it's a humanist construct made to make navel-gazers feel good about themselves.
Yes, heretics like you will 'burn' because you refuse to pick up a single book on theology, yet claim to be correct. I'm referring to extremely early Christian theology, as in mere paraphrasing of scripture to fit an argument.

>>3214233

I should have made it more clear that I, personally, don't buy those because they require values I don't hold. Sorry about that confusion but I was trying to make coherent arguments as best I could.

But I guess I should avoid nuclear family. More, monogamous marriage is really the specific thing of import. If that is a valuable and necessary aspect for society's wellbeing then homosexual relationships can hamper the ability and ease of maintaining monogamy. And I honestly do think monogamy is important. Giving yourself fully, sexually, emotionally, spiritually, etc. to one single person requires a lot of trust and commitment. If you do sexually freewheel, then your relationship with a wife or husband, girlfriend or boyfriend, is no longer truly unique. It makes the relationship less significant, less meaningful, less unique, separated only by the depth of the relationship and not the character of it. I think I'm getting off of my initial point here I haven't thought this out fully. But, if you are not, in some way, reserving one part of your life to this person, the degree to which you are committing yourself to them slackens. And to the this back into homosexuality, if you have homosexual or heterosexual experiences, and commit yourself to a monogamous marriage that is of a different orientation, it's much more difficult to reserve your sexual life to that partner. You know and have enjoyed what it's like to be with the opposite gender and your partner is physically unable to do that.

>>3214233

Cont.
I hope this follows. I'll try to make it more clear.

1. Monogamous marriage is valuable.
2. It requires a unique charactistic to distinguish it from other relationships (sexual commitment).
3. Bisexuality damages the ability to maintain sexual commitment to one partner.
4. Bisexuality hampers monogamous marriage's viability and thus is damaging.

And for problems with homosexual marriage, refer back to what I said previously.

As for the teleological bit, I would argue that sex isn't designed by God between men and women as a good purely for childbearing purposes. Rather, I see sex as a method of making two one flesh, of creating, physically, loving communion and social cohesion between two. And that this is specific to men with women because of the complementary nature of who men and women are, how their roles as man and woman work together.

>>3214334

In Dante's divine comedy morally good homosexuals and other sinners who have fallen into carnal lust but repented and accepted God go to purgatory. But liars, sinners, usurers,heretics, suicides, those who succumbed to the sin violence and traitors all end up in hell.

"Judge not, that ye be not judged"

Matthew 7:1-3

The road to God can come from anywhere, because God is all powerful and all merciful.

>>3214362
>morally good
Morality is a humanist construct. Dante was a humanist. He was essentially perverting God's word to fit his heresy.

>>3214347
>proclaims objective truth doesn't exist
>makes a statement claiming objective truth

More "poor rhetoric?"

>>3214375
>Morality is a humanist construct.
No

>>3214362
>Dante
>an authority on scripture

Is John Milton also an authority?

>>3214381
You're illiterate, good job. Typical teleiophile is more concerned with loose old hagpussy than themselves or a sincere bond with another person (young girl).
>>3214387
t. humanist

File: confused nick.png (298KB, 600x512px)

298KB, 600x512px

>>3214400
>Typical teleiophile is more concerned with loose old hagpussy than themselves or a sincere bond with another person (young girl).

>>3214407
You're confused by the term 'teleiophile'? Stop smashing your head against the floor.

>>3214355
>>3214357

I get what you are saying, that monogamy is something special and worthy of spiritual exaltation as it is imbued with love. But I fail to understand how this related specifficaly to homosxuality. According to your arguments there would be nothing wrong with a purely monogamous homosexual relationship. Even if you are bisexual and eventually end up with one male or female partner it would still not matter as long as you loved that person, bisexuality is not a one way street and not mutually exclusive, it implies physical attraction to both genders at varying degrees.

Now indeed there is unique role ascribed to male-female marriage, both spiritually and biologically, but as I said before that relation is not in absolute terms binding. A couple can get a divorce, adopt children not have children at all etc. For heterosxual marriage to be absolutely binding spiritually and biologically there should be no other way for humans to live, but that is empirically not true. So there must be something more that gives heterosexal marriages that unique and privileged position of being the only way for happiness and obeying God's will. A lot of theological arguments seem to conflate God's will with what is "natural" but that theologically doesn't seem right. Billions have died in violent deaths throughout human history, but is that what is natural according to God's will?

>>3214447

Yea honestly I agree with you. I'm trying to figure out a way to specifically disagree with homosexual relationships and all I have is pretty lacking. You're right.

But I would say that it depends on a religions cosmogony. So, I'll use Christianity as an example. Natural disasters are not Gods will, but, according to the Fall, those are introduced as a result of sins entrance into the physical world. So it is natural, but not divine. Adam and Eve have a prototypical monogamous marriage that, before the Fall and introduction of sin, exists as a perfect example of God's intent. It is, thus, natural and divine because it existed before sin entered nature.

To clarify: nature before the Fall is divine. Nature after the Fall is not necessarily so. Adam and Eve naturally have a monogamous marriage, for all intents and purposes, before the Fall and is divinely ordained and thus IS divine as well as natural.

>>3214415
confused about what it has to do with homosexuality and the Christian argument against it yeah

>>3214481

Oh and I should add. Yea my argument was more about the probability and likelihood of monogamous marriages failing rather than bisexuality necessarily making monogamy failing.

>>3214481

Lets not get into theological arguments because they will derail the thread. But I think natural disasters are absolutely God's will, which leads to the problem of theodicy. God absolutely allows evil and sin to exist because it is the only precondition for free will. The scripture specifically says God works in unknown ways because his intentions and designs are so infinite that there is no point in debating if a Tsunami was willed by God. Of course it was but it is pointless to ponder why God would design such a thing occurring at x moment.

Nature by itself is not divine but God designed nature according to his will, so sin and the existence of evil are also part of God's will. Now I absolutely agree with you that there is a way to know God's intent and that is the sacrament and revelation of Jesus as the son of God. But this has nothing to do with nature itself which is the background design of providence and not providence itself.

>>3211557
>the media and university campuses celebrate them so their life must be great
are you retarded?
>many people's sexual expression are fucked up from trauma as children, so being gay or transexual must generally reflect corrupted development
yea you're retarded.
I love how idiotic 4chan gets when it comes to gay shit lmao you're so convinced everyone on backing them up is under some major far left conspiracy it's fuckin hilarious

>>3211581
Majority of everything comes from men, on the behalf of the female.

>>3214541

To be honest, much of this thread has been incendiary and name calling so I'm totally okay going theological since youve been courteous and thoughtful if you don't mind.

Yea I agree with your theodicy, but I think there's a distinction within will. There are things you wish to be, and consequences you will accept. God allows natural and human evil, yes, but they're not ordained. It is his will that evil exists, but it is also his will that humans act righteously. These are two different types of will. Maybe more, admittedly, but I think that's an important distinction to make.

In that context, I would say that monogamous marriage is ordained while tsunamis are allowed. Both willed, but one allowed for a greater purpose, one allowed for its intrinsic good. Although, yes, as you caution, it's dangerous to try to ascribe exactly the motivations of God.

And you're right I shouldn't have involved whether something is natural or not. I suppose what I was trying to get at is this distinction. Because both tsunamis and the Adam and Eve relationship are natural, but only one existed before sin and that's the point in my view.

>>3211543
Pederasty according to the original Greek definition has nothing to do with the modern definition of the word.
It was a kind of relationship between a young male and an adult tutor with some sexual undertones, it wasn't just raping minors.

>>3211522
Theres literraly nothing wrong with fucking cute boys

>>3211522
>Are there any actual moral or philosophical arguments against homosexual sex?
No

>>3214362
In the Lord of the Rings, Gollum falls into the Crack of Doom.

>>3214400
And you still don't get it.

"There is no objective truth."

Is that statement objectively true, or not?

>>3214588
I feel like we probably have evidence of tsunamis physically existing before modern humans. I feel like that is something that could be studied and estimated given the data we have of the prehistoric past.

>>3214863
There is no prehistoric past; that's a lie to convince you that you're the offspring of a "missing link", that there is no God who cares about you, and that your life is meaningless, purposeless, nasty, brutish and short.

>>3214893
t. american

>>3214893
Well, that's certainly an interesting theory.

>>3211637
ive never seen an argument this bad, it amazes me

>>3213133
>It always curious to me as to why Christianity considered sex so sinful when humanity is the only being on earth that has sex beyond just procreation

Because sex creates life which Christianity despises. Most religions have a fertility goddess. Christianity has a sterility goddess.

>>3213832
You learned about stirner though memes and skimming wikipedia huh?

>>3214233
>Post war families where mostly non nuclear

If you actually knew something about history you would know how much of an irritatie myth this is.

A LOT of research has been done about this and the conclusion was almost always that common Families in western Europe where "nuclear" since early modern times.

Please for the love of God stop spreading this bs

File: ken and barbie.jpg (10KB, 223x226px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 223x226px

The real question is what's your argument going to do? You can't STOP us from having sex, from downloading gigabytes of gay porn. Seriously a religious arguement? What are you going to do with that? No gay men are Christians and only Christians care about theological arguements.

I'm going to continue fucking my boyfriend. Than I'll take a woman, one of the really pretty ones, probably a Jew. I understand Jews have superior genes. I'll pay her money, Jews love money, and she'll give me a child. Than I'll raise my child to be like me.

While the rest of you ugly, ressentful, fag-haters will probably never get laid and pass on your genes. The very thing you bitch about fags not being able to do. Which is a good thing because losers like you don't deserve to reproduce.

>>3214893
[citation needed]

Protip: the bible doesn't counts

>>3211969
>Lesbians are hot, gays are gross.
And ask yourself why is your brain hardwired to think that way. Because female sexually selected for that sort of thinking.

>>3215097
Lmao fag

>>3211969
The only lesbians you ever saw were on porn, right?

Because actual lesbians are ugly af

>>3211534
I don't think this is the case, if you take into account that many gays aren't bi; they definitely do not like women. If it was just a fetish they would find women sexually attractive, even if it wasn't their preference.

>>3211522
It's gross.

>>3215097
I'm all for Gay sex and aids doesn't matter anymore anyway since i got cancer from reading your autistic fanfiction

>>3215179
Most lesbians are 9/10 or 10/10 women that have trouble finding a man worthy of them. As a result they have no choice but to turn to each other to release their raw, pink feelings with all the passion of a tiggress out on the prowl.

However when such smoking, hot lebsians, meet a tall, well built, charming, epitome of masculinity and beauty such as myself they become straightened out in a single night of glorious passion between all 3 of us. Such events often take places at college compasses, luxury swimming pools, or ontop of black jack tables.

The fat, short-haired dykes, are just tumblrites, not real lesbians like the one's I described.

>>3215210
>Most lesbians are 9/10 or 10/10 women
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20670929

>>3214484
Teleiophiles are really no better than homosexuals.
>>3214830
No, it's a value statement. Do you not understand epistemology past what they teach you STEMspergs to recite?

>>3215048
Incorrect.
>>3215097
You're the one filled with Ressentiment, teleiophile.
>>3215161
It absolutely counts.

>>3215210
There are no attractive women, you stupid teleiophile.

>>3215210
Most lesbians were sexually abused at a young age by a male family member or close family friend.

>>3215245

Wow. Absolutely incredible. To be this arrogant while holding a self-refuting belief.

"There is no such thing as objective truth" can only be true if there is no such thing as objective truth. And if there is no such thing as objective truth, then the statement itself is objectively true.

You dense motherfucker.

File: female evil.jpg (122KB, 720x643px)

122KB, 720x643px

>>3215265
>males can abuse females
Nice try you evil cunt.

>>3215269
>self-refuting
Fuck off, dualist.
Are you illiterate? I just said it's a value judgement. Holy fucking shit you are dense. A STEMsperg AND a disgusting fucking teleiophile.

>>3215250
>ressentiment
is that like revengence?

>>3215279
You seem to be having difficulty keeping track of who's who.

I'm the person telling you that the statement "there is no objective truth" proves that there is objective truth.

Babbling about "value judgments" is nonsensical in a logical truism.

>>3215276
You muslimfags sure do love fucking animals and little boys, and hate women, huh.

>>3215279
>>3215269

Even worst he hasn't figured out yet the human senses do not even see the the "real" reality.

>>3215287
>liking women
Kill yourself

>>3215290
>Hating your own species this much.

>>3215282
Do you have autism?
>>3215284
Logic isn't true, though. It's irrelevant. I am making value statements, not truth statements. Sorry if this confuses your tiny gaping cunt-obsessed teleiophile peanutbrain.
>>3215288
And that 'reason' is a sense itself (and metasense) in that it compares experience to memory of experience.
'logical truism' is nonsense that presumes that a function of a sense, something inherently based upon constructs of that sense, can be valid universally and independent of that sense.
In other words:
>if i think REAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALY hard then i can figure out anything!!
I thought this kid used to be a philosophy freshman? Most of this is the sort of empiricism taught to freshmen.

>>3215296
>women
>my species

>>3215312
>if i think REAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALY hard then i can figure out anything!!

Basically. It was a perfectly reasonable assumption before we figured out the mind doesn't exist in some immanent metaphysical state but like the rest of the body is a product of biology.

If someone actually beleived that now it would be a sign that not only do they not understand philosophy but they don't even have a grasp on middle school science.

File: Greece-2014-World-Cup-Profile.jpg (43KB, 700x433px)

43KB, 700x433px

>>3211606
t. boyfucking greek diaspora shitskin

lmao

sexually pleasuring a child is a good and moral act

File: 1502252909392.png (573KB, 1506x3976px) Image search: [Google]

573KB, 1506x3976px

>>3213222
Found it.