I have been against the "sexual revolution" since the

>>6735695
no one cares about your opinions just your actions, and your actions are nothing so, w/e

>>6735695
No, just join /pol/ and redpill your family members after taking the pill.

There is literally nothing wrong with allowing adults to choose whether or not they drink or smoke.

Why do you hate freedom?

>>6735695
Back up your belief with facts when discussing them with others.

If you are not effecting others lives then it really does not matter what you think.

I do not care about what people think only about what they do.

You're free to your personal beliefs as long as you don't force them on anybody or hurt anyone with them. Yes this includes your children and other assorted family members.

>>6735695
>I have been against the "sexual revolution" since the beginning.

So you're 55+ years old and on 4chan?

File: 1471212356472.jpg (252KB, 1468x959px) Image search: [Google]

252KB, 1468x959px

>>6735695
Sex for the most part should be banned in its entirety, as well as sexuality and libido. Interestingly enough, we can accomplish this by administering government-required HRT and puberty-blockers to children, thus a). destroying a life-ruining future sex drive and b). destroying the toxic culture of masculinity and femininity. Though those generations that were poisoned by testosterone and estrogen will still exist and possibly unduly affect relations in the new androgynous society, they will ultimately be phased out in time.

>>6735695
>I am against the gay and transsexual movement
>giving in to carnal desires which have no place in society.
So basically, you're telling us you're closeted?

A non gay/bi/trans person wouldn't call it a "giving in to desires", because they don't have any desire for it.

>>6735729
there are people here that believe that LGBT stuff and liberalism was invented on April 27, 2007 by David Karp. He probably thinks that people just started having "deviant" sex in the mid-2000s.

>>6735731
I unironically think this is a good idea. We would be better off without a sexualized culture.

>>6735745
Who the fuck is David Karp

>>6735731
Elliot is that you?

>>6735695
>I believe that this is the only adequate way to raise a family

Why do you care?
There's enough people leeching off the planet's resources already

>>6735794
Didn't he desperately want/like sex, he just didn't like people who allegedly conned it out of women?

>>6735695
>am i wrong
the single factor deciding the survival of our species is population. you're a breeder, which makes you worse than a serial murderer

>>6735852
Explain

>>6735695
Your god is a fucking joke. You and all other mouth-breathing retard christians should improve the world with mass suicide.

It is 2016. Grow the fuck up. Your christ is a lie. Your church is a scam.

>I believe that this is the only adequate way to raise a family.
>as shown by every dysfunctional family ever

>>6735695
And fuck your bible's marriage

>>6735851
Yes, but he also wanted to ban sex so everyone would be equal and there wouldn't be injustice over who gets to fuck.

Also I think he wanted to put women into concentration camps. A no-women society makes men work for the future and for the advancement of society. Since there wouldn't be any fight on who gets the women, there also wouldn't be alphas or betas.

Kinda like what you said.

>>6735695

>I have been against the "sexual revolution" since the beginning.

Uh-huh. And how old are you?

>>6735949
Not really. I was talking about eliminating sex and making everyone androgynous so that tensions would be relieved between both parties. It wasn't a one-sided deal. It also wasn't borne out of the supposed unfairness of sex.

>>6735731
If trannies ran the Party in Nineteen Eighty-Four

>>6735695

I don't mean to go all fedora on you but god literally isn't real.

>>6735695
Yes you're wrong. But thanks for asking.

>>6735737
>So basically, you're telling us you're closeted?

^Classic motive fallacy + overused "shock" argumentation. You can can that shit anytime now, thanks.

>>6735918
>Your christ is a lie.

^ Moral appeal without any universal moral authority (since anon rejects God).

>Your church is a scam.

^Is a "scam" wrong? From what moral absolute are you making such a judgement? If, from society, then you are arguing nothing more than social mob mentality.

>>6736008
I just showed up to the thread and I'm 43. I've seen it change gradually over time. At one point, I was the only single-parent child in my entire school district. Also, divorce was stigmatized.

Where is your utopia anon?

>>6736693
>I don't mean to go all fedora on you but god literally isn't real.

Your fedora is forgiven.

But you have created a few problems.

#1. If there is no God, all things are permissible.
- Dostoevsky

This does not mean that complete moral collapse will happen all at once, but yes, pretty much everything is permitted.

#2. You do not have any moral absolute from which to make any moral discernments; not even the ones you like and/or take for granted.

#3. Your statement "literally" would literally mean that you have complete omniscience of the entire universe, and you know for absolute certainty that an omnipotent being does not exist.

>>6737078
>Yes you're wrong.

But all you've provided is a "just so" statement begging the question. Do you have anything that actually supports your bald assertion? Do you share such unsupported opinions with others outside the internet in the real world? Or do you consider yourself your own moral authority?

>>6735909
it costs like $300000 to raise a middle class kid in the united states to the age of 18. they will eat meat, which is ten times less efficient than eating plants. they will then burn fossil fuels and multiply on their own. humanity is on the brink of extinction, but nobody can seem to admit it.

File: typist-smile-smug-3583065.jpg (104KB, 1300x957px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 1300x957px

>>6735695
Fun fact: Religious people (especially Christians) are found to have low IQ in general and thus should be mercifully put to death (especially Christians) to stop dumbing down our precious genepools.

One less people like OP, the better for humanity as a whole.

File: GTFO.png (214KB, 444x414px) Image search: [Google]

214KB, 444x414px

>>6735695
U NO FUN...LEAVE <_____>

>>6737131
There's no fallacy here.
For a straight cis person, there's not desire or urge to be gay/bi/trans.

When you call it a "desire", then you must have felt it yourself, otherwise it wouldn't be a desire.

>>6737255
>There's no fallacy here.

http://study.com/academy/lesson/attacking-the-motive-fallacy-explanation-examples.html

That, and anon was reading way too much into it. Which is probably why anon made the motive fallacy to begin with. Well that, and it's the trusty "go-to" argument for all LGBT activists. C'mon.

>For a straight cis person, there's not desire or urge to be gay/bi/trans.

Are you saying this speaking for all "straight cis persons," or are you diagnosing all "straight cis persons?"

Dan Savage says we're all just a little bit gay. But that would mean no one is born "hardwired" gay, and that it really is a choice.

"Hasbians" are also proof of this. http://nymag.com/nymetro/nightlife/sex/columns/nakedcity/n_8301/

The full statement, "To me it is on the same level as smoking and alcoholism, and is giving in to carnal desires which have no place in society."

Smoking and alcoholism are introduced gradually; usually through the urge to fit in socially. Sounds cliche, but it's true. The analogy is accurate, especially when one factors in ex-cons who are introduced to sodomy at a young age in a prison population.

tfw u live in the 30s

>>6737147
Using some zombie savior fairy-tale to control the population is not moral